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

Forums - Sales Discussion - The console market is stabilizing

 

Your view of the competitive landscape as of 2021

Level playing field (all three fairly equal) 20 24.10%
 
Strongly slanted Playstation 8 9.64%
 
Strongly slanted Nintendo 16 19.28%
 
Strongly slanted Microsoft 2 2.41%
 
Strongly slanted Nintendo & Playstation 35 42.17%
 
Strongly slanted Microsoft & Playstation 0 0%
 
Strongly slanted Microsoft & Nintendo 2 2.41%
 
Total:83
src said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

You've lost a lot of money on the stock market haven't you? 

Are you another amateur investor?

Amazon, Tesla, Netflix have been some of most lucrative stocks all while following the same dominance model of thin or negative margins to achieve high revenue and therefore marketshare.

Agente42 said:

Ok. go to marketshare. 

Year marketshare? Switch wins

Japan market? Switch again.

Comparative market sales? Switch. 

Global Marketshare is revenue:

PS : around $20 billion

MS: around $10 billion

Nintendo : around $10 billion

Like I said. PS is dominating. Nintendo and MS can't even catch up at the rate they are going.

padib said:

PlayStation will end up losing its majority marketshare as Nintendo and Microsoft perpetually find new ways to come out on top, while Sony rests on its laurels long enough to lose their position once and for all. They will do good, but their rightful place is last in tie with Microsoft, as they are too reliant on 3rd parties who are already starting to lose their spice. On the VR side, other companies are much more relevant such as Valve and Occulus. The writing is on the wall for PlayStation. If you are investing in them, be prudent with your money. They will inevitably shrink in the coming generations 

PS4 exclusives outsell nearly every multiplat game on PS4 bar a handful of the most popular (GTA, COD, FIFA). You're living in 2010.

Nowadays PS is a first party powerhouse as well, with titles selling 10-20 million. This is all while getting the majority of third party sales.

PSVR is the best selling VR headset LOL

Remarkable how you were wrong on every statement and still had the confidence to give stock advice lmao

The PS exclusives sell proportionately to the username on its consoles, history proved that. What causes PS to have a large userbase is weakness on the part of its competitors, and 3rd party support in favor of PS. Both will disappear next gen so no amount of gloating over the PS4's success will make you right about the upcoming generation. Also, the sales of its 1st party IPs are doubtful going forward, since TLOU 2 is not trending like it's predecessor, Uncharted is closed so we're left with the lower-tier 1st party games with the exception of Spider man and few others. PS games only rarely ever reach 20m, the games typically sell at 13m and under. So I'm putting into question the powerhouse idea. Right now we can count on Spider Man, the Next Horizon, and maybe R&C for big sales, but other than that I am skeptical of your pov.

While PS4 VR might have outsold the others (I didn't check your missing sources), the main VR players are coming out with more and more games and are pushing it forward, making it so that with a solid library base that is non-generational and with big exclusives like half-life Alyx, it won't be long before PS VR becomes and afterthought like PS Move or the Eye Toy.

Also, if you look at the NPD thread, you will have trouble seeing Sony games appear there. Your handful of 3rd party games seem to be the majority on PS consoles and across platforms seem to capture more gamer interest than Sony 1st party games. This means that Sony still strongly depends on them.

Don't get upset at me for worrying about your own wallet. If I don't want you to lose money, I'm being serious.



Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:
Mnementh said:

With Amazon Luna now also revealed we know about three game streaming services: Googles Stadia, Microsofts XCloud and Amazon Luna. And I think it is highly likely more contestants will enter. Game Streaming offers the convenience of console gaming, without the need to buy into a specific hardware (you still need some hardware, but nothing specific). And the downsides - like latency - may not be as important for some parts of the gaming customer base. So Amazon actually underlines my point: while console gaming as a niche looks secure, the bigger gaming market has become volatile, so that the position of consoles is threatened. I think consoles may be able to prevail, but not without adressing the market changes in some form. These changes may shake up the console market internally, depending on how well each competitor is able to work with the threat. And currently I see that all three are differently positioned towards streaming. Nintendo tries to offer something special, which they probably use to differentiate themself from streaming and trying to carve their own niche. MS itself are going into streaming while keeping consoles around for the moment. Sony is putting their bet on classical console gaming. How this all will work out going forward is yet to be seen. I think streaming may start slow and building momentum in 2021 and 2022. I expect game streaming to become a relevant market segment in 2023 or 2024. Then we will see how this affects console gaming for real.

