^nice sting...and you deserved that ban

"nobody plays SNES and NES anymore"~BladeOfGod
I don't exist? :(

 Whether or not Sony was trying to compete against any product directly has no impact on the brand popularity. The GBA was out there, and enjoyed by tens of million of customers. That increase brand name recognition. If your measure of brand name is units sold over a persiod of time then the GBA is fair game, and puts Nintendo over the top. Its a stupid way to compare brand name recognition though so the point is kind of moot.

 Edit: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Nobody plays the SNES or NES anymore? So the whole Virtual Console is a failed idea and they should only focus on the N64 era of video games for it?

 What? You don't love beautiful half naked women in people's sigs? Different strokes for different folks I guess.

no she was just ugly this is what you should have had

http://thewickedpinto.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/fat-girls-and-fries.jpg

Funny how you avoid my questions or statements by bringing another one. Have I said Nintendo was not risking? Nope. I am just saying how one can say that Sony didn't take a risk by investing in a huge project like CELL and other components of PS3.

 Because they had the backing and co-operation of many other companies which insured a certain amunt of return on the investment. The Cell was not developed exclusively to be used in the PS3. The PS3 uses the Cell because it was a convinient and strong processor that could be slapped into the machine. The risk was not in developing it for the PS3 as it was in jacking up the price a ton to try and get some money back from the research of the processor itself.

"Funny how you avoid my questions or statements by bringing another one. "


maybe you should read my post i did address and to put it plainly, no it was not a risk and if nintendo hadnt taken the actual risk then it would have paid out 10 fold b/c the market would really only have been divided b/t the 360 and the ps3

risk= taking a chance

all Microsoft and Sony did was beef up the previous machines, and since the previous machine for the playstation line was a hit they assumed making better graphics and using the same business model would = printing more money

and if you remove the wii hey it just might have worked for them


i repeat myself---nin trying sailing the uncharted blue ocean was and still is the biggest risk of the big three

@kjj4t9rdad: I can compare them for the reasons that none made money on the market with their last console (by this i don't mean PS3 would be Sonys last console, latest, but not last). The amount of money Sony sank into PS3 by selling it, would have sank the company without the companys other functions backing it.

Atari lost with the crash it caused for not having control over the market it owned. Nintendo stole the market and Atari couldn't make a comeback to compete Nintendo. It did try a comeback with Jaguar, but due to bad sales, and relatively big inventory, it was forced to leave the market.

A little similar thing happened to Sega. Only this time Sega pissed off its fans (killed its market) and due to competition from Sony (and Nintendo) it couldn't come back. Due to bad sales and huge inventory of Dreamcast, Sega was forced out of the market (if DC or Saturn had reached the amount of consoles sold as PS3 stands today, Sega hadn't exited the market it would be doing well).

Mattel then again, exited the market after the videogame crash, because they didn't see a future in the market. In the end, Mattel ended distributing NES.

Nintendo is still alive and well for the reason of not selling their products at a loss.

The razor and blades model is a stupid model when your razor owners don't need the blades to use the razor.

And Nintendo did take the biggest risk for the reason that failing in the consoles would have meant the end of Nintendos business. During the PS3 R&D SCE was still making good profits, so the R&D wasn't a risk. Selling the product at a loss wasn't a risk in the sense that it wasn't seen as one. The same model worked with PS2, so of course it works with PS3 and they still had PSP bringing in even more cash if PS3 would need extensive financial support (during the R&D process, PSP was still supposed to beat DS).

@BladeOfGod: Nintendo is a brand, Sony is a brand. Basically every company/product name there is, is a brand.

In fact, Sony was one of the first Japanese companies to use the name=brand philosophy, some Western companies had been doing it for some time though.