By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mummelmann on 09 April 2012
Edit Thread
Pavolink said:
Mummelmann said:
archbrix said:

The seven years between the NES and the SNES was only in Japan; in the rest of the world it was six years, just like Wii.

And the SNES - N64 - Gamecube was only a five year cycle between each, which actually puts the Wii second only to the NES (in one territory) as far as console longevity before a successor.

Launch is launch, why separate regions? When a console launches it launches, or does it only count when its out in the US?

I said nothing factually wrong.

NES (July 1983) -----> SNES (Nov 1990) = 7 1/2 years

SNES (Nov 1990) ------> N64 (July 1996) = 5 1/2 years

N64 (July 1996) -------> NGC (Nov 2001) = 5 1/2 years

NGC (Nov 2001) -------- > Wii (Nov 2006) = 5 years

Wii (Nov 2006) ---------> Wii U (Nov 2012 ???) = 6 years

 

"In fact; the Wii is following the SNES - N64 - Gamecube recipe, around six year cycles, there is nothing exceptional about the Wii's longevity, its actually rather poor compared to quite a few other consoles"

No.


I stand corrected as far as Nintendo goes (by a whooping six months...) but you do realize that there were other consoles before the NES? That went longer than six years before they were replaced? The industry did not start with the NES. Besides, you left out the DS - 3DS, which was 6 1/2 years and the Gameboy - Gameboy Color which was around 9 years (yes, they are handhelds, but did you see the OP specify home consoles? And they're still Nintendo, but you didn't even adress them).

Besides, considering that both the N64 and GC were soundly beaten and barely moved any units, is it really a great feat for a market leader to go six months or less longer without being replaced? I'm sorry, but I don't think it is. The Wii is still following a fairly typical Nintendo pattern, no error there, and it is also the first of the three current gen systems to be replaced, despite being the market leader.