Exactly.  Not every game is an action game.  Turn based RPGs play just fine even with a little lag.  Adventure games and turn based strategy games also play just fine with a little lag.  But let me be even more specific than that: Elder Scrolls games play just fine even with some latency issues.  Fans can enjoy Elder Scrolls 6 just as much on xCloud as they can on a traditional console.

I even think there are some genres that would be better on a streaming service.  I am waiting for one of these big streaming services to develop their own hit battle royale game.  I bet these streaming services could handle battle royale games even better than the current way of doing things.

Agreed. Arcade games not work fine. 



The_Liquid_Laser said:
src said:

Are you another amateur investor?

Amazon, Tesla, Netflix have been some of most lucrative stocks all while following the same dominance model of thin or negative margins to achieve high revenue and therefore marketshare.

Hahah, this is so dumb.  How does dominant marketshare help me as an investor?  It doesn't.  It may make the company look big and impressive and I can still lose money as an investor.  Nothing you say actually matters.

What actually makes money for investors is 1) dividends and 2) increases in stock value.  In the long term both of these are based on profits.  Investors care about profits.  The amateur investors are actually the ones that invest in a company just because it's big.  It's quite possible to make a lot more money on smaller companies as long as the small companies make a good profit per share.

And all of this ignores the fact that when Netflix started they were a small company renting out movies via the mail.  They had high profits and a low marketshare.  Literally, every part of your argument is terrible, lol.  That takes talent.

I can't believe what I'm reading. This is investing 101. Dominant marketshare is what the biggest companies in the world have. As an investor you have both options of going long, in what will likely become a safe rising stock or make profit from selling the stock in the expansion period.

2) is completely wrong. Stock value is speculative and can rise even without profits a la Amazon, Tesla, Netflix etc. MS's stock price has doubled in a year. Has there profits doubled to cause this? Of course not. What a ridiculous assumption.

You're also wrong on Netflix. Netflix became a pioneer in an entirely transformed industry: digital content streaming, and it did it all while not making a single bit of profit. Same with Amazon, delving into e-Commerce or Tesla with the EV manufacturing industry. See a trend here.

Aggressive expansion and domination, requires debt and induces thin margins, margins that can easily be increased once they've become the dominant players after market stabilisation.

To put it more simply:

Sony is on track to break records in the videogame industry and achieve $25 billion revenue. Nintendo is at $11 billion. Sony can achieve similar profits at a measly 20% margin while Nintendo needs a near 50% to match this.

Its only going to get more lopsided in the future, as Playstation has massive leverage over third parties, whose revenue stream rely on PS.

Agente42 said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Hahah, this is so dumb.  How does dominant marketshare help me as an investor?  It doesn't.  It may make the company look big and impressive and I can still lose money as an investor.  Nothing you say actually matters.

What actually makes money for investors is 1) dividends and 2) increases in stock value.  In the long term both of these are based on profits.  Investors care about profits.  The amateur investors are actually the ones that invest in a company just because it's big.  It's quite possible to make a lot more money on smaller companies as long as the small companies make a good profit per share.

And all of this ignores the fact that when Netflix started they were a small company renting out movies via the mail.  They had high profits and a low marketshare.  Literally, every part of your argument is terrible, lol.  That takes talent.

Nintendo is the most valuable Japanese company. Profits, dividends, etc.

Not even close. Toyota, Softbank, Sony are all more valuable.



src said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Hahah, this is so dumb.  How does dominant marketshare help me as an investor?  It doesn't.  It may make the company look big and impressive and I can still lose money as an investor.  Nothing you say actually matters.

What actually makes money for investors is 1) dividends and 2) increases in stock value.  In the long term both of these are based on profits.  Investors care about profits.  The amateur investors are actually the ones that invest in a company just because it's big.  It's quite possible to make a lot more money on smaller companies as long as the small companies make a good profit per share.

And all of this ignores the fact that when Netflix started they were a small company renting out movies via the mail.  They had high profits and a low marketshare.  Literally, every part of your argument is terrible, lol.  That takes talent.

