By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Vodacixi said:

It's the most powerful way though. They need something more agressive to get noticed, and advertising is the most efficient way to do it.

Advertising is also the most expensive. Like I continue to say: it's a double-edged sword.

Vodacixi said:

But just look at the sales. You thing all of that is enough? It's not.

An argument form incredulity? Nice.

marioboy2004 said:
KLAMarine said:
reggin_bolas said:
I love how people defend Nintendo by claiming it's making a profit on every Wii U sold. It's called market share loss. It's not a good thing regardless how many millions you make.

You think it's okay for Nintendo to keep selling under 20 million units every gen from hereafter as long as they make a profit?

Because that's pretty damn easy to do. Just keep releasing cheap and under-powered hardware and project between 10-20 million sold. Not a sustainable business model since it's all about growth.

Hmmm... If I had to choose between market share or profit, I'd choose profit every time. I'm trying to think of a scenario where the alternative would be a better option.

I'm no expert so I don't know. I just always thought it best to seek to be profitable first and foremost before chasing a larger market share.

Unfortunately Nintendo's president begs to differ with you.  Just study Nintendos own history and you'll you.  When the profit margin was so high for the 3DS and sales were very low Mr. iwata went into a panic mode...thus the immediate price drop of the 3DS price by 30% and the introduction of the ambassador program..

Sounds to me Iwata was panicking not enough of a profit was being made due to low sales, not because of a loss of market share. You understand there's a difference between low sales and market share loss, surely?