• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Xbox - Series S or X?

cireza

Member
What I have said is that it's not a deal breaker for most people that buy consoles, a claim that is both factually and demonstrably correct due to the fact that most home consoles sell at this price point.
There is zero fact in this assumption. You don't even realize that the targeted people are not the same when you have an entry point below 300$. No use in repeating the same things again though, your denial is absolute.
 

Rykan

Member
There is zero fact in this assumption. You don't even realize that the targeted people are not the same when you have an entry point below 300$. No use in repeating the same things again though, your denial is absolute.
I have mentioned several facts, you just continue to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative. You quote my post, you remove the part that contains the facts or the context and then you say "There is zero fact in this assumption".The PS4 launching at 399$ and becoming the 2nd best selling home console ever is a fact. The vast majority of current gen consoles sold being at 399$ - 499$ is also a fact.

The only one who is not bringing in any facts in this discussion is you. I hope you're better at writing Sonic fanfiction then you are at having a debate.

Here, let me show you what your posts look like:

However if you think that a 100$ or 200$ difference is nothing, you are completely wrong.
You have not cited any fact or statistic to support this argument
It is not people who can afford a Series X as a primary console that are buying a Series S instead.
You have not cited any fact or statistic to support this argument.
These people are the kind that will wait to have the product they want, not buy a budget product.
You have not cited any fact or statistic to support this argument.

Yet you insist that my opinions are not based on facts? Hilarious.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
I have mentioned several facts, you just continue to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative. You quote my post, you remove the part that contains the facts or the context and then you say "There is zero fact in this assumption".The PS4 launching at 399$ and becoming the 2nd best selling home console ever is a fact. The vast majority of current gen consoles sold being at 399$ - 499$ is also a fact.

The only one who is not bringing in any facts in this discussion is you. I hope you're better at writing Sonic fanfiction then you are at having a debate..
Do you realize that if the PS4 had been sold at 200 or less (a 200$ difference), it would have sold more ?

The only Sonic fan-fiction that existed in the previous topic was yours, by the way. People were all stating facts while you were 100% on your emotional crusade against the series.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Do you realize that if the PS4 had been sold at 200 or less (a 200$ difference), it would have sold more ?
You are totally exaggerating, in your mind, the number of sales the PS4 would make if it had lower price. You don't have any concrete information about the demand, and no common sense at all.

Okay that was too easy, I'm Sorry. What statistic or fact is your opinion that the system would have sold an additional 118 million units, if it launched at 299$, based on? Also, quit ignoring the other facts I've cited please. You wanted to discuss facts, let's discuss facts.

The only Sonic fan-fiction that existed in the previous topic was yours, by the way. People were all stating facts while you were 100% on your emotional crusade against the series.
Nah mate, only one citing facts was me. The emotional response came from like 3 sonic fanbois and yourself, had to put 2 of 'em on ignore because they were unable to write a post without namecalling me because I dared to criticize their childhood game. The fact that you drag it into this thread and even mention that I poke fun at Sonic in sonic threads, which is mostly just a fun jest, shows who's really on an emotional tirade. I still have no idea why you're dragging that topic or that irrelevant franchise into this thread.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
OFCOURSE THERE IS NO CONCRETE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MUCH THE CONSOLE WOULD SELL IF PRODUCTION WAS INCREASED BECAUSE ITS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION

You wanted to discuss facts, let's discuss facts.
Oops, that was easy. Sorry about that. ALL CAPS MESSAGE FOR THE WIN :D
And I don't have to resort to modifying your quotes, by the way. How low can you fall ?

You want to discuss facts but are the first one to acknowledge that there isn't any tangible information to begin with. So are there facts or not ?

What statistic or fact is your opinion that the system would have sold an additional 118 million units,
And this is where you are totally wrong. I never said the console would have sold another 118 millions units, but actually, it was 118 billions units. If you are going to quote me, at least try to do this correctly. Otherwise it makes your bad-faith even more obvious.

The emotional response came from like 3 sonic fanbois and yourself
Oh yes, everyone was being emotional and wrong, and you were the single, yet misunderstood person in the topic to be right.
I still have no idea why you're dragging that topic or that irrelevant franchise into this thread.
Simply remembered this seeing your avatar, nothing more to it. But thanks for the laughs.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Oops, that was easy. Sorry about that. ALL CAPS MESSAGE FOR THE WIN :D
And I don't have to resort to modifying your quotes, by the way. How low can you fall ?
You have modified my quotes several times.

You've done so here:
50/50 between Series X and Series S
When my full quote was this:
We have estimates from data analyst which put the split at about 50/50 between Series X and Series S, noting, ofcourse, that Series X is supply constrained where as Series S is not
Leaving out the context.
You want to discuss facts but are the first one to acknowledge that there isn't any tangible information to begin with. So are there facts or not ?
You have the debating skills of a child. We're talking about sales expectations in a hypothetical scenario. As with all sales expectations, there's NEVER absolute numbers available because it's impossible to know how many people there are exactly that are looking to buy a particular product. The facts are, as I've repeated to you several times, is that the XSX have been sold out for years now and that makes it completely reasonable to assume that the console would sell more if production was improved. This opinion is shared by market analysts. Those are the facts.

