I dont know if this is right. the point of the razor blade model is that you loose money on the unit and make more money on the software. i cant believe that the PS2 (which i believe had about 1 billion units of software sold) made less money than the Gamecube.
i can believe that this is only a hardware chart. and that software numbers arnt included. if Nintendo was this successful they wouldnt have changed their strategy to the casual market, so it dosent make sense in the sense that, why would Nintendo restructure their gaming buisness if it was already so much more successful than its competetor?