Mr Khan said:
Profitability in decline means you live to fight another day, though. Nintendo games are generally lightweight enough that they don't demand an 8-digit sellthrough for titles like many top-tier third party games, and if you're not employing a loss-leading model, then just selling the devices is more or less okay. Declinism is bad for stocks and investor confidence and needs to be addressed, to be sure, but Nintendo's not in the position where they're forced to lose money, unless they feel they do need the Wii U to sell more at the definite cost of getting it profitable per-unit, and that is certainly attainable. It wasn't about the volume of GBA sales, but the fact that GBA and GameCube were both turning a per-unit profit, so everything sold was money in the bank even if it was inconsequential compared to the business Sony was doing at the time. (the real disaster of that generation, that nobody ever mentions, is the Xbox, where Microsoft's per-unit losses got *worse* as the generation proceeded, not better. Microsoft really shat out a lot of money basically just to build a bridge for the 360) |
One other thing I think that gets lost in all this is the 3DS actually is NOT selling as quickly as the GBA (on top of losing Nintendo a ton of money its first year, whereas the GBA was a profit machine from day 1). The GBA was able to comfortably sell 15-18 million a year, 3DS even with Pokemon X/Y last year is about 13 million ... that's a fairly large gap.
On top of that the Wii U is selling less than the GameCube at equivalent points in their life cycle by a substantial margin.
So when people just casually throw out that "well GBA/GCN were profitable so Wii U/3DS surely will be" .... no it's no where near that simple.







