gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
Ok so why isn't the Nintendo game boy
Why isn't the Nintendo Gameboy what? A games console? it is a games console.
Ok so why isn't the Nintendo game boy
Its cheap, portable and advertises to parents of little kids. Of course it sells amazing.
The average Switch owner is in their 20s, it goes far far far beyond "kid appeal" and there isn't a 'curse'.Its crazy that a console that sells this much can manage to be the less relevant to game development in general, Its evident that its success comes mainly from the kid gift appeal, a bless and a curse at the same time.
Yes marketing is important too, but I was talking about hardware not software. i.e the most important reason for the sales of a video game console is its software lineup.Not disagreeing with you, but it's also extremely important to get big publishers to push their marketing, marketing sells too. For example, PES was better than FIFA for a while, but EA's massive brand and marketing ensured that FIFA stayed on top. Having big publishers sell their games on your console is just as important as great games, because they are usually the ones who reach the casual markets.
Or maybe people are buying the Switch because they enjoy the games on the platform? or are you implying 100+ million Switches were bought solely for people's kids?
The vast majority of active Switch users are over 18.
Go to page 8.
Nov 5 2021 Briefing
Or maybe people are buying the Switch because they enjoy the games on the platform? or are you implying 100+ million Switches were bought solely for people's kids?
The vast majority of active Switch users are over 18.
Go to page 8.
Nov 5 2021 Briefing
The average Switch owner is in their 20s, it goes far far far beyond "kid appeal" and there isn't a 'curse'.
We will talk about that when nintendo releases actual numbers.
The graph doesn't need to have exact numbers to show that the number of adults is far far higher than the number of kids. The Switch appeals to kids in the same way it appeals to teenagers, people in their 20s, people their 30s, people in their 40s etc. etc. etc.We will talk about that when nintendo releases actual numbers.
Weren’t you the one who said it was;
“evident that its success comes mainly from the kid gift appeal”
, without any actual numbers in the first place?
The graph doesn't need to have exact numbers to show that the number of adults is far far higher than the number of kids. The Switch appeals to kids in the same way it appeals to teenagers, people in their 20s, people their 30s, people in their 40s etc. etc. etc.
? switch turns 5 in march, buddyI dont understand the success. Come on nintendo bring out the pro and let me learn. (i know its not happening)
Edit: actually is there any chance for a switch 2 next year? Switch would be on its 7 year by then. Crazy.
No, it doesn't. We can clearly see that the bars for players 20-30 are higher than players who are 10-20.It has to show numbers if it is a half serious data graph.
No, it doesn't. We can clearly see that the bars for players 20-30 are higher than players who are 10-20.
Ok.. And you’re seriously arguing that your “personal inference” is somehow better than an actual distribution chart provided by Nintendo?My inference was based on personal experience not numbers.
I'm sure Nintendo is super interested in misrepresenting the age distribution hidden in some quarterly report.Yes it does, otherwise graphs can be manipulated.
How would this graph that Nintendo made for their investors be manipulated? They have bars for each age and you can compare one bar to another. We can see that there are more players who are 40 than there are who are 50. We can see that there are more players who are 30 than there are who are 10. The graph allows us to make these comparisons.Yes it does, otherwise graphs can be manipulated.
Yeah but what's the real userbase
I know you do but I don't count pack-in gamesgiven that their best selling titles selling in 20-45 million range, you can bet the real user base is near 100 million
but Perry, most units sold aren't from pack-insI know you do but I don't count pack-in games
Nintendo owners are like iPhone users so..I doubt that's the true userbase.
But that doesn't matter, it still reached that so congrats to Nintendo
but Perry, most units sold aren't from pack-ins
I would say the minority of people had both Wii and Nintendo DS. Same applies to 3DS and Wii U.
Sure, we are in a video-game forum and we have a perception that everyone is hyper engaged and enthusiastic about video-games, but when we see the real world most people only play on one platform.
