By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 07 September 2013
Edit Thread
leo-j said:
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....

Profitability does keep you in the game though, but doesn't mean contentwise you end up controlling.  You had the case of Sega going VERY aggressive price and marketingwise with the Genesis/Megadrive and ended up going past Nintendo.  They were on very thin margins though and eventually Nintendo caught up.  HOWEVER, as you said, you can be more profitable, but not matter.

So, in debate of what is going on, it is possibly AVERAGE profitability and revenues vs during different time period.  One can argue reasonably that Nintendo has been the most successfuly videogame company left in the industry.  This does NOT mean it had been the most successful EVERY time period it has been in the business.

Another reality here is that Nintendo really didn't compete against Atari, not when Atari was relevent.  This relevance is pre-Tramiel.  Tramiel worked ot make Atari more profitable, and cut costs, making Atari less relevant.  By time Nintendo gets into console market, Atari is not relevant.  And you see Sega gettng more profitable by dropping a console.  They are more profitable now, BUT far less relevant than when they had a console.