'Nintendo could be on a path to irrelevance', says Atari founder

[leo-j]

snyps said:

richardhutnik said:
synps, as you have shown, they have not been #1 the past 30 years. There were periods where other companies went past them. If you want to argue they have sustained the longest period of profitability and have been the longest survivor, I would say pretty much that is true with a few remaining companies like EA and Activision being with them. But, they have not been top dog every year over the past 30 years. There have been years they were not.

Also, I would HIGHLY suggest you look at total revenues and marketshare, NOT profitability. What you have now is a large market with very small profits. That is an issue.

And you do not have Atari and Sega in there either, who were rivals, and were beating Nintendo in the early years. Even then Nintendo was not top dog.

In short, your charts are biased.

revenue means squat. marketshare means squat. Profit is king! Nintendo wooped atari and sega.. there's no point in showing it here. I'm biased? Of coarse I am. That's not a question. Who's bring the facts!?! You're biased against the truth. Nintendo came out of every generation with the highest profits. Admit it.

Who cares? Profit =/= relevance in the real world all the time....

 

the GC brought them money, but guess what they were almost completely irrelevant that gen when the PS2 completely dominated the industry....