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.

Your assertion is not only farfetched, it's outright impossible because the Xbox was such a money sink that it averaged an annual $1 billion loss throughout its lifespan.

While it's true that Nintendo posted a quarterly loss during the GC era, it was a small loss (IIRC something between $20-40 million) and only in a single quarter throughout the entire generation and it was partly caused by an unfavorable exchange rate at the time. Over the course of its entire life, the GC didn't finish with a loss. After all, Nintendo sold a lot of first party software and accessories for it. While the console itself was temporarily sold at a loss, memory cards were mandatory separate purchases to go along with the console, so the damage was limited.

The most important point here is that hardware units sold don't scale with level of profit. The Xbox sold more units than the GC, but the GC was profitable while the Xbox generated tremendous losses. On a sidenote, GC+GB/C+GBA+DS generated more profits for Nintendo in the span from 2000 to 2006 than PS1+PS2+PSP did for Sony despite Sony selling more hardware units.

The maths I listed in my preceding post - Nintendo being able to gift away 20 million $200 GCs - wouldn't even have dropped Nintendo's profit level for the GC alone below Microsoft's Xbox. If we really went the whole way and assumed a scenario where Nintendo loses as much money as Microsoft on video games for the duration of the Xbox's lifecycle, then Nintendo could have given away a total of 40 million $200 GCs due to their handhelds bringing in the necessary profit for that figure. Now, if someone pointed out that the GC didn't cost $200 throughout its life, they would be right; it dropped to $150 not too long after launch and by 2004 it was selling for $100. If we applied a $150 average to the money Nintendo could lose per console in the hypothetical scenario that matches Xbox losses, we'd have an extra 60 million GCs to add to the 21m that it actually sold.

So what's left to say? How about an explanation why you posted something so preposterous: It's because your hate for the GC runs that deep, so there is no limit to irrationality.

Portable + b/c - and having a library of games that are mostly exclusive (no competition).

Gamecube was a complete reset so no b/c and had to compete against Playstation 2 which was already in the market alongside the Xbox which was a new console that launched on the same week as well.

The GBA's appeal over the GameCube can be attributed to several key factors, despite both sharing a somewhat "kiddy" image:

1. Portability and Convenience

The GBA was a handheld console, allowing players to enjoy gaming anywhere, anytime. This portability made it highly appealing, especially for kids, commuters, and anyone who wanted gaming on the go. The GameCube, as a home console, required a dedicated setup and TV access, which limited its flexibility.

2. Affordable Price Point

The GBA was significantly cheaper than the GameCube, making it a more accessible option for families and gamers on a budget. Its affordability allowed it to reach a wider audience, including younger gamers who could save up for it more easily.

3. Massive Game Library

The GBA boasted a vast and diverse library of games, including ports of classic NES/SNES titles, beloved franchises like Pokémon, and RPGs like Golden Sun. This wide variety of games appealed to both nostalgic older gamers and new players. The GameCube, while having excellent titles, lacked the same breadth of content, particularly in genres like JRPGs.

4. Timing and Market Position

The GBA launched at a time when handheld gaming was at its peak, inheriting the success of the Game Boy and Game Boy Color. It built on Nintendo's dominance in the portable gaming market, whereas the GameCube faced stiff competition from the PlayStation 2 and Xbox in the home console space.

5. Multiplayer Simplicity

With features like the link cable, the GBA made local multiplayer accessible and fun, particularly for games like Pokémon battles and trades. The GameCube required multiple controllers, and while it had some great multiplayer titles (Smash Bros., Mario Kart), the barrier to entry was higher.

6. Perceived Value and Nostalgia

The GBA tapped into the nostalgia of older gamers by offering 2D games and ports of SNES classics. Many players appreciated its focus on gameplay over graphics, while the GameCube's attempt to compete graphically with the PS2 and Xbox may have alienated some of Nintendo's traditional fanbase.

7. Global Trends in Gaming

Handheld gaming was more popular in regions like Japan, where space constraints and portability were highly valued. Meanwhile, the home console market outside Japan was leaning heavily toward the PS2, which had a broader appeal and multimedia capabilities.

8. Pokémon Factor

Let’s not forget Pokémon! The GBA was the home of Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald, as well as remakes like FireRed and LeafGreen. These games were system sellers and a massive draw for both casual and dedicated gamers.

In summary, the GBA succeeded because it was portable, affordable, and offered a massive library of accessible games that appealed to a wide range of players. The GameCube, while a fantastic console, struggled in the competitive home console market and didn’t have the same universal appeal or flexibility as the GBA.

Is that you ChatGTP?