Official Nintendo Switch Discussion Thread

[N3ON]

I dont understand why you dont say this to me directly, but instead go all passive agresive.

Anyway i never said that. I specifically stated that the NES was a monopoly, meaning it had no competition. So it's success was inevitable. I'm acknowledging the fact is was inevitably successful so how am i saying its not a success?

Yes I did count the NES out when mentioning Nintendo's success in my conversation, because when i said success i meant in terms of competing. So i was saying succeeding in winning the console generation against competition. Its not plausible to use that as a track record for Nintendo being good. No company will fail to succeed if they are the only ones offering games in the market. Therefore i didn't count it. That doesn't mean i'm saying its not a success i'm saying i don't count it in the terms of success im talking about.

If you have anything else about me to say you can go ahead and say it upfront.

Because I had no intention or desire to get into a debate. I was just remarking over something that tickled me.

Btw the NES wasn't the only third gen console. Perhaps you should look up some info if you're insinuating Nintendo were the "only ones offering games in the market". I mean the ratio of market share the PS2 experienced compared to its closest competitors was roughly the same as the one the NES experienced compared to, for example, the Master System (6:1). And you wouldn't say the PS2 literally "had no competition", or was the sole provider of games that gen, would you?

All of this can be looked up.

 

[Andinus]

Nah man, you're being overly optimistic with thing.

No way it sells better than the PS4. Not even close.

Look at the sales per generation on handhelds:

GB - 119 mil
GBA - 82 mil
DS - 159 mil + PSP - 82 mil /241mil total
3DS - 62 mil + Vita - 13 mil /75mil total

Look at that sharp drop in sales from Gen 7 to Gen 8. Also note how the total drops below even Gen 6. You'd think that with the Vita flopping as hard as it did, that some of the 82 mil PSP owners would have gone to 3DS, but they didn't. So the question lies, where have all those people gone? and why aren't they buying any portable consoles?

The simple answer is that the mobile market it eating into the handheld market, as I've said before. And I'm not the only one to say this, this was also pointed out by analysts and experts after the Vita died.. Remember that the 3DS also had a very shaky launch, and it needed a price cut and aggressive marketing in order to be revived, and even then, it still didn't even do half as well as the DS did, hell it didn't even match up to the PSP and GBA. Look at the monthly sales on the 3DS for the last two years, you'll see that they're slowing down drastically, and it's not doing very good over all. There is more than enough evidence to support the statement I've made a couple times, and it's that phones and tablets are making portable consoles obsolete, and that the handheld gaming market is a dying market. End of story, Switch is gonna perform UNDER the 3DS, for sure. Drastically so I'd even add, as the mobile/tablet market has been growing exponentially each year, and this has been affecting the portable gaming market quite heavily.

What you see in consoles is in fact the opposite, the console gaming market is still growing, I posted the total sales in one of my previous posts. As for Sony, you said that you could see a clear downward trend, but that's not exactly true. For one, there's not enough data to see an particular trend with Sony, especially since the PS4 is still halfway into its cycle, and it's expected to really ramp up in sales in the coming two years. Hell, PS3 is STILL selling, 4 years into the newest generation. That counts for something, and you'll likely see the same thing happen next generation with the PS4, as Sony tends to support its consoles well into newer generations. What we see in consoles is a little bit different, it's not that sales are going bad for Sony cause the market is hurting, but rather, that competition is getting more fierce because the market is growing, especially with PC gaming now officially competing with consoles thanks to the viability of Steam and the like. The market is growing year by year, and more and more competitors are wanting a share of that pie each year, so the overall hardware sales are distributed among more companies and platforms. This is good for us as a consumer, but especially bad for Nintendo, as they're already struggling to keep up with Sony in the console market. Add more aggressive competition into the mix, and suddenly, their strategy of sitting back and doing their own thing is gonna hurt them dearly.

As I've said before in this thread, only way out of this really, for Nintendo, would be to tap into the mobile/tablet market and capitalizing on that. This would shift their competitive focus from Sony and Microsoft to Apple and Google, but with carefully planning and a proper strategy, it's very doable. Switch running ARM (a common mobile chip) is a promising sign, and the video I posted talked about this on length, stating how with Nvidia working side by side with Nintendo to build this, AND plan the OS, there is potential here.

Anyway, to leave things off, I'll repost this chart to help you visualize things:

Do note that the line between PC and Console gaming is becoming increasingly blurred, and also pay attention to how small the handheld market is.

If the rumors are true though about the switch running ARM, wouldn't that say Nintendo is anticipating and building the Switch to compete with the mobile market as well?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Because I had no intention or desire to get into a debate. I was just remarking over something that tickled me.

Btw the NES wasn't the only third gen console. Perhaps you should look up some info if you're insinuating Nintendo were the "only ones offering games in the market". I mean the ratio of market share the PS2 experienced compared to its closest competitors was roughly the same as the one the NES experienced compared to, for example, the Master System (6:1). And you wouldn't say the PS2 literally "had no competition", or was the sole provider of games that gen, would you?

All of this can be looked up.

I already did list the actual consoles of the same generation. I didn't research the exact numbers, though.

I'm not sure why that post was ignored, though. Clearly it had competition, just by the era alone. I think we can both agree that the competition wasn't strong, though.

But to be fair, nobody backed up numbers on either side of the argument, so it didn't go anywhere.

