I don't think that's at odds with what's been said. 'Core console gaming' isn't growing. Nintendo doing their thing has managed to keep a certain section of the gaming market healthy. If Nintendo succeed, or fail, that doesn't change the landscape for 'core console' games and how much money can be made there.
It is at odds when we view the console market as predominantly made up of "core gamers" and we remove Nintendo out of the picture. Traditionally the PS audience for example wasn't consisting only of core gamers. It's appeal was wide to all kinds of demographics. Otherwise it is a biased statistical analysis of the console market to interpret PS and XBOX solely as core. At best what this perspective describes, it's Sony's and MS's ability or inability to grow their market. But then you have to dive in and see who is exiting, who is maintained and who is entering, and whoever is exiting where is he going and why. Is there a large chunk of the market that Sony was attracting moving to Switch, PC and/or mobile gaming? It is not different from just picking XBOX sales to derive conclusions about the console market while ignoring that other platforms may be growing. In addition if someone wants to conclude about the interest of gamers growing, stalling or shrinking, someone needs to measure how many software units are moving, and the consumer's propensity to buy at each console price level. There is a chance that interest is there, but the console price is the major barrier of growth. The PS1 and PS2 were perfect because they could reduce their console price and thus could attract more and more people who could buy a AA title and be super happy like Crash Team Racing, Parappa The Rapper, Klonoa, SingStar, Buzz or Kula Quest. All titles that we assume to find on Switch.
I m sure that PCs also ate from the console market growth.
The difference is that the inflation is not aligned with a collective increase of income. There is a global economic crisis. That $500 is felt. 4 years without a price drop is also felt by those that are willing to buy but still waiting for a better price
www.vg247.com
So $500 is a lot of money and yet you're worried that PS users are going to jump to $1500 PCs to play 2 year old Spider-Man 2 ports....
PCs are general purpose devices, a necessity for every household, that come in many prices that can also play games. Another $500 to play games is a waste for many. While many hardcore gamers willing to spend, can easily shift to PCs, and many casuals waiting for price drops are waiting. A gamer isn't a flat one dimensional demographic. You know that pretty well.
Not any more. Plenty operate on iPads and phones.
Plenty while not owning a PC at all can be any number that is a natural occurance by the simple existence of a huge statistical sample. How much does it compare to the number of households owning PCs and are the households owning PCs insignificant?
Depends how you define "required". And if operating ipads and phones equals zero use of PCs in a meaningful number of homes, enough that can give credence to your point and not referring to simply potentials.
Not 'required', but "a necessity" by your words. You are saying every home has to have a PC, and as such that PC can be used for gaming. What are the necessary functions a PC provides that cannot be (and in some homes is) provided by other devices?
