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

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

RaptorChrist said:
@Cerebralbore101: Then what did kill portables?

Probably childs dying earlier than on previous gen.

Because he fails to acknowledge that PS3 lost 70M sales compared to PS2, but that was captured by X360 with also some people having both system and some market growth. As you already pointed console market have been somewhat stable to growing when comparing PS+Xbox on gen 6,7 and 8. The biggest increase and decrease in total size came from the big income of casuals from GC to Wii and then they not staying for WiiU.

While even though he try to pretend no one that bought PSP would buy a DS if it didn`t exist he just play blind on his on numbers, GB/GBA to DS saw an increase of 100-120M to 150M in a gen, while DS to 3DS saw a drop of 150M to 75M in a gen. If we pretend PSP had 0 influence on sales of DS and PSVita had 0 influence on 3DS (like if they weren`t even portables at all) it would still show the market shrinking because that would be a monopoly that had big increase followed by a much bigger decrease.

PS3 show that even with a very high price (nowhere can someone say that 600USD of it in 2007 crysis is less problematic than the 250 of 3DS in 2011), no one will question PS3 had worse performance on multiplats at that moment, a much cheaper competitor and an even cheaper Wii against it, plus the ~PS3 have no games. Even with all of that they were able to change the course of the PS3 and reach 85M. While 3DS with no competition, cheaper and with more games couldn`t and somewhat that have nothing to do with people that like portable gaming maybe prefering to just use their smartphones and tablets with free games than buying a HH and also buying each game for 40 bucks.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
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.

You said context was key. Obviously the PS3's drop was from the 360 grabbing a bunch of core gamers with it's better price and better performing multiplats. That's why PS3+360 is right around PS2+Xbox.

What grabbed 3DS's buyers? Sure as heck wasn't the Vita. It was mobile gaming.



thismeintiel said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
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.

You said context was key. Obviously the PS3's drop was from the 360 grabbing a bunch of core gamers with it's better price and better performing multiplats. That's why PS3+360 is right around PS2+Xbox.

What grabbed 3DS's buyers? Sure as heck wasn't the Vita. It was mobile gaming.

Nope, it was Trump allowing witches to abduct children.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Wow Rol going all Rodgers vs Cowboys ITT. I should read these more 😆



DonFerrari said:
RaptorChrist said:
@Cerebralbore101: Then what did kill portables?

Probably childs dying earlier than on previous gen.

Because he fails to acknowledge that PS3 lost 70M sales compared to PS2, but that was captured by X360 with also some people having both system and some market growth. As you already pointed console market have been somewhat stable to growing when comparing PS+Xbox on gen 6,7 and 8. The biggest increase and decrease in total size came from the big income of casuals from GC to Wii and then they not staying for WiiU.

While even though he try to pretend no one that bought PSP would buy a DS if it didn`t exist he just play blind on his on numbers, GB/GBA to DS saw an increase of 100-120M to 150M in a gen, while DS to 3DS saw a drop of 150M to 75M in a gen. If we pretend PSP had 0 influence on sales of DS and PSVita had 0 influence on 3DS (like if they weren`t even portables at all) it would still show the market shrinking because that would be a monopoly that had big increase followed by a much bigger decrease.

PS3 show that even with a very high price (nowhere can someone say that 600USD of it in 2007 crysis is less problematic than the 250 of 3DS in 2011), no one will question PS3 had worse performance on multiplats at that moment, a much cheaper competitor and an even cheaper Wii against it, plus the ~PS3 have no games. Even with all of that they were able to change the course of the PS3 and reach 85M. While 3DS with no competition, cheaper and with more games couldn`t and somewhat that have nothing to do with people that like portable gaming maybe prefering to just use their smartphones and tablets with free games than buying a HH and also buying each game for 40 bucks.

Assuming that lost sales need to go somewhere is a mistake. When the console market crashed in the 80's there was a point where Nintendo hadn't yet entered the game, and sales of consoles were just awful. People didn't move from buying Atari's to buying some other gaming device. They just literally stopped buying consoles. Both the 3DS and Vita were extremely underwhelming compared to their predecessors. When all options on the market are bad, the market will shrink.  Smartphone games shaved about 20 million off the top of 3DS lifetime sales. But Nintendo's price/drought/naming/eyestrain shaved more off lifetime sales. A properly launched and priced 2DS XL in 2011 would have done 90-100 million units easily. 

thismeintiel said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
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.