@ManlySpirit: Did one of your links have the numbers for the NES and its competition? If so, just point me to the post and I'll cite it there. If not, I'll just look it up.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Wasn't talking about financial success. I was saying success in winning the competition against it's competitors.

What competition?

They all want to make money and provide their customers with good products.

They can all do it without "winning" over the other. In fact the big three want each of the others to succeed.

If the the Switch has to be the best selling thing in the generation to be a success, then was the PS3 a failure? How about the Xbox consoles? The GameCube and N64? Because all of those "lost" their respective generations (but still made lots of money and good games).

Honestly, the only people who see a "winner" are the Internet fanboys.the only thing the console manufacturers care about is if they sell enough to make a profit. If the Switch makes a profit, then it'll be a success.

 

[Deleted member]

If the rumors are true though about the switch running ARM, wouldn't that say Nintendo is anticipating and building the Switch to compete with the mobile market as well?

Yeah, its possible. That's what I said in my last post.

I also posted a video last page of a guy talking about that, check it out.

However, it'll take more than just ARM. Samsung and Apple run some pretty impressive hardware and are nothing to snuff at, however, Nintendo might be able to grab themselves a niche share of that market as dedicated gaming tablet manufacturers, which is what Nvidia already tried and failed to do with the Shield. Switch will need features though, lots of them, and it'll need a very good and flexible OS, it can't just rely on games alone. Part of the reason tablet and mobiles are dominating portable consoles is cause they offer a wide array of functions outside of gaming, and they're incredibly comfortable to use, something Nintendo's clunky trademark OS has never been. But yeah, ARM is a step in the right direction. We'll see though.

I already did list the actual consoles of the same generation. I didn't research the exact numbers, though.

I'm not sure why that post was ignored, though. Clearly it had competition, just by the era alone. I think we can both agree that the competition wasn't strong, though.

But to be fair, nobody backed up numbers on either side of the argument, so it didn't go anywhere.

@ManlySpirit: Did one of your links have the numbers for the NES and its competition? If so, just point me to the post and I'll cite it there. If not, I'll just look it up.

Yeah, it's right here:

Actually, the Wii, while a commercial success, did a lot to damage Nintendo's reputation, and it had an awful retention rate. Now while I wouldn't call it a failure persay, I also wouldn't tout it as a revolutionary success, as the Wii burned very fast, and most of its success came from outside the industry. It lacked consistency. Here, check this out, I looked this up during our convo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles

I'll list them by company to make sense of it.

Nintendo:
NES - 62 mil
SNES - 49 mil
N64 - 33 mil
Gamecube - 22 mil
Wii - 102 mil
WiiU - 13 mil

GB - 119 mil
GBA - 82 mil
DS - 159 mil
3DS - 62 mil


SEGA:
Master System - 13 mil
Genesis - 31 mil
Saturn - 9 mil
Dreamcast - 9 mil

Sony:
Playstation - 102 mil
PS2 - >155 mil
PS3 - >84 mil
PS4 - 47 mil

PSP - 82 mil
Vita - 13 mil

Microsoft:
Xbox - 24 mil
Xbox 360 - 84 mil
Xbone - >10 mil


Total:
Gen :
3 - >75 mil
4 - >80 mil
5 - >263 mil
6 - >292 mil
7 - >511 mil
8 - >145 mil

Obviously the drop in Gen 8 is because the gen isn't finished yet, and because PC has begun to compete with the console market. Moreover, Gen 7 is inflated by the Wii drawing in a surge of nongamers into the industry, all of which disappeared when the fad of the Wii faded away. Regardless we can make quite a few informative observations from this data. First off, let's remove the outlier that is the Wii on Nintendo to get a better look at trends, and this is fair since the success of the Wii, unlike the PS and PS2 was non-retentive. For starters, you can see that Sony consoles, since they entered the market, have dominated the industry. Handhelds aside, Nintendo's greatest years don't even match Sony's worst (the current one) and I think it's safe to say that the PS4 will eventually outsell the SNES, and probably the NES too. Only Nintendo handhelds match the sales of Sony handhelds.

On Nintendo, we can see a generally downward trend on both handhelds and consoles, though it's more notable on the console side.

We can see that each generation, the industry has been growing linearly, more or less doubling every two gens, and again that each gen has been a downward trend for Nintendo, while Sony has stayed a dominant force. We can see that in Gen 6, the PS2 sold the best (obviously), but more notably that the Gamecube and Xbox performed on par. In addition we can see that Microsoft has been a poor competitor all around, only keeping up with Sony in Gen 7. This gen being their worst as they were outsold by even the WiiU. Microsoft's trends are very comparable to Sega's who only managed to keep up with Nintendo during Gen 4. We can see that Nintendo's strongest market is the handheld market, where they match Sony's overall sales, and more importantly is what keeps Nintendo ahead of the competition in most cases (Gen 6 being the exception), however, it should be noted that this market is very quickly dwindling and being cannibalized by the mobile/tablet market (as I've shown before). The Vita died, and the 3DS had to be resurrected in order to succeed. It's doubtful that it will stay around for much longer.

Also, it's funny to note how Gen 7 was the absolute best Nintendo has EVER had. Which certainly explains their obsession with gimmicks, as both of those consoles were the most gimmicky. However, this is becoming their downfall, as they should learn that the audience that's drawn to fads and trends are very fickle, and don't stick around, which is opposite to what Sony has done in the industry. Which is push it forward and into the mainstream in order to help it grow steadily.

