By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Console Wars are mostly dead...

I wouldn't say the console wars are dead, but they generally are more friendly than they used to be. Just look at Microsoft and Nintendo being all for cross-play, and MS releasing Cuphead and Ori on the Switch.

I grew up in the 90s and early 2000s. Genesis vs SNES was the biggest console war. Thanks to SEGAs marketing.

I expect a much closer race between the PS5 and Xbox Scarlett. Just due to Microsoft having 3 times the amount of first party developers and the great value in Game Pass. Will they beat Sony worldwide? Not a high chance, but nothing is impossible.



VGChartz Sales Analyst and Writer - William D'Angelo - I stream on Twitch and have my own YouTubeFollow me on Twitter @TrunksWD.

Writer of the Sales Comparison | Weekly Hardware Breakdown Top 10 | Weekly Sales Analysis | Marketshare Features, as well as daily news on the Video Game Industry.

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

If you weren't so blinded by bias, you would have seen in my previous posts when I actually explained why those predictions were grounded in logic.  I won't repeat it, again, as that would just be a waste of my time.

Still waiting for your research and data on what each model of the 360 sold.

Funny you claim that I don't know what a strawman is, and then go on to try and use one in your argument (the bolded.)  I already corrected myself a few posts ago, yet you tried to reduce my argument back to what I originally stated.  The things that make you go hmmm.

That wasn't a straw man, I honestly forgot what was said on the day before. Here, I went back to find your revised argument:

thismeintiel said:

For the price cut, we're talking about entry prices here, so I have no idea where you got the $600 to $400 drop.  I was wrong about one thing, though.  There was a period when the PS3 was only $120 more than the 360.  The 360 launched at $299.  The PS3 launched at $499, a $200 difference.  The first real price cut the PS3 saw was to $399, a year later, not 7 months.  Xbox had already dropped the price early in 2007 to $279, so a $120 difference, not $50.  The following year, 2008, we saw no PS3 price cut, but Xbox introduced the Arcade for $199 in Sept.  That's back to a $200 difference.The next price cut for the PS3 was 11 months later, $299 with the introduction of the Slim, in Aug of 2019.  That finally dropped the price difference to just $100 after nearly 3 years on the market.  Again, first time a console survived such a huge price difference, especially one that started at $200, then shrank to $120, only to grow back to $200 for another year.  The prices pretty much correspond to € 1:1, though the month of the price cut may change by a month or so.

The only difference that your revised argument makes is the degree by which you are wrong. You are literally the only person on this site who refuses to believe that the gimped Xbox 360 was not the best-selling 360 SKU, for everyone else it's common sense that most people wanted an HDD and purchased the SKU that had one.

Maybe we should change the approach here. Try to explain why it's reasonable that most people bought a 360 without an HDD, hopefully such an attempt makes you realize how illogical that position of yours is.

thismeintiel said:

I did make one of those predictions.  I've never hid that fact.  But, to say it had no basis in logic after a failed Wii U and a 3DS that failed at the $249 price point is just showing your blind bias.  That has more grounding in logic than the predictions from some Nintendo fans that claimed PS4/XBO were doomed and the console market was dying, all because the successor to the almighty Wii had failed.  Now, I will say that if people had those predictions after a year of the Switch being on the market, then yes, they were blinded by their own bias.  But, before launch, and maybe even slightly after it, there was perfectly sound logic in that assumption.

The above is only justification I could find in regards to your defense of illogical Switch lifetime sales predictions. Looking at the flow of the conversation, that's why I asked you to bring more to the table because the above was already addressed in my thread from January 2017. Points 3, 8, 9 and 10 cover all different angles of your justification for low predictions. Skip beyond the italicized text for a brief summary.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=224719

3. "Switch is screwed because people got burned by the Wii U. People don't trust Nintendo anymore."

A look at sales data should make it obvious that the majority of Nintendo fans skipped the Wii U altogether, so the only people who got burned by game delays and droughts are the ones who bought a Wii U. Everybody else didn't really give a damn about the Wii U to begin with and the only hard feelings that would have existed date back to over five years ago when Nintendo announced that they would make a piece of trash. Sane people do not hold grudges over video games forever.

Also worth of note, Nintendo is clearly rebranding itself. A new generation means that a company can get rid of baggage. GC being a failure didn't harm the Wii.

8. "3DS and Wii U hardware had no problems, or at least not as many as Switch has."

I don't think anybody would say this, but a lot of you must be thinking it regardless. If you expect further decline for Nintendo this generation, you basically must believe that the 3DS and Wii U were better executed than Switch.

What is wrong with you?

9. "Nintendo's addressable market is limited to Wii U and 3DS owners."

