I see the exact same duopoly as in Apple-Google world. There's Sony and Microsoft(with no independent app stores). Nintendo isn't in the same market as the other two.
Nintendo might be a running joke amongst hardcore gamers but ironically they're the most successful console manufacturer out there.
The Switch is going from strength to strength and I'd estimate it will outsell the Playstation 4 before Nintendo retire it (it's been outselling the PS4 since 2019 already but that's to be expected given the expectation of the PS5). And from the same trial that bought us this submission we've seen Microsoft admit that they've never made a profit on the Xbox. Let's also not forget that games on the Switch are typically more expensive than the same game on other platforms. And that's without even touching the topic of Nintendo's 1st party games -- they make an absolute killing on their IP. Animal Crossing, for example, was seen by many as the unofficial game of the 2020 lockdown.
I predict Nintendo's market position will only get stronger too. With many Xbox fans giving up on buying new consoles because they're basically just PCs at this point. So switching to PCs that can be upgraded over time and still have access to Xbox content. Plus the struggles Sony have had just shipping their latest consoles and many gamers there saying they might just stick with the PS4. Yet Nintendo have calved out their own corner of the market that sits between the ultra competitive hardcore market and casual gamers who want more than crappy mobile apps. And it's a segment that's increasing in size too.
It'll be interesting to see how Valves offering does. I can't see it competing with the Switch directly but it might take more market share away from Sony and Microsoft given Valves new portable offers the capability of desktop gaming on the move.
So anyway, back to your point. You might scoff but actually Nintendo are in a far more stable and successful position than Sony and Microsoft (with regards to consoles).
I'm not saying its unsuccessful, just that people who play Detroit or Gears aren't going to buy Switch just because PS5/Xbox is out of stock.
A fair number of gamers are disinterested with the latest generation because they don't see the envelope being pushed enough (eg for many, the previous generation largely looked "good enough") but Nintendo offering something totally new (portable plus their own exclusives) offers something more for their money.
Maybe in a couple of years time if/when AAA titles stop offering releases on the PS4 we might see more people pining for a PS5. But a lot of the muted reactions are precisely because there isn't an urgency to upgrade.
Now you could argue that even if they don't replace their PS4 with a PS5, they're still spending money with Sony. But if these gamers also have a Switch -- which many will do -- then their gaming budget is now divided between Nintendo and Sony. Eg if they have £50 next week to buy a new game, they can't spend it in full on both the Playstation and the Switch. Even if they only spend half that on the Switch, it's still a 50% drop for Sony.
So Nintendo might target a slightly different market but they're still affecting Sony and Microsoft's games sales.
I don't think sales numbers are the parent comment's point. Rather, that "Xbox or Playstation" is a common enough question to imply there is direct competition (and there are lots of shared titles), whereas the Nintendo consoles exist more or less in a vacuum.
Also don't write the Switch off for serious gamers either. Most gamers I know who have an Xbox or PS also have a Switch. Why is this important? Because if someone has £50 to spend on a game, they cannot spend that same £50 on both the PS/Xbox and the Switch stores. So even if the Switch occupies a slightly different market, it's still taking money that might have gone to Sony or Microsoft.
None of these stores do my email, dating, finance, math, fitness, banking, web. They're not fitting the computer role like laptops and smartphones.
Games are toys and have lots of healthy competition. Smartphones are monopolistic dictatorships.
Famgopolies are secretly colluding to take over everything and tax it. To make computing encumbered, unfree, unrepairable, and shackled in surveillance.
Who gives a damn about video game toys when the most important devices in our lives are turning into Big Brother meets Stalin?
90's Bill Gates wishes he was this evil.
Google and Apple need to be split up.
You're still missing the point. There is no way to buy a game for Xbox without going through Microsoft's official channels and giving them their huge cut. There is no way to buy a game for Playstation without going through Sony's official channels and giving them their huge cut. There is no way to buy a game for Switch without going through Nintendo's official channels and giving them their huge cut.
Being able to buy the same game on different consoles is immaterial. The stores themselves are the monopoly.
