I dunno. I see their new Mario games scoring 9.5's and the sort.

What do you think? Doesnt sound irrelevant to me. Even if it isnt the best selling system. The dreamcast wasnt either and it had amazing games.

1. Third Parties control this Industry . Think about this.. If Sony did not have strong Third Party Support the PS One would have not made nearly as much of a impact. (Sega probably would have won that gen or maybe Nintendo.. but I think third parties despite their hate of the Saturn would have went to Sega for cheaper costs.) This being said Microsoft would have done fine in numbers, but would not have won most likely.  So it's all about third parties. (Of course if you believe what Microsot says it would not even be in gaming if Sony did not enter and do well. So in the end we would still be talking about Nintendo and maybe Sega)

2.  Nintendo will never be Irrelevent because of the fact that gamers have families, somehow I do not think people are comfortable having their 7 year old playing GTA. Sony and Microsoft do not have as many all ages titles as Nintendo does. As thus Irrelevent (Meaning almost non exhistent) will never translate to Nintendo in the gaming industry. Put this with the fact that Nintendo is a switch in gears from the other two, like I said not Irrelevent. 

3. Nintendo will be irrelevent in the gaming industry just as soon as a pair of plumbers, a  elf dressed in green, and a awesome armored bounty hunter along with several others become irrelevent. 

PS the Wii U will do good this Holiday Season after BF, and in December, and is set up to have a good first quarter next year with Donkey Kong and Mario Kart coming put that with some other tiles and cheaper price and the Wii U will most likely become a very good option for people on the market for a new system. Course I expect 2014 to be somewhat slow for next gen consoles. (Due to the fact that last gen consoles are still going to be out and a lot of the hit games will come to those as well) Wii U will do better next year.

So you have detailed information on the money that Nintendo spent on R&D for the gamecube, do you?

I don't think you realise that, when people talk about Nintendo making or losing money on a system, they're actually talking *total* costs. How does this work? Simple - the cost to R&D the GC might not be included directly, but if not, then the cost to R&D the Wii would be, and the costs would be proportionally similar... indeed, costs to R&D the Wii would be higher, since it was a newer system with new technology that wasn't found in the Gamecube (not referring to the CPU tech, but things like the Wiimote).

And the GC sold closer to 20 million than 30 million. And at 20 million, with a net profit margin of, say, $50, they're at $1 billion. More than enough money to cover the R&D costs. Of course, I'm leaving out details, but then, R&D on the Gamecube would have been well under $1 billion. And notice that I haven't even factored in the added income from games, accessories, etc.

In short, you are oversimplifying things, and then complaining that those that disagree with you are ignorant for oversimplifying in a different way. Except, their oversimplification involves ignoring the details and looking at the numbers, while you are oversimplifying by pulling "facts" out of... certain places that shall remain nameless. You have no data to back up your claim that 30 million units of hardware sold would be insufficient to cover R&D costs.

Profit per unit is always calculated without R&D. Most consoles don't sell at a profit until much later in their life cycle. Software and peripheral sales are what drives profit. Wii was an exception, it had near zero R&D costs as it was practically an overclocked gamecube, and Nintendo absolutely had to sell it at a profit because they were at a tight spot from the "successes" of  N64 and GameCube.

Your theory that Nintendo made 50$ per unit sold on the Gamecube is out of this world. In your world, Sega is obviously still manufacturing consoles.

And I don't need to oversimplyfy anything to state the obvious. 20-30m in the console business is not enough of an install base to cover anything. Some business models, like Microsoft's can be profitable with a smaller install base. But 30m is nowhere near enough.

Thanks for proving to me that you neither have an interest in understanding the situation, nor even reading others' posts on the subject.

The Wii's CPU and GPU could be considered to be overclocked gamecube CPUs and GPUs (although that's very oversimplified, because there was more changed than just the power), but CPU and GPU aren't the only thing involved in R&D for a console. There's the Wiimote internals (pointer, accelerometers, input communication with the Wii, making it all work with force feedback without causing problems), the Wiimote/Nunchaku connection (and associated port), the Disc Drive, the OS, etc.

And I noted this (in far more concise terms) in my post, which you quoted. Apparently, you couldn't even be bothered to read my post, you just assumed that I was ignorant while remaining wilfully ignorant, yourself.

My "theory" about how much the Gamecube made per console wasn't a theory, it was an example. I wasn't claiming it to be an exact figure (although a quick search of the net suggests that $50 per console was probably about right, if you look at the period a couple of years after launch, in 2003), but using it as an example number to demonstrate that one cannot just broadly argue that R&D costs mean that 30 million units sold would be insufficient to make a net profit. Without solid numbers, which you have failed to provide, you cannot make that claim (and yet, you make it anyway).

You make grand claims of 30 million being insufficient, but you fail to bring any supporting evidence whatsoever. Until you have something more solid than your gut to base the claim on, I'm not going to take you seriously, and neither should anybody else.

yes it is pointles. keep moving :)

I'm starting to doubt the Wii U can get to 30 million even. 

N64 finished at 33 million and it's so ridiculously far ahead of the Wii U. 

Home slash handheld console next gen.... I think it will be awesome

N64 had a better lineup than the Wii U.  If next year doesn't do shit for sales then you might have a point.  40-50m is my low point right now.