Osc89 said:
Screamapillar said:
MrUnagi said:
Screamapillar said:
I'm well aware that GameCube was a profitable business for Nintendo. Even though GameCube was sold at a loss for a certain period of time, they were selling enough software at $49 that they were making some money from it. GBA was extremely successful, of course. 40 million install base just in the US. GBA made NIntendo tons and tons of money. Back then, NIntendo handhelds were cheap to make, and since their handheld games were so primitive back then, they made a lot more money on software as well. |
They should be fine. Why don't we ask this question about the other two going multiplatform?
|
Sometimes I ask, but no one ever answers me lol. Apparently it's off-limits. I have no idea, other than that it's clearly a double standard
|
Probably no one answers because it is a silly question. Sony and MS would sell off everything first party before getting rid of their hardware because it isn't worth as much to them. Playstation and Xbox are more hardware brands, and would stay afloat with cheaper timed exclusives. Nintendo is both, but the software is more valuable. They would be more likely to go third party than become a hardware only manufacturer.
|
I don't agree. Nintendo is only as successful as they've been because they marry their in-house software with their in-house hardware. Sony and Microsoft, making so little on their consumer video game divisions as they do, would be more likely sell of their game divisions completely. Hardware is expensive to make, and Microsoft's Xbox division makes almost nothing from games and hardware. It's a tiny fraction of their company. Sony makes more money on games and hardware, but they take huge losses compared to Nintendo, during hardware transitions.
If Nintendo were to dump hardware and only make software, like Sega, they would lose half of their business.
