Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
Nintendo isn't dead, but can't compete with Playstation as a traditional console.Both Xbox and Nintendo?
They needed the handheld demographic as leverage to reach the success it has now.
Nintendo isn't dead, but can't compete with Playstation as a traditional console.Both Xbox and Nintendo?
Nintendo isn't dead, but can't compete with Playstation as a traditional console.
They needed the handheld demographic as leverage to reach the success it has now.
There is no succes for GP and cloud gaming. Xbox is dead.So Xbox isn’t dead, but can’t compete with PlayStation as a traditional console. They needed Game Pass and cloud gaming to reach success.
Got it.
There is no succes for GP and cloud gaming. Xbox is dead.
You're a special kind of stupid, huh?
Nonsense. There is nothing stopping people and or households from purchasing multiple switches the same way they did multiple DS’s or Wiis. Unless you are trying to suggest that the Switch hardware profit margins and attach rates are so high that it somehow exceeds the massive installed bases of the Wii and DS — which again, I would say nonsense.This is a failed argument and makes absolutely no sense to use for the switch.
Back then, Nintendo DS and Wii had two completely different libraries, you could see houses having several very very cheap Nintendo DS due to how cheap they were.
Right now there's basically no reason to have multiple switches for a single person since Lite and normal have same library, but houses can have multiple switches anyway for different people which is way bigger profit margin then Wii and DS combined.
It's simply a too different scenario and in terms of sales, switch is more sustained and brings more money to them. They lost nothing, but the opposite.
For stating the obvious?You’re a special kind of asshole, huh?
Again, the implication is that if it's not a stationary home console, it simply doesn't count.Nintendo isn't dead, but can't compete with Playstation as a traditional console.
They needed the handheld demographic as leverage to reach the success it has now.
They've made more money in the Switch generation than they did in the DSWii generation.Nintendo consolidated markets to help recover from the dumpster fire that was the Wii U. The Switch has been very successful but nowhere near as successful as they were with the one-two punch of the Wii + DS.
I highly doubt the Switch demographic is interested in PC gaming.Again, the implication is that if it's not a stationary home console, it simply doesn't count.
Which is a moronic take.
Nintendo entered the videogame market with the Game and Watch, a portable wristband device.
The unsaid statement is that Nintendo doesn't compete against Sony in checkers anymore, now they're playing 4d chess and winning heavily.
The future looks more like a Switch+PC than a PS5 alone, correct?
Eh, PS5 exclusives are fine. They just need more of them.They'll be fine, but Nintendo has relied on their gimmicks and first parties. If either of those are not exciting or innovative, their sales slump for 5 years. This happens fairly often.
Sony just needs to not build another PS3. Easy. I would argue PS5 exclusives are worse than all PlayStation consoles at this point in its life, or at least arguably close to dead last. But they're still killing it.
What about interest? Today if you wanna play all current gen Nintendo games you can do so on switch alone, back then you would have needed DS and Wii, both. Nothing stops you from buying things, except for a reason why. By the same logic nothing stops you from buying two PS5.Nonsense. There is nothing stopping people and or households from purchasing multiple switches the same way they did multiple DS’s or Wiis.
The only mistake Nintendo could make is not having backwards compatibility.Even Nintendo is taking their time moving off Switch. Hopefully they nail it, but there is just as much chance they mess it up.
Why would there be more overlap on systems that broadly share the same library?I highly doubt the Switch demographic is interested in PC gaming.
Sure, there will alway be some overlap, but it's more probably that it's going to be PC+PS5.
He knows that. We know that.Why would there be more overlap on systems that broadly share the same library?
Nintendo's success has been down to the fact that gamers choose between PC, Playstation and Xbox......and then they pick up a Switch as well.
Sorry I didn't realise I was beaten 10 times already
The vast majority of gamers buys only 1 system and Nintendo's installbase largely exists of casual gamers and kids.Why would there be more overlap on systems that broadly share the same library?
Nintendo's success has been down to the fact that gamers choose between PC, Playstation and Xbox......and then they pick up a Switch as well.
What are you talking about?The vast majority of gamers buys only 1 system and Nintendo's installbase largely exists of casual gamers and kids.
Nintendo's success with Switch lies in the handheld-demographic (Wii with the housemoms and grannies), not the traditional console-gaming demographic.
Of people pay attention to what Sony, Ryan and Layden have said, is that they are going to reach beyond the PlayStation installbase and get those gamers into the PlayStation eco-system and on PS consoles.
They don't even have to leave the PC platform, they just have to buy a PS5 in addition.
Ofcourse there will be casuals on Playstation.What are you talking about?
Sony has built its brand off being the home of casual games.
FIFA/Madden/GTA/2K/COD.
Those are the casual titles that sell the most year after year.
Many people just buy those titles above yearly, and that's it. It gets no more casual/basic gamer starter pack than that.
The only mistake Nintendo could make is not having backwards compatibility.