You said context was key. Obviously the PS3's drop was from the 360 grabbing a bunch of core gamers with it's better price and better performing multiplats. That's why PS3+360 is right around PS2+Xbox.

What grabbed 3DS's buyers? Sure as heck wasn't the Vita. It was mobile gaming.

You are making the same mistake as above. Nothing needs to grab buyers. What grabbed Atari buyers when the console market crashed in the 80's? It wasn't Nintendo. They didn't show up until after the crash. You can't explain Atari sales losses, by saying that they all went to Nintendo. What best explains it is that Atari and all other consoles sucked at that point in time. So people flat out stopped buying them. 




Around the Network
RaptorChrist said:
@Cerebralbore101: Then what did kill portables?

Bad price points mostly. History has shown again, and again, and again, that anytime you go over the $205 (factored for inflation) asking point for a handheld, sales drop massively. The one and only exception to this is the PSP, but even that got relatively crushed by the DS. Switch avoids this pitfall by also being a home console. 

Gameboy launched at $186 in today's dollars. 

GBA was $145 at launch in today's dollars. 

DS was $203 at launch in today's dollars. Lite launched soon after at $165 in today's dollars.

3DS was $285 at launch in today's dollars. XL dropped it to $228 in today's dollars. 

Notice how 3DS only really did PSP numbers? That's what happens when you go past the $205ish price point. PSP only really did 80 million because it was so powerful at that price point. 3DS was not nearly as graphically powerful in comparison at that price point. 

Also during the 360/PS3 gen a lot of AA devs shuttered their doors. Combined with the ever increasing costs of going from 2D development to 3D development, a lot of AA devs just stopped making games on 3DS/Vita. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
DonFerrari said:

Probably childs dying earlier than on previous gen.

Because he fails to acknowledge that PS3 lost 70M sales compared to PS2, but that was captured by X360 with also some people having both system and some market growth. As you already pointed console market have been somewhat stable to growing when comparing PS+Xbox on gen 6,7 and 8. The biggest increase and decrease in total size came from the big income of casuals from GC to Wii and then they not staying for WiiU.

While even though he try to pretend no one that bought PSP would buy a DS if it didn`t exist he just play blind on his on numbers, GB/GBA to DS saw an increase of 100-120M to 150M in a gen, while DS to 3DS saw a drop of 150M to 75M in a gen. If we pretend PSP had 0 influence on sales of DS and PSVita had 0 influence on 3DS (like if they weren`t even portables at all) it would still show the market shrinking because that would be a monopoly that had big increase followed by a much bigger decrease.

PS3 show that even with a very high price (nowhere can someone say that 600USD of it in 2007 crysis is less problematic than the 250 of 3DS in 2011), no one will question PS3 had worse performance on multiplats at that moment, a much cheaper competitor and an even cheaper Wii against it, plus the ~PS3 have no games. Even with all of that they were able to change the course of the PS3 and reach 85M. While 3DS with no competition, cheaper and with more games couldn`t and somewhat that have nothing to do with people that like portable gaming maybe prefering to just use their smartphones and tablets with free games than buying a HH and also buying each game for 40 bucks.

Assuming that lost sales need to go somewhere is a mistake. When the console market crashed in the 80's there was a point where Nintendo hadn't yet entered the game, and sales of consoles were just awful. People didn't move from buying Atari's to buying some other gaming device. They just literally stopped buying consoles. Both the 3DS and Vita were extremely underwhelming compared to their predecessors. When all options on the market are bad, the market will shrink.  Smartphone games shaved about 20 million off the top of 3DS lifetime sales. But Nintendo's price/drought/naming/eyestrain shaved more off lifetime sales. A properly launched and priced 2DS XL in 2011 would have done 90-100 million units easily. 

thismeintiel said:

You said context was key. Obviously the PS3's drop was from the 360 grabbing a bunch of core gamers with it's better price and better performing multiplats. That's why PS3+360 is right around PS2+Xbox.

