Quantcast
Nintendo Financial Results: Switch sales top 19.67m, Mario Tennis 1.38m, DK TF 1.4m, more

Forums - Sales Discussion - Nintendo Financial Results: Switch sales top 19.67m, Mario Tennis 1.38m, DK TF 1.4m, more

Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

Kaz doesn't see to have a problem being developing Gran Turismo for over 20 years.

You can outsource with quality, actually a lot of the assets on a lot of successful games are outsourced. And you can completely outsource games if you do due diligence and supervision you can acertain the end product is good.

Also Nintendo may hire a lot of people and not to speed up current games, but to have more subteams and increase the amount of games on pipeline. Also by managing the resources those subteams may work on steps of each project that need them and move on (how it is done on giant developers with multi team and project).

And how has that been working for GT?Is the last 3 games as good as the first three games?Its his choice to keep developing all the games and only do that, Sakurai for example dosent let anyone else work on Smash, but they are the exceptions, and you dont make a rule by the exceptions(and even Sakurai makes other games from time to time).

And Nintendo does outsource projects.Smash 5 is being outsourced, Nintendo funded Bayonetta and are letting Platinum make it, Metroid Prime 4 is seemingly being made mostly by an outside team.But you need to have a tight control over these projects so that they dont get out of control, so you need to have personel watching over them.A company cant outsource dozens of projects at the same time because its not effective or even possible, by the reasons I already wrote in the other post.

Nintendo output is already greater than any other company.Expecting them to make games with the same output as 3 or 4 big companies combined, like Square and Sony, is unrealistic at best.Not to say that Nintendo is not expanding when needed.Monolith just opened a new studio for example, but Nintendo can only get so big.

You said no one would be able to do it and love it. He have full autonomy to do what he wants on PD, and he stick to GT because he loves it. And sorry to say this to you, but for me each GT have been better than the previous one, and as console simulators no other game trumps them. FM may have shorter cycle or more cars on FM7 than GTS, but the graphics on GT are better and the sim is better (sorry but changing the tint or rim isn't simulation, and sure not being allowed to tweak the car is a down on it, but I understand the reason for the MP balance).

Didn't say it's a rule, and probably most people would prefer to change what they are doing from time to time (reason for my criticism on Microsoft dedicated studios).

You agree that outsource is possible but have disagreement on the quantity. We don't know how many people they have to oversee and if they could increase, but I think it would be possible if they thought it would be a good strategy.

I do agree with no one can expect Nintendo output alone to be like 3 major studios, and I acknowledge that they are increasing size. My point is that they can increase without really affecting quality.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

And how has that been working for GT?Is the last 3 games as good as the first three games?Its his choice to keep developing all the games and only do that, Sakurai for example dosent let anyone else work on Smash, but they are the exceptions, and you dont make a rule by the exceptions(and even Sakurai makes other games from time to time).

And Nintendo does outsource projects.Smash 5 is being outsourced, Nintendo funded Bayonetta and are letting Platinum make it, Metroid Prime 4 is seemingly being made mostly by an outside team.But you need to have a tight control over these projects so that they dont get out of control, so you need to have personel watching over them.A company cant outsource dozens of projects at the same time because its not effective or even possible, by the reasons I already wrote in the other post.

Nintendo output is already greater than any other company.Expecting them to make games with the same output as 3 or 4 big companies combined, like Square and Sony, is unrealistic at best.Not to say that Nintendo is not expanding when needed.Monolith just opened a new studio for example, but Nintendo can only get so big.

You said no one would be able to do it and love it. He have full autonomy to do what he wants on PD, and he stick to GT because he loves it. And sorry to say this to you, but for me each GT have been better than the previous one, and as console simulators no other game trumps them. FM may have shorter cycle or more cars on FM7 than GTS, but the graphics on GT are better and the sim is better (sorry but changing the tint or rim isn't simulation, and sure not being allowed to tweak the car is a down on it, but I understand the reason for the MP balance).

