| Razeak said: I'm under the impression Sega couldn't afford the losses on each sale of the console. Nintendo is breaking even or above water on WiiU for each console sold if I'm not mistaken. That creates two completely different scenarios for decision making. If Sega had been making a small profit on each console, I'm sure they would have kept the Dreamcast alive for the generation. The definition people are using as failure for WiiU is it isn't 1 in sales or isn't keeping up with Wii. Obviously the situation is not optimal, but Nintendo is in a stable position with WiiU and they are making money on that console. In their eyes it's presently marginally successful after being a huge drain. We won't be able to render the final verdict for another couple of years. |
No, it's more something like : it's selling much less than the xbox 1, gamecube, N64, PS3 and less than the dreamcast and any console from the 4 major constructors in the last 20 years. And they are last, not "not first". And overall, even when not comparing to past, even not really comparing, it's not selling well for a product (about 4 millions a years), and it's selling bad in term of market share in its market. It's selling extremely bad.
But I agree their situation is still completely different from Sega. It's not their 2nd console in a row failing (or 4 if you count sega-cd and 32X). They can anticipate profit. They have a handle console that is profitable. They have money in cash. They know how to make profit from their licenses, and they have plenty of licenses very alive. They are in the console business for 30 years (which is about forever). And last, I could be wrong, but I think they don't have this reputation to be a loser company (sorry to say that, I was an hardcore fan of the genesis and still respect them)
