The only thing I know is that I don't trust Google supporting Stadia for more than a couple of years.
I don't trust Google, period.
The only thing I know is that I don't trust Google supporting Stadia for more than a couple of years.
I see you are not commenting Vita at all. Why is that?The PS3 sold around 90 million units. The Wii did about 100. Nintendo was in NO WAY dominant over Sony that generation and Sony kept selling systems easily long after interest in the Wii died and did so at a much higher price point. Have you ever seen a $99 PS3? Because I haven't.
Outsold, yes. But not the "Outsold you by 70-130 million units" margins that the Playstation had consistently been pulling off. And keep in mind Sony killed the PS3 VERY early compared to the PS1 and 2, because the thing was very expensive for them and very hard to cost reduce. Had they kept it on the market as they did the PS1 and 2, they would have outsold the Wii easily. Nintendo has never had those kinds of margins over the competition in the console space.
The PSP sold about 75 million units, and was the first attempt by Sony in that space. Hell, it was the first viable attempt ANY company had ever made in handheld land in 16 years. Nintendo had a monopoly in that space with no other competition since 1989 when the PSP launched. The fact it sold as well as it did was incredible.
The NES, SNES, and possibly N64 being cartridge based systems had a completely different business model than current consoles do. Because of the way making and ordering games worked, third parties could not afford to produce carts on the level that Nintendo themselves could, and Nintendo's first party titles had an unfair advantage. It's one of the reasons third parties ran from the cart based model as soon as a viable CD competitor became available. Apples and oranges here, my guy.
I see, that's actually quite shocking to me honestly, especially when during the 360 era MS seemed to have a huge lead in terms of sales.
The PS3 sold around 90 million units. The Wii did about 100. Nintendo was in NO WAY dominant over Sony that generation. Outsold, yes. But not the "Outsold you by 70-130 million units" margins that the Playstation had consistently been pulling off. Nintendo has never had those kinds of margins over the competition in the console space.
The PSP sold about 75 million units, and was the first viable attempt by Sony in that space. Hell, it was the first viable attempt ANY company had ever made in handheld land in 16 years. Nintendo had a monopoly in that space with no other competition since 1989 when the PSP launched. The fact it sold as well as it did was incredible.
The NES, SNES, and possibly N64 being cartridge based systems had a completely different business model than current consoles do. Because of the way making and ordering games worked, third parties could not afford to produce carts on the level that Nintendo themselves could, and Nintendo's first party titles had an unfair advantage. It's one of the reasons third parties ran from the cart based model as soon as a viable CD competitor became available. Apples and oranges here, my guy.
It is all important to them. They likely invest way more into Azure and cloud technology than the R&D of the next Xbox.
Of course they're concerned. It'd be stupid not to be concerned when you lost over 40m units compared to last gen.I see, that's actually quite shocking to me honestly, especially when during the 360 era MS seemed to have a huge lead in terms of sales.
Are Microsoft even concerned with hardware sales numbers these days though? Especially considering they are putting all of their games on PC and even Steam now.
Seems to be that their model is more about the software/subscription side of things.
No one does
How about PlayStation Classic? That piece of shit is probably buried deep already.
Sony branded Classic console should have easily beaten Nintendo Classics, right?
I'm sorry, but we ain't about this pacifist BS. Pick a side dammit!Don't think its an Either/OR situation.
Both Xbox and PS will do great and lets not forget good old Ninty.
Haha all the excuses.the handheld market entered a SEVERE contraction the following generation. The 3DS didn't come close to the sales of the DS, and the Vita failed compared to the PSP.
This is the reason you have a hybrid console in the Switch now instead of a dedicated handheld.
Pretty sure we're talking console systems, of which the PS classic isn't one?
Sony has allowed PS1 games to remain in circulation and be playable for next to nothing on every system up to the PS3 and Vita. You could buy a PS1 game digitally on PSP, and use that same PS1 title on the PS3, Vita, and PSTV. Nintendo did not allow this.
