| ViktorBKK said: Wii was an exception, it had near zero R&D costs as it was practically an overclocked gamecube... |
Thanks for proving to me that you neither have an interest in understanding the situation, nor even reading others' posts on the subject.
The Wii's CPU and GPU could be considered to be overclocked gamecube CPUs and GPUs (although that's very oversimplified, because there was more changed than just the power), but CPU and GPU aren't the only thing involved in R&D for a console. There's the Wiimote internals (pointer, accelerometers, input communication with the Wii, making it all work with force feedback without causing problems), the Wiimote/Nunchaku connection (and associated port), the Disc Drive, the OS, etc.
And I noted this (in far more concise terms) in my post, which you quoted. Apparently, you couldn't even be bothered to read my post, you just assumed that I was ignorant while remaining wilfully ignorant, yourself.
My "theory" about how much the Gamecube made per console wasn't a theory, it was an example. I wasn't claiming it to be an exact figure (although a quick search of the net suggests that $50 per console was probably about right, if you look at the period a couple of years after launch, in 2003), but using it as an example number to demonstrate that one cannot just broadly argue that R&D costs mean that 30 million units sold would be insufficient to make a net profit. Without solid numbers, which you have failed to provide, you cannot make that claim (and yet, you make it anyway).
You make grand claims of 30 million being insufficient, but you fail to bring any supporting evidence whatsoever. Until you have something more solid than your gut to base the claim on, I'm not going to take you seriously, and neither should anybody else.