Oh man, this is the point where you really have to open your eyes and not be so narrow-minded. You let your personal feelings dictate your sales predictions. "Switch is expensive, doesn't have Western multiplatform games etc." You project your idea of what console gaming has to be on everyone else. You believe that people who do not own and want an eighth generation system (Wii U, 3DS, PS4, PSV, XB1) are not interested in consoles, period. You don't want to consider the possibility that all of the eighth generation systems might suck to a lot of people. I mean, look at the choices of the eighth gen: Nintendo does what they want with no respect for previous sales data, Sony and Microsoft offer dumbed down PC gaming, plus a handheld that doesn't get any games worth of note.

Now Switch comes and offers completely different values. A passionate gamer who couldn't care less about the crappy eighth gen could look at Nintendo's new console and say: "Zelda is a massive open world game again, that's right up my alley because that's the Zelda I loved. I can take this thing to my office, effortlessly set it up during breaks and rock games like Mario Kart, Bomberman and Street Fighter 2 with my colleagues. And it's only $300? Are you kidding me?"

The point is, the value evaluation for Switch in the real world will be very different to what is done on gaming forums where local multiplayer and leaving your house are frowned upon. In the real world the gaming of the NES and SNES days is highly valued. On gaming forums SNES games are considered worse than indie games, because "indie games are newer". Switch is set up to resonate strongly with the passionate gamer of the old days who nowadays has no console made for them. If you weren't so close-minded, you'd realize that Nintendo doesn't even need non-gamers to make Switch a big success. There is a large market that is not properly catered to, and that's the former gamer.

10. "Switch's price is too high."

This is the best point that is made for why the Switch will have problems. But is it really that big of a concern? What are the alternatives to Switch? There is none, so Nintendo can be bullish with the price. Eventually it will come down and have different bundles.

In short: The GC failure wasn't an obstacle for the success of the Wii, so Nintendo's performance in the eighth generation isn't relevant. Switch has a very different value proposition than the 3DS and Wii U, so its price will be looked at in a different way, rendering straight comparisons null and void.

When you explained why Switch didn't fail, you noted how the price wasn't an issue because of Switch's value proposition of being both a home console and handheld. You also mentioned good support, another point that was covered by me in January 2017:

6. "Nintendo didn't show many of their own games. Looks like there will be Wii U-like droughts again."

You are too used to other console reveals where wild promises and announcements are made. All Nintendo games that were announced are scheduled for 2017. You are also oblivious to the fact that Switch will get all of Nintendo's games as Switch will be the only Nintendo console this generation. Droughts like on the Wii U are simply not going to happen.

I explained in detail why the supposed justifications for Switch's failure are illogical and irrational. None of it was guesswork because in hindsight things played out the way I said they would. And in hindsight everyone should be able to admit that the reasons for Switch's failure weren't well-reasoned at all.

Just to let you know that this will be my last reply. You're starting to bore me, kid. I will forgive you forgetting the change in the convo, though.

Still waiting on that data. Guess you don't have. And don't forget, the 360 wasn't like the PS3. Very few games required an install to play, if any. 

I already told you it was pointless to bring up that thread. You can disagree with their arguments all you want, but that doesn't change that their arguments had a basis in logic.  Even when their predictions ended up being wrong, it doesn't change that. Sorry you're so blinded you can't see that.

VAMatt said:

The consensus seems to be that console wars are good for the health of VGC. So, let's just start the fighting!

What I see here is measured, reasonable discussion.  We need some good old shit talking and trolling!  

You're a poophead.  LET THE WARS RAGE!!



Its no where near dead.It just has taken another form.Its more focused now on what exclusives its system gets rather than the system itself and its sales.

But it will keep morphing around into different forms.Nothing remains static, other than the wish for discussion and the fact that change is a present and constant variable.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

RolStoppable said:
The console wars thrive on sore losers and the outcome of the eighth generation hasn't been beneficial for warfare. You'll remember the seventh generation as a lot more intense because Sony was on the losing side and their fanbase has the most trouble to come to grips with defeats. The Nintendo and Xbox camps are more acceptant of lows in the business, so there isn't prolonged resistance to reality. Compare that to the seventh generation where you still have Sony fans to this day who have a hard time to admit that the Wii won and instead come up with reasons how it didn't.

The same reality distortion blends out how it wasn't all sunshine and roses for Sony in the eighth generation. While the PS4 dominated in the home console space, Sony suffered a crushing defeat in the handheld market and made an exit. But eventually the consequences will be realized and people will begin to recognize that the PS5 won't be able to win like the PS4, let alone dominate. When the PS5 launches and starts with an installed base from scratch while Switch has a lead of ~60m units, then launch-aligned comparisons will make people realize that the PS5 has to sell better than the PS4 to even have a shot at beating Switch and winning the generation. Then you have the people who believe that Switch is eighth gen, but for them the problem will be that the PS4's win is in question. So regardless of which generation Switch is put in, Sony fans will have to explain away Nintendo's success and the console wars will be back. We've gone through a long phase of "Switch sales will decline soon, so it will be no threat to Sony's numbers", but with each passing month those people must be getting more worried.