Name a fact or a statistic that suggests that the Series X would NOT sell significantly more if supply was increase.
And this is where you are totally wrong. I never said the console would have sold another 118 millions units, but actually, it was 118 billions units. If you are going to quote me, at least try to do this correctly. Otherwise it makes your bad-faith even more obvious.
LOL! You literally modify my quote and intentionally leave out both statistics and context and you want to talk about bad faith? What a joke. I know you haven't said another 118 million. Here is a reminder: The ACTUAL argument that I made, not the strawman you tried to pull, is that I argued that for MOST PEOPLE BUYING HOME CONSOLES, 100$ - 200$ more is not a deal breaker and that a 399$/499$ launch is fine. You continue to argue against this. In order for my statement to be false, you need to prove or at least provide a reasonable claim with statistics to support it that there are more people that buy consoles, for which 100$-200$ more is a dealbreaker, than there are not. This means that you need to prove that there are at least another 118m people who would have purchased the PS4 if it launched at 100$-200$ less.

If you can't do that, then the argument that for most people actually purchasing, 100$ - 200$ more isn't a deal breaker as evident by the fact that the PS4 is the 2nd best selling home console and the XSS is currently selling less than 399 - 499$ priced consoles. The facts are that home consoles that launch at 399 or up sell better than the series s, so my argument that this isn't an issue for most people buying consoles remains factually correct
Oh yes, everyone was being emotional and wrong, and you were the single, yet misunderstood person in the topic to be right.
Actually, a lot of people in that thread shared the same opinion as me, but you might have blocked that out from your memory. I'm very sorry that me criticizing your favorite childhood game traumatized you so much.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
You continue to argue against this.
Of course, because you are obviously wrong. This is common sense. Thinking that 200$ is not a meaningful difference for the buyers is a complete joke.

This means that you need to prove that there are at least another 118m people who would have purchased the PS4 if it launched at 100$-200$ less.
I don't have to prove something I did not say. Remember ? You made this up.

The facts are that home consoles that launch at 399 or up sell better than the series s, so my argument that this isn't an issue for most people buying consoles remains factually correct
The fact that Series S sells less than PS5 is irrelevant. For now, it is selling as much as Series X. And even if Series X was readily available, sales for Series S would not drop to 0. You are totally blinded. Exactly as a budget PS4 would have boosted sales, same thing as the 2DS for example.

Actually, a lot of people in that thread shared the same opinion as me
Now you are imagining things. Nobody was thinking like you. Your arguments were absolutely ridiculous and childish to no end.

MOST PEOPLE BUYING HOME CONSOLES
CAPS LOCK OH YEAH.
You have to back-up "MOST" with actual facts and analysis built over months of work by experts in the domain. Otherwise, this is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Member
It continues to boggle my mind how upset the XSS makes some people and the ridiculous standards it's held to for being the cheapest entry into this console generation. If the framerate drops on it, it's a huge deal. If the resolution is lower is a massive problem.

The more expensive consoles don't get the same complaints despite them costing more and having fewer excuses. Add in that the biggest complaints come from people who don't own it really speak volumes. Ah well the market will determine its success or failure.
 

Rykan

Member
Of course, because you are obviously wrong. This is common sense. Thinking that 200$ is not a meaningful difference for the buyers is a complete joke.
I'm obviously right because the facts are in my favor. I've specifically said that for most people who purchase home consoles, the 100$~200$ higher price isn't a deal breaker as is evident by the fact that these home consoles sell better than the cheaper alternative in series s. We're 3 pages on this and you still can't provide a single fact or statistic to support your argument. Emberassing.
I don't have to prove something I did not say. Remember ? You made this up.
You do have to prove this because you said that my claim, as described above and backed up with facts, is wrong. In fact, you've said repeatedly that it was wrong. So get on with it: show me a statistic or a fact that disproves my argument.
The fact that Series S sells less than PS5 is irrelevant.
It absolutely is not irrelevant. You've said repeatedly that my claim that it's not an issue for most people buying home consoles is wrong. If it was wrong, then series s should be the best selling console now. Remember: I didn't say that the price wasn't an issue for people: I've said that it wasn't an issue for most people buying consoles,as is evident by the fact that these more expensive consoles sell more. If this was false, then the series s would sell more.
For now, it is selling as much as Series X. And even if Series X was readily available, sales for Series S would not drop to 0. You are totally blinded. Exactly as a budget PS4 would have boosted sales, same thing as the 2DS for example.
You're trying to pull another strawman again. I didn't argue that series s sales would drop to 0. In fact, I didn't even argue that series s would drop in sales numbers. What I did argue is that the series x will sell significantly more if it's not supply constrained which means that the percentage of sales being series s goes down. I really hope that I don't have to explain how percentage works to you.
Now you are imagining things. Nobody was thinking like you. Your arguments were absolutely ridiculous and childish to no end.
Let me first say that I absolutely love the fact that you're still so upset over my opinion on Sonic. Sonics fanbase has been well known to host some incredibly weird and disturbing people and this is just more evidence that this is true. There were plenty of other people in that thread that felt the same way, I was the only one willing to elaborate on my opinion and have an actual discussion. Sadly, the sonic fanbase doesn't take criticism of their favorite childhood game well and I was quickly met with profanity and harassment. But yeah sure I was the childish one. Okay buddy.

