GameCube and Xbox was ps2's direct competitor. Psp and ds were direct competitors.
What you just described is an indirect competitor. They are not colliding head on because in the traditional home console space there's only one winner. GameCube Vs ps2 and ps4 Vs Wii U. Likewise in portable space. Ds Vs psp and vita Vs 3ds.
See my other post as you're just copy pasta at this stage. Might aswell be spamming.
Personally I agree with you, but that doesn't match your own basic economic definitions.
They were trying to compete directly but as seen by sales not very well.
When PS2 came out, using a video game machine to watch DVDs couldn't be further from traditional.
What I just described is how direct competition work in any industry. You know, the kind of common sense anyone has, especially analysts.
I mean the games discs themselves actually were DVDs so it's not really that much of a stretch to think it could play them.
You could even go back to the PS1 and Saturn that also functioned as CD players to listen to your music. This greatly changes the video game landscape! So playstation and Xbox have never released a traditional console, that also rules out Sega's last two systems (sorry Saturn and Dreamcast!). I am going to arbitrarily label those multi-function devices, and lump them in with PCs, where they unfortunately have never topped any of the overall hardware sales. Or we could stop trying to split hairs to skew the results in the favor of our favorite plastic game boxes so we can sleep at night.
Exaxtly. Unlike traditional consoles, the PS2 was also a DVD player. But it still completed directly with traditional consoles.
Precisely. I have no idea why we wouldn't just use the ranking system that Famitsu and Media Create have provided for decades.
Yeah. Any discussion otherwise is just unproductive, and completely wrong. Because at the end of the day, like another user said, the buyer once it enters the store, will have to choose one of three consoles to spend their hard earned money one, and most won't have enough money to spend on more than one console. And by that definition alone, the Big Three are directly competing.
The demo definitely did help things!
Here's some more evidence (I don't just throw names out there like you). So MS realise Sony is the only company that can compete with Gamepass. Yet more evidence that PlayStation and Xbox is direct competition. No mention of Nintendo because yes, you've guessed it Nintendo and MS are indirect competition and have been since the GameCube took on the Xbox.
Exactly so they are in indirect competition not direct especially when a Nintendo player is very likely to also game on a pc/ps/Xbox but a ps or Xbox player are very unlikely to also buy the other.
Nintendo is a direct competor with Microsoft and Sony for selling games and consoles.
Ps5 probably 10K next week according to Chrisit was supposed to be selling 10K by now, probably Next (this) Week
Yes again I agree they compete with them but in terms of economics it's indirect.
Which posts are you referring to? Chris has quite a blunt posting style but most things I've seem him say make sense.
Agreed, Amazon and Google may not be direct competitors to Xbox in the way Nintendo is, but they are much much closer in size to Microsoft.
That's not what I said. Xbox and playstation are as direct competition as you can get. They directly cannabalise their market. If Xbox sells more PlayStation sells less.
The product offerings for GameCube and PS2 were very different, but as you yourself said they still competed directly.
They didn't in reality compete very well but Nintendo tried to compete just failed miserably. They tried to build a powerful traditional home console with gamecube but failed to attract good enough third party support.
Phil Spencer said this in May this year when he was getting scrutiny from regulators. In his private emails he doesn't really talk about Nintendo as competition.
I don't argue they aren't competition, just that one is a handheld that can be played on TV and others are home consoles. It's important to differentiate due to demographics and trends in Japan.
EA, ABK and Capcom are all successful companies, but that doesn't mean they aren't competitors. It's not a zero sum game.
We just got the latest official NPD report that also put Xbox in third, and that has nothing to do with regulators. Same with the latest GSD report, which again put Xbox in third.
Did you ever study economics? I suggest you read up on a few definition's. You keep repeating the same thing which actually proves my point.
Maybe it's just how we classify direct and non direct?
They're tracking them together because they never divided them into such sub categories like I do. If they were to divide them by my definition the Wii would have been in it's own category which makes no sense for these trackers who analyse the market.
I think we've found a point of agreement then:
You know why I only talk about these so called traditional home consoles weekly? It's because it's all I'm personally interested in. I've never bought a portable (dad bought me a vita even after I asked him not to) but I barely played it.
If someone consistently went into NPD threads and only spoke about how well 3DS did against Vita I'd consider that to be odd as well. But to each their own I guess.
Mate it used to happen the whole time. There were posters who only talked home consoles, some only portables and others every console. Same with media create threads some people used to only talked about vita games.
Fair enough, I apologise.
No need bro see you later today