I can't believe what I'm reading. This is investing 101. Dominant marketshare is what the biggest companies in the world have. As an investor you have both options of going long, in what will likely become a safe rising stock or make profit from selling the stock in the expansion period.

2) is completely wrong. Stock value is speculative and can rise even without profits a la Amazon, Tesla, Netflix etc. MS's stock price has doubled in a year. Has there profits doubled to cause this? Of course not. What a ridiculous assumption.

You're also wrong on Netflix. Netflix became a pioneer in an entirely transformed industry: digital content streaming, and it did it all while not making a single bit of profit. Same with Amazon, delving into e-Commerce or Tesla with the EV manufacturing industry. See a trend here.

Aggressive expansion and domination, requires debt and induces thin margins, margins that can easily be increased once they've become the dominant players after market stabilisation.

To put it more simply:

Sony is on track to break records in the videogame industry and achieve $25 billion revenue. Nintendo is at $11 billion. Sony can achieve similar profits at a measly 20% margin while Nintendo needs a near 50% to match this.

Its only going to get more lopsided in the future, as Playstation has massive leverage over third parties, whose revenue stream rely on PS.

Hahah, these posts are hilarious.  "This is investing 101."  LOL.  Here is actual investing 101: buy low, sell high.  That is investing 101.  Collect dividends which are based on profits.  That is also investing 101.  That's how investors make money.  What sort of thing do amatuer investors need to avoid?  Don't invest in a company just because it's big.  That's dumb.  If you make money just investing in big companies then it has more to do with luck than skill.  That is the third lesson of investing 101.  

There.  You just got schooled.  Now all you have to do is follow that advice and you won't lose your shirt.  It couldn't hurt you to look at some of Warren Buffet's advice either.  Basically he says to avoid short term speculation and invest in companies which will be profitable in the long term.  That's what makes stock value increase in the long term (i.e. over the course of several years.)

You also seem to have no clue how Netflix got started.  It didn't start out as a streaming company.  It started out renting movies through the mail.  Amazon also started out just selling books only online.  They started out as small businesses with high profit margins.  That's how they became so successful today.  High profit margins matter to investors.  Size?  Who cares.  It makes the company look impressive, but it doesn't help investors.  And in the long run the profitable businesses end up growing anyway.

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 29 September 2020

The_Liquid_Laser said:
src said:

I can't believe what I'm reading. This is investing 101. Dominant marketshare is what the biggest companies in the world have. As an investor you have both options of going long, in what will likely become a safe rising stock or make profit from selling the stock in the expansion period.

2) is completely wrong. Stock value is speculative and can rise even without profits a la Amazon, Tesla, Netflix etc. MS's stock price has doubled in a year. Has there profits doubled to cause this? Of course not. What a ridiculous assumption.

You're also wrong on Netflix. Netflix became a pioneer in an entirely transformed industry: digital content streaming, and it did it all while not making a single bit of profit. Same with Amazon, delving into e-Commerce or Tesla with the EV manufacturing industry. See a trend here.

Aggressive expansion and domination, requires debt and induces thin margins, margins that can easily be increased once they've become the dominant players after market stabilisation.

To put it more simply:

Sony is on track to break records in the videogame industry and achieve $25 billion revenue. Nintendo is at $11 billion. Sony can achieve similar profits at a measly 20% margin while Nintendo needs a near 50% to match this.

Its only going to get more lopsided in the future, as Playstation has massive leverage over third parties, whose revenue stream rely on PS.

Hahah, these posts are hilarious.  "This is investing 101."  LOL.  Here is actual investing 101: buy low, sell high.  That is investing 101.  Collect dividends which are based on profits.  That is also investing 101.  That's how investors make money.  What sort of thing do amatuer investors need to avoid?  Don't invest in a company just because it's big.  That's dumb.  If you make money just investing in big companies then it has more to do with luck than skill.  That is the third lesson of investing 101.  

There.  You just got schooled.  Now all you have to do is follow that advice and you won't lose your shirt.  It couldn't hurt you to look at some of Warren Buffet's advice either.  Basically he says to avoid short term speculation and invest in companies which will be profitable in the long term.  That's what makes stock value increase in the long term (i.e. over the course of several years.)