Anyway, what conclusions can we draw from this data? Quite a few in fact. I think it's fair to say that Wii levels of success will never happen for Nintendo again, especially since they drew from outside the industry, and more importantly, that they'll never steal the thunder from Sony again, as they struggle to compete, and don't bother to appeal to the same audience as them (gamers). In a constantly increasing industry, we see Nintendo get an even smaller piece of the pie each time, and eventually they're gonna get pushed out of the dinner table. What happens there, remains to be seen, but with PC becoming a more dominant force on the scene, and the competition looking like it's gonna be more PC vs Sony in the coming gens it's gonna be hard for Nintendo to stay relevant, if at all. I'll stick to my previous prediction that Nintendo's gonna need to tap into the mobile/tablet market in order to stay relevant. With the trends as I see them, I don't see them standing out much longer if they keep their current strategies. Nintendo would need to compete directly with Sony and Microsoft and make a high end console that has tons of 3rd party support otherwise, either that, or capitalize on VR at the start of Gen 9, but even then, analysts are predicting that consoles will eventually be phased out, sooner rather than later too, so I guess we'll see, The industry is certainly changing, and by 2020, I think we can come to expect something very different. All that taken into account, I do believe the Switch might be Nintendo's last console, if not one of their last, either cause they get pushed out of the table, or because the industry model no longer supports dedicated gaming consoles.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Yeah, it's right here:

That means the NES's current competition was the Atari 5200, the ColecoVision, and the Intellivision when the Nintendo system released.

It also had to compete with the Master System, the Sega Genesis/Megadrive, the TurboGrafx-16, and the Atari Linx during its most active years of 1983-1990(and some of 1991).

Those are all the systems that released before the SNES and around the time the NES existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles Same source so it's noted.

PlayStation 2 Sony 2000
Nintendo DS Nintendo 2004
Game Boy/Game Boy Color Nintendo 1989/1998
PlayStation Sony 1994
Wii Nintendo 2006
Xbox 360 Microsoft 2005
PlayStation 3 Sony 2006
PlayStation Portable Sony 2004
Game Boy Advance Nintendo 2001
Nintendo Entertainment System Nintendo 1983
Nintendo 3DS

Nintendo 2011
Super Nintendo Entertainment System Nintendo
PlayStation 4

Sony 2013
Nintendo 64 Nintendo 1996
Sega Genesis Sega 1988
Atari 2600 Atari 1977
Xbox Microsoft 2001
GameCube Nintendo 2001
Wii U

Nintendo 2012
PlayStation Vita

Sony 2011
Master System Sega 1986
Sega Game Gear Sega 1990
Xbox One

Microsoft 2013
TurboGrafx-16 NEC/Hudson Soft1987
Sega Saturn Sega 1994
Dreamcast Sega 1998
Sega Pico Sega 1993
WonderSwan Bandai 1999
Color TV Game *[64] Nintendo 1977
Intellivision Mattel 1980
N-Gage Nokia 2003
ColecoVision Coleco 1982
Magnavox Odyssey² Magnavox/Philips 1978
Atari Lynx Atari 1989
Philips CD-i Philips 1991
Telstar *[76] Coleco 1976
Atari 5200 Atari 1982

SuperSmashGod : There's the proof with not just a cited source, but actually a full listing, that the NES absolutely had competition and was not a Monopoly. It sold very well and the most among the systems released around the same time, worldwide.

 

[SuperSmashGod]

Because I had no intention or desire to get into a debate. I was just remarking over something that tickled me.

Btw the NES wasn't the only third gen console. Perhaps you should look up some info if you're insinuating Nintendo were the "only ones offering games in the market". I mean the ratio of market share the PS2 experienced compared to its closest competitors was roughly the same as the one the NES experienced compared to, for example, the Master System (6:1). And you wouldn't say the PS2 literally "had no competition", or was the sole provider of games that gen, would you?

All of this can be looked up.

It was practically a monopoly, but if we do want to get really technical it did have competiton. Barley any competent competiton, but competiton still so I'll give you that.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

It was practically a monopoly, but if we do want to get really technical it did have competiton. Barley any competent competiton, but competiton still so I'll give you that.

Dude.

Atari was a huge giant back in the 80s.

It made bad decisions sure, but it's not like they meant nothing.

 

[Andinus]

Dude.

Atari was a huge giant back in the 80s.

It made bad decisions sure, but it's not like they meant nothing.

Well, yes, but Nintendo was just taking off in the midst of the crash, and consumers probably could see how superior nintendo was to Atari at that point, not to mention the lack of trust that must have developed to towards atari in terms of quality after the crash.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Well, yes, but Nintendo was just taking off in the midst of the crash, and consumers probably could see how superior nintendo was to Atari at that point, not to mention the lack of trust that must have developed to towards atari in terms of quality after the crash.

I never denied that.

I'm just saying, Nintendo had a big competitor and thus it wasn't a monopoly.

 

[Andinus]

I never denied that.

I'm just saying, Nintendo had a big competitor and thus it wasn't a monopoly.

I don't think it was a monopoly either but I think atari was pretty much irrelevant by 1985, at least that is how 7 year old me remembers it at the time.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I don't think it was a monopoly either but I think atari was pretty much irrelevant by 1985, at least that is how 7 year old me remembers it at the time.

