Board 8 > Wow, people still have that much faith in Nintendo?

(+) Yeah! (+)

6x the combined competition vs 2-3x

Not seeing something inconsistent there. Yeah the difference in millions is larger for recent gens that's because the total market is larger.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

Duh? This is the site where Link wins every character contest. People here literally believe a mute avatar created by Nintendo is the best character in gaming.

--
Blitzball fan? Try Captain Tsubasa II (in English) for NES!
Game reviews/articles by me: http://betweenlifeandgames.com

UltimaterializerX posted...

94 was easy with any team though. 45 degree skate, cut 90, score. Any team, any player. It was fun, but boring.

Or skate parallel to the goal line a few feet in front of goalie and wrist it into the far side of the net.

Had it on sega cd and used to beat the all star difficulty by scores of 20-0 on only 5 minute periods.

I like using Vancouver. Bure, Courtnall, and Ronning were all extremely fast and easy to score with.

Lopen posted...

6x the combined competition vs 2-3x

Not seeing something inconsistent there. Yeah the difference in millions is larger for recent gens that's because the total market is larger.

...You can't combine the competition when looking to see which company dominated. Nintendo and Microsoft didn't work together... They also competed.

When you win an event with multiple people competing, you don't combine everybody else's score to see how much you won by, so why would you here?

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

So in conclusion Nintendo = the Brittney Spears of gaming?

oh are we combining competitors now, then lets throw the atari 7800's 3.77 million in there with the master system. and how about we stop lowballing that and give it 11.5 since there's apparently not an exact figure. now the NES is only doing 4.05x the combined competition, versus the PS2's 3.37x. and the NES drops to 3.69x if SMS gets the full 13mil.

hmm thats a lot more similar, and the difference is even less significant when you realize how faulty it is to compare percentages across markets that have more than doubled in size

and then there's the question of whether it's correct to be comparing combined competition, maybe the true measure of dominance is how many times greater than its nearest competitor it is (4.76-6.19x NES vs 6.43x PS2)

what im saying is that suggesting the PS2 was not dominant is absurd

--
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion

You simply can't combine the competition, here.

Sony looks at them and thinks "We want to beat Nintendo" and "We want to beat Microsoft." Not "We want to beat Nintendo and Microsoft combined by X amount," because it doesn't matter to Sony what Microsoft and Nintendo make COMBINED, since each company only sees their portion of the sales. When people compare Sony and Microsoft, they don't go "Oh, and add Nintendo's numbers to Microsoft's." They compare them straight up.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

For "who won" you don't compare to the field, no

But for domination of a market product you absolutely compare to the field. Nintendo utterly dwarfed the other guys. PS2 vs GCN/X-Box is not really comparable.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

No, you absolutely do not combine the competition, because, again, it doesn't matter what they did COMBINED since each company only sees... What they did.

You compare PS2 to Cube and PS2 to Xbox, not PS2 to Cube and Xbox combined, or else you're acting like Nintendo and Microsoft literally joined forces somehow. >_>

The competition is Nintendo and Microsoft as separate companies. Not Nintendosoft. So to dominate the competition, you look at the solo numbers.

Stop being redonkulous.

EDIT: And you had somebody just show you how the numbers are comparable if you're combining the fields, anyway, so, uh...

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

Except that's a biased combination because there's no Dreamcast or handhelds in the PS2 figure either, which are absolutely relevant and will actually put Nintendo a lot closer to the PS2's numbers.

And I'm not saying what the company cares about I'm saying what I care about as an observer. Someone dominating is more than "I got more sales than the other companies" to me. If it's not to you, that's fine, but I would suggest a less strong adjective for what you're describing.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

From: Lopen | #060

Except that's a biased combination because there's no Dreamcast or handhelds in the PS2 figure either

Top three consoles of the generation, Dreamcast would be fourth.

--
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion

Calling it at 3 is again, biased in favor of the PS2 gen because the number drops off a lot more after the 3 with Nintendo than it does with the 3 in the PS2 era.

Calling it as consoles only is also biased towards PS2 because handhelds weren't too big with the NES (and the one that was? More Nintendo stat padding)

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

I think you're just trying to twist the meaning to fit your means, personally.