Didn't say it's a rule, and probably most people would prefer to change what they are doing from time to time (reason for my criticism on Microsoft dedicated studios).

You agree that outsource is possible but have disagreement on the quantity. We don't know how many people they have to oversee and if they could increase, but I think it would be possible if they thought it would be a good strategy.

I do agree with no one can expect Nintendo output alone to be like 3 major studios, and I acknowledge that they are increasing size. My point is that they can increase without really affecting quality.

For the first paragraph: For you its better, and thats fine really.If we are talking personal opinions, you have every right to be satisfied.But we are talking the general public, and general reception to the games, not your own.So for that, for a more objective view of the franchise quality, it has not been growing.

For the third paragraph:The same thing I said for the first.You are disagreeing with my reasoning because i dont know how many people Nintendo employs to oversee and negotiate these projects.But neither do you.So it dosent meayn its possible.And honestly, if it was indeed wholy possible, and a good strategy to emply, Nintendo(or any developer for that matter), would have already employed such tactics.And yet they dont.Must be a reason no?Must be maybe, a monetary, time, or manpower issue?

For the final paragraph: Its easy to say its possible to increase quantity without affecting quality.Or saying that money isnt an issue just because Nintendo has billions in the bank.But I dont see your plan of action of how to implement it.As I said before, if it were possible and a good strategy, Nintendo most likely would have already implemented it, specially since the third party support hasnt been good on its systems for a long time now.I have already explained why it its not possible.Why do you think its possible then?I dont wanna see something like"Its Nintendo, they have money, thus they can hire more people".I want to see a plan of action, a possible scenario where the monetary problems, schedule problems, manpower problems, talent problems, and all others problems can be resolved in a neat way.Can you give me one or, sorry for the bluntness, do you think Nintendo can pull this just because "they are a videogame company and they have an obligation release big games after big games after big games because I want to play them"?



Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

You said no one would be able to do it and love it. He have full autonomy to do what he wants on PD, and he stick to GT because he loves it. And sorry to say this to you, but for me each GT have been better than the previous one, and as console simulators no other game trumps them. FM may have shorter cycle or more cars on FM7 than GTS, but the graphics on GT are better and the sim is better (sorry but changing the tint or rim isn't simulation, and sure not being allowed to tweak the car is a down on it, but I understand the reason for the MP balance).

Didn't say it's a rule, and probably most people would prefer to change what they are doing from time to time (reason for my criticism on Microsoft dedicated studios).

You agree that outsource is possible but have disagreement on the quantity. We don't know how many people they have to oversee and if they could increase, but I think it would be possible if they thought it would be a good strategy.

I do agree with no one can expect Nintendo output alone to be like 3 major studios, and I acknowledge that they are increasing size. My point is that they can increase without really affecting quality.

For the first paragraph: For you its better, and thats fine really.If we are talking personal opinions, you have every right to be satisfied.But we are talking the general public, and general reception to the games, not your own.So for that, for a more objective view of the franchise quality, it has not been growing.

For the third paragraph:The same thing I said for the first.You are disagreeing with my reasoning because i dont know how many people Nintendo employs to oversee and negotiate these projects.But neither do you.So it dosent meayn its possible.And honestly, if it was indeed wholy possible, and a good strategy to emply, Nintendo(or any developer for that matter), would have already employed such tactics.And yet they dont.Must be a reason no?Must be maybe, a monetary, time, or manpower issue?

For the final paragraph: Its easy to say its possible to increase quantity without affecting quality.Or saying that money isnt an issue just because Nintendo has billions in the bank.But I dont see your plan of action of how to implement it.As I said before, if it were possible and a good strategy, Nintendo most likely would have already implemented it, specially since the third party support hasnt been good on its systems for a long time now.I have already explained why it its not possible.Why do you think its possible then?I dont wanna see something like"Its Nintendo, they have money, thus they can hire more people".I want to see a plan of action, a possible scenario where the monetary problems, schedule problems, manpower problems, talent problems, and all others problems can be resolved in a neat way.Can you give me one or, sorry for the bluntness, do you think Nintendo can pull this just because "they are a videogame company and they have an obligation release big games after big games after big games because I want to play them"?