The Atari 5200 actually discontinued after 2 years.

The Atari 2600 continued into the 1990's. Also, the 2600 didn't hit Japan till 1983. It seems like it just wasn't as active in the US and UK as much as Japan. It still was an immensely popular console, though. Those sales don't mean nothing.

You also have to remember at 6 years old you may not be able to go to every store or properly remember stuff. It does happen.

That said, being the 2600 was more huge than its sequel system sounds like this is a case of anecdotal evidence and doesn't really prove Atari wasn't doing well. I'm not finding anything to suggest is did poorly overall, bar that game crash. The fact it didn't get discontinued till the 1990's means something overall. That said, please do cite some information that the Atari(2600 specifically) was doing poorly by 1985. This is news to me and probably many others.

 

[Andinus]

The Atari 5200 actually discontinued after 2 years.

The Atari 2600 continued into the 1990's. Also, the 2600 didn't hit Japan till 1983. It seems like it just wasn't as active in the US and UK as much as Japan. It still was an immensely popular console, though. Those sales don't mean nothing.

You also have to remember at 6 years old you may not be able to go to every store or properly remember stuff. It does happen.

That said, being the 2600 was more huge than its sequel system sounds like this is a case of anecdotal evidence and doesn't really prove Atari wasn't doing well. I'm not finding anything to suggest is did poorly overall, bar that game crash. The fact it didn't get discontinued till the 1990's means something overall. That said, please do cite some information that the Atari(2600 specifically) was doing poorly by 1985. This is news to me and probably many others.

My memory is the only citation. My family had bought a 2600 (before my memory), and owned a 5200 (which still sucked compared to the NES) before I finally got my coveted NES in 87 or 88, the simple fact that i knew how much better the NES was than what we owned at the time is my proof the NES was better and the 2600 was obsolete

The fact is I have no proof, and I'm not going to bother to research it, but playing both consoles first hand i just can't even imagine how the 2600 could even compete past 1985. That thing felt like a relic after my hands first touched an NES controller, and I never looked back.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

My memory is the only citation. My family had a 2600 (before my memory), and owned a 5200 (which still sucked compared to the NES) before I finally got my coveted NES in 87 or 88, the simple fact that i knew how much better the NES was than what we owned at the time is my proof the NES was better and the 2600 was obsolete

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything useful for this thread.

No, I think it's fair to say the NES was the superior system in many ways. Sales and more proved that. It doesn't prove the Atari 2600 was somehow unpopular. Again, you're going to need to cite that. As a proper study or information. Cause at this moment, this is just your observation, not a proper study anyone can trust overall or take seriously.

Remember as well that you're making a huge claim. One that you expect us to take seriously, but with no evidence to do so. Do you see how bad this sounds to us?

Last but not least, it was already made a requirement to cite factual claims, so it really doesn't matter if your memory is good or not. If you claim it did badly as a fact, you should easily be able to back it up.

That said, you're free to agree to disagree or drop the point instead. Nobody is going to overall push you to provide something you don't have to. But it doesn't mean you're allowed to keep using a fallacious point either. It goes both ways. I'm sure we all have no issue respecting your opinion, and anybody who doesn't act respectful will clearly understand and learn the rules of Smashboards apply equally to them as well.

 

[Andinus]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything useful for this thread.

No, I think it's fair to say the NES was the superior system in many ways. Sales and more proved that. It doesn't prove the Atari 2600 was somehow unpopular. Again, you're going to need to cite that. As a proper study or information. Cause at this moment, this is just your observation, not a proper study anyone can trust overall or take seriously.

Remember as well that you're making a huge claim. One that you expect us to take seriously, but with no evidence to do so. Do you see how bad this sounds to us?

Last but not least, it was already made a requirement to cite factual claims, so it really doesn't matter if your memory is good or not. If you claim it did badly as a fact, you should easily be able to back it up.

That said, you're free to agree to disagree or drop the point instead. Nobody is going to overall push you to provide something you don't have to. But it doesn't mean you're allowed to keep using a fallacious point either. It goes both ways. I'm sure we all have no issue respecting your opinion, and anybody who doesn't act respectful will clearly understand and learn the rules of Smashboards apply equally to them as well.

Please go back and look at my edited post. In any case I feel no obligation to prove anything to anyone, you may be right the numbers actually show there was valid competition between NES and Atari by the late 80's, but the truth is by 1985 Atari was obsolete (technically) compared to Nintendo, and I saw that and so did all of my peers. Atari 2600 wasn't the big hit of birthday parties by that time, NES was, there is no comparison, so for you to say that Atari was somehow still competing, which might be statistically true, if you site a source for me, emotionally Atari was more than dead in the water to me and my peers by 1985.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Just saw the edit. I think we can end that conversation, then.

Moving on, do people think Mario Kart is an enhanced port or an actual new game simply using 8's engine to show off the Switch's capabilities(basically nothing more than a preview) at the moment.

 

[Andinus]

Just saw the edit. I think we can end that conversation, then.

Moving on, do people think Mario Kart is an enhanced port or an actual new game simply using 8's engine to show off the Switch's capabilities(basically nothing more than a preview) at the moment.