If a strongman lifts 600 pounds, and everybody else lifts 300 or lower, you'd say he dominated the competition. You wouldn't then argue to combine what everybody else lifted and go "actually, he only lifted 600. The competition lifted 2200."

So why would you do that here? Nintendo and Microsoft competed with each other just like they competed with Sony. I don't see why you'd naturally want to combine them as if they're one company when comparing overall results to see if one of them dominated the competition.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

except this isn't a race, it's capitalism

you got by market share

--
Je suis toujours serieux. D'autrefois, personne ne me penserait serieusement.

Just for the record if you toss the DS Lite's 50 million+ sales and the DS/DSxl/whatever Sony didn't even double nintendo so uh, yeah, unless "a bit more" is your interp of "dominating" it doesn't even really fit there either.

Trying to argue that the Sega Master System was anything resembling relevant back then is more laughable than anything in this topic, really. Like I have a hard time believing them quite frankly-- but even assuming they're right Nintendo vs the world back then is a lot more impressive than Sony vs the world in the early-mid 2000s.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

So you're basically just going to keep twisting things in favor of your argument.



--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

What am I twisting exactly? I'm simply presenting numbers. Ignoring the handheld market would be twisting. Claiming "dominating" in an economic market is just "being ahead" would be twisting.

I'm just telling you what's there.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

I excluded handhelds because adding them really blurs the line between generations; how can you add Game Boy to the NES without adding Genesis and TurboGrafx-16 to the competitors? All three had their North American launches in August 1989. In Japan, the Mega Drive and PC-Engine launched 6 and 18 months BEFORE the Game Boy, respectively.

EDIT: Your last post even proves this point harder. You're bending over backwards to add the DS to the PS2's competition when the GBA was really what was co-generational with the PS2. DS belongs more in the Wii/PS3/360 generation.

--
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion

Dude the Gameboy Advance sold over 80 million units so we can go with that if you like.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

Lopen posted...

What am I twisting exactly? I'm simply presenting numbers. Ignoring the handheld market would be twisting. Claiming "dominating" in an economic market is just "being ahead" would be twisting.

I'm just telling you what's there.

Did Sony dominate Nintendo? Yes.
Did Sony dominate Microsoft? Yes.

Did Sony dominate each of their competitors? Yes.

Did Nintendo and Microsoft merge into one company in that time? No.

So is it fair to say Sony dominated the competition? 100%.

And now I live up to the gif.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

I could see an argument that Sony dominated Microsoft, yeah.

I could not see an argument that Sony dominated Nintendo (I think it wins that gen by like 30 million with handhelds in the mix which is not nearly a doubling), or dominated "the market" or even dominated "the console market"

So no I disagree on most of what you said there.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

Lopen posted...

For "who won" you don't compare to the field, no

But for domination of a market product you absolutely compare to the field. Nintendo utterly dwarfed the other guys. PS2 vs GCN/X-Box is not really comparable.

Oh, so selling 6 times as much as your closest competitor is only "dominating" if you only have one relevant competitor. If they're two, it's "selling a bit more." Gotcha.

--
Blitzball fan? Try Captain Tsubasa II (in English) for NES!
Game reviews/articles by me: http://betweenlifeandgames.com

So you're now gonna flat out include handhelds even though their generations often overlap more than one console generation.



I want to leave this topic but I can't.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

See guys Vlado agrees with you and you know how well Bulgarians understand capitalism right.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

You're making me be on Vlado's side.

This is what you're doing.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

Hey SEP you know what else overlaps with more than one console generation for sales?

The PS2.

Let's throw that out XBOX wins.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

From: Lopen | #069

Dude the Gameboy Advance sold over 80 million units so we can go with that if you like.

whoosh

--
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion

Who's whooshing? The only whoosh I see is you guys trying to disregard handhelds because "???"

(Even forgetting you're wrong just based on console sales but I'm lowering myself to your level just to humor this)

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

Lopen posted...

Hey SEP you know what else overlaps with more than one console generation for sales?

The PS2.

Let's throw that out XBOX wins.

I have a lot of Miz if you wanna keep going.

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

I'm whooshing at you because you completely missed the point of how Game Boy came out the same month as the Genesis and TurboGrafx-16 and yet you're trying to add it to the NES somehow.

