It's possible but Switch's success so far has come from sectors and software largely outside what drives PS/Xbox. PS4/XBO had no real impact on Switch, or vice versa, so I'm not convinced PS5/XSX will functionally be any different. It's not the hardcore buying Switch now or in the next several years, they already bought in at this point.
Most people who know what they're talking about would agree that VR will be a least as impactful as personal computers and would be the next stage of the Internet.
VR and AR will converge.
PS5 and Series X are coming out next November. Switch will have the whole year to accumulate sales. It will beat both combined with its hands tied behind its back in 2020. Animal Crossing appeals to a market that isn't fully on board yet and will be a big system seller early in the year and we don't know what else they have coming yet.
I expect a Switch Pro to hit in 2021 after the PS5 and Series X are out for a bit . It will be $299 or $349 at most along with upgraded online features.
Same , if there a switch pro imma buy this before the next xbox
lol, no I had a Hotmail account in the early/mid 90s. Keep clutching to irrelevant comparisons from the ether though, you're really convincing hearts and minds with this stuff.
Hotmail didn't start until 1996, so early 90s wouldn't be accurate.
Considering that the Switch didn't negatively affect the PS4 / XB1 at all and is in pretty much it's own lane, I don't see why the PS5 / XBSX should have any affect on it. If it's sales go down, it'll be because of age, price, or the library no longer being able to reach more people. Not like the Switch was getting the big AAA stuff anyways. On that note, I think the Switch will be more so flat this year than go through a decline. I mean, we haven't even had a price drop yet or official bundles. Quite a few folk are still on the fence because of that
You're right, I had an AOL email (lol). Hotmail was late 90s and early aughts.
Switch had great sales in 2017/2018 which were PS4's peak years so the idea that its success is related to current gen being stale doesn't add up.
PCs had huge industry backing in the 80s, and yet it didn't go fully mainstream until the early 90s, and a lot of the 80s were all about PCs for consumers, not just for academics/business.
VR is most comparable to PCs, a device which eventually gained ubiquity in the home. AR is most comparable to smartphones, a device which eventually gained ubiquity on the go as well as in the home. There's mainstream market potential for both of them.
Uh, PCs were already selling big in the 80s. The market didn't really unify under one dominant standard until Windows in the 90s but that's something different. Computers also weren't primarily entertainment devices although that was a selling point, while there is academic/enterprise use to VR you *really* can't say the same for it.
I can see it, will probably depend on what their holiday line up is, but this year's will be hard to beat + 2 ( maybe 3) new consoles to compete with could damage it's holiday sales, which are always massive for it. Still very likely be the year's top seller comfortably though, like PS4 was after the Switch for a couple years.
PCs were starting to take off in the late 80s, but they did not go mainstream until the early 90s. That explosive process of vertical take-off still takes years. This isn't about standards, it's about sales.
Are you saying VR isn't practical at all outside of entertainment purposes? It's already being used by consumers for non-entertainment applications.
If you're talking about today's numbers, sure. I just hope you're not talking about what it can provide as it advances, because a lot of people have the idea that VR is solely going to be for entertainment when that couldn't be further from the truth.
PCs were already huge in the 80s and selling millions annually. The issue was there were tons of standards and vendors but the idea that they weren't mainstream in the 1980s (particularly in Europe) isn't grounded at all. Also a console is just a computer that's closed and only (or at least primarily) plays games. Some computers even had consolized variants like C64, CD32, FM Towns, MSX, etc. Hell if something like the MSX came out today people would just call it a console, these two industries aren't as neatly segregated as you seem to think. Likewise the rise of smartphones and related devices was precisely because they functionally replaced computers for many.
VR today can be used for desktop publishing, true scale 3D graphics, writing, spreadsheets, games, communication, and more.
Selling millions annually is not the same as going mainstream. VR sells millions annually, and even if that were to quadruple it still wouldn't be mainstream because it takes a significantly large amount of sales to get there.
Saying that example is not a good idea is a bit bizzare. You'd be using virtual screens and keyboard/mice as usual. A stone tablet is limited by it's interface. VR can add to the PC interface by allowing for what's known as spatial computing. A lot of novelists need focus as they write, inspiration even. Both can be gained through VR simultaneously. It's a great way to get rid of real world distractions and focus solely on the work before you.
As I said, you'd be using VR for the infinite computing space it offers, the distraction free opportunities, and the ability to more easily visualize information that could be useful for your work.
Your environment and ultimately visual stimuli in the periphery is a large factor for concentration. There is a reason why people sometimes like to go outside to work, because they find it relaxing, and while you can't get that sensation of wind or temperature, it's long been proven that visual stimulation is more than enough to put people into a certain mindset.
