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

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

Conina said:
HollyGamer said:
 What i can see is war between a united front of local hardware gaming versus cloud streaming.

How can there be a united front when both Sony and Microsoft offer local hardware gaming (PS5, Xbox Scarlett) and also cloud streaming (PS Now + Xcloud).

Nintendo is also evaluating cloud streaming: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/13/nintendo-were-evaluating-streaming/

In Japan you can already stream Resident Evil 7 + Assassin's Creed: Odyssey. After the launch of PS5 + Scarlett, there will probably be much more of these streamed Switch versions.

Maybe a hybrid cloud  (PS+Xbox+Nintendo) VS a purist Cloud (Google+ Amazon) 



Around the Network
Mnementh said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

The console wars only seem over, because two of the competitors are asleep.  If Sony and Microsoft were smart, then they would release their next consoles this year.  Instead they simply have declining sales with no next gen console to replace it.  Meanwhile Switch gets all of the customers, both handheld and home, because there is no handheld competition and there is no home competition either.  There won't be any competition until the end of 2020 when the other 2 generation 9 consoles are launched.  These sleeping "giants" are giving the Switch a huge head start.

I don't see it a failure on MS and Sonys side to not launch this year. Early launches have historically no big impact on the overall result in the gen. In the case of Sega, it didn't panned out too well. More important is, that:

  • your machine works well without bigger issue
  • you can price it competitively
  • you can produce enough of the hardware
  • you have important games ready for launch

If you look at that, you can find historic examples. XBox360 had the RROD, which probably hurt it's sales. Moreso, the XBox One got flak for it's online system, MS would have been better off if they had made more market research before and dropped the idea. PS3 had a way too high price initially and only recovered after some time. The Wii had shortages for a long time (OK, probably not that Nintendo was not ready, but more that they calculated way too conservatively initially). And WiiU although pushed back a year had a lackluster launch library.

Compare that to Switch: the hardware was well thought out. You can see it in products that released way later and show new usages of the Joycons, which Nintendo must have had in mind. I mean Labo surprised me, because of what you were able to do with the Joycons. And Ring Fit Adventure took many by surprise by being able to measure your heartbeat. usages like that must've been already thought through, as Nintendo released the hardware. Switch was also well priced. Some may have prefered a lower price, but obviously it didn't held back the sales much. Waiting a year and making advantage of fallign prices of hardware components and negotiate good deals on components helps, so in this case Nintendo wasn't forced to ask a higher price, like they had to with 3DS (the price cut lead to initial losses on hardware sales) and WiiU. Same with PS3, to drop the price Sony had to redesign the PS3, dropping backwards compatibility and replacing some components with probably cheaper ones. You also need enough time to bring up production facilities and with more time beforehand you can stack devices to fulfill launch demand. And more time means you can have games ready. Switch had an excellent launch year in regards to hardware. I can see Nintendo planned on five titles as possible system sellers: 1-2-Switch, Zelda, Arms, Splatoon and Mario. Not everything worked as much, but these titles clearly were intended to bring in different groups of customers. And at least Zelda, Splatoon and Mario clearly brought in the gamers. Also Nintendo had already secured some important third-party releases to pad out the library.

So my point is: waiting and releasing a great package is much much better than rushing to launch.

All of your bullet points are good points.  Those are important factors.  In particular the most important factors in launching a successful console are 1) having a strong library of games and 2) price (in that order).  However launching early also helps.  Why? 

Because when a console launches early, that gives it a chance to build up a good library of games.  Then when the competitor launches the first console has a much larger library of games in comparison.  Also, the earlier a console launches, the earlier it can afford to drop its price.  This means that the earlier console can often be priced more competitively than the competition.  Launching early helps a console in both 1) game library and 2) price, and these are the 2 most important factors.  It doesn't guarantee a win or anything, but launching early definitely helps.