Well I would end it, but can you site me a source showing the 2600 to actually be competing against the NES in the late 80's, I mean, it is clear that I'm older than you and though my memory is not a citable source, it still puts the burden of proof upon yourself to me, to show that I'm wrong in my recollections of how the 2600 performed against the NES past 1985. I mean you can say all day that the 2600 was rocking it till 1990 beyond, but without a source, and the fact that I actually lived it, I actually implore you to prove me wrong.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Well I would end it, but can you site me a source showing the 2600 to actually be competing against the NES in the late 80's, I mean, it is clear that I'm older than you and though my memory is not a citable source, it still puts the burden of proof upon yourself to me, to show that I'm wrong in my recollections of how the 2600 performed against the NES past 1985. I mean you can say all day that the 2600 was rocking it till 1990 beyond, but without a source, and the fact that I actually lived it, I actually implore you to prove me wrong.

Actually, I didn't make any such claim. I said it was discontinued in 1990, and I'm wondering why it was.

I was wondering if you knew. You didn't specifically know, just had some personal experience only. I fully respect your opinion, but keep in mind I did cite its sales specifically. Being it didn't end till the 1990's(which I did cite), its final sales imply it was popular till not long before it got discontinued, when it obviously wouldn't be popular enough to stay on the market. Remember that it did stay on the market before and after the 5200. My main claims were cited. What my claim is is this; "I'm guessing it was popular till it was discontinued". Definitely not calling this a fact, since I can't back it up. I hope this clears up the confusion.

I'm guessing it was popular enough to stay afloat for around 13 some years, namely that it continued to be popular for a very long time. And wasn't just "in a drought" after the the 5200 continued. I actually did see it around, but all that proves is obviously somebody did like it. I can't claim numbers nor was I intending to.

But I did word my point wrong anyway, so apologies. You took my guess as a claim, due to my poor wording. My bad, man.

For the record, though, your age doesn't mean that much. From the sound of it, we're both in our 30's anyway. What matters is how you act, not your exact age(unless there's something that requires a specific age, like when to join a website). I'm 33, but should that really matter anyway? As long as you're 13 or older, it doesn't matter here.(13 is the required age to join this site, to note)

 

[Andinus]

Actually, I didn't make any such claim. I said it was discontinued in 1990, and I'm wondering why it was.

I was wondering if you knew. You didn't specifically know, just had some personal experience only. I fully respect your opinion, but keep in mind I did cite its sales specifically. Being it didn't end till the 1990's(which I did cite), its final sales imply it was popular till not long before it got discontinued, when it obviously wouldn't be popular enough to stay on the market. Remember that it did stay on the market before and after the 5200. My main claims were cited.

I'm guessing it was popular enough to stay afloat for around 13 some years, namely that it continued to be popular for a very long time. And wasn't just "in a drought" after the the 5200 continued. I actually did see it around, but all that proves is obviously somebody did like it. I can't claim numbers nor was I intending to.

But I did word my point wrong anyway, so apologies. You took my guess as a claim, due to my poor wording. My bad, man.

For the record, though, your age doesn't mean that much. From the sound of it, we're both in our 30's anyway. What matters is how you act, not your exact age(unless there's something that requires a specific age, like when to join a website). I'm 33, but should that really matter anyway? As long as you're 13 or older, it doesn't matter here.(13 is the required age to join this site, to note)

Well final sales and annual sales probably show different things, but I think the 2600 was way better than the 5200, in terms of fun factor, the 5200 just tried to cash in on graphical improvements, and failed miserably IMO. But my point was that I despite total sales numbers, I think the 2600 had next to no impact on the market past 1985, I know it sold until 1992, but my gut is that was all nostalgia by the time 1990 hit, not unlike what we are seeing now, when consoles of "days of yore" are reproduced or created to feed upon the sensibilities of people of our generation, like the NES classic, which scalpers are ****** us for right now.

 

[SuperSmashGod]

What competition?

They all want to make money and provide their customers with good products.

They can all do it without "winning" over the other. In fact the big three want each of the others to succeed.

If the the Switch has to be the best selling thing in the generation to be a success, then was the PS3 a failure? How about the Xbox consoles? The GameCube and N64? Because all of those "lost" their respective generations (but still made lots of money and good games).

Honestly, the only people who see a "winner" are the Internet fanboys.the only thing the console manufacturers care about is if they sell enough to make a profit. If the Switch makes a profit, then it'll be a success.

I'm talking about the ultimate success, beating the competition. nothing else was relevant in my discussion because that's what it was about. Of course they can be successful in terms of making money in general. But im not talking about that. I'm talking about them beating the competing.

And If we are being 100% real here being able to compete is very necessary in the console gaming businesses. Otherwise they should just do something else entirely. You don't go to a eating contest and say "I''m just doing my own thing" when you are losing. If they aren't tryna compete why arw they even there? They can't make a good profit in last place.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I'm talking about the ultimate success, beating the competition. nothing else was relevant in my discussion because that's what it was about. Of course they can be successful in terms of making money in general. But im not talking about that. I'm talking about them beating the competing.

And If we are being 100% real here being able to compete is very necessary in the console gaming businesses. Otherwise they should just do something else entirely. You don't go to a eating contest and say "I''m just doing my own thing" when you are losing. If they aren't tryna compete why arw they even there? They can't make a good profit in last place.

Competing in the market is a lot different than beating other people in the market. The economy has never been like that. If they "beat" everyone in the market, then you have a form of a monopoly.

