Does the Wii prove that the HD razor/blade model is flawed?

[johnlucas]

theprof00 said:

johnlucas said:

 

However, both the PS1 & PS2 were the best-selling systems of all-time with libraries to match (well PS1 was only in home console terms before PS2 beat it).

And Nintendo had much less marketshare in every region though it was about a 60/40% split favoring Sony in Japan.

100 million consoles in the PS1, 120 million consoles in the PS2 (back then—now 140 million).
And they could barely outprofit Nintendo which was most likely propped up by its handhelds?
With that weak marketshare Gamecube had?

Like I said...Gamecube proved that the razor/blades model is flawed.

John Lucas

Are you really trying to downplay the success of the gameboy? I'm not discrediting your point, but the DS by itself has about as much sales as the ps2.

"Propped up by its handhelds"....

Not downplaying it but just telling it like it is.

Nintendo lost control of the markets in the N64 era & its saving grace was the handhelds powered in large part to Pokémon.

I mean check this out (only talking about home consoles):
Atari 2600/VCS era (2nd gen) = 30 million+
NES era (3rd gen) = 61 million+
SNES era (4th gen) = 49 million+
N64 era (5th gen) = 32 million+ ~VS.~ PS1 era (5th gen) = 100 million+
GC era (6th gen) = 21 million+ ~VS.~ PS2 era (6th gen) = 140 million+ (currently)

So when Atari ran wild in the 70's & early 80's the peak was 30 million
When Nintendo showed up the peak was roughly 50 to 60 million, double the Atari's era.
When Sony showed up they doubled the peak again to 100 million while N64 went lower than SNES back at the 30 million level.
When Sony's PS2 came to town they upped the ante to 140 million while GC went even lower than N64 at the 20 million level.

Nintendo while still profitable was on a downward spiral in the home console market before Wii. Eventually the marketshare would become so small that it would hamper profits if they continued on this course.

Meanwhile through the 3rd & 4th gens, their handheld Game Boy was breaking records & delivering profits.
The failure of the Virtual Boy couldn't even stop it. And just when they could have run out of steam in the middle of the 5th gen they put out Pokémon & then the Game Boy Color version pushed the handheld to record sales up to 118 million+ (now beaten by the DS).

In the GC era, it was the GBA doing the heavy lifting gaining its 81 million+ sales in its short time.
This is why Sony decided to get into handhelds (well one reason) which led to the PSP.
Nintendo hung on to relevance through the GBA in Japan, a country that increasingly became more handheld-friendly to the point of it mattering more than home consoles.

See this clip:

History of Video Game Marketshare in Japan 1996-2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdpMv5FjQ5M

It wasn't until the DS gamble paid off that Nintendo reclaimed their marketshare throne. DS set the stage for Wii & for what we see today with those twin Nintendo record breakers.

However, as MaxwellGT2000 points out (hopefully he's only counting SCE instead Sony Corp. whole) Nintendo consistently profitted despite marketshare & public perception while Sony made relatively small amounts compared to all their record success with both PS1 & PS2.

Sony HAD to be on top of the mountain just to make a profit! Nintendo made money "up" "down" "in-between" whereever.
And it paid off big once they got their total sales back in order in this generation.

Nintendo's workforce is so comparatively smaller but they can fend off these corporate giants so easily.
It proves that razor/blades is at best a starting model to work your way off from instead of a permanent one. If you take a risk on using that shaky strategy at all.

And again if in the Gamecube era—consistently called Nintendo's worse—Nintendo can profit like that, then it underlines that the razor/blades model is flawed.

John Lucas