What was Sega's most successful console?  The Genesis (or Mega Drive).  It launched 2 years before the SNES.  What was Microsoft's most successful console?  The XBox360.  It launched a year before the PS3.  And of course there is the biggest transfer of fortunes in all of gaming with the PS1 vs. the N64.  The PS1 launched 1-2 years ahead of the N64 (depending on region).  None of these 3 consoles had a particularly strong launch, but they all did a lot better over their generation than their launch would indicate.  Their competition gave them time to get a stronger footing by releasing more games and being in a better position to drop their hardware price.  Releasing early helps quite a bit.  Given it can't save a console doomed to fail like the Saturn or Wii U.  But if the console has some potential, then an early start can give it a much bigger advantage.

One factor that notoriously does not help is power.  Waiting to launch a more powerful console is always a bad move.  History has taught us over and over again that console power does not help, and yet companies still fall into this same trap.  I can understand why.  If you ask a person if they would rather drive a Toyota or a Ferrari, then most will say Ferrari.  And yet every year Toyota sells a lot more cars than Ferrari does.  Price matters.  Price matters a lot more than power does.  Sony may be trying to brand the PS5 as the Ferrari of gaming, but then it is going to sell like the Ferrari of gaming.  Nintendo is very much branding Switch like the Toyota of gaming: simple, efficient, family friendly, etc....  Switch is already selling like the Toyota of gaming.

All of these reasons are why it really is a terrible idea for both Sony and Microsoft to wait until late 2020 to launch.  They are giving Switch a ton of time to build up a huge library of games, and at this point Nintendo can drop the price as much as they want (if they feel they need to).  Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft are delaying to release a powerful console, which is really more of a disadvantage.  Both companies are putting themselves at a huge disadvantage.  They both begging Nintendo to take them to school for generation 9.



RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

Has been and will continue to be my prediction.  Of the Big 3, they are the ones most likely to do it.  Even more so, now, with the parent company gearing up for a streaming future.

Actually, the PS2 finishing strong did help the PS3.  Without a strong PS2, there would be no brand loyalty in any region.  Sony would always do better in Japan, but EU would have been up for grabs.  It helped Sony and the PS brand to survive something no one ever has.  A system that saw weaker multiplats for the first couple of years, didn't get a real system seller until Uncharted released a year after launch, and, more importantly, was $200 more expensive than the competition for 3 years.  And it still outsold the 360 in the end, and came only 15M units shy of the Wii.  Sony continued their tradition of legacy support and gamers took notice.  Even if you don't want to admit that fact, there's one you have to admit.  Lack of good support, which started about halfway through the gen, sure as Hell isn't going to help the Scarlett's position with gamers.

As for Switch, it isn't just a successor to the Wii U, but also the 3DS, which has sold over 75M units, so far.  It's interesting how people remember and forget this fact, depending on their argument.  And the predictions I remember seeing concerning low sales were based on it being $299, which makes sense considering the 3DS sold poorly for $249 just 6 years earlier.  The hybrid nature and big power increase over the 3DS, as well as good support, won gamers over.

Sony's investment in Blu-ray as the successor to the DVD format played a much bigger role for the PS3 than brand loyalty. Winning the format war for movies and TV shows is why Sony stayed in despite the incredibly big losses. Of course, Blu-ray was also part of the reason why the PS3 got into trouble to begin with. The other big part was the Cell processor which, just like Blu-ray, was about establishing future profits from non-gaming ventures. Sony cut the price of the PS3 from $600 to $400 in a matter of eight months in the USA, in Europe the price was cut within seven months, from €600 to €400. It's safe to assume that you mean only the Xbox 360 when you refer to $200 cheaper competition, but Microsoft's box was actually only $50 cheaper after Sony's PS3 price cuts in 2007.