I don't think anything about the WiiU was "traditional".Ofcourse there will be casuals on Playstation.
What you highlighted doesn't state otherwise.
But as I stated in my edit, WiiU showed what happens if Nintendo tries to go the traditional route.
Same as N64 and Gamecube.
Wii was an outlier and Switch is a hybrid, that heavily relies on the Nintendo handheld-demographic.
In no way am I saying Nintendo is dying or can't compete with Playstation, but it's not going to be as a traditional console.
Traditional as in console-space, not a console/handheld hybrid.I don't think anything about the WiiU was "traditional".
WiiU's problem imo is that it wasn't traditional enough.Ofcourse there will be casuals on Playstation.
What you highlighted doesn't state otherwise.
But as I stated in my edit, WiiU showed what happens if Nintendo tries to go the traditional route.
Same as N64 and Gamecube.
Wii was an outlier and Switch is a hybrid, that heavily relies on the Nintendo handheld-demographic.
In no way am I saying Nintendo is dying or can't compete with Playstation, but it's not going to be as a traditional console.
No, but we have sales numbers so far:WiiU's problem imo is that it wasn't traditional enough.
I'm a fan of Nintendo but I didn't even consider buying a WiiU as it just wasn't attractive to me.
I'm not interested in two screen stationary gaming, and the market felt the same.
We'll never be able to say if the market would've been receptive to a somewhat powerful traditional Nintendo stationary console to follow-up the Wii because we never got it.
We got a weird half-hearted handheld/stationary amalgamation with a spec base that matched the prior gens offering from the other two.
How is it not direct competition if as the poster above you outlined, they're sold in the same spaces?Nintendo ran from direct competition with PlayStation decades ago and ALL of us know It. They complement each other nowadays.
MS insisted It and now Will bring their games to PlayStation.
You’re a special kind of asshole, huh?
How is it not direct competition if as the poster above you outlined, they're sold in the same spaces?
Nintendo is in the arena with Sony, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Netflix, Disney+, Max, etc.
It's like that old Yamauchi quote: "They're all entertainment products so they're all competing for those disposable income dollars. It's not basic necessities here."
That makes no sense.Fact is, without the handheld demographic, Nintendo would be left in the dust again
What section am I supoosedly trying to discard?That makes no sense.
You're trying to discard an overwhelming section of the videogame market to prove a counter factual.
No, but we have sales numbers so far:
Playstation - 102M
Nintendo 64 - 33M
Playstation 2 - 155M
Gamecube - 28M
PS3 - 87M
Wii - 101M
PS4 - 117M
Wii U - 15M
Switch - 139M
Things get muddy after Wii U flopped, as Nintendo killed it early, causing Switch to release mid-gen.
Nintendo doesn't do well against Sony if they compete head-on.
Switch is combining the Nintendo console and handheld installbases, which is the perfect formula for Nintendo.
It also creates a situation where Nintendo doesn't have to compete with Playstation head-on, so both can thrive.
It's basically a win-win situation for both.
"Usage by household" not "Purchase per household". Its a survey based on whose actually playing the device.Adults buy the devices for children and some for themselves.
As example
COD and GTA are bought by Adults but mainly played children.
The largest games are mainly played by children. Children aren't buying these devices/games.
You're trying to claim that the handheld market doesn't really count.What section am I supoosedly trying to discard?
And nothing about this is counter-factual:
Not at all.You're trying to claim that the handheld market doesn't really count.
So when I play Tears of the Kingdom in handheld, I morph into a different type of video gamer?Not at all.
I'm saying it's a different demographic.
Again, not at all.So when I play Tears of the Kingdom in handheld, I morph into a different type of video gamer?
You're drawing a ring around static console gaming and claiming that is the sole metric of success.
OK, but is Nintendo or Microsoft the bottom?
There is definitely interest. Nintendo, overall, still makes the best games of the big 3. I think the argument, however, is that their share contracted with the WiiU and the Switch numbers we are seeing aren't indicative of “Nintendo is bigger and more successful than they have ever been.”What about interest? Today if you wanna play all current gen Nintendo games you can do so on switch alone, back then you would have needed DS and Wii, both. Nothing stops you from buying things, except for a reason why. By the same logic nothing stops you from buying two PS5.
He didn't say that at all.So when I play Tears of the Kingdom in handheld, I morph into a different type of video gamer?
You're drawing a ring around static console gaming and claiming that is the sole metric of success.
Why do some Sony stans try so hard to downplay Nintendos success, so weird.
I meant, interest for a single person to own more than one switch since all first party library is in a single platform instead of two, which is why I say that comparing switch with DS + Wii makes no sense, specially with switch alone makes more money for Nintendo than both of them didThere is definitely interest. Nintendo, overall, still makes the best games of the big 3. I think the argument, however, is that their share contracted with the WiiU and the Switch numbers we are seeing aren't indicative of “Nintendo is bigger and more successful than they have ever been.”