Considering objectively as sales and metacritic, sure the game have been performing worse, but I don't put that on Kaz doing it for so long (because all we know is that he loves it) but I sure can concede that from time to time to refresh can be useful.

Yep we both agree that is possible, but may not be viable or the best option (Sure Nintendo can be wrong, but since I believe they are probably more qualified than us to evaluate that and they haven't increased it I agree to assume they have seen it as not the best option and unless we get proof otherwise I can't say they are wrong).

Man you know a plan of action isn't something simple to pull out on short notice, but I'll give a try to sketch why Nintendo didn't do it before. They were coming from WiiU that sure at first suffered from drought and needed more games released and their hard time to adapt to HD era, increasing people wouldn't help they adapt faster I agree, and after the first couple years increasing the team to have more games wouldn't make WiiU sell more and the SW also wouldn't sell much so they would lose money. So the moment they may be looking at increasing is now (you even pointed out they are doing it). Sony is increasing several teams, MS acquired/created 5 studios, Nintendo is also working on it.

Sure it won't be day to night that we will see they triple the team. You need to grow organically even more because you need to train and supervise the new guys. But do you think it's impossible to double their size in let's say 5 years? To know if it's possible we would need to do ROI on the increase intended and see if it's attractive and possible.

But Nintendo have several IPs they haven't touched in some time so they would have projects to work if they had more teams.

So I would say they could invest about 500M a year on creating new teams (like promoting senior members of current teams to lead these new teams and filling the lower ranks). There are a lot of talented part time that hop from one dev to another that Nintendo pedigree could capture.

For me particularly it's more a fact of their ROI analysis showing good or bad than lack of qualified personal what limits they creating more games. And considering the tie ratio of Nintendo consoles and Nintendo own marketshare they would need much more HW sales to really have buyers for more games but that is those egg chicken situation of needing to create a market to profit on SW and needing market to profit on SW.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Nautilus said:
curl-6 said:

Being realistic about what a system needs to hit its parent company's own goals is "greedy" now? Proper supervision can keep outsourced projects on track, plenty of examples of this being done properly (hell, even Smash was outsourced to Namco Bandai) and Nintendo are already doing it, just not enough. They don't need to make "thousands" of games a year, they just need to make sure they get a killer app every 4 months or so. It's not hard, we know what franchises have this power, Nintendo just needs to do a better job of planning and prioritising them.

lol.Curl, you are not being realistic.If you really think that what you are saying is realistic, you really need to start working on some big firm to know how hard is to get things done.And also, if you think that killer apps, games of such high quality that it convinces people that might be otherwise uninterested in said console to buy it, are so "easy" to make(that talent is so easy to find that you can outsource everything, that shit wont happen and you can do it in 3 years and not in 5, that maintaining a schedule and having enough big games to release at a set pace is "just" a matter of planning), then you ARE delusional, Im sorry.

Or you are just plain uneducated.If that is the case, I really recommend you study something like administration.To see how "easy" or "simple" is to run a company as big as Sony, MS or Nintendo.

There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about having 3 system sellers per year. It has been done many times before.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 02 August 2018

DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

For the first paragraph: For you its better, and thats fine really.If we are talking personal opinions, you have every right to be satisfied.But we are talking the general public, and general reception to the games, not your own.So for that, for a more objective view of the franchise quality, it has not been growing.

For the third paragraph:The same thing I said for the first.You are disagreeing with my reasoning because i dont know how many people Nintendo employs to oversee and negotiate these projects.But neither do you.So it dosent meayn its possible.And honestly, if it was indeed wholy possible, and a good strategy to emply, Nintendo(or any developer for that matter), would have already employed such tactics.And yet they dont.Must be a reason no?Must be maybe, a monetary, time, or manpower issue?