The one fact that you want me to admit is something that I will shrug off because the Xbox One continued to receive good support for the games that matter. How many AAA third party games skipped the Xbox One? Can probably be counted on one or two hands. Regarding first party support, the Xbox One isn't going to be relevant for Scarlett, because all Microsoft has to do is show what their studio acquisitions and old studios are working on. They can change the perception of Xbox's first party with a single presentation, plus gamers know that the third party games will be there by default.

Lastly, we have the points about Switch. It is priced like a home console, and yes, the people who made those bad predictions were oblivious to the fact that Switch succeeded both the 3DS and Wii U. I have no idea why you are trying to excuse their bad reasoning when in the very next sentence you explain that Switch isn't a handheld, so the reasoning for the concerns about the price didn't really make sense. Wii U's lackluster late support remains a relevant point because Switch is clearly selling to a lot of people who use the system as a home console, hence why Switch's tie ratio is notably higher than that of a handheld console. Whatever happened with Wii U didn't bother potential buyers of Switch and that line of reasoning will apply to Scarlett as well. You even highlighted good support as reason for Switch's success, so why should an improved first party of Microsoft in combination with virtually all the important third party games for Scarlett lead to the same or worse results than the Xbox One? Logic dictates better sales.

So, Blu-ray was the reason that Sony supported the PS3 so well throughout the gen?  Because it was competing against a format that was completely abandoned just 1 year and 3 months after the PS3's launch?  Yea, that totally makes sense.  No, Sony stayed in because PS is a big part of who they are.  It's one of their major branches.

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.

Ah, so you are of the mind that exclusives don't really matter to the HD twins, but I'm sure you know and will admit that exclusives are a big selling point for Nintendo.  No point in arguing with such willful ignorance and hypocrisy.  I will just say that, like many of the points you have made, you are just dead wrong.  We are talking about exclusives that have been selling 5M-10M+.  But, sure, they don't really matter cause 3rd party support is sorta the same.

Now, for the Switch.  Yea, it's priced like a home console that came out over a decade ago.  We're never getting another home console launching at $299, unless it's extremely underpowered.  The next gen consoles are most likely launching at $499.  Those predictors weren't oblivious to those facts, those were the reasons they didn't see it succeeding.  The Wii U hadn't done well at $299.  And the 3DS didn't do well at $249.  Of course, what happened was that Nintendo hit that sweet spot of power and mobility, console gaming on the go.  People found $299 to be a fair price for it.  It's helps that it is getting decent 3rd party support and that Nintendo is working on it exclusively, so no more effort split between two platforms, just the one.  It's also what Sony is doing for home consoles, albiet with better 3rd party support, and why they continue to see such success with the PS4.

And, yes, the Switch is a handheld.  And it has a port that turns it into a home console.  Again, you can't ignore the handheld part, just because you think it helps your argument.  Now, if Xbox had a successful line of HHs, and the Scarlet was going to be a hybrid, then you may have an argument.  As is, it's apples to oranges.  And who says MS will have better 1st party support?  Sure, they have more studios, but that means absolutley nothing if the games don't appeal to gamers and/or come out mediocre.  I see nothing from Xbox, or MS's big focus on streaming, that gives me confidence that they will handle those studios any better than they did Rare or Lionhead.  It's quality over quantity that wins gamers, and Sony has both in spades.

Last edited by thismeintiel - on 03 November 2019

The_Liquid_Laser said:
Mnementh said:

I don't see it a failure on MS and Sonys side to not launch this year. Early launches have historically no big impact on the overall result in the gen. In the case of Sega, it didn't panned out too well. More important is, that:

  • your machine works well without bigger issue
  • you can price it competitively
  • you can produce enough of the hardware
  • you have important games ready for launch

If you look at that, you can find historic examples. XBox360 had the RROD, which probably hurt it's sales. Moreso, the XBox One got flak for it's online system, MS would have been better off if they had made more market research before and dropped the idea. PS3 had a way too high price initially and only recovered after some time. The Wii had shortages for a long time (OK, probably not that Nintendo was not ready, but more that they calculated way too conservatively initially). And WiiU although pushed back a year had a lackluster launch library.