--
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion

Well I have some Miz that pretty effectively sums up how I feel about your side of the argument too, since we're goin that way.



--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

I mean, you literally just tried to say PS2 overlapped console generations.

Handhelds have their own generations outside of the consoles, which is why they overlap.

But you seriously just tried to say PS2 somehow transcends its own console generation to exist in two.

So, according to you, the PS2 and N64 could be considered in the same generation.



--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

You're trying to count the PS2 in... What, three generations.

And comparing it to a handheld.

You do not deserve to use a Miz gif.

Because that's nowhere close to "the PS2 dominated its nearest competitor/dominated both competitors on their individual merits."

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

I'm saying you simply can't disregard the handheld market because it doesn't conform to your neat console generations. You can toss in half GBA and half DS if you want, or half GBA and half GBC, or whatever configuration, but some part of it has to exist for the share, and just picking GBA is about as fair as anything considering, well, PS2 way outsold its lifetime too. Strict timelines really aren't the most important thing when gauging success of a company. If you don't give GBA to the PS2 generation, then what generation do you give it to?

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

if we cant ignore handhelds lets toss the iphone in and get a real ****storm goin

and how can you ignore pcs

--
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion

Well let's throw the PC in too. I'm pretty sure more computers have been sold in that generation than anything.

Who won Dell or Asus.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

Wait wait. MICROSOFT WINDOWS.

Suck it Sony fanboyz Gates winz again.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

From: MrGreenonion | #043

The Genesis is poised to make a comeback you guys.

Everyone's mad about always-online DRM, shady digital delivery ownership rights, friend codes, racist 12-year-olds on voice chat, gimmicky tablets and motion controls... Genesis doesn't have any of that!

Listen to this man. He is the prophet of a new world. The Nostradamus of blast processing.

--
http://i.imgur.com/1fvTA.gif

There's a difference between outselling its lifetime and literally existing in its own timeline.

It's one thing if a console continues selling past the accepted lifetime of that generation.

It's another to argue that you have to include something that typically has its OWN lifetime that, 90% of the time, comes about in the middle of a console lifetime and ends in the middle of another console lifetime.

Because then you get into messes like the Gameboy/Genesis. Handhelds have their own timeline, and there's a reason people say "Sony dominated this console generation."

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

The poll says nothing about console generations and while I mentioned consoles in the original post I wasn't necessarily talking consoles either.

Though I will defend to the death that Nintendo dominated way more than PS2 did (to the point where I dispute PS2 dominated at all) speaking just consoles anyway because as the only other guy who knows who he's talking about in here, SD, said, capitalism isn't a race it's about market share and Nintendo had a pretty significant lead over "the field" relative to the PS2.

But yeah basically you gotta put handhelds somewhere. The place that "makes sense" to put them is GB with SNES. Some combo of Gameboy Pocket and Gameboy Color with N64. GBA and remixes with GC. DS and remixes with Wii. It's not a strict overlap but it's "close enough" when considering the runoff from the other systems that it works out, anyway. You'd "fairly" combine like 80-20 of adjacent generations to account for stagger but the numbers would still work out about the same because Nintendo has been fairly consistent in sales with its major handhelds. They all hit somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 mil.

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

...But in terms of the market share of each product (PS2, Cube, Xbox), PS2's dominated Cube's and Xbox's. The same argument can be made. >_>

--
SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg

And it's still just as wrong as it was the first time unless you have a looser definition of "dominate" than I do because dominating a market isn't about 1v1s. It's about the leader vs the alternatives. By your definition I'm pretty sure Pizza Hut dominates the takeout pizza market when in reality they probably don't even get half of the sales total.

But yeah to keep going on is just running in circles here so uhhh, yeah. Whatever! Just saying that I was aware of all of those statistics (roughly) except thought the Master System was a bit lower when I made that statement-- and seeing the numbers doesn't make me change my opinion aside from "Nintendo dominated a bit less than I thought." Disagree if you want but I'm not backpedaling as you might think I am. Still wouldn't agree that Sony "dominated" ever really. But you could make the argument. Triple sales is a pretty reasonable definition just not one I choose to use. I like somewhere between 4 and 5x if I had to quantify. (reason stemming from amusingly enough GameFAQs contests hey this is topical)

--
No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!

