Yes, PS1 was on market but it barely sold 30-80k per week.PSP was out when DS was already launched and PS1 disconected, so nintendo still had more consoles on market but that doesnt change the fact Nintendo made more profit.

And i think when people say nintendo is doomed they dont mean it will go bankrupt or lose money they just meant Nintendo dominaton will end or sales will become smaller

I agree with the sentiment in the article, if not all the arguments he puts forward.

I definitely agree with his earlier sections, about Nintendo being written off in 2005, about the DS/Wii being trashed by the analysts and industry writers. Did anyone take a look at the article he links to? The writer there said that Nintendo would be left behind by mainstream gaming, and that games like Nintendogs would fail, and that the DS/Revolution would be irrelevant in the face of PSP/PS3/360. Nintendogs has now sold more than 20million copies, and the DS and Wii are the leading (sales-wise, which is the only indisputable element to this discussion) machines of this generation. Like the Malstrom said, Nintendo appealed to customers and non-customers, and not "The Industry". It's why they attract so much hate, and why people inside that small sphere of the 'knowledgeable industry analyst' are constantly predicting their doom. Part of me thinks they (industry writers/analysts) want Nintendo to fail because Nintendo proved them all wrong. It's also worth mentioning that thanks to Nintendo, thanks to titles like Brain Training, Nintendogs, Wii Sports and Wii Fit, gaming is becoming more mainstream than ever.

Likewise, my dismay and frustration at the "Nintendo is doomed" predictions of 2005 is mirrored now by people predicting and even hoping for the demise of Sony in this generation. What's good about a major console manufacturer being dumped out of the industry? What's good about skilled developers, manufacturers and artists losing their jobs? What's good about loyal consumers seeing their favourite console/franchises etc disappear, or be hammered into multi-format titles that never approach the glory of their early, first party days? (I'm looking at you, SEGA/Sonic). We should celebrate the fact that Nintendo came back from "the brink", that more people than ever are enjoying games, that we have a highly competitive and diverse industry. We should hope that the three console manufacturers prosper in the market, but never that one monopolises the market.

We should hope that Microsoft and Sony come back from the upset Nintendo have caused so far, stronger than ever. In the face of competition, each manufacturer will only try harder. That's something that will benefit all of us. I think the best is yet to come from this generation, because the competition will only get tougher.

I disagree, these sick f---s want to see the death of Nintendo, they want to see Iwata commit harikuri, they want to see Miyamoto work for MS. Doomed means doomed, dead, over, bankrupt, no more, taken over, from today onwards known as Microsoft Family Division.

Oh I get it, so Game Cube was doomed and would be bought by apple while Nintendo was doind fine. Silly you, every wii sold is about 2 GC's with $2 extra for duct tape and $50 for Wii sports.

Now you are just being mean.

@dib didn't you hear? Apple is buying EA!!!! wuzza!

‘concerning’, ‘problematic’, and eventually ‘doomed’.

I love these stages

"Sony and even ms first party efforts are much better than nintendos for the last year or two. They may not produce the same sales as nintendos products but quality is there..."

This has already sort of been debunked, but just to elaborate:

MS' only notable first-party studios are Lionhead (Fable series), Rare, and Turn 10 (Forza Motorsport). There's also a couple of smaller ones, but they haven't produced anything of note yet. Compare that to Nintendo's legion of first- and second-party development houses and there's, well, just no comparison at all.

You might be able to make a case for Sony, but only a couple of their in-house studios (Team ICO and Polyphony [Gran Turismo]) have produced quality games on any level consistent with even a single one of Nintendo's first-party studios, let alone a second-party studio like HAL Laboratory. Companies like Insomniac, Sucker Punch, and Media Molecule are just third-party studios who have committed themselves in some vague form or another to developing for Sony platforms. (By comparison, a second-party studio like HAL is an independent company that the console manufacturer has actually contracted to produce exclusive games.)

Very true, in fact, people forget that the origins of the industry was "Casual". Core games didnt really show up till the NES. SO you might actually attribute "core gaming" to Nintendo. Ironic, isn't it?

Wrong. Actually, the NES was considered "casual" in its time, while arcade games (the dominant form of gaming at the time) were the "hardcore." Had you been alive when the NES was released, you'd have heard all sorts of talk about how the NES and those new easy, kiddy, casual games where you go from point A to point B (some of them - gasp - don't even have high score charts!) were killing and "casualizing" gaming.

End result: Some "hardcore" adapted; others clung bitterly to their style of games until the market for them dwindled down into nothingness.

How's that for a modern-day parallel?