There's also still Microsoft left who can add more spice to the whole thing. A stronger performing Xbox cuts into PS sales, I think that's clear to everyone. Right now is the calm before the storm, but the ninth generation will provide a dramatic shift because we already know a lot about Switch and there can't be an easy win for PS like in the eighth generation.

As for the OP's closing question, the state of VGC is so dire that intense console wars are absolutely needed. More activity means more people, and more people offers the chance that more discussions outside of console wars are created.

Very well said. Hey, that bet in your signature... how long do you have to keep that there?



VAMatt said:

The consensus seems to be that console wars are good for the health of VGC. So, let's just start the fighting!

What I see here is measured, reasonable discussion.  We need some good old shit talking and trolling!  

I suppose the discussion has been somewhat reasonable, but I feel as though I'm seeing a ton of bias. Sometimes it's difficult to tell if the person making an argument truly believes what they are saying is true, or if they are simply coming to the defense of their console of choice regardless of the discussion being had.

It reminds me of a forum-goer by the name of "Gripper" that used to troll around on a small gaming forum called "PC vs Console" back in the day. This was where I got my sales data before VGC. He was a die-hard MS fanboy and a die-hard Nintendo-hater. This was during the days leading up to the DS vs PSP release and the 7th gen consoles. Nintendo was in a bad spot with the Gamecube, Sony was on top with the PS2, and now they are about to enter the handheld market against Nintendo. Things weren't looking good for Nintendo at the time. I admit it was very satisfying to be a forum-goer during this time as I got to watch as Nintendo struck gold with the DS and then the Wii, and all of the "Wii and DS print money" memes were around, and Gripper would still spin things in his own negative way. This guy hated Nintendo far more than he liked MS, or so it seemed (and he liked MS a lot).

Anyways, sorry, that was random. Shit talking is fine I guess, but I think the underlying discussion should still be done in a debate-able way.



Around the Network
thismeintiel said:

Just to let you know that this will be my last reply. You're starting to bore me, kid. I will forgive you forgetting the change in the convo, though.

Still waiting on that data. Guess you don't have. And don't forget, the 360 wasn't like the PS3. Very few games required an install to play, if any. 

I already told you it was pointless to bring up that thread. You can disagree with their arguments all you want, but that doesn't change that their arguments had a basis in logic.  Even when their predictions ended up being wrong, it doesn't change that. Sorry you're so blinded you can't see that.

Good, because you have been unwilling to move forward.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

thismeintiel said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

I still love the "phones killed portables" assumption. 

DS sales were explosive and unrepeatable in the same manner that PS2 sales were explosive and unrepeatable. A PS3 with no Blu-Ray, a standardized CPU, and a $400 price point wouldn't have sold as much as the PS2.  A 2DS XL launching at $170 in 2011 with good first party games would never have gotten near DS lifetime sales. 


3DS was overpriced, and tiny, with an 8 month drought of games to start the system off. 

Vita was a train wreck on just about every level. It was the Wii U of handhelds. 

Many PSP/Vita customers were never going to switch over to Nintendo for portable gaming. Those PSP/Vita gamers wanted portable FPS and console style adventure games. 3DS was never going to have those. (Part of Switch's success is that it does offer those type of games, and that has in turn brought much of the Vita/PSP crowd to the system.) So you can't just point to the total handheld lifetime sales of Vita + 3DS and go "See you guys the market shrank from 230 million with DS/PSP to 93 million with Vita/3DS! "

The bolded statement above is just as dumb as Pachter's "Oh hey you guys Wii + 360 + PS3 lifetime sales is more than Wii U + XB1 + PS4 lifetimes sales! Therefore the console market is shrinking!"

Pachter fails to take into account the fact that there was less of a reason to own both HD Twins in the PS4/XB1 era due to PS4 being able to play virtually all the games XB1 had and vastly more. There's a huge 30-40 game gap in the XB1 to PS4 libraries when it comes to games rated at 80% or higher on Opencritic. This gap is in PS4's favor. 360 on the other hand went toe to toe with PS3 in terms of exclusives and 3rd party support. Now that XB1 lacks enough exclusives and 3rd party support to compete most people just stopped buying both an MS and a PS system, because there was no need. 

Anyway you can't just "bean counter" it up and go "oh see this gen is losing to last gen!" Those are the same people that point out that 3DS + Wii U is currently beating Switch lifetime sales, without taking into account that many people owned both a 3DS and a Wii U, (for the purposes of having access to all Nintendo games) but nobody needs to own two Switches to play all Nintendo games. 