CAPS LOCK OH YEAH.
You have to back-up "MOST" with actual facts and analysis built over months of work by experts in the domain. Otherwise, this is irrelevant.
I did provide actual facts, how the fuck do you keep missing those? They are literally in the very posts you quote.
 
Last edited:

dcmk7

Member
Add in that the biggest complaints come from people who don't own it really speak volumes
Why do they need to own the system? It's quite clear what it is and isn't capable of.

You don't own the system and yet you're one of the biggest defenders of the console around here, so much so that you are constantly derailing threads to defend it's shortcomings and harp on about how happy Series S owners are, it's extremely weird.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
If you were right, 2DS would have sold 0 units, as it is a budget model that was released after the initial 3DS. So, following your brilliant reasoning, everybody would have already bought the much superior 3DS, since money isn't an issue (according to you) and the superior model was available before the 2DS and was never in short supply.

2DS sold : 10 millions.

Damn. That's much more than 0.

And it was available after the 3DS, so some people without enough money might have found solutions to buy the more expensive 3DS. Also, there is a whole new market that was tapped, with people who were willing to spend 99$ in a console but not more. And you have been completely denying the existence of this market from the very beginning.

So there isn't much more to discuss with you really. You are completely disconnected from the real world and you don't even realize it. The entry price for a product defines the target audience. The lower, the bigger the audience. This is basic reasoning and it was demonstrated a ton of times in the past.

There isn't any fact to discuss about the 50/50 split, which itself is only an estimate. If Series X was more available, maybe the split would be 80/20 (that's what you are hoping it seems) but it could remain close to 50/50 at the end of the gen, a possibility you don't want to accept, probably for some stupid reason. I remember well all these experts that were initially guessing that Series S would not interest anyone at launch. I wonder what they think now of this 50/50 split lol...

Emberassing.
Emberassing indeed.
 

Rykan

Member
If you were right, 2DS would have sold 0 units, as it is a budget model that was released after the initial 3DS. So, following your brilliant reasoning, everybody would have already bought the much superior 3DS, since money isn't an issue (according to you) and the superior model was available before the 2DS and was never in short supply.

2DS sold : 10 millions.

Damn. That's much more than 0.

And it was available after the 3DS, so some people without enough money might have found solutions to buy the more expensive 3DS. Also, there is a whole new market that was tapped, with people who were willing to spend 99$ in a console but not more. And you have been completely denying the existence of this market from the very beginning.
Strawmans and bad arguments again. Lets break it down again, shall we?

I didn't argue that anything would sell 0. Not even close

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula "so what you're saying is ... ?", converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Now on to the bad comparisson: The 2DS and 3DS are fundamentally the same system. They contain the same hardware inside and they run games practically the same. The only reason why the 2DS exists in the first place is because 3D was a gimmick at the end of the early 2000's that didn't catch on as much as expected. That is basically the only difference between the two systems. They run the same framerates, run the same resolutions and they run games exactly the same, minus the optional 3D aspect. None of this applies to Series S.

There's other reasons why this example doesn't support your argument, ofcourse. For one, I've specifically mentioned that I was talking about home consoles, which 3DS/2DS are not. I was also talking about launch price, while the 2DS came out much later after the 3DS. We also have no idea what the hardware split is between between 2DS and 3DS which is important because, unlike your strawman, I argued that the market for cheaper/low specced variations is LESS than the market for regular prices consoles, not that it doesn't exist.

Not a good start, Cireza.

So there isn't much more to discuss with you really. You are completely disconnected from the real world and you don't even realize it. The entry price for a product defines the target audience. The lower, the bigger the audience. This is basic reasoning and it was demonstrated a ton of times in the past.
There's nothing more to discuss with me because I wipe the floor with you. Your opinions are not based on facts or careful analysis, but by your personal preference for the Series S system. Obviously a lower price means a bigger audience, but a lower price also means a lower specced system and all the facts show that there are less people interested in a lower specced system for a lower price than a base model for the standard price. It's funny you claim this was "Demonstrated a ton of times in the past" and yet funny enough you can't come up with even a single example, and all examples i've cited show the opposite being true.
There isn't any fact to discuss about the 50/50 split, which itself is only an estimate.
It is an estimate by people who know far more about the video games market than you do. Now, I understand that basically everyone knows more about the video game market than you do because you have no idea what you're talking about, but rest assured that market experts generally know what they're talking about
If Series X was more available, maybe the split would be 80/20 (that's what you are hoping it seems) but it could remain close to 50/50 at the end of the gen, a possibility you don't want to accept, probably for some stupid reason.
Yeah some stupid reason like..Oh i don't know, there not being any precedent of this happening or you being unable to cite any facts to support this? But i'll throw ya a bone here: Accepting that the split, with current data available, would much likely be in favor of Series X without hardware shortages, the split COULD, hypothetically, swing back to Series S later in the generation. Even if we accept this hypothetic scenario (Which again, is not based on any facts or precedent) as a possibility.. it STILL doesn't make me wrong because my argument was not that there was no market for it: My argument was that it's not a dealbreaker for most people buying home consoles and the only way that argument is wrong is if the Series S somehow outsells both Series X and PS5. Which is not happening, obviously.
I remember well all these experts that were initially guessing that Series S would not interest anyone at launch. I wonder what they think now of this 50/50 split lol...
I'd ask for you to cite a source on this, but i'd wager that the odds of you actually being able to cite a source and this not being a friction of your own imagination to be close to zero.
Emberassing indeed.
While the irony of someone with basically no reading comprehension skills pointing out a typo is certainly not lost on me, I acknowledge that this is probably the closest you'll get to a win, so I'll allow it.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Strawmans and bad arguments again. Lets break it down again, shall we?