I'm saying you don't have to "win" to be a success or make a profit.

Like if a guy buys a PS4, an Xbox One and a Switch, does any party even lose there?

The market isn't about being the best, its about selling the product and if you can sell your product enough to make a healthy profit, you win, even if its in "last place."

Competition in this sense isn't about winning and losing against your competitors. It's about the big push to make your product stand out in some way and thus give people a reason to buy it whether it be through price/unique features/games/power/etc.

 

[SuperSmashGod]

Because I had no intention or desire to get into a debate. I was just remarking over something that tickled me.

Btw the NES wasn't the only third gen console. Perhaps you should look up some info if you're insinuating Nintendo were the "only ones offering games in the market". I mean the ratio of market share the PS2 experienced compared to its closest competitors was roughly the same as the one the NES experienced compared to, for example, the Master System (6:1). And you wouldn't say the PS2 literally "had no competition", or was the sole provider of games that gen, would you?

All of this can be looked up.

The NES was practically a monopoly. But if we wanna get technical there were other competitors like the Atari for example. They where absolutely no competition, and I'm pretty sure they where near dead consoles when the NES arrived on the scene.But competitors none the less. So, I'll give you that one. But I don't take back what I said about it being a monopoly as it pretty much was one, but I'll hold dis L.

 

[finalark]

The NES was practically a monopoly. But if we wanna get technical there were other competitors like the Atari for example. They where absolutely no competition, and I'm pretty sure they where near dead consoles when the NES arrived on the scene.But competitors none the less. So, I'll give you that one. But I don't take back what I said about it being a monopoly as it pretty much was one, but I'll hold dis L.

The NES was only really a monopoly in NA and Japan. Don't forget Master System did well in Europe and Brazil. Hell, the damn thing is so big in Brazil you can still buy one in 2016.

 

[SuperSmashGod]

Competing in the market is a lot different than beating other people in the market. The economy has never been like that. If they "beat" everyone in the market, then you have a form of a monopoly.

I'm saying you don't have to "win" to be a success or make a profit.

Like if a guy buys a PS4, an Xbox One and a Switch, does any party even lose there?

The market isn't about being the best, its about selling the product and if you can sell your product enough to make a healthy profit, you win, even if its in "last place."

Competition in this sense isn't about winning and losing against your competitors. It's about the big push to make your product stand out in some way and thus give people a reason to buy it whether it be through price/unique features/games/power/etc.

I thought we already cleared the whole it doesn't need to beat it's competitors to be a success thing?

Setting aside the whole personal views on what is considered success in the gaming industry(there are no consistent grounds for a success it can be whatever you see fit really), I was specifically talking about beating the competition. So I don't understand how we keep going into what a success is or isn't. I don't want to discuss the ideaology of success. I am simply clearing up what I meant in my own terms when I said success. I was speaking on beating the competition at the time I made my original post. I'm not saying that's the definitive success that's just the context I was using. Since my conversations have been derailed so far from my original post I don't even remember why I brought it up in the first place.

So on that note I really have nothing more to say.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I thought we already cleared the whole it doesn't need to beat it's competitors to be a success thing?

We didn't as you seem to think there's some imaginary contest they have to win.

Setting aside the whole personal views on what is considered success in the gaming industry(there are no consistent grounds for a success it can be whatever you see fit really),

Success is money. If it makes a profit, it is a success. It is the one consistent ground. I don't know why you aren't counting it.

I was specifically talking about beating the competition.

Answer me this.

Why do they have to beat the competition?

I don't think the Xbox's goal in life is to sell more copies than the Playstation and vice versa.

Markets aren't about beating competition. It's about making profit ideally with the competition also making money to avoid a monopoly.

Even then, what the hell do you mean by "beating the competition?"

Trounce them in profits?

Make the best system ever?

Best games?

You're going around talking about how "success" is personal (it isn't) and you don't even define your own definition. Only thing I can think of is Nintendo domination and as someone who's invested in Nintendo hardware all my life, I don't want that. I like my 360 and PS4 too.

So I don't understand how we keep going into what a success is or isn't.

Because your definition isn't clear.

It comes off like a petty fanboy war. I don't think that's what you mean but I suggest clarifying your points, because its coming off that way.

I was speaking on beating the competition at the time I made my original post.

So, to you, is the Switch a failure if it doesn't sell more than the Ps4 and/or Xbox One? Is that your point? Because I frankly can't tell what you mean and judging by some of the reactions around here, I don't think others understand either...

See I was talking about Nintendo competing with the switch and of it can't compete it won't ever m stand it's own grounds in the market.

I never said if it didn't compete it wouldn't sell.

That's blatant economics.

I'm saying that the Switch doesn't have to "win" to stand its ground. Even though the Wii trounced both the PS3 and Xbox 360 in sales, all three were pretty good after all, made fans happy, made a profit and made their impact.

 

[SuperSmashGod]

The NES was only really a monopoly in NA and Japan. Don't forget Master System did well in Europe and Brazil. Hell, the damn thing is so big in Brazil you can still buy one in 2016.

I'm not sure about that one. I'll have to look that up. The NES still was practically a monopoly though so no point arguing that.

 

[finalark]

I'm not sure about that one. I'll have to look that up. The NES was still basically a monopoly though.

