Samus Aran said:
Torillian said:
But MS doesn't have handhelds, so is it "fair" in a discussion of who "won" a console generation to hamstring MS and include handheld profits?
You always mention this idea of what's fair or not when you bring this up (again and again and again). It isn't about what's fair, it'ssimply about what's measurable. You don't know what profits came from the console side of things versus handhelds so in a discussion of who won a console generation, which is what these threads are always about in case you were unaware, bring in profits makes no damn sense because you can't separate out things. The only things we can separate out are sales either of hardware or of software. Any other qualification for winning a console generation is just you trying to make it so Nintendo won every generation they've been a part in, which is becoming more predictable than the tide btw.
|
How exactly do you win a console generation if you sell your console at a $200 loss? Wii U would outsell xbone if it was sold at $100, but Nintendo wouldn't win anything by doing that. It could bankrupt the company.
We know Nintendo's profits and we also have enough reports on how much money Sony lost on the PS3. Xbox360 was second in the last generation.
|
You win by having the highest marketshare in the console market for that generation. That's what everyone else understands winning a console generation to mean. if the company goes broke winning that generation you can make the debate that it wasn't worth it, but they still would have won that console generation based on the only metric that we have to measure these things by.
What reason is there to base something on conjecture instead of facts?