I didn't argue that anything would sell 0. Not even close



Now on to the bad comparisson: The 2DS and 3DS are fundamentally the same system. They contain the same hardware inside and they run games practically the same. The only reason why the 2DS exists in the first place is because 3D was a gimmick at the end of the early 2000's that didn't catch on as much as expected. That is basically the only difference between the two systems. They run the same framerates, run the same resolutions and they run games exactly the same, minus the optional 3D aspect. None of this applies to Series S.

There's other reasons why this example doesn't support your argument, ofcourse. For one, I've specifically mentioned that I was talking about home consoles, which 3DS/2DS are not. I was also talking about launch price, while the 2DS came out much later after the 3DS. We also have no idea what the hardware split is between between 2DS and 3DS which is important because, unlike your strawman, I argued that the market for cheaper/low specced variations is LESS than the market for regular prices consoles, not that it doesn't exist.

Not a good start, Cireza.


There's nothing more to discuss with me because I wipe the floor with you. Your opinions are not based on facts or careful analysis, but by your personal preference for the Series S system. Obviously a lower price means a bigger audience, but a lower price also means a lower specced system and all the facts show that there are less people interested in a lower specced system for a lower price than a base model for the standard price. It's funny you claim this was "Demonstrated a ton of times in the past" and yet funny enough you can't come up with even a single example, and all examples i've cited show the opposite being true.

It is an estimate by people who know far more about the video games market than you do. Now, I understand that basically everyone knows more about the video game market than you do because you have no idea what you're talking about, but rest assured that market experts generally know what they're talking about

Yeah some stupid reason like..Oh i don't know, there not being any precedent of this happening or you being unable to cite any facts to support this? But i'll throw ya a bone here: Accepting that the split, with current data available, would much likely be in favor of Series X without hardware shortages, the split COULD, hypothetically, swing back to Series S later in the generation. Even if we accept this hypothetic scenario (Which again, is not based on any facts or precedent) as a possibility.. it STILL doesn't make me wrong because my argument was not that there was no market for it: My argument was that it's not a dealbreaker for most people buying home consoles and the only way that argument is wrong is if the Series S somehow outsells both Series X and PS5. Which is not happening, obviously.

I'd ask for you to cite a source on this, but i'd wager that the odds of you actually being able to cite a source and this not being a friction of your own imagination to be close to zero.

While the irony of someone with basically no reading comprehension skills pointing out a typo is certainly not lost on me, I acknowledge that this is probably the closest you'll get to a win, so I'll allow it.
Still iterating on the same answers but it is not as if you were going to change your mind anyway. Great thing to have brought the Straw man definition here : this is precisely what you have been doing. Imagining facts that don't exist on your side and ignoring mine when it suits you.

I have wasted enough of my time with you.

Please continue living in your fantasy world (I wipe the floor with you lol) and let's check the split at the end of the gen in a few years. It will probably be very interesting.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Still iterating on the same answers but it is not as if you were going to change your mind anyway.
It's more than possible to change my mind, it's just unlikely to happen by someone who continues to pull straw man arguments and is unable the back up his opinions with any facts or figures to support it. I don't "Imagine" facts that don't exist. I've cited publically available hardware sales records and I've based my opinion on those.
Great thing to have brought the Straw man definition here : this is precisely what you have been doing. Imagining facts that don't exist on your side and ignoring mine when it suits you.
...That is not what the term straw man means. I think the fact that you still don't understand what the term straw man means, despite an entire wikipedia article dedicated to it, is just the icing on the cake and pretty much sums up your position in this thread: You have no idea what you're talking about, you have exceptionally bad reading comprehension skills and you constantly argue against positions that I haven't taken.

This is honestly just you projecting. Small reminder:

However if you think that a 100$ or 200$ difference is nothing, you are completely wrong.
You have not cited any fact or statistic to support this argument. Also straw man.
It is not people who can afford a Series X as a primary console that are buying a Series S instead.
You have not cited any fact or statistic to support this argument.
These people are the kind that will wait to have the product they want, not buy a budget product.
You have not cited any fact or statistic to support this argument.

I've not ignored any evidence you've brought forward: The problem from the get go has been that you don't bring ANY facts to this discussion for most of your arguments. The closest thing you've done to bringing any facts to this discussion is your 3DS/2DS example, which i've adressed above. Saying I haven't adressed your "facts" is demonstrably false. Quote one fact that you've posted that you think I haven't adressed and I will quote my post responding to it and adressing it to prove that I have. We both know you won't do this because we both know you're a liar.