For the final paragraph: Its easy to say its possible to increase quantity without affecting quality.Or saying that money isnt an issue just because Nintendo has billions in the bank.But I dont see your plan of action of how to implement it.As I said before, if it were possible and a good strategy, Nintendo most likely would have already implemented it, specially since the third party support hasnt been good on its systems for a long time now.I have already explained why it its not possible.Why do you think its possible then?I dont wanna see something like"Its Nintendo, they have money, thus they can hire more people".I want to see a plan of action, a possible scenario where the monetary problems, schedule problems, manpower problems, talent problems, and all others problems can be resolved in a neat way.Can you give me one or, sorry for the bluntness, do you think Nintendo can pull this just because "they are a videogame company and they have an obligation release big games after big games after big games because I want to play them"?

Considering objectively as sales and metacritic, sure the game have been performing worse, but I don't put that on Kaz doing it for so long (because all we know is that he loves it) but I sure can concede that from time to time to refresh can be useful.

Yep we both agree that is possible, but may not be viable or the best option (Sure Nintendo can be wrong, but since I believe they are probably more qualified than us to evaluate that and they haven't increased it I agree to assume they have seen it as not the best option and unless we get proof otherwise I can't say they are wrong).

Man you know a plan of action isn't something simple to pull out on short notice, but I'll give a try to sketch why Nintendo didn't do it before. They were coming from WiiU that sure at first suffered from drought and needed more games released and their hard time to adapt to HD era, increasing people wouldn't help they adapt faster I agree, and after the first couple years increasing the team to have more games wouldn't make WiiU sell more and the SW also wouldn't sell much so they would lose money. So the moment they may be looking at increasing is now (you even pointed out they are doing it). Sony is increasing several teams, MS acquired/created 5 studios, Nintendo is also working on it.

Sure it won't be day to night that we will see they triple the team. You need to grow organically even more because you need to train and supervise the new guys. But do you think it's impossible to double their size in let's say 5 years? To know if it's possible we would need to do ROI on the increase intended and see if it's attractive and possible.

But Nintendo have several IPs they haven't touched in some time so they would have projects to work if they had more teams.

So I would say they could invest about 500M a year on creating new teams (like promoting senior members of current teams to lead these new teams and filling the lower ranks). There are a lot of talented part time that hop from one dev to another that Nintendo pedigree could capture.

For me particularly it's more a fact of their ROI analysis showing good or bad than lack of qualified personal what limits they creating more games. And considering the tie ratio of Nintendo consoles and Nintendo own marketshare they would need much more HW sales to really have buyers for more games but that is those egg chicken situation of needing to create a market to profit on SW and needing market to profit on SW.

It would be interesting to see the types of budgets Nintendo provides for their teams and their projects. They not only have Switch and 3DS titles to deal with, but also publishing duties with first and third party titles, providing maintenance with their systems and online infrastructures (take that for what you will), creating and managing the programs they have implemented, producing TV commercials, producing upcoming movies like the Detective Pikachu and Mario movies, possibly creating new animated series (if those are in the works like they hope to do), and producing for the upcoming Universal theme parks.

I think creating more teams is kinda interesting. You got Aonuma heading the Zelda team, Koizumi heading the Mario team as well as general producer of the Nintendo Switch and is now an Executive Director at the board of directors, Nigami heading the Splatoon series and co-heading the Animal Crossing series along with Aya Kyogoku and Katsuya Eguchi, Yabuki heading the Mario Kart and ARMS team, Sakamoto heading the 2D Metroid games, Tanabe heading the Metroid Prime games, Takahashi leading the Xenoblade team from Monolith Soft, etc. That's a lot of teams already. I haven't even mention Game Freak, Masahiro Sakurai and Sora Ltd., Intelligent Systems, Retro, 1-Up, and Nd Cube. 

I think creating new teams would have to depend on how and when some of these lower tier developers come up with new gameplay mechanics that develop into new games, or even new IPs. You can't just say "alright, let's get a new team out there to create a new game," and let them just hang out. It's not Nintendo's style. They usually develop gameplay mechanics first before deciding on how it will eventually be implemented. Splatoon didn't just come out the way it did because people like using squids and all, the gameplay mechanics of shooting ink to cover territory was the first thing that was established and, eventually, Inklings would be born along with the world of Splatoon. 