You also seem to have no clue how Netflix got started.  It didn't start out as a streaming company.  It started out renting movies through the mail.  Amazon also started out just selling books only online.  They started out as small businesses with high profit margins.  That's how they became so successful today.  High profit margins matter to investors.  Size?  Who cares.  It makes the company look impressive, but it doesn't help investors.  And in the long run the profitable businesses end up growing anyway.

Hilariously delusional.

Firstly, you're not readin what I wrote at all or misconstruing it. I never said invest in big companies, rather those with dominating marketshare or signs of it, as they lead to the biggest players.

Buy low, sell high is such shallow advice that's its something akin to what a 12 year old would say. This is below even amateur investing.

Yes I know how they both started. Again, learn to read. Amazon and Netflix did not become top SP stocks by continuing their original business. They entered or pioneered completely new sectors, and financed this venture and growth with aggressive debt and thin margins.



Around the Network
src said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Hahah, these posts are hilarious.  "This is investing 101."  LOL.  Here is actual investing 101: buy low, sell high.  That is investing 101.  Collect dividends which are based on profits.  That is also investing 101.  That's how investors make money.  What sort of thing do amatuer investors need to avoid?  Don't invest in a company just because it's big.  That's dumb.  If you make money just investing in big companies then it has more to do with luck than skill.  That is the third lesson of investing 101.  

There.  You just got schooled.  Now all you have to do is follow that advice and you won't lose your shirt.  It couldn't hurt you to look at some of Warren Buffet's advice either.  Basically he says to avoid short term speculation and invest in companies which will be profitable in the long term.  That's what makes stock value increase in the long term (i.e. over the course of several years.)

You also seem to have no clue how Netflix got started.  It didn't start out as a streaming company.  It started out renting movies through the mail.  Amazon also started out just selling books only online.  They started out as small businesses with high profit margins.  That's how they became so successful today.  High profit margins matter to investors.  Size?  Who cares.  It makes the company look impressive, but it doesn't help investors.  And in the long run the profitable businesses end up growing anyway.

Hilariously delusional.

Firstly, you're not readin what I wrote at all or misconstruing it. I never said invest in big companies, rather those with dominating marketshare or signs of it, as they lead to the biggest players.

Buy low, sell high is such shallow advice that's its something akin to what a 12 year old would say. This is below even amateur investing.

Yes I know how they both started. Again, learn to read. Amazon and Netflix did not become top SP stocks by continuing their original business. They entered or pioneered completely new sectors, and financed this venture and growth with aggressive debt and thin margins.

Well, all I can say is this.  I hope you get lucky and don't end up living in a box.



Many things are up in the air for this next gen.

If you are a believer in Switch is current gen then Switch either has a real chance to come close to PS4 (might even beat it in the longer tail) or has a chance to come close to PS4+XBONE.

If you are a believer in Switch is next gen then Switch has a massive head start and nothing short of a miracle will probably have XBOXS+PS5 > NS before NS is replaced.

Other than that nonsense, there are some real interesting changes and happening going on. For one, the Switch has been established as a wildly successful formula. Yet neither of the other two console makers seem interested in trying to compete with that (perhaps realizing that they probably can't and maintain their dedicated home console base).  Perhaps they are also realizing that the market for a hybrid is a very tricky one.  Nintendo has already released a Switch Lite.  When might they release a Switch Heavy?  I think it is entirely up in the air that a single Hybrid alone is competitive with a single Home Console or a single Handheld.

We are finally witnessing the transition to full digital offerings which I think potentially marks this next gen as the last gen that offers optical drive consoles. Both MS and SONY are playing that game slightly different. Microsoft's digital only offering is not only the cheapest but also the least powerful of the two, making it's optical offering the only way to play their games at full power. SONY on the other hand is just cutting their buy in price by 1/5 but still offering full power for the pure digital version. I'm not sure how other players will respond to this, but if I were paying full price up front and going digital I would prefer SONY's offering (this does not take into account games, this would be if all games 1st and 2nd party went to both).