I have wasted enough of my time with you.
That is true, but thats because you're simply out of your league here. You thought your playground arguments would suffice in an actual discussion. doesn't work that way, sorry
Please continue living in your fantasy world (I wipe the floor with you lol) and let's check the split at the end of the gen in a few years. It will probably be very interesting.
Yes, it will be most interesting to see you try to argue against positions I didn't took in a few years. Perhaps your reading comprehension will have improved by then.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
You have not cited any fact or statistic to support this argument.
You are completely deluded and have brought yourself zero fact to the discussion.

Don't forget to provide the 200$ to every potential Series S buyer in the future, as money isn't the issue (fact demonstrated by Rykan ©). It will help raise the ratio in favor of Series X as much as possible !
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
You are completely deluded and have brought yourself zero fact to the discussion.

Don't forget to provide the 200$ to every potential Series S buyer in the future, as money isn't the issue (fact demonstrated by Rykan ©). It will help raise the ratio in favor of Series X as much as possible !
The PS4 launched at 399$. With inflation, the PS5 launched at more or less the same price for the disc version and 100$ less for the digital version. The PS4 is one of the best selling consoles ever.
The system has been sold out for nearly 2 years and will probably be sold out for at least 3. Several industry analyst have pointed out that console sales are lacking behind because of supply issues. It's a prime target for scalpers.
Like I've said, your posts are demonstrably filled with falsehoods. Quit lying, your projection is getting irksome.

PS4 sales numbers are here.

Inflation calculator can be found here. The PS4 launched in 2013 for $399. With inflation, that system would now cost $495.18.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Like I've said, your posts are demonstrably filled with falsehoods. Quit lying, your projection is getting irksome.

PS4 sales numbers are here.

Inflation calculator can be found here. The PS4 launched in 2013 for $399. With inflation, that system would now cost $495.18.
And how does this make a 200$ difference non-existent for people ? It doesn't.

A 200$ PS4 would have moved more units (200$ difference). Common sense. You can disagree and do all the mental gymnastics you want.
 

Rykan

Member
And how does this make a 200$ difference non-existent for people ? It doesn't.
Strawman. I've said that it isn't a dealbreaker, not that its non-existent. Quit lying.
A 200$ PS4 would have moved more units (200$ difference). Common sense. You can disagree and do all the mental gymnastics you want.
A 200$ PS4 would have lower specs than a regular PS4 in the same way that the Series S has lower specs than XSX/PS5. Prove, or at the very least, offer literally anything to back up the argument that a lower specced 200$ PS4 would have sold more units than a 400$ regular priced PS4 with standard specs.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Prove, or at the very least, offer literally anything to back up the argument that a lower specced 200$ PS4 would have sold more units than a 400$ regular priced PS4 with standard specs.

See I can do this too. Because I have never said that a budget PS4 would sell more, nor did I say that it would have the same spec.
However, a budget PS4, be it less powerful or not, would have boosted sales.
 

Rykan

Member
See I can do this too. Because I have never said that a budget PS4 would sell more, nor did I say that it would have the same spec.
However, a budget PS4, be it less powerful or not, would have boosted sales.
So are you saying that a lower budget, less powerful PS4 released alongside the standard PS4 would sell more or less than than the standard PS4 that sold 118 million units?
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
So are you saying that a lower budget, less powerful PS4 released alongside the standard PS4 would sell more or less than than the standard PS4 that sold 118 million units?
It's written in my previous post. Do you have reading comprehension issues ?
 

Rykan

Member
It's written in my previous post. Do you have reading comprehension issues ?
No it isn't. This is your post.
See I can do this too. Because I have never said that a budget PS4 would sell more, nor did I say that it would have the same spec.
However, a budget PS4, be it less powerful or not, would have boosted sales.
It says that it would have boosted sales. It doesn't mention whether a lower budget, less powerful PS4 released alongside the standard PS4 would sell less or more than the standard PS4, hence my question.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
It says that it would have boosted sales. It doesn't mention whether a lower budget, less powerful PS4 released alongside the standard PS4 would sell less or more than the standard PS4, hence my question.
Then I will make it clearer : more or less than 118 millions is irrelevant.
 

Rykan

Member
Then I will make it clearer : more or less than 118 millions is irrelevant.
No it's not irrelevant. You've spend about 2 pages trying to tell me how wrong I am, so it's directly related to the topic we're discussing.

Why are you so afraid to answer the question?
 
With the recent Starfield delay do you even want an xbox?
I usually talk up Xbox but after today Im probly going to get banned from Neogaf for saying something I shouldn’t in a moment of ‘Passion’.
 

adamsapple

Gold Member
We're gonna have people start bumping every thread about Xbox stuff with Starfield delay zingers now, aren't we ...
 

Rykan

Member
Then my estimate would be 98 785 142 more consoles sold. That's below 118 millions, I have to admit. Still a good number though.
And what is that estimate based on and can I interpret this post as you saying that a cheaper,lower specced PS4 would sell less than the traditional PS4 if it launched alongside it?
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
can I interpret
This is what you seem to be an expert at.

I will try this again, even if it is most probably in vain : you have no clue if a budget PS4 would sell more or less than the normal model. No clue. No fact. You can only make wild guesses.