I mean

http://jogos.uol.com.br/ultimas-not...po-master-system-ja-vendeu-8-mi-no-brasil.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_System

1 million sold in Japan.
2 million NA
6.8 million Euro
8 million Brazil

Yes, other consoles that weren't the NES were plenty successful in the late 80s.

 

[SuperSmashGod]

We didn't as you seem to think there's some imaginary contest they have to win.

Success is money. If it makes a profit, it is a success. It is the one consistent ground. I don't know why you aren't counting it.


Answer me this.

Why do they have to beat the competition?

I don't think the Xbox's goal in life is to sell more copies than the Playstation and vice versa.

Markets aren't about beating competition. It's about making profit ideally with the competition also making money to avoid a monopoly.

Even then, what the hell do you mean by "beating the competition?"

Trounce them in profits?

Make the best system ever?

Best games?

You're going around talking about how "success" is personal (it isn't) and you don't even define your own definition. Only thing I can think of is Nintendo domination and as someone who's invested in Nintendo hardware all my life, I don't want that. I like my 360 and PS4 too.



Because your definition isn't clear.

It comes off like a petty fanboy war. I don't think that's what you mean but I suggest clarifying your points, because its coming off that way.


So, to you, is the Switch a failure if it doesn't sell more than the Ps4 and/or Xbox One? Is that your point? Because I frankly can't tell what you mean and judging by some of the reactions around here, I don't think others understand either...


I never said if it didn't compete it wouldn't sell.

That's blatant economics.

I'm saying that the Switch doesn't have to "win" to stand its ground. Even though the Wii trounced both the PS3 and Xbox 360 in sales, all three were pretty good after all, made fans happy, made a profit and made their impact.

I was clear from the beginning what I meant when I said success. But I said it originally to the moderator though. The problem here is that I was having a discussion with the moderator, everything I said about Nintendo is in reference to my conversation with the mod. Everyone else that has been replying has derailed the subject, so much so I don't even know what my original point was. I forgot what I was even talking about originally.

So basically, I ain't got anything else to say here.

 

[N3ON]

The NES was practically a monopoly. But if we wanna get technical there were other competitors like the Atari for example. They where absolutely no competition, and I'm pretty sure they where near dead consoles when the NES arrived on the scene.But competitors none the less. So, I'll give you that one. But I don't take back what I said about it being a monopoly as it pretty much was one, but I'll hold dis L.

1. This is the second time you responded to the same post I made.
2. The Master System showed up after the NES.
3. Not everything has to be a competition, especially posting.

Also, more in general, your metric for success is different than everybody else's, as well as the industry and economy at large, plus it's pretty myopic, partisan, and fanboyish, so don't expect people to affirm, place value in, or really care about how you specifically measure it.

 

[SuperSmashGod]

1. This is the second time you responded to the same post I made.
2. The Master System showed up after the NES.
3. Not everything has to be a competition, especially posting.

Also, more in general, your metric for success is different than everybody else's, as well as the industry and economy at large, plus it's pretty myopic, partisan, and fanboyish, so don't expect people to affirm, place value in, or really care about how you specifically measure it.

Must be some glitch. i only responded once. I know how rules on forums work, so i don't need to be reminded of what not to do.

My statements on success are in reference to my conversation with the moderator. It's not my personal view. It's in context to a statement i made earlier. Its not my metric for success as i've said so many times its absurd at this point. Whats so hard about understanding this? This is actually getting annoying now! I couldn't care less about console wars! So i don't care about which console sells the most. When you jump into a conversation that didn't start with you, then maybe next time make sure you know whats being said. It's funny you think i'm hung up on competition just because i admitted i was wrong though. I don't know how admitting one is wrong implies there was a competition for being right. Got to be the most random thing I've heard so far.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Must be some glitch. i only responded once. I know how rules on forums work, so i don't need to be reminded of what not to do.

My statements on success are in reference to my conversation with the moderator. It's not my personal view. It's in context to a statement i made earlier. Its not my metric for success as i've said so many times its absurd at this point. Whats so hard about understanding this? This is actually getting annoying now! I couldn't care less about console wars! So i don't care about which console sells the most. When you jump into a conversation that didn't start with you, then maybe next time make sure you know whats being said. It's funny you think i'm hung up on competition just because i admitted i was wrong though. I don't know how admitting one is wrong implies there was a competition for being right. Got to be the most random thing I've heard so far.

I have a blatant name. I'm not the "the moderator". You can talk to me like a person, please. Keep in mind you didn't edit your post or report it to ask for a merge. So I couldn't tell it was a glitch. Just find a way to let us know and we'll gladly merge it for you without issues. If it was an error and we didn't know, but gave you a Warning/Infraction for the double post, you can again inform us of the error. The thing about double posts is many times they're accidents. But unless we know, it can look like deliberately ignoring the rules. We can't tell. Our goal is to get you to stop breaking the rules, specifically. Lastly, one thing you'll find out is that trying to tag someone(that's one @ (with a name) gets you, also don't have a space between @ and the username) or quote someone, it won't work if you edit it in. If this is a case and you need to double post to do so, do it but absolutely and immediately let us know you need it merged and it'll be done so without an issue. For instance, SuperSmashGod . You'll notice how you don't get tagged? I edited it in. Doesn't work.

In addition, if somebody missed what you said, just quote/cite your previous statements as clarification if they misunderstood. Nobody can remember everything. You can easily link to your own posts.