Compare that to Switch: the hardware was well thought out. You can see it in products that released way later and show new usages of the Joycons, which Nintendo must have had in mind. I mean Labo surprised me, because of what you were able to do with the Joycons. And Ring Fit Adventure took many by surprise by being able to measure your heartbeat. usages like that must've been already thought through, as Nintendo released the hardware. Switch was also well priced. Some may have prefered a lower price, but obviously it didn't held back the sales much. Waiting a year and making advantage of fallign prices of hardware components and negotiate good deals on components helps, so in this case Nintendo wasn't forced to ask a higher price, like they had to with 3DS (the price cut lead to initial losses on hardware sales) and WiiU. Same with PS3, to drop the price Sony had to redesign the PS3, dropping backwards compatibility and replacing some components with probably cheaper ones. You also need enough time to bring up production facilities and with more time beforehand you can stack devices to fulfill launch demand. And more time means you can have games ready. Switch had an excellent launch year in regards to hardware. I can see Nintendo planned on five titles as possible system sellers: 1-2-Switch, Zelda, Arms, Splatoon and Mario. Not everything worked as much, but these titles clearly were intended to bring in different groups of customers. And at least Zelda, Splatoon and Mario clearly brought in the gamers. Also Nintendo had already secured some important third-party releases to pad out the library.

So my point is: waiting and releasing a great package is much much better than rushing to launch.

All of your bullet points are good points.  Those are important factors.  In particular the most important factors in launching a successful console are 1) having a strong library of games and 2) price (in that order).  However launching early also helps.  Why? 

Because when a console launches early, that gives it a chance to build up a good library of games.  Then when the competitor launches the first console has a much larger library of games in comparison.  Also, the earlier a console launches, the earlier it can afford to drop its price.  This means that the earlier console can often be priced more competitively than the competition.  Launching early helps a console in both 1) game library and 2) price, and these are the 2 most important factors.  It doesn't guarantee a win or anything, but launching early definitely helps.

What was Sega's most successful console?  The Genesis (or Mega Drive).  It launched 2 years before the SNES.  What was Microsoft's most successful console?  The XBox360.  It launched a year before the PS3.  And of course there is the biggest transfer of fortunes in all of gaming with the PS1 vs. the N64.  The PS1 launched 1-2 years ahead of the N64 (depending on region).  None of these 3 consoles had a particularly strong launch, but they all did a lot better over their generation than their launch would indicate.  Their competition gave them time to get a stronger footing by releasing more games and being in a better position to drop their hardware price.  Releasing early helps quite a bit.  Given it can't save a console doomed to fail like the Saturn or Wii U.  But if the console has some potential, then an early start can give it a much bigger advantage.

One factor that notoriously does not help is power.  Waiting to launch a more powerful console is always a bad move.  History has taught us over and over again that console power does not help, and yet companies still fall into this same trap.  I can understand why.  If you ask a person if they would rather drive a Toyota or a Ferrari, then most will say Ferrari.  And yet every year Toyota sells a lot more cars than Ferrari does.  Price matters.  Price matters a lot more than power does.  Sony may be trying to brand the PS5 as the Ferrari of gaming, but then it is going to sell like the Ferrari of gaming.  Nintendo is very much branding Switch like the Toyota of gaming: simple, efficient, family friendly, etc....  Switch is already selling like the Toyota of gaming.

All of these reasons are why it really is a terrible idea for both Sony and Microsoft to wait until late 2020 to launch.  They are giving Switch a ton of time to build up a huge library of games, and at this point Nintendo can drop the price as much as they want (if they feel they need to).  Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft are delaying to release a powerful console, which is really more of a disadvantage.  Both companies are putting themselves at a huge disadvantage.  They both begging Nintendo to take them to school for generation 9.

