Mazty said:
mushroomboy5 said:
Mazty said:
green_sky said:
Time to test Nintendo Cycle again 
|
That cycle didn't exactly exist for the N64 or Gamecube...
|
N64 was quite successful and profitable, it didn't beat the ps in terms of console sales but it had many 1st/2nd party games that sold in the multi millions...even the gamecube was profitable for nintendo to a degree, in that nintendo's games sold well for it, they didn't over manufacture the console, and it was cheap to produce. So, yeah, both consoles made money for nintendo even if they didn't dominate their respective generations. It's not always about the amount of consoles sold after all.
|
How exactly are you measuring success if you are not comparing rival console sales? Also are you considering net or gross profit? You seem to be ignoring R&D costs if you think selling a small volume of a console counts as success. You also seem to be setting the bar for success very low if you think that simply selling 20+ million consoles is a success when the opposition is selling x4 that number.
Either way that Nintendo cycle picture is just a complete lie as neither the GC or N64 "printed money".
|
I was talking about the aforemententioned nintendo consoles (and I was mainly referring to n64, not gamecube) as being successful in terms of software sales. In the n64 era, the userbase was much lower than that of the competition, no denying that, but n64s 1st and 2nd party games sold quite well regardless, as nintendo had attracted a smaller but more dedicated following... several titles selling between 5-10 million which was good for the day. Given that the video game industry is really about selling software (those clunky machines we hook up to our tv's are really just a platform to help accomplish this goal) it has to be said the n64 was a success. I'm not suggesting it was the once and future console to rule them all, but it was far from a failure finacially speaking and did make money for nintendo.