Had a budget model been available from launch at 200$, it could perfectly have sold 98 785 142 units. And the standard PS4 could be at 118 millions. In this case, that would be less.

But this looks like an extremely unlikely scenario overall. And this is where I am going to use something you lack : common sense.

What would have happened if a budget PS4 had been available from launch at 200$ is that the 400$ model would have sold much less. Two reasons :
- many people who had the money to buy a 400$ model could have been perfectly satisfied with the 200$ model
- a lot of new people who only had budget for a 200$ would have been brought in
- a lot of people would have bought the budget console as a secondary console
This is exactly the trend we see with buyers of the Series S by the way.

In the end, nobody can tell it the budget model would have sold less or more. What we are seeing with Series consoles is very interesting though.
There is something you can be sure of though : it is that Sony regrets not having a 300$ budget proposal right now. PS4 is still 400$ and not a next-gen machine, forcing them into maintaining a multi-generation approach to games. And I am pretty sure that next generation, if we ever reach it and if it is still a "classic" generation (because who can predict the future with the current global situation with semi-conductors etc...), Sony will have such a proposal from day-one.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
This is what you seem to be an expert at.

I will try this again, even if it is most probably in vain : you have no clue if a budget PS4 would sell more or less than the normal model. No clue. No fact. You can only make wild guesses.

Had a budget model been available from launch at 200$, it could perfectly have sold 98 785 142 units. And the standard PS4 could be at 118 millions. In this case, that would be less.

But this looks like an extremely unlikely scenario overall. And this is where I am going to use something you lack : common sense.
Congratulations: You have successfully argued yourself into a wall. Lets go back to my initial argument: My initial argument was that for most people buying home consoles, the 100$ - 200$ extra for better hardware is not a dealbreaker. You have, repeatedly, said that this was wrong. How curious it is then, that in this very post you claim that you don't have a clue how much a lower specced, cheaper console would sell. If you have no clue how much cheaper lower specced consoles would sell, then you have no way of knowing whether I'm wrong or not. Your claim that I'm wrong is completely baseless and unfounded, it turns out. Even in the hypothetical scenario that you mentioned, that is still less units than the 118m regular PS4's which means that my argument that it's not a dealbreaker for most people is still correct.

At best you could have argued that I made a claim that I can't support. That would be false, but at least it wouldn't lead to this obvious and blatant self contradiction that you have managed to argue yourself into. Well done.

Now lets adress the actual point you tried to make: You claim that I have "No clue if a budget, lower specced PS4 would sell less or more than a regular PS4". Sort of, but not really. Let me remind you the context again: My argument was that it's not a dealbreaker for most people. We know that for at least 118m people, it's not a dealbreaker because they've purchased the system. They might have purchased a cheaper/lower specced version if it was available, sure, but thats not what dealbreaker means. In order for my argument to be wrong, you'd have to argue that a lower specced/cheaper PS4 would bring in an additional 118m sales. This would put the PS4 at 236m sales in 10 years. Even without know exactly how many consoles extra it would have sold, I'm sure even you understand that the PS4 selling 236m units is highly unlikely.

But wait! There's more. We actually do have some data available on how lower specced versions sell: The Series S. Current data available does give an indication how such a system would sell:

Here's what we know: We know that even in ideal circumstances for the series S, at its current price point, it only reaches a 50/50 split between series X. That's with the Series S being basically the only next gen system available and both Series X and PS5 sold out. The sales of PS5 and XSX combined vastly dwarf that of the Series S. This means that MOST people are currently buying the regular priced consoles. Again: All the facts point towards my statement that regular price is not a dealbreaker for most people is correct.

What would have happened if a budget PS4 had been available from launch at 200$ is that the 400$ model would have sold much less. Two reasons :
Then why's there three different reasons listed? I knew your math was bad but geez dude.
- many people who had the money to buy a 400$ model could have been perfectly satisfied with the 200$ model
Irrelevant. Remember, I've specifically used the term dealbreaker. Dealbreaker means that a person wouldn't buy a 400$ console regardless if a cheaper option was available or not.
- a lot of new people who only had budget for a 200$ would have been brought in
How many? What is this based on?
- a lot of people would have bought the budget console as a secondary console
How many? what is this based on?
This is exactly the trend we see with buyers of the Series S by the way.
Where do we see this, exactly?
In the end, nobody can tell it the budget model would have sold less or more. What we are seeing with Series consoles is very interesting though.
There is something you can be sure of though : it is that Sony regrets not having a 300$ budget proposal right now.
Really? Which system is ahead in sales right now?
PS4 is still 400$ and not a next-gen machine, forcing them into maintaining a multi-generation approach to games.
This is a weird argument to make. The PS4 has been incredibly successful, and still is, so it makes sense that it's being supported. Both MS and Sony are taking a multi - generation approach. In fact, I think Sony has released more next gen only games than MS so far? R&C and DS remake were next gen only, Everything MS published so far has been multi generation as well except for Flight Simulator I guess.
And I am pretty sure that next generation, if we ever reach it and if it is still a "classic" generation (because who can predict the future with the current global situation with semi-conductors etc...), Sony will have such a proposal from day-one.
We'll see.
 