PS2 dominated yeah. as did the DS vs. PSP, as will the 3DS vs. the Vita.
apple's the fool's pick because while they like to toot their horn a lot, fact is they're No. 2 in cell phones. both in the OS (Android: broke 50% of the marketshare, IOS: doesn't seem to be able to move past 30%), in manufacturers (Samsung > Apple), and in devices sold (Samsung > Apple, again). they're the profit kings, but they don't grow and are steadily losing marketshare in every field they get. basically, apple's problem is exactly what the platform's arguments are to winning... anything (but especially vs. Nintendo) because they apply far, far more to them than their opponents.

google's not a bad one if you assume google will get involved in more industries like they always do. nothing that they have right now, but google has a shotgun approach to tech and i can easily see them partner with some people. however that's less 'google' and more of the one of the big 3 who focuses on google, which could very well be Sony. that's more to Sony though. unless sony runs low on money, in which case, say hello to Google-Sony.

MS is PC more than anything else. however even THIS isn't infallible with HP creating commercial linux laptops and steam with plans to work on linux. it took 'em a good 20 years, but there's a standard for that which is rapidly growing. helps that linux will start to become a lot of cheapo computers out there with stuff like Raspberry Pi out there taking the market by storm. the Xbox line will sooner than later merge with the PC in some unholy combination.

Nintendo is handheld dominance + high level console sales. the former they don't play with and are absolute beasts. the latter is where they vary. overall though, dominating out of them depends on how you look at the industry.


none dominating makes sense, as does nintendo due to the ability to rule over both markets + their cash or MS if they can keep both lines in major profits (+ their cash). Google makes sense if you believe in Sony falling, and Sony makes sense if you believe in their working with google more than any other reason (patents + tech from google are things they can use). those are pretty much the only answers.

--
"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

sony did dominate with the ps2 and ps

but clearly nes dominated as well. I didn't even know other systems existed back in the nes days, nor did anyone ever mention any other system. I think I only ever found out about the master system after the genesis was dead

--
mreow!
spork for president - metroid composite

nintendo lost this gen in the "court of public opinion"?

they lost in the court of hardcore video game nerd opinion, but the court of public opinion at large?

Nintendo lost this gen in how they handled the future of their fanbase. Yes, the wii won this gen (although its victory was a much smaller margin than all the other generation winners expect maybe the SNES over the Genesis), but they created a massive divide and exodus amongst their supporters back in the NES/SNES/N64 days

Nintendo has a large market, but its becoming a fickle as hell group. Its fanbase is nintendo die hards (which seem like to me are becoming smaller and smaller, nintendo not winning this poll like it would of 10 years ago is an example of this), and casual gamers who were excited about the wii's novelty.

I really don't see the wiiu causing even half the excitement the wii had, and apple is eventually going to take over the casual fanbase due to the convenience of gaming on the iphone

Nintendo would have never won this pol ten years ago. Ten years ago, the N64 had just finished getting its ass kicked, and the GC was off to an even worse start. The voters were also more pro-Sony and Square back then.

Jeff Zero posted...

I don't foresee any of them in particular dominating the industry, so I chose the last option.

Oh cool, I wasn't the only one to use that logic.

--
(Maniac64 at work)
All the proteins, vitamins, and carbs of your grandma's best turkey dinner, plus 15% alcohol.

Another one of my threads turned into a huge argument. I feel fulfilled.

--
http://backloggery.com/genesistwilight/sig.gif
http://mlkshk.com/r/3JLF.gif

Nintendo would have never won this pol ten years ago. Ten years ago, the N64 had just finished getting its ass kicked, and the GC was off to an even worse start. The voters were also more pro-Sony and Square back then.

i guess were just going to have to disagree. The N64 was loved by gfaqs, and people were still raving about the gamecube due to games like smash melee.

I see people using sales figures of the PS2 to talk about console share.

When 90% of the values used to describe the PS2 were "shipped" values rather than "sold" values.

When the majority of PS2 owners have purchased at least 2 systems because the first one broke down almost without fail.

--
It's F-Zero. F-ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERO!
http://img.imgcake.com/RedShifter/falconpngyt.png