However, there is another wrinkle here. MS is offering _very_ good value no interest monthly payment options to buy into either of the XBOXSs. Game Pass Ultimate costs $359.76 (USD) over the course of 24 months. Buying an XBOXSS on that plan saves nearly $60 on the total costs (599.76 vs 658.76). Buying an XBOXSX is much less so saving less than $20. Unless you plan to buy an XBOXS(S/X) and then sell it within 24 months you'd be practically crazy not to use the payment plan option (I know plenty will go traditional anyway, for many reasons, I know). Regardless of the savings to the player, MS is throwing money at this next gen for the first 24 months to fix the bad showing they've had the last couple years. The more people use the monthly payment plan the more up front losses per console MS has until the 24 months are up.  Of course MS has tons more money at their disposal than either of the other two combined.

For people who are interested in playing lots of games (current and next gen) at mainstream resolutions (4k is not yet mainstream imo) XBOXSS is a no brainer. 100 games right away, next gen MS Studio games as part of the package. I think many people could snap that up. Lower prices open up the market to more and more people. $299, payment plan or no, is Nintendo Switch territory. Of course Nintendo has the Switch Lite at even lower, however that is handheld only and has a different market.

I could say more about how I think the market is anything but stabilizing. The Switch is getting long in the tooth home console wise and due for a refresh there. If there is no Switch Pro, when will Switch 2 come and how many gens ahead will Nintendo be by the time PS6 and XBOX69420 comes out? Microsoft just bought a major studio owner that could, after current contracts play out, shift many people towards XBOXS for some exclusives. SONY could be in for a minor repeat of their PS3 where they are not in tune with where the market is and has to scramble to keep up. More and more gaming is happening _outside_ the handheld/console market. Tablets and Phones continue to erode the handheld/console market. Microsoft is the only real company pushing hard into that space, SONY is only just offering some of their 1st party onto the PC/tablet/phone. Nintendo slips further and further behind in online. Etc, etc.

Again, my conclusion is I don't think the market is stabilizing and I don't think anyone's foothold is assured.

Last edited by dharh - on 29 September 2020

A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
src said:

Hilariously delusional.

Firstly, you're not readin what I wrote at all or misconstruing it. I never said invest in big companies, rather those with dominating marketshare or signs of it, as they lead to the biggest players.

Buy low, sell high is such shallow advice that's its something akin to what a 12 year old would say. This is below even amateur investing.

Yes I know how they both started. Again, learn to read. Amazon and Netflix did not become top SP stocks by continuing their original business. They entered or pioneered completely new sectors, and financed this venture and growth with aggressive debt and thin margins.

Well, all I can say is this.  I hope you get lucky and don't end up living in a box.

FYI you got trolled hard by a joke account.
you can see 4 points recognising this :
1. getting personal
2. cherrypicking irrelevant data
3. ignoring your points
4. fanboying



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

kirby007 said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Well, all I can say is this.  I hope you get lucky and don't end up living in a box.

FYI you got trolled hard by a joke account.
you can see 4 points recognising this :
1. getting personal
2. cherrypicking irrelevant data
3. ignoring your points
4. fanboying

Can't tell if he is trolling or in spin alley.  He talks like a pundit on some political TV show.  Then again, maybe all of those pundits are trolling too.

Anyway, if he is a troll, he didn't get me mad.  What he said was so ridiculous, I thought it was funny.

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 29 September 2020

With devices like Switch Lite and things like cloud streaming and subscriptions, it's getting more difficult to make comparisons based on console sales. You can't compare Switch Lite sales with PS4 Pros and Xbox subscriptions.

Profit and revenue are the keys, and Nintendo and Sony remain strong. Particularly Nintendo that have a slimmer company with an incredible list of lucrative assets.

Xbox is still yet to be understood. They're kinda getting ready to leave the console business and rely on content only and God knows what that could bring for them and for the market, plus MS has all the strength of its huge parent corporation.

We also can't forget new possible players, like Stadia. I'm still not confident those players can get to successfully navigate this market (VG market is tough for non veteran organisations), but with determination and long term investment, they might be able to pull this off. Having said that, this is the part that I'd love to discuss about. We should have a thread about new possible players in this market. For me the most interesting thing going on this decade is the fact that finally other big companies might try what MS did a few generations ago (even though MS was also a game veteran company with Microsoft Games and IPs like Age of and Flight Simulator).



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?