By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
prayformojo on 04 September 2013
Edit Thread
tbone51 said:
prayformojo said:
tbone51 said:
prayformojo said:
tbone51 said:
prayformojo said:
Winning is defined by console sales, not profit.



Watttt? PS3 sold alot more than NES but im sure nintendo was happier with their profits than Sony was in that specific Generation despite ps3>nes in sales!

It's true though. People can't change definitions of things just to suit their needs. That's ridiculous lol.

About the NES to PS3 comparison, you can't really compare older gens to newer gens because the market was alot smaller. You have to use market share to do that. The NES DOMINATED, and was by FAR more impressive than the PS3.



ok fine, so which would you rather have

okay fine which would you rather have(Software=1st party), Choice A) [80mil Consoles sold with 200mil software sold] or Choice B) [25mil consoles sold with 400mil Software sold]?

If I were a company, I'd choose the second option because I'd be making more money. If I were a gamer, which I am, I'd choose the first option because it means I get great first party games AND tons of great third party games.



You just said "Winning is defined by console sales, not profit." but you chosen Choice B from a company perspective...... See Now :P


No, I don't see. You are talking about two different THINGS. Winning a generation is won by whoever had the highest marketshare, not profit margin. Nintendo didn't win the N64/PS1 generation or the GC/PS2/Xbox generation because they finished last.

Profitability is a seperate issue.