| Bodhesatva said: Honestly Happy, do you think that Nintendo could have continued with the same strategy that they used last generation -- and the strategy that Sony and Microsoft continue to use -- and come out on top? I suspect they would have been even further marginalized than they were last generation. The "make the graphics a lot better and sell the console for a loss" strategy requires deep pockets and heavy spending. Nintendo has shown a predeliction for penny pinching and does not have the pockets that Microsoft does. |
Depends on what you mean "come out on top" ...
If you are refering to producing the most advanced system, or the most profitable system I think it is possible that Nintendo could have come out on top. In terms of market share it becomes far more difficult to tell.
I believe that the high price of the PS3 and the XBox 360's limited apeal in some regions would have given them the opportunity to gain a lot of market share; the problem they would face is that high development costs would cut into their margins, limit the number of games they can produce and give them a product which was nearly identical to their competition. Basically, I could see Nintendo gaining market share yet still comming in second or third worldwide.
Anyways ...
What I was mainly saying is that Nintendo (being a game developer) makes their money from the games they sell; this means that they are really concerned with keeping development costs down because if you spend 4 times as much developing a game you have to sell 4 times as many to maintain your margin. The strategy which they used on the N64 and Gamecube would no longer work for Nintendo because this generation would make it difficult for most games to break even.
