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? |
He also ignored that GC was 150, a lot cheaper than both PS2 and Xbox and were destroyed in the market... but maybe they had 200 profit per console sold... the logic is very faulty.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."