Physical copies of playstation games also had a circulation easily TEN TIMES that of cart based games, because production was cheaper.
A PS Classic was a bad idea from the start, because demand would not be the same as it would be for a system based on cart based titles that were less common and harder to come by.
I'm sorry, but we ain't about this pacifist BS. Pick a side dammit!
Of course they're concerned. It'd be stupid not to be concerned when you lost over 40m units compared to last gen.
They've simply chose to not show it and instead focused on their subscription model. It's a growing market but it'd be ignorant to not notice that those subscriptions are tied to the unit sales even if only partially.
They didn't. The PS3 and 360 ended up in pretty much a tie- the last numbers were have for either are "about 84 million" for the 360 and "about" 87 million for the PS3.
The PS3 arrived a year later than the 360, but both were discontinued the same year. The PS3 outsold the 360 worldwide every single year they were both on the market, despite launching at a completely absurd price point. Again the PS3 if launched tomorrow at the same price would be $760. There is no one Sony included that could get away with launching a console right now at damned near $800 and go on to sell nearly 90 million of them.
I see, that's actually quite shocking to me honestly, especially when during the 360 era MS seemed to have a huge lead in terms of sales.
I see, I wasn't aware of any of this, that's pretty incredible in regards to the numbers Sony did with the PS3.
the handheld market entered a SEVERE contraction the following generation. The 3DS didn't come close to the sales of the DS, and the Vita failed compared to the PSP. Sony drastically scaled back support for the Vita when this became apparent.
This is the reason you have a hybrid console in the Switch now instead of a dedicated handheld.
I am sure Sony fans would love that.I believe MS will convert to a major third party publisher by the end of next gen.
Wrong, Switch is an hybrid because Nintendo needed a Wii U successor but they couldn't afford another home console only, this is their way to keep a presence in the living room with a successful product.
The home console future was a question mark for Nintendo, not portables, in fact initially they thought about making a 3DS successor for a while then realized they can do that with Switch.
PS Vita was never a success even in its first year, you could tell the whole thing was a wait and see, they invested a lot on the hardware but never on software.
WordI agree with all of this. Sony did a VERY good job of building the kind of relationships with third parties, and building the kind of internal studios they needed to get to where they are. This didn't happen overnight, Sony's first party was extremely weak in the PS1/2 era outside of maybe what...Gran Turismo?
Vendor lock in is a thing for both platforms. No one wants to "lose" access to the games and digital content they bought, and both systems are promising drastic improvements to prior generation titles via BC. I don't see ANY significant movement from PS to Xbox or vice versa because of this.
The Xbox isn't going to die. The brand is clearly well liked and profitable, but there is no realistic way that microsoft's gaming revenue exceeds everyone else in a single generation. They don't have the brand strength or marketshare outside of the US to do this, and that's something that must be built over time.
I remain unconvinced that xcloud will take off anytime soon and I don't believe they will make the type of games that appeal to Sony and Nintendo fans, further more if these gamers look at both xcloud and stadia I think they'll choose stadia, assuming they haven't already committed to a stronger ps now that will come eventually.Agreed. It will be Xbox, PC and whatever other devices they want to appear on.
Its actually very easy. Next gen won't be about how many consoles sold. It'll be about services, streaming and software.
Sony has allowed PS1 games to remain in circulation and be playable for next to nothing on every system up to the PS3 and Vita. You could buy a PS1 game digitally on PSP (75 million units sold), and use that same PS1 title on the PS3 (90m), Vita (15m), and PSTV (negligible). Nintendo did not allow this.
Physical copies of playstation games also had a circulation easily TEN TIMES that of cart based games, because production was cheaper.
A PS Classic was a bad idea from the start, because demand would not be the same as it would be for a system based on cart based titles that were less common and harder to come by.
Lol.
Dude. It flopped because Sony put no fucking effort in and pushed out a bad product.
A proper PS1 Classic or PS2 Classic and I would buy it instantly.