The Saturn launched months before the PS1.  The Dreamcast launched over a year before the PS2.  There's much more to it than launching early.  By your reasoning, those two should have been successes.  Or at the very least, knocked out the competition that launched after the PS1, the N64, and PS2, Gamecube and Xbox.  Instead they were both failures.  Launch dates really mean nothing, unless the machines, games, and price are going to be exactly the same, which never happens.

Really, I just don't get how hard this is to comprehend, the PS4 and the Switch ARE NOT directly competing with each other.  The Switch didn't kill the PS4's great sales, and vice versa.  They have different features, game libraries, and power levels.  Do you honestly think that someone who owned a PS4 this gen is going to "downgrade" to a Switch as their console for the next 6-7 years?  Hell no.  They are going to want the greatly upgraded power that comes with the PS5 and, more than likely, the exclusives on that system.  If they do get a Switch, it will be just like the Wii was with the PS3 and 360 owners last gen, they got it as a secondary console.



RolStoppable said:

thismeintiel said:

So, Blu-ray was the reason that Sony supported the PS3 so well throughout the gen?  Because it was competing against a format that was completely abandoned just 1 year and 3 months after the PS3's launch?  Yea, that totally makes sense.  No, Sony stayed in because PS is a big part of who they are.  It's one of their major branches.

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.

Ah, so you are of the mind that exclusives don't really matter to the HD twins, but I'm sure you know and will admit that exclusives are a big selling point for Nintendo.  No point in arguing with such willful ignorance and hypocrisy.  I will just say that, like many of the points you have made, you are just dead wrong.  We are talking about exclusives that have been selling 5M-10M+.  But, sure, they don't really matter cause 3rd party support is sorta the same.

Now, for the Switch.  Yea, it's priced like a home console that came out over a decade ago.  We're never getting another home console launching at $299, unless it's extremely underpowered.  The next gen consoles are most likely launching at $499.  Those predictors weren't oblivious to those facts, those were the reasons they didn't see it succeeding.  The Wii U hadn't done well at $299.  And the 3DS didn't do well at $249.  Of course, what happened was that Nintendo hit that sweet spot of power and mobility, console gaming on the go.  People found $299 to be a fair price for it.  It's helps that it is getting decent 3rd party support and that Nintendo is working on it exclusively, so no more effort split between two platforms, just the one.  It's also what Sony is doing for home consoles, albiet with better 3rd party support, and why they continue to see such success with the PS4.

And, yes, the Switch is a handheld.  And it has a port that turns it into a home console.  Again, you can't ignore the handheld part, just because you think it helps your argument.  Now, if Xbox had a successful line of HHs, and the Scarlet was going to be a hybrid, then you may have an argument.  As is, it's apples to oranges.  And who says MS will have better 1st party support?  Sure, they have more studios, but that means absolutley nothing if the games don't appeal to gamers and/or come out mediocre.  I see nothing from Xbox, or MS's big focus on streaming, that gives me confidence that they will handle those studios any better than they did Rare or Lionhead.  It's quality over quantity that wins gamers, and Sony has both in spades.

Yes, Blu-ray was the reason why Sony didn't quit the PS3. If Sony was in the console market for the games, they wouldn't have pulled the plug on the Vita, let alone so fast. The PS3 had non-gaming purposes, but the Vita had none of that because smart devices had cornered all the non-gaming already.

Price comparisons between consoles are done between the SKUs that are selling the best. It wasn't the gimped 360 SKU that people chose over the PS3.

It seems you are under the belief that I am arguing that Scarlett will sell more than the PS5, but what I am actually arguing is that Scarlett is set up to do better than the Xbox One. Microsoft can still count on third party support, plus the arrow is pointing upwards for their first party efforts.

It's baffling that you continue to defend plain awful Switch lifetime sales predictions that had heavily flawed reasoning. Of course, the most likely explanation for your stance on this is that you were one of those predictors yourself.

Your last paragraph is a sign of things to come in the console wars and it bodes well for a lot of entertainment.

