The war between Microsoft and Sony has become a dispute between their fans and they arguing over which system is more powerful, many invoking the higher resolution supported by the PlayStation 4 to be a bigger advantage, while others don’t consider the small resolution difference a big deal. But how will we differentiate these consoles? Let’s put the fans in a dilemma by talking about their content, features and frame rates.
DFC Intelligence has big expectations for the Nintendo Switch 2. They estimate over 100 million units sold by the end of 2029.
dont think itll happen because of COQ. it costs as much as gaming consoles that are way better in a lot of ways and nintendo normally thrives on selling cheaper hardware than the competition. i believe that because the switch 2 and the games are so expensive and are far inferior to better versions available for the same price or cheaper on better gaming consoles that gamers would rather get a better value for their money and buy something better than the switch 2. the switch 2 can do a lot better if it isnt expensive and the games are cheaper.
Pretty ambitious... it could be done so long as they lower the price of the games and the system to something more reasonable.
For me...I beg to differ it's an important launch knowing it's not launching with any interesting exclusives except the $80 Mario Kart & I'm not into racers. Until I see some interesting Switch 2 exclusives that I think are a must play I can wait as long as possible before obtaining a Switch 2.
I’ve seen a lot of people projecting that the Switch 2 will sell over 100 million units by 2029. While I understand the optimism—especially considering the original Switch’s success—I think those numbers might be overlooking the current state of the market and how much it’s shifted.
First off, we need to stop using early sellouts or pre-order hype as a reliable indicator of long-term success. Every major console that’s launched in the last 25 years has sold out during its pre-order window. Even consoles that were ultimately considered commercial disappointments—like the Wii U—sold out at launch. The PS3, which launched at a hefty $600 back in 2007, still had people lining up. That early rush is almost always driven by the core gaming audience, not the mass market. The real test comes after that honeymoon phase, when sales depend on casual gamers and broader adoption.
And that’s where things get trickier now.
The gaming landscape has changed dramatically. Mobile gaming has completely taken over in terms of both revenue and number of players. It’s bigger than console and PC gaming combined, and it's still growing. That makes sense when you think about it: everyone already has a phone, and many have tablets too. Pair that with a Bluetooth controller and you’ve got a portable, high-quality gaming experience with almost no extra cost.
Consoles and gaming PCs, on the other hand, require a substantial investment just to get started. When money is tighter for a lot of households and the average consumer is more price-conscious, it becomes harder to justify spending $400–600+ on a single-use gaming device—especially when they already own something that plays games well enough.
I’m not saying the Switch 2 won’t be successful. Nintendo has a strong brand and a loyal fanbase. But I do think people are underestimating how much harder it is today to move that kind of hardware volume. The market’s more competitive, more fragmented, and more mobile than ever before
"gamescom latam 2025, the Latin edition of the world's biggest games event, was a total success, breaking records during its second year.." - gamescom latam.
Explore GSC Demo Disc #4 with a variety of new game demos to try this month. Find your next favourite title today!
For some it is and, for some it's not! I think the basic concept applies to most thing in life as far as what some would say makes something more appealing or, considered better made or, of bette quality, but I think the one thing that should always take center stage in this case. Is the gameplay top notch!?
You can have the most pristine graphics, but if the gameplay doesn't at least come close, who's going to bother?
In the grand scheme of things, no, the resolution is not THAT important. The game will suck or be good regardless of the resolution. TLOU was a great game at 720p/30fps and it was the same great game at 1080p/60fps. The increased resolution and frame rate did not make the story of the game better in any way.
But graphics are always a piece of the larger puzzle, and while better graphics may not make a game better in the grand scheme of things, it definitely won't hurt either..
If it's not important then why do you have a 1080p HDTV to begin with?
MS fanboys don't consider the Current-Gen difference to be a big deal but Last-Gen the even smaller differences were a huge deal.. As we can see it's only a big deal if it's in Microsofts favor to MS fanboys.
Ultimately though, the frames per second is more important than resolution because it's actually effects the gameplay.
1080/60fps is preferred but I'll take a 720p or 900p game @ 60fps over 1080p/30fps anyday.. Unfortunately for Microsoft they don't offer that increased frame rate with the lower resolution.
@ Neonridr
But the 1080p/60fps did make TLOU play a lot better and smoother and that's the point.
@ any disagrees
I expect the majority to disagree because the majority of gamers are casuals whom know nothing about gaming.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1080P should be a rule, mot acception. Same with 60fps.