By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 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?

I have to agree with Torillian on this, "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.". That makes perfect sense.