The Vita situation is completely different.  HHs were never Sony's bread and butter.  They were successful with their first attempt.  Unfortunately, the HH market shrank considerably after that gen.  Sony knew it, and saw no way to recover, so dropped focus on it to focus on their actual bread and butter, home consoles.  Even Nintendo knows the HH market shrank.  Why do you think they went with a hybrid?  They had a HH that was the 2nd best selling console of all time, with over 150M in sales and good competition from a 80M+ selling PSP, and within one generation they weren't even going to hit 80M with absolutely no competition from Sony's Vita.  So, again, you are wrong.  Please, do try again, though.

No, that's the price comparison YOU want to do because you think it helps your argument.  Actual price comparisons are done between either entry price points or average prices, not the most expensive model for one vs the cheapest model for another, just because it suits you.  And the base models were not gimped.  They did everything the more expensive models did, only lacked a larger HDD.  And if that's how you wish to do the comparison, then you should do the most expensive for both.  Of course, all 3 real methods, entry point, average price, and most expensive, will just back my point up.

I didn't say you were saying it would do better.  You were arguing that it will cut into PS5's market share, though. Sounded like in the hope that the PS5 wouldn't pass the Switch.  I'm saying we have no idea if that it will be the case.  MS hasn't done a very good job this gen to convince people to continue to stick with them, or stay for next gen.  And with MS really wanting to switch to streaming, it would lower my confidence in them really caring about the HW side of things.  And like I said, their new 1st party has yet to prove itself under MS's guidance.  Their track record in that aspect isn't the greatest.  Nor is the output of their exclusives in the back half of the gen.

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.

In other words, you have no argument, so resort to insults.  You are right, these upcoming console wars are going to be fun for me to watch. 



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
Deeds said:

Nah, Sony has been trash since Akio Morita died. This is why Samsung, Apple and LG ate their lunch. People who buy phones, Tvs, etc. realized that Sony was garbage a loooooong time ago. Gamers haven't realized it yet for some weird reason. Gamers who like portables realized it fast though and Japan realized it fast too.

Thought you were joking before.

It is mildly entertaining to see people going in blind offense or defense when talking about a brand,that underlying anger is a bit worrying though but there are therapists for that.

That's understandable if you aren't aware of his posting history. What you see in this thread is representative of what he brings to the table. If you want to see a collection of boisterous, yet terrible predictions, peppered with slams against PS that lack any nuance or subtlety, scan his posting history. Same demeanor as he had when he joined in 2008. Just aggressive posts with, seemingly, little thought behind them. I can't say for sure though. Maybe he's concentrating really hard. Now that Nintendo has turned it around, and switched the lights on in the console space, he's been brave enough to start skittering around the site again.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Nintendo fans are so out of reality in this site. I find it hilarious.



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.

I guess we just don't have as much practice as Nintendo fans when it comes to dealing with defeat. You know what they say: "You don't get better at something be not doing it." The scenario simply hasn't manifested itself that often.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

I have a lot of thoughts in response to a lot of comments in this thread but, as Rol said, "consult wars are more fun to watch..." and I'm enjoying the comments. Very informative.

I guess war never changes.



RolStoppable said:
COKTOE said:

I guess we just don't have as much practice as Nintendo fans when it comes to dealing with defeat. You know what they say: "You don't get better at something be not doing it." The scenario simply hasn't manifested itself that often.

Occurences of losing:

Nintendo: N64, GC, Wii U.
Sony: PSP, PS3, PSV.
Microsoft: Xbox, 360, One.

Three times for each camp.

Yeah, I was only thinking home consoles. You forgot the black hole that was the Virtual Boy though. A system so bad Nintendo lost to themselves.

I guess a win is a win, but Nintendo lost bad with the N64, GC, and Wii-U. PS had much better numbers with their PSP, and PS3 losses. Put the combined numbers of the PS losses against those of it's Nintendo counterparts. There are levels to these things. 



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."