And I don't think Nintendo simply just attain talent for hire. Ultimately, we don't know how the process of hiring and nurturing talent works at Nintendo. While Satoru Iwata has done a lot to help Nintendo open up more to the public at large, they have kept staff development mostly close to their chest, which is their right for what its worth.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Nautilus said:

lol.Curl, you are not being realistic.If you really think that what you are saying is realistic, you really need to start working on some big firm to know how hard is to get things done.And also, if you think that killer apps, games of such high quality that it convinces people that might be otherwise uninterested in said console to buy it, are so "easy" to make(that talent is so easy to find that you can outsource everything, that shit wont happen and you can do it in 3 years and not in 5, that maintaining a schedule and having enough big games to release at a set pace is "just" a matter of planning), then you ARE delusional, Im sorry.

Or you are just plain uneducated.If that is the case, I really recommend you study something like administration.To see how "easy" or "simple" is to run a company as big as Sony, MS or Nintendo.

There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about having 3 system sellers per year. It has been done many times before.

Well times are different so a lot more resources are needed to make 3 big games a year

Kai_Mao said:
DonFerrari said:

Considering objectively as sales and metacritic, sure the game have been performing worse, but I don't put that on Kaz doing it for so long (because all we know is that he loves it) but I sure can concede that from time to time to refresh can be useful.

Yep we both agree that is possible, but may not be viable or the best option (Sure Nintendo can be wrong, but since I believe they are probably more qualified than us to evaluate that and they haven't increased it I agree to assume they have seen it as not the best option and unless we get proof otherwise I can't say they are wrong).

Man you know a plan of action isn't something simple to pull out on short notice, but I'll give a try to sketch why Nintendo didn't do it before. They were coming from WiiU that sure at first suffered from drought and needed more games released and their hard time to adapt to HD era, increasing people wouldn't help they adapt faster I agree, and after the first couple years increasing the team to have more games wouldn't make WiiU sell more and the SW also wouldn't sell much so they would lose money. So the moment they may be looking at increasing is now (you even pointed out they are doing it). Sony is increasing several teams, MS acquired/created 5 studios, Nintendo is also working on it.

Sure it won't be day to night that we will see they triple the team. You need to grow organically even more because you need to train and supervise the new guys. But do you think it's impossible to double their size in let's say 5 years? To know if it's possible we would need to do ROI on the increase intended and see if it's attractive and possible.

But Nintendo have several IPs they haven't touched in some time so they would have projects to work if they had more teams.

So I would say they could invest about 500M a year on creating new teams (like promoting senior members of current teams to lead these new teams and filling the lower ranks). There are a lot of talented part time that hop from one dev to another that Nintendo pedigree could capture.

For me particularly it's more a fact of their ROI analysis showing good or bad than lack of qualified personal what limits they creating more games. And considering the tie ratio of Nintendo consoles and Nintendo own marketshare they would need much more HW sales to really have buyers for more games but that is those egg chicken situation of needing to create a market to profit on SW and needing market to profit on SW.

It would be interesting to see the types of budgets Nintendo provides for their teams and their projects. They not only have Switch and 3DS titles to deal with, but also publishing duties with first and third party titles, providing maintenance with their systems and online infrastructures (take that for what you will), creating and managing the programs they have implemented, producing TV commercials, producing upcoming movies like the Detective Pikachu and Mario movies, possibly creating new animated series (if those are in the works like they hope to do), and producing for the upcoming Universal theme parks.

I think creating more teams is kinda interesting. You got Aonuma heading the Zelda team, Koizumi heading the Mario team as well as general producer of the Nintendo Switch and is now an Executive Director at the board of directors, Nigami heading the Splatoon series and co-heading the Animal Crossing series along with Aya Kyogoku and Katsuya Eguchi, Yabuki heading the Mario Kart and ARMS team, Sakamoto heading the 2D Metroid games, Tanabe heading the Metroid Prime games, Takahashi leading the Xenoblade team from Monolith Soft, etc. That's a lot of teams already. I haven't even mention Game Freak, Masahiro Sakurai and Sora Ltd., Intelligent Systems, Retro, 1-Up, and Nd Cube. 

