It's not well known but GC was sold at a ~$9 loss for quite a while.  How long is not known though.

Don't move the goal post.  You said they couldn't be done.  Now you're saying it could but is difficult or costly.

Your final point may be valid but you should be clear when making it the first time. 

Nintendo sold much stronger GC with profit with lower price of $100 than PS2 that actualy was sold with loose. Like I wrote, I remember back then DVD player prety high price and with PS2 you had console with built in DVD playyer, that definatly had huge imapact on PS2 price, very posible for around $100.

Yes RE2 fit, and it was nightmare for devolpers, why is RE2 basicly only stronger PS1 game that ended on N64!? Becuse it wasn't profitable, it was very complicated, expensive and requires lots a time becuse very small size of cartridges, not beacuse N64 sales. You totally ignoring fact that GC had around 50% worse sales than N64 while GC had much better 3rd party support!? Like I wrote, why N64 is Nintendo console with smallest number of released games ever when isn't nearly worst selling Nintendo console!? It's very obvious that is because of very limited size of N64 cartridges, but you can keep deny that.

Sry, but in what world 915m sold copies of SW on 101m HW is bad, that is attach rate of 9, do you realise that only GC had better attach rate with 9.5!?

Wii is clear fact that Nintendo could succeed even with bad developer relationships, offcourse that is better that Nintendo have great developers relationships, but this is a clear fact.

Maybe at launch, but I found info that PS2 was sold $188 loss on launch.

Man, you keep throwing the same number and that is pointless... A Ferrari selling for 500k against a Polo for 15k doesn't in any way means that the Ferrari costed 499k to build against a 14k to build the Polo. The fact that DVD players were very expensive can be attached to a lot of reasons not necessarily the drive itself. You know that PS3 emulation with the emotion engine was one of the reasons for the high price (and that after 7 years of cost reducion on the processor due to the big success of PS2). So the exquisite architeture of PS2 could be more of a reason to the high price of PS2 than the drive could ever hope to. You also failed to give any pricing for the GC drive against PS2 to say it really was much cheaper. So I'll stand by that Nintendo done the choice for mini-disc because they though piracy would be lesser and that they didn't see any need for 8Gb of space (you could even say that it was basically the same reason for them choosing cartdrige on N64).

So on the cartridge we can resume all that in, it's possible but costly, so with bad relationship and bad sales, costier port no interest was present.

if you consider that it's actually 8 (because 1 game was auto bundled forever and latter there were 2 or more) so GC having 9,5 is 18,75% higher, that is significant. And considering how most sales were for 1st party titles that won't help your argument that Wii was a success, even more when the successor plummet 86% on HW sales and the system were abandoned with 1 to 2 years before the next system entered. I can hardly say that is a true success. You can at most say that while Nintendo was supporting it, they made a lot of money, but you can't say it was a real success as a CONSOLE.

So you can take 1 in 8 attempts to prove a point as a fact while ignoring the 7 against, great.

Please provide the evidence.

I will not talk any more about GC, clear fact is that GC was more powerful than PS2 and had lower price for $100, and only huge difference was DVD player in PS2. Do the math.

No, all comes to cartridge format, not to bad relationship. 3rd party wouldn't make games for N64 even if they ideal relationship because it was profitable, like I wrote, some game wouldn't fit at all, for other games it was very complicated, expensive and requires lots a time because very small size of cartridges, and huge cost of N64 cartridges. But you can still deny that.

Even 8 games is pretty good atach rate, and actually best atach rate after GC had and on pair with NES, so  saying that "Wii had very bad SW sales" is pure nonsense. Fact that most of Wii sold game are 1st party games means Nintendo made more money then they would with 3rd party games. Offcourse that more that 100m units of HW and more than 900m units of SW are huge succes, and actualy far biggest Nintendo sucess in console space, also clear fact. They made bilons of profit from Wii.

...

The fact that you can't read a DVD movie on it doesn't make the drive itself much cheaper I suppose (and you are just throwing a conjecture, not an evidence) and I told you that the royalties weren't big so I'll give you the very high royalty prices

After the NES era, nintendo were at the top of their game and third party support was booming. Then in the SNES era, at a time when third parties were most dependent on nintendo, nintendo introduced the highest royalties programme ever. Not just making third parties pay royalties for game, but on dev kits and every catridge made. And nintendo had a rigorous QA programme it put them through too. Back then, third parties felt like they were being extorted but nintendo was the king of the hill and called all the shots.

That info is "As of January 1, 2016" the royalty scheme may or may not have been higher in 2000 (PS2) or in 2001 (Gamecube/Xbox).

Even now the greater of the two is still $8 US per console, that's no small addition to the price of the console.  A lot of people forget that DVD movie playback was NOT included in the original Xbox out of the box either.  You needed to buy a $30 dongle to unlock the DVD movie playback on the original Xbox.

Microsoft was a company with unlimited resources and spared no expense when it came to the original Xbox hardware, but they still didn't want to eat the fee for DVD movie playback.

Where'd you get this from?