ItsaMii said:
Where did the artcile mention anything about Nintendo being third in matters of marketshare?
|
dude, the first sentence of the article says that..
''Hadouken!''
Or do you suggest that with 'last place' in the first sentence they mean last place in terms of profit?
''Hadouken!''
I'm not sure what deluded reality people were in last gen but there was no battle between Xbox and PS2. Xbox barely passed Gamecube and PS2 thrashed them both combined. Sounds like the lingering notion of PS360 vs. Wii, except completely inappropriate here.
Also the article was far from 'right,' as we can see Nintendo's game is hardly over.
Tag - "No trolling on my watch!"
The title 'game over' doesn't ever correspond with the text of the article if you ask me, like Kihniö already mentioned.
''Hadouken!''
| Ajax said: Or do you suggest that with 'last place' in the first sentence they mean last place in terms of profit? |
"Kids may love Zelda and Mario, but that won't be enough to keep Nintendo out of last place in a three-way battle to dominate the $6.5 billion videogame market".
That may talk about revenue or profit, but not about hardware marketshare. How can Nintendo be in last place (in the 6.5 billion videogame market) if they sold more software than the xbox? Add to that the fact that GC outsold the Xbox in Software/hardware sales for several years. It was late into the race that xbox outsold the GC (shipment data).
By what is said in the first line, I think they mean 3rd place overall (profit, revenue, marketshare).
You are posting a lot of pointless things.
Satan said:
"You are for ever angry, all you care about is intelligence, but I repeat again that I would give away all this superstellar life, all the ranks and honours, simply to be transformed into the soul of a merchant's wife weighing eighteen stone and set candles at God's shrine."
Ajax said:
Where does this article mention that Nintendo won't make a profit? Where did I mention anything about Nintendo being also third in matters of profit? |
What's the point of marketshare? You can leverage it to get profit. Unless of course it costs you so much money to get that marketshare that you can't earn it back in profits.
Forbes is a financial magazine. Of course profit is relevant.
"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
"Kids may love Zelda and Mario, but that won't be enough to keep Nintendo out of last place in a three-way battle to dominate the $6.5 billion videogame market".
Wow have times changed. Nintendo's profit from the last two years have exceeded the entire video game market of 2001.
ItsaMii said:
"Kids may love Zelda and Mario, but that won't be enough to keep Nintendo out of last place in a three-way battle to dominate the $6.5 billion videogame market". That may talk about revenue or profit, but not about hardware marketshare. How can Nintendo be in last place (in the 6.5 billion videogame market) if they sold more software than the xbox? Add to that the fact that GC outsold the Xbox in Software/hardware sales for several years. It was late into the race that xbox outsold the GC (shipment data). |
This article was written before the aftermath you are talking about, so saying 'how can Nintendo be in last place if they sold more software than the xbox? etc' is unlogical as a comment to words spoken prior to the things you have knowledge about now. Even if they were talking about profit, your comment doesn't make sense.
''Hadouken!''
famousringo said:
What's the point of marketshare? You can leverage it to get profit. Unless of course it costs you so much money to get that marketshare that you can't earn it back in profits. Forbes is a financial magazine. Of course profit is relevant. |
Of course you can make the assumption that because it's a financial magazine that they must have ment 'last place' in terms of profit. But certainly the text doesn't state that, wether your assumption is right or not. But if you really wan't it to mean last in terms of profit, which the text doesn't say, but because of your 'knowledge' of Forbes, go ahead. I don't know what the guy that wrote this article was thinking that day. I've only got these words on my screen.
''Hadouken!''
Ajax said:
This article was written before the aftermath you are talking about, so saying 'how can Nintendo be in last place if they sold more software than the xbox? etc' is unlogical as a comment to words spoken prior to the things you have knowledge about now. Even if they were talking about profit, your comment doesn't make sense. |
Are you dumb or are you making that on purpose?
they were quite right actually, cause the GC turned out to get the last place, and MS beated Nintendo even without having a Japanese market; so it's not fanboyish at all
How does that makes your comment more logical than mine? We both know the outcome. Forbes made a prediction and they were wrong. Nintendo profits were bigger than MS losses. MS won in "hardware units marketshare". Nintendo sold more software, had a higher revenue and profits. Sony sold more sofware and hardware, but they made less money than Nintendo.
Stop derailing the thread with pointless comments.
Satan said:
"You are for ever angry, all you care about is intelligence, but I repeat again that I would give away all this superstellar life, all the ranks and honours, simply to be transformed into the soul of a merchant's wife weighing eighteen stone and set candles at God's shrine."
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