I think creating new teams would have to depend on how and when some of these lower tier developers come up with new gameplay mechanics that develop into new games, or even new IPs. You can't just say "alright, let's get a new team out there to create a new game," and let them just hang out. It's not Nintendo's style. They usually develop gameplay mechanics first before deciding on how it will eventually be implemented. Splatoon didn't just come out the way it did because people like using squids and all, the gameplay mechanics of shooting ink to cover territory was the first thing that was established and, eventually, Inklings would be born along with the world of Splatoon. 

And I don't think Nintendo simply just attain talent for hire. Ultimately, we don't know how the process of hiring and nurturing talent works at Nintendo. While Satoru Iwata has done a lot to help Nintendo open up more to the public at large, they have kept staff development mostly close to their chest, which is their right for what its worth.

I guess their current investment in games for 3DS is minimal, but yes Nintendo have several branches to deal with all the console activities.

And yes Nintendo is one of the biggest developer and publisher on the market (kinda justify their big marketshare on SW on their console). They could sure have more teams, and not necessarily full development team, they could have several matrix like teams. Teams for sound, coding, level design, etc that would be moving from one project to another.

Yep, several of us criticized Nintendo for overusing the mascotes and the like. But then we learn that Nintendo make almost everything about the game and just them decide the char to go on it. So it is more like to make user know what the game is about (genre), fell at ease knowing the chars and help marketing.

Well I don't know how they think about hiring talents that are already working on the market and what they have now seems to be working, so I won't say they are doing wrong.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about having 3 system sellers per year. It has been done many times before.

Well times are different so a lot more resources are needed to make 3 big games a year

The games don't necessarily have to be AAA. Animal Crossing and Pokemon aren't AAA, and they're still system sellers. And they did it just last year, times have not changed significantly since 2017.



curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Well times are different so a lot more resources are needed to make 3 big games a year

The games don't necessarily have to be AAA. Animal Crossing and Pokemon aren't AAA, and they're still system sellers. And they did it just last year, times have not changed significantly since 2017.

When you abandon WiiU andshift release date plus concentrate in a single year yes you can do 3 major games a year. Sony have done it several times last 2 gen but usually that leaves some ligther years in bettween.

and animal crossing and pokemon may not be aaa but still take time and resource. i doubt Nintendo would want a poor show. 



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

The games don't necessarily have to be AAA. Animal Crossing and Pokemon aren't AAA, and they're still system sellers. And they did it just last year, times have not changed significantly since 2017.

When you abandon WiiU andshift release date plus concentrate in a single year yes you can do 3 major games a year. Sony have done it several times last 2 gen but usually that leaves some ligther years in bettween.

and animal crossing and pokemon may not be aaa but still take time and resource. i doubt Nintendo would want a poor show. 

Nintendo already put out well over 3 games per year, it's just a matter of prioritizing the ones that will actually move systems.



curl-6 said:
Nautilus said:

lol.Curl, you are not being realistic.If you really think that what you are saying is realistic, you really need to start working on some big firm to know how hard is to get things done.And also, if you think that killer apps, games of such high quality that it convinces people that might be otherwise uninterested in said console to buy it, are so "easy" to make(that talent is so easy to find that you can outsource everything, that shit wont happen and you can do it in 3 years and not in 5, that maintaining a schedule and having enough big games to release at a set pace is "just" a matter of planning), then you ARE delusional, Im sorry.

Or you are just plain uneducated.If that is the case, I really recommend you study something like administration.To see how "easy" or "simple" is to run a company as big as Sony, MS or Nintendo.

There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about having 3 system sellers per year. It has been done many times before.

I think I have made my point pretty clear.So Ill leave the discussion here.