Going from ~230M to ~90M isn't something to scoff at.  That's a deficit of 140M units.  Even if you say the DS can't be matched, the 3DS should have been able to do 100M+, especially without any real strong competition.  There should have been room for the Vita to do at least 40M-50M, too.  Just like the PS2 may not be matched ever, but the PS4 is going to most likely hit 115M-120M+.  There's just no way around it, the dedicated HH market shrank drastically with the growth in mobile gaming.  Both Sony and Nintendo know this, so took action.  Sony focused on their home console business.  Nintendo came out with a hybrid that can be a handheld and a home console, and is something they can put their full attention into.

As for consoles, the Wii+360+PS3 can be explained because the Wii brought in a ton of casuals that never really gamed before.  They left the market once the motion control fad died.  And there was quite a bit of crossover buying, thanks to the Wii being a secondary console to many who had a PS3 or 360.  While I guess you can say it shrank because those casuals who are counted in the total left, the core gamers are still here in great numbers.  If you compare the PS2+Xbox+GC (~200M) with where the PS4+XBO+Wii U is going to end up (~185M-~195M), the numbers are mostly the same.

You are still assuming that the PSP/Vita and DS/3DS were competing for the same gamers. They were not. Vita utterly failing doesn't automatically give 3DS a large sales boost. In an alternate universe where PSP never existed DS still would have sold around 165 million units. That's only a gain of about 10 million units. This is because, even if PSP never existed a huge majority of those 80 million PSP owners would never have touched the DS. 

GB/GBC had 11 years on the market before GBA came out, and 14 years in total. It only sold 118 million units in that time. Even if we assume that all 118 million units were sold prior to the release of the GBA, that puts the GB/GBC's sales at 10.72 million a year on average. 3DS only had 6 years on the market before the Switch came to replace it. Had the 3DS sold at the same average yearly rate as GB/GBC it would have ended at 64.32 million units sold.

 GBA had 3.5 years on the market before the DS came out, and 7.5 years in total. It did 81 million units by around 2008. At first that looks phenomenal. But then you realize that GBA launched at a rock bottom price of $99.95. When adjusting for inflation that would have been only $127.02 in 2011. Can you imagine the 3DS launching at $127 USD? It would have sold like gold infused hotcakes! Instead 3DS launched at an insanely pricey $249.99. So it's no surprise at all that the GBA beat it in nearly half the time. GBA was nearly half the price, when adjusted for inflation. 

3DS lost a huge amount of sales because...

Consumers weren't sure if 3DS was a successor to DS, the same way that they weren't sure if Wii U was a successor to Wii. 

3DS launched insanely overpriced, thanks to the 3D effect, the same way that Wii U's tablet inflated the Wii U's price. 

3DS launched with a massive drought of games, same as the Wii U. The first 3DS game of any note (3D Land) didn't come out until 8 months after launch.

The 3D mode hurt the eyes of kids (it's core audience).

AA Developers were finding 3DS development to be overly expensive and time consuming compared to GB/DS/GBA development.

Honestly, 3DS just flat out sucked the first year. It was mishandled almost as much as Wii U. 

The Vita was pretty much abandoned by Sony after Christmas 2013. Tearaway was its last noteworthy exclusive. That's only two years from launch to utter abandonment by Sony. Had Vita gotten an additional three years of genuine support from Sony it would have ended at around 40 - 45 million. AA developers abandoned the Vita because it (and PSP) were too expensive to develop for. Sony abandoned Vita because it realized that without that AA 3rd party support it was a sinking ship. That's what killed the Vita, not Smartphone games. Or do you seriously believe that all those God of War, Racing, GTA, style gamers just suddenly left the PSP/Vita ship to play Cut the Rope, and CandyCrush? 

As for your second paragraph, yes you get it! Context is King, and when we take the context of the Wii's success into account consoles have remained strong. When we take the context outlined above it is clear that the handheld market definitely wasn't killed off by Smartphone games. 



I have to add that Sony went from 157 million PS2s to 87 million PS3s. That's a drop of 70 million units.
Nintendo went from 154 million DS's to 75 million 3DS's. That's a drop of 79 million units.

So Nintendo's 3DS drop was perfectly normal in comparison to PS3's drop. Both systems had predecessors that were never going to be caught. Both systems had massively bungled launches.



Nautilus said:
Its no where near dead.It just has taken another form.Its more focused now on what exclusives its system gets rather than the system itself and its sales.

But it will keep morphing around into different forms.Nothing remains static, other than the wish for discussion and the fact that change is a present and constant variable.

I would say now that only console sales had become irrelevant, but the rest everything game related is a reason to bring console wars.

Generation labeling for example, when people bring console specs and performance to this discussion as if there any relevance to the topic besides console-shaming Nintendo systems for not being as powerful as their preferences

Last edited by 160rmf - on 05 November 2019

 

 

We reap what we sow

@Cerebralbore101: Then what did kill portables?