>None of these stores do my email, dating, finance, math, fitness, banking, web. They're not fitting the computer role like laptops and smartphones.
What difference does this make? If they did these things, would it suddenly matter that the only way to get software onto this platform was to give 30% of revenue to the console manufacturer?
Phones are life. You can't do without them. There are two choices, both locked down hard.
PCs went from free and open to Google + Apple duopoly. And the rules are draconian.
Maybe 1995-2005 was an era before your time (given that your username is Zoomer), but modern computing is worse than it used to be. You have no idea what you missed out on, and you're speaking about a status quo that is a definitive downgrade.
Steve Jobs put us in shackles and neck braces. But they're pretty and convenient, so we accept them.
The confusion here is you're reading my comment thinking we're discussing a different topic. So it's not me who missed the point :)
If anything 'hardcore' gamers are more likely to buy a switch since they'll be deeply invested in certain franchises, vs a causal gamers who would be on IPhone
If I’ve been playing Smash Bros since the 90s and I need to play the latest one , I’m buying a Switch. I consider myself hardcore, I probably play( or make ) games at least 30 hours a week
Of course I have a PC as well. I’m personally looking forward to Metroid and Advance Wars later this year.
Like with any product that sells millions, there will be people that fall outside of the target demographic. That doesn't mean there isn't a target demographic or that the company are targeting the wrong group. It just means that either the person is an edge case or the product is versatile enough to be enjoyed by more than just the target audience. In the Switch's case, it's the latter.
In fact that's the point I've been making all along about the genius of the device. Nintendo have not only built a console that captures the imagination of a largely forgotten market, but they've done so in a way that has appeal beyond that market too.
But to be clear, this wasn't an accident on Nintendo's part. They've always marketed their machines as family systems (ie accessible gaming to be shared). That's why their 3rd generation console was called the Famicom in Japan (short for Family Computer). It's why the NES was styled the way it was (a grey box like a VCR so it looked at home in the families TV cabinet rather than looking like a kids toy). It's why the N64 was the first console to have 4 ports built in (ie without needing additional hardware). Why the Wii went down the gimmicky route when everyone else was making consoles for older kids and adults. And why Nintendo's IP is almost always cute and cartoony.
As a case in point, it's clear that Nintendo themselves think they are competing with Microsoft, Sony, and the PC space. They pay tons of money to game developers in order for their games to not show up on Xbox, PS, and PC. That would make no sense unless there was some actual competition. I could mention Hades and Monter Hunter Rise as two recent examples where Nintendo paid money to devs in exchange for exclusivity.
And given how hard Sony and Microsoft compete to pursuade games to be released exclusively on either platform isn't it a bit of different dynamic?
No. Sony PlayStation is almost identical to the Apple App Store in that there’s only 1 way to get your software working on retail units.
In fact it’s a lot worse in many ways, you need two specific types of hardware to even develop software- Sony is quite old school and draconian when it comes to testing, validation and communication.
At Ubisoft we had entire teams of compliance testers for Sony/Microsoft- and if you ever tried to get content outside of their stores (ie; loading after the game launches) they are quite aggressive about pulling the game down.
I wouldn't say visiting any of thousands of reatil stores around the world, or ordering online from any of thousands of online retailers count as "only 1 way".
Want to release only on physical media for PS or XBox? Have to go through platform cert anyway.
It doesn’t really matter who resells them, unless it’s a used copy then Sony has been paid — and it doesn’t mean that I as a publisher have an alternative “store” on the PlayStation or that I can print my own disks, which is what the parent stated.
The only thing I see that’s slightly different in your example above is the ability to resell the game once you’re done with it.
If it is the same, why doesn't Apple allow third party stores even to re-sell apps from app store, competing on price and convenience? As this is what Sony does.
I'm by no means fan of Sony, but these are two completely different situations.
There’s no alternative to PlayStation getting their cut.
And it doesn’t matter anyway because brick and mortar resales are going away, PS5 has a “digital only” version of the console, and Xbox had the same thing last gen.
It is different. Both Sony and MS buy studios that end up producing exclusives.