What grabbed 3DS's buyers? Sure as heck wasn't the Vita. It was mobile gaming.

You are making the same mistake as above. Nothing needs to grab buyers. What grabbed Atari buyers when the console market crashed in the 80's? It wasn't Nintendo. They didn't show up until after the crash. You can't explain Atari sales losses, by saying that they all went to Nintendo. What best explains it is that Atari and all other consoles sucked at that point in time. So people flat out stopped buying them. 


Mixing a new market full of mistakes crashing to a contraction (will you try and claim there was some crash and that if Nintendo decided for a new HH instead of Switch it would see 100+M confortably? No, because it is very clear the market shrunk due to indirect competition by substitive).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Assuming that lost sales need to go somewhere is a mistake. When the console market crashed in the 80's there was a point where Nintendo hadn't yet entered the game, and sales of consoles were just awful. People didn't move from buying Atari's to buying some other gaming device. They just literally stopped buying consoles. Both the 3DS and Vita were extremely underwhelming compared to their predecessors. When all options on the market are bad, the market will shrink.  Smartphone games shaved about 20 million off the top of 3DS lifetime sales. But Nintendo's price/drought/naming/eyestrain shaved more off lifetime sales. A properly launched and priced 2DS XL in 2011 would have done 90-100 million units easily. 

You are making the same mistake as above. Nothing needs to grab buyers. What grabbed Atari buyers when the console market crashed in the 80's? It wasn't Nintendo. They didn't show up until after the crash. You can't explain Atari sales losses, by saying that they all went to Nintendo. What best explains it is that Atari and all other consoles sucked at that point in time. So people flat out stopped buying them. 


Mixing a new market full of mistakes crashing to a contraction (will you try and claim there was some crash and that if Nintendo decided for a new HH instead of Switch it would see 100+M confortably? No, because it is very clear the market shrunk due to indirect competition by substitive).

New HH instead of Switch? Switch Lite hits the $205 or less sweet spot of pricing, that the Nintendo Handheld market has always thrived on. Track sales of Switch Lite over the next few years, account for the fact that regular Switch exists, and you're essentially tracking the HH market today. If Switch Lite does less than 50 million, then we know the market did indeed shrink due to Smartphone games. If Switch Lite does 50 million or more, then clearly, had Nintendo launched just Switch Lite in 2017 and no dock it would have sold 100+ million. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
DonFerrari said:

Mixing a new market full of mistakes crashing to a contraction (will you try and claim there was some crash and that if Nintendo decided for a new HH instead of Switch it would see 100+M confortably? No, because it is very clear the market shrunk due to indirect competition by substitive).

New HH instead of Switch? Switch Lite hits the $205 or less sweet spot of pricing, that the Nintendo Handheld market has always thrived on. Track sales of Switch Lite over the next few years, account for the fact that regular Switch exists, and you're essentially tracking the HH market today. If Switch Lite does less than 50 million, then we know the market did indeed shrink due to Smartphone games. If Switch Lite does 50 million or more, then clearly, had Nintendo launched just Switch Lite in 2017 and no dock it would have sold 100+ million. 

So now besides being a hybrid Switch is a console when 300 and HH when 200?

Wouldn't it need to reach then 100M of Wii + 150M of DS?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

New HH instead of Switch? Switch Lite hits the $205 or less sweet spot of pricing, that the Nintendo Handheld market has always thrived on. Track sales of Switch Lite over the next few years, account for the fact that regular Switch exists, and you're essentially tracking the HH market today. If Switch Lite does less than 50 million, then we know the market did indeed shrink due to Smartphone games. If Switch Lite does 50 million or more, then clearly, had Nintendo launched just Switch Lite in 2017 and no dock it would have sold 100+ million. 

So now besides being a hybrid Switch is a console when 300 and HH when 200?

Wouldn't it need to reach then 100M of Wii + 150M of DS?

No.  Because there is a huge amount of overlap from Wii and DS owners.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."