Why was the GBA Successful but the Gamecube wasn't

[Jumpin]

RolStoppable said:

curl-6 said:

Halo wasn't the only reason, but it was a significant one. Unlike Wind Waker or Metroid Prime, Halo was a killer app that moved hardware, and helped give Xbox the edge they needed as a newcomer to the market to outsell the veteran Nintendo.

Their superior third party support was a factor as well, but it arose in part due to superior sales as the generation progressed. It was Combat Evolved that got their foot in the door.

It was running the business at a loss that did the trick. Microsoft lost $4 billion on the Xbox over the course of four years. $4 billion is the equivalent of Nintendo hypothetically giving out 20 million $200 GC consoles for free.

The original Xbox was a failure without question and also easily a bigger failure than the GC, so get off this train of rewritten history that pretends that Microsoft somehow did a better job than Nintendo during that generation.

GC + GB/GBA/DS did better than Xbox. But Xbox did better than GC. Even with the booming success of their handhelds Nintendo was not only unable to achieve relatively major profits, but saw their first quarterly loss in over 50 years. That was GameCube’s commercial failure that did that.

Had Microsoft sold 110 million GBCs, GBAs, and DSs as part of their Xbox division, it’s hardly far fetched to suggest they would have had comparable, if not superior, revenues and profits.