Just carefully put together your thoughts, and put it in one full post. Don't reply directly to someone, make one unique post. This will help out as well. I don't like that the misunderstanding keeps happening either. But we can't do much without your input. As annoying as it is, it's up to you to clear this misunderstanding up since we can't get an understanding of your point in a consistent manner. I actually thought you cared about profits to an extreme point as Swamp is saying. I didn't get the impression from any of your posts otherwise either.

I'm sure you noticed a misunderstanding involving me and another user up above. The first thing I did was outright clarify it when I realized what was going on. This is a very useful method to break any and all misunderstandings. Being I am even misunderstanding you, I actually can't do more to help you here besides give a suggestion of what to do to clear this up.

 

[SuperSmashGod]

I have a blatant name. I'm not the "the moderator". You can talk to me like a person, please. Keep in mind you didn't edit your post or report it to ask for a merge. So I couldn't tell it was a glitch. Just find a way to let us know and we'll gladly merge it for you without issues. If it was an error and we didn't know, but gave you a Warning/Infraction for the double post, you can again inform us of the error. The thing about double posts is many times they're accidents. But unless we know, it can look like deliberately ignoring the rules. We can't tell. Our goal is to get you to stop breaking the rules, specifically. Lastly, one thing you'll find out is that trying to tag someone(that's one @ (with a name) gets you, also don't have a space between @ and the username) or quote someone, it won't work if you edit it in. If this is a case and you need to double post to do so, do it but absolutely and immediately let us know you need it merged and it'll be done so without an issue. For instance, SuperSmashGod . You'll notice how you don't get tagged? I edited it in. Doesn't work.

In addition, if somebody missed what you said, just quote/cite your previous statements as clarification if they misunderstood. Nobody can remember everything. You can easily link to your own posts.

Just carefully put together your thoughts, and put it in one full post. Don't reply directly to someone, make one unique post. This will help out as well. I don't like that the misunderstanding keeps happening either. But we can't do much without your input. As annoying as it is, it's up to you to clear this misunderstanding up since we can't get an understanding of your point in a consistent manner. I actually thought you cared about profits to an extreme point as Swamp is saying. I didn't get the impression from any of your posts otherwise either.

I'm sure you noticed a misunderstanding involving me and another user up above. The first thing I did was outright clarify it when I realized what was going on. This is a very useful method to break any and all misunderstandings. Being I am even misunderstanding you, I actually can't do more to help you here besides give a suggestion of what to do to clear this up.

Ok fine then. But i am not trying to be mean to anyone here Irene this is just the way i talk. I am just a little frustrated. I also just call moderators mods sometimes. I wasn't trying to offend you or N3ON.

 

[Guybrush20X6]

I'm looking forward to people making custom controller cases for Joycons. 3D printing means it's easier than ever and there's a lot of controllers you could convert.

 

[Deleted member]

Not gonna lie, that was actually pretty cool.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Switch exclusive, being revealed in Dec, gameplay trailer complete and ready for release. pic.twitter.com/vFjbzNoWZg

— Laura Kate Dale - Bluesky @LauraKBuzz.bsky.social (@LaurakBuzz) December 8, 2016

I'm starting to think power isn't going to be an issue.

 

[N3ON]

Oh wow, the Switch is thinner than my wallet will be come March.

Ok fine then. But i am not trying to be mean to anyone here Irene this is just the way i talk. I am just a little frustrated. I also just call moderators mods sometimes. I wasn't trying to offend you or N3ON.

No worries, no offence was taken. ^_^

Not gonna lie, that was actually pretty cool.

Jimmy knows his Zelda anecdotes.

Switch exclusive, being revealed in Dec, gameplay trailer complete and ready for release. pic.twitter.com/vFjbzNoWZg

— Laura Kate Dale - Bluesky @LauraKBuzz.bsky.social (@LaurakBuzz) December 8, 2016

I'm starting to think power isn't going to be an issue.

I mean it's not gonna be a PS4, but it's also not going to be just another Wii U either.

 

[Deleted member]

I mean it's not gonna be a PS4, but it's also not going to be just another Wii U either.

This.

It's just a bunch of bullshots Swamp. Devs always screen their games running on their dev software for promotional purposes, because they run and look better on PC. Happened with BotW, and XCX, and well, pretty much anything.

Plus, this is an indie dev studio using generic UE4 assets (many people over on /v/ recognized a lot from the engine), so don't expect much prowess or expertise as the Frenchies are just starting out.

We can already guess more or less how powerful the Switch will be based on benchmarks. No need to get worked up over screenshots taken from a development build running on PC hardware.

 

[Mr. Oshawott]

I have high hopes for the Nintendo Switch. The graphics from LoZ: Breath of the Wild look great on it! Plus, it's said to be region-free...

 

[N3ON]

Another console exclusive indie announced for the Switch. (Though it's also coming to PC)

It's a pretty nothing trailer to be sure, but it's nice to see the system getting that indie support. Though that's not something Nintendo has ever really struggled with. I still hope games like Owlboy and Hyper Light Drifter will find their way to the system; those are more my speed.

 

[N3ON]

I bring you the next daily indie game for Switch tease with this double post. ;P

Sneaky ****s haha.

Before you say this is reading too much into it, this game has already been hinted at before for Switch.