Last edited:

dvdvideo

Member
Anyone else ever notice that 99.999% of the time a person invokes "strawman" on the forums, they most often have zero leg to stand on?
 

cireza

Member
My initial argument was that for most people buying home consoles, the 100$ - 200$ extra for better hardware is not a dealbreaker.
How many? What is this based on?

Oh wait, I know. It is based on unrelated estimates being based on facts, and being stretched as much as possible to pretend it is a valid source.
We know that even in ideal circumstances for the series S, at its current price point, it only reaches a 50/50 split between series X.
You almost had a fact here, still you managed to insert some of your bias into it. Series S is at 50/50 split, yep.

The sales of PS5 and XSX combined vastly dwarf that of the Series S
Why are you including PS5 suddenly ? Most people who buy a PS5 console would never even consider an Xbox to begin with. And this "most people" here seems much more reasonable than yours (about 200$ not making a difference for "most people", what a complete joke honestly).

This means that MOST people are currently buying the regular priced consoles.
Half Xbox buyers are buying Series X indeed.

then you have no way of knowing whether I'm wrong or not.
My point is not to demonstrate that you are wrong or right, it is make you realize that we don't know and can't tell how the split will evolve. You have been making arguments that it would evolve strongly in favor in Series X, but this is impossible to know for sure, whatever the mental gymnastics you are doing.

I put some bold to help you understand.
 
Last edited:

AzafuseYugi

Member
Let me first say that I absolutely love the fact that you're still so upset over my opinion on Sonic. Sonics fanbase has been well known to host some incredibly weird and disturbing people and this is just more evidence that this is true. There were plenty of other people in that thread that felt the same way, I was the only one willing to elaborate on my opinion and have an actual discussion. Sadly, the sonic fanbase doesn't take criticism of their favorite childhood game well and I was quickly met with profanity and harassment. But yeah sure I was the childish one. Okay buddy.
We weren't upset about your opinion, we were upset about your attitude. You were acitng like if Sonic was objectively bad and everyone who enjoyed Sonic was nostalgia blind, and proceeded to ignore us everytime we pointed out the flaws on your arguments. If I were to talk shit about Mario, say that any Mario game was objectively bad and that you guys only like Mario because you grew up with a Nintendo console, you'd guys react the same.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
How many? What is this based on?

Oh wait, I know. It is based on unrelated estimates being based on facts, and being stretched as much as possible to pretend it is a valid source.
See! We're starting to make progress here. You went from lying about me presenting no facts to finally acknowledging that, yes, you were lying about me presenting no facts. Its a shame that your poor reading comprehension skills mess things up again, but let me reiterate again:

The only scenario in which I am wrong about my previous claim is if you can somehow reasonably argue that a lower specced, lower priced PS4 released alongside the PS4 would increase the audience by at least an aditional 118m people. We don't need to know the exact numbers, we just need to know, or have a reasonable estimate, whether it would sell an additional 118m units.

There are really only two outcomes here:

1. You keep this ridiculous argument that it is "completely unknowable" whether a lower specced,lower priced console would sell at least an additional 118m. This means that you're forced to acknowledge that you saying I'm wrong is completely unfounded.

2. You somehow need to reasonable argue that a lower specced, cheaper Ps4 would have boosted sales to at least 236m units within 10 years. This is something that no other console has even come close to. All of this while taking into account that in current gen, the cheaper option is selling significantly less than the standard priced options. Hopefully you'll now begin to understand how unreasonable your position has been from the start. Just because we can't "guess" what the exact numbers would be doesn't mean that we can't write off extremely unlikely scenarios based on current available data.
You almost had a fact here, still you managed to insert some of your bias into it. Series S is at 50/50 split, yep.
Except it's not bias. The split is currently 50/50 between Series S&X. All of the competition is sold out besides Series S. This means the the other consoles are, quite literary, unavailable. A scenario in which your competition is literally not available for purchase while you are available for purchase is objectively a best case scenario. Saying this is bias shows once again that you don't know what you're talking about.
Why are you including PS5 suddenly ? Most people who buy a PS5 console would never even consider an Xbox to begin with. And this "most people" here seems much more reasonable than yours (about 200$ not making a difference for "most people", what a complete joke honestly).


Half Xbox buyers are buying Series X indeed.
I think it's funny that you think I've only just been including the PS5 suddenly considering I've been doing this for about two pages now, but I suppose your lack of reading comprehension skills have been well documented at this point. The reason why I include the PS5 with the XSX is as follows: I've argued that it's not a dealbreaker for most people buying home consoles. For people who bought a PS5 OR an XSX, it's clearly not a dealbreaker by the very definition that they've purchased the console. Whether they would even consider an Xbox or not is completely irrelevant. The PS5 has sold more units than Series X/S so thats at least 50% of home console market share. Lets keep things straigth forward and say that PS5 and series consoles both have 50% market share. We know that XSS/XSX have a 50/50 split. This means that absolute highest possible percentage of people buying consoles for which 100$-200$ more would be a dealbreaker is 25%. Since not everyone who purchases a series S did so becuase they couldn't afford the higher price for XSX/PS5, ofcourse, the actual percentage is less than that.

