By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Torillian on 28 April 2015
Edit Thread
Samus Aran said:
Torillian said:

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?

Because judging something purely by marketshare makes no sense, it ignores too many things.

Nintendo is a gaming only company that has to split its resources into two because they have to support two different platforms. Therefore I think it's unfair to just look at one of their platforms.

I see it like this:

GB -SNES/N64 (the GB is the only Nintendo HH that spanned two generations of consoles instead of only one).

GBA - GC

DS - Wii

3DS - Wii U

We have more metrics to measure things by, they just take more effort to collect and comprehend.

Can you honestly say the original xbox was a bigger success story than the GC?

MS's company has to split its resources across software development as well as Xbox, Sony has to make TVs, why don't we include those?  Simple, because it's not about being fair to a company it's about something measureable that we can define.  Handhelds are just as relevant to a question of who won a console generation as Windows or Vaio Computers.  It's not about what's fair, it's about what applies to the question and is measurable.  

it isn't "who was the biggest success story"? the question is "who won the console generation" which is again defined by the only numbers we are actually given to base success off of for consoles.  In that sense, yes, the Xbox was 2nd in its console generation while GC was last.  



...