In my perception, Switch only passed the mark of Nintendo handheld playerbase from last generation. It's going to take a while for them to really express numbers compatible with a hybrid approach.
I think your numbers about SNES/N64/Game Cube are off, because back in the day there was a lot of overlap between Game Boy Color/Advanced and Nintendo DS.
I remember when the DS was going to be the 3rd “pillar” for Nintendo. We would have a regular console and two portables in the DS and next Game Boy, obviously that never happened. Now we just have one pillar.
I agree it’s silly to hold Switch sales to that standard and it has a lot of sales left in it’s life but I suppose in terms of total hardware sold in a “gen” it isn’t yet Nintendo’s top.
What games that are AAA with great graphics and gameplay were held back by the good graphics?What games are you thinking about from the AAA space that doesn't focus on gameplay?
I never mentioned anything about a Switch without a screen.
Also its very clear by now that power does not really relate to sales. The Vita was outsold by the less powerful 3DS, same with the PSP and Vita, Wii and 360, and PS2 and Gamecube. In all those comparisons the less powerful device sold more. What matters most of all is games.
Switch primarily sells from Nintendo's third party titles, and a hybrid platform from Xbox or PlayStation would not have prevented that. Their existence would have helped the Nintnedo platform in some ways, as then third parties would have a bigger userbase of hybrid-level hardware to aim at so Western third parties would have more games they could bring to Switch.
Why isn't the Nintendo Gameboy what? A games console? it is a games console.
You are the one who made the statement about indie games and gameplay focus, not me.What games that are AAA with great graphics and gameplay were held back by the good graphics?
You are the one who made the statement about indie games and gameplay focus, not me.
Sony and Microsoft are not in an entirely different market, there is plenty of crossover. Handhelds are difficult because you have to know how to make games that play well on such a device without feeling like a home console downgrade, Nintendo has specialized in this ever since the Game Boy, it's not easy, it's just that they are just absolutely incredible at it.
There is crossover because the Switch is also a home console, and appeals to home console owners. Nintendo is trying to get a lot of the same consumers who buy Xbox or Playstation systems.The handheld market is a completely different market than non-handhelds. That's really not up for debate, man. Also, my post wasn't anti-Nintendo at all. Nintendo has done a good job. I was just saying it's not exactly fair to compare a product with no real competition to other products that are directly competing with each other. You're free to disagree with that take of course. That's just my opinion.
There is crossover because the Switch is also a home console, and appeals to home console owners. Nintendo is trying to get a lot of the same consumers who buy Xbox or Playstation systems.
You just don't automatically sell because no other company does handhelds now, there is a lot more to it. Nothing about it is easy, I'm not sure what you think it's unfair to compare it to.
I see your "Nintendo's handheld monopoly" and raise you a "steamdeck"....if Nintendo truly had a monopoly the steamdeck would never gave been conceived.It was a good idea to merge their home console and handheld business, combined into a single device and userbase it seems bigger. And now having the monopoly of portable consoles it's working even better.
But I think that their handhelds monopoly won't last for another generation, I think that in the mid term PC based handheld will each a huge chunk of the handheld market share due to having there the entire history of PC gaming plus emulators of Switch, PS3, 360 and basically any previous gaming system and game ever released.
The recent Aya Neo Next already runs many Switch or PS3 games at full speed and Steam Deck seems to be better in some areas (worst in other ones). Since they keep improving in horsepower and pricing, I think that at the time of the Switch successor release, let's say in 2 or 3 years, we may already have PC handhelds in the market running perfectly the emulators of the mentioned devices plus modern PC games in ever better conditions than SteamDeck. Plus since they are PCs will have full access to Steam's catalog plus a more matured than now Gamepas, Spartacus and so on.
It's a fact that Nintendo has a handheld monopoly, because it's the only handheld console in the market. In fact, Steamdeck will be more a PC handheld than handheld console.I see your "Nintendo's handheld monopoly" and raise you a "steamdeck"....if Nintendo truly had a monopoly the steamdeck would never gave been conceived.
This is what the Internet has done to facts and evidence.My inference was based on personal experience not numbers.
A monopoly is a type of market where there is only one producer AND no other producer can enter the market.It's a fact that Nintendo has a handheld monopoly, because it's the only handheld console in the market. In fact, Steamdeck will be more a PC handheld than handheld console.
Bullshit, a monopoly is when someone owns almost the totality, or the totality, of the market share. Obviously others can join because we're in a free market. Nintendo right now has the monopoly of the portable consoles because they are the only ones making them and makes no sense to go there and try to compete with them.A monopoly is a type of market where there is only one producer AND no other producer can enter the market.
You only got the first part of the definition. But the second part matters because as long as there is threat of firm entry the single producer won't behave like a monopolist. There's also the pesky fact that ps4 and xbox remain competitors which is why the Switch and its games remain affordable and competitively priced.
Sony should come out with a new Vita/Playstation hybrid.
I bet in this day and age they could reach the 100 million mark faster.
Sony should come out with a new Vita/Playstation hybrid.
I bet in this day and age they could reach the 100 million mark faster.
This is what the Internet has done to expertise.Bullshit, a monopoly is when someone owns almost the totality, or the totality, of the market share. Obviously others can join because we're in a free market. Nintendo right now has the monopoly of the portable consoles because they are the only ones making them and makes no sense to go there and try to compete with them.
There are appearing a new type of handhelds, the PC handhelds. Unlike portable consoles devs don't need to develop games exclusively for them, they simply run PC games so if a dev makes a PC game and the handheld has enough specs, it runs. So once they reach enough horsepower to run most PC games decently they will be able to compete against Switch. And SteamDeck seems to be the first one. There has been previous chinese PC handhelds but were less powerful.
It should be a shitty degree if you don't know what a monopoly is. I'll help you showing the definition of monopoly:This is what the Internet has done to expertise.
I have a masters degree in economics which very clearly you do not. Economists actually study market structures and firm behaviour.
But just as with facts and evidence, on the Internet, your opinion is just as valid as my expertise.
I mean yes, Google, Amazon etc. are definitely worse in that sense. And expertise does bring knowledge. If I remember correctly Nintendo was somewhat monopolistic during the NES days though, when they had contracts that forced devs to not develop for Sega or something like that. I'm not sure.Ticketmaster, Google, Microsoft and Amazon are (or have been) much closer to monopolies with much more market power than Nintendo has ever had and all of them have faced antitrust action for uncompetitive practices unlike Nintendo.
But just as with facts and evidence, on the Internet, your opinion is just as valid as my expertise. Right [IMG alt="SpongebobSquaredance"]https://www.neogaf.com/data/avatars/s/748/748192.jpg?1617622731[/IMG] SpongebobSquaredance ?
You're embarrassing yourself and I dont have the heart to rub it in. Let's just leave it at that shall we?It should be a shitty degree if you don't know what a monopoly is. I'll help you showing the definition of monopoly:
As of now Switch is the only portable console in the market and anybody else can afford to be a somewhat decent competitor, which means Nintendo has the monopoly since they have exclusive control of the market, they basically are the only ones there.
There isn't space in this market for another competitor, nobody else can afford to be successful making a portable console, with all the related costs like having to make dedicated games and get enough 3rd party support. If they try it they will fail, because even the top dog Sony who was the giant of home consoles and who had the biggest 3rd party support in home console failed at trying it.
For the future there may be somewhat related direct competition -so the monopoly will end- if as it seems Apple decides to make a portable (or hybrid) console o if the PC handhelds become relevant. Even if they won't really be consoles since one would be a portable console shaped iPad running iOS and the other one will be a portable console shaped PC, but at least Nintendo will get decent relatively direct competition so their monopoly may end.
Switch isn't a home console tho.