Hopefully you'll now start to realise that...actually yeah, I've been correct from the very beginning and that your claim that I was wrong is baseless and unfounded, by your own admission.
My point is not to demonstrate that you are wrong or right,
That's weird, you've just spend two pages saying that I'm wrong and now you don't want to demonstrate that I'm wrong? Interesting.
it is make you realize that we don't know and can't tell how the split will evolve. You have been making arguments that it would evolve strongly in favor in Series X, but this is impossible to know for sure, whatever the mental gymnastics you are doing.

I put some bold to help you understand.
This is a logical fallacy. You're attempting to argue that just because we don't have absolute facts about a hypothetical scenario available, we can't make any forecast or express reasonable expectations. You're basically saying that every single sales forecast is useless.

But here's the thing: Just because we don't know 100% what the weather is going to be tommorow, doesn't mean that we can't have a weather forecast or that we can't somewhat safely say that it probably won't snow in Miami tommorow.

The Series X has been sold out nearly instantly for nearly two years because it's supply constrained. There are several market analyst who have pointed out that console sales are down because of supply issues. Saying that the Series X would have sold more if it wasn't supply constrained, which in turn means that it makes up a higher precentage of the total sales, is a completely realistic and rational prediction to make. Saying "It's impossible to know for sure" is anti intellectualism at its finest, because its redundant. By definition, we don't have exact sales data available of a hypothetical situation due to the nature of it being hypothetical.

It's like me saying, in two weeks from now, Everyone will only buy PS5's and nobody will buy Series S console anymore. It will sell zero consoles. You would, rightfully, point out that this is ridiculous and that there is no evidence to support this, to which I respond: But it's impossible to know for sure that it won't happen.

That is basically what you're doing, because the only scenario in which you are right is that market analysts are completely wrong and MS is producing EXACTLY enough XSX to meet demand.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
we can't make any forecast or express reasonable expectations
This is pretty much it indeed. I will add that your predictions are everything but reasonable for Series S. They are oriented to push your narrative without much logic in the end, so of course I was going to react to it.

Analysts are a joke overall. They are only good at saying that things will go the same way as in the past. They always completely miss the point anytime something slightly changes. I prefer using my common sense and make my own assumptions.
 

Rykan

Member
This is pretty much it indeed. I will add that your predictions are everything but reasonable for Series S. They are oriented to push your narrative without much logic in the end, so of course I was going to react to it.

Analysts are a joke overall. They are only good at saying that things will go the same way as in the past. They always completely miss the point anytime something slightly changes. I prefer using my common sense and make my own assumptions.
Saying that a supply constrained system wouldn't sell more if it wasn't supply constrained isn't "common sense". It's stupidity. I can appreciate your double standards though. Everytime you make a dumb claim without a shred of evidence, it's "Oh that's my common sense". But when I make a claim, which actually is backed up by evidence, you respond with: "But you have no way of knowing what will happen!".

It's hilarious.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Saying that a supply constrained system wouldn't sell more if it wasn't supply constrained isn't "common sense". It's stupidity. I can appreciate your double standards though. Everytime you make a dumb claim without a shred of evidence, it's "Oh that's my common sense". But when I make a claim, which actually is backed up by evidence, you respond with: "But you have no way of knowing what will happen!".

It's hilarious.
Your main argument being that 200$ more is irrelevant to the buyer takes the cake though. I would never have thought to meet someone who would genuinely believe this. It is beyond dumb, really. Not a single analyst would backup this.
 

Rykan

Member
Your main argument being that 200$ more is irrelevant to the buyer takes the cake though. I would never have thought to meet someone who would genuinely believe this. It is beyond dumb, really. Not a single analyst would backup this.
Quote the post where I've said this, because I've said nothing of the sorts.
 

cireza

Member
Quote the post where I've said this, because I've said nothing of the sorts.

I mean, if you REALLY are on such a tight budget that you absolutely cannot spend an aditional 100$ on a PS5: DE or 200$ for a series X, then by all means. But this is a fairly small group of people and for most people
A fairly small group (which cannot be backed up by any source, of course). Implying they are pretty much irrelevant, serving as a basis for your ridiculous argument. And then you dare and ask people about facts.

Congrats for your 3 years old avatar lol.
 
Last edited:

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
In my opinion if you play games often and gaming is your main hobby then Xbox Series X is better choice.
 

Rykan

Member
A fairly small group (which cannot be backed up by any source, of course). Implying they are pretty much irrelevant, serving as a basis for your ridiculous argument. And then you dare and ask people about facts.

Congrats for your 3 years old avatar lol.
Your main argument being that 200$ more is irrelevant to the buyer takes the cake though.
and this
I mean, if you REALLY are on such a tight budget that you absolutely cannot spend an aditional 100$ on a PS5: DE or 200$ for a series X, then by all means. But this is a fairly small group of people and for most people
Are quite literally talking about two different things. Your post is talking about the amount of money, the post you quoted is about the amount of people.

Your post says that I've said that 200$ more is irrelevant. What my post actually says that if you are on such a tight budget that you absolutely can't spend more, then by all means,Buy a series S. I've said that this is a fairly small group of people. At no point in that post have I said that the price point is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom