The thing you guys are ignoring is that the author admitted that the market would still grow with a Gamecube 2, just not to the extent that it has. I agree that the market would've grown regardless, but definitely not to the same extent that it has.

You don't see geezers and middle-aged women playing Playstation 3 and Xbox 360, and they didn't play much PS2, Xbox, or Gamecube either. Although I personally don't see them as true market growth (there is no guarantee they'll keep buying games and future consoles), they are customers that the industry wouldn't have otherwise received.

First of all, the original XBox sold 24 million consoles, compared to 22 million for the Gamecube, so I'm not sure how the Gamecube was only "slightly competitive" with the XBox. PS2 maybe, but the GC and XBox were neck and neck.

Second of all, I don't think an HD Zelda would have had people any more excited than Twilight Princess. It would have been a fantastic game, but upping the resolution doesn't really make it any better.

As for the conclusion, he's basically saying the same thing Miyamoto said - that if Nintendo had attempted to go for the same market as the PS360, the competition might have killed one of them. I suppose it would not have been awful if Nintendo was relegated to software only, but I, for one, am happy that such a fantastic game company is succeeding.

sorc,
He does mention it, but my original idea is slightly different because of the subtlety in tone.

His statement of it still growing is only a footnote within the total idea that the market would have seen a lot less expansion. His idea is geared towards the industry not being in as good a shape without the wii.

My thought is geared more towards the idea that the industry would be fine without the wii.
The tone is different. From my standpoint, it would be a good reason to say, "the wii wasn't necessary", whereas from the OP's standpoint it is a good lead-in to saying, "the wii is necessary".

This contradicts itself. The size of the market is based on how many customers their are. That's why people always talk about Nintebdo "expanding the market," they're drawing in more customers. How can the market be bigger if thier are less customers?

I think we can count on geezers and middle-aged women more than many "hardcore" gamers, who say they'll "find another hobby" if motion control takes over console gaming (which appears to be happening).

Fact is, there is no guarantee anyone will keep buying certain products. It's like how most World of Warcraft fans will not settle for the other competing MMO's, and stick with WoW exclusively - that doesn't mean it hasn't grown the MMO market.

Let's just see, then. If Nintendo had literally made another GameCube, with similar sell-through timing. GameCube, at this point from launch, was at ~16 million, which is itself about 38 million less than Wii, and would put total to-date sales for this generation at 63 million. Of course, this would not be the case, as we could assume that of those 38-million nonbuyers, if we decide that half of Wii's non-matching-Gamecube audience is expanded audience, we could add another 19 million in who bought either a 360 or PS3, putting this generation to date at 82 million

Still well behind what actually happened, but is it behind last generation? 17 million Xbox, 16 million GC, and 66 million PS2, so 89 million.

So i guess it still would have shrunk, but it's still rather wooly math.

This is a dispute over what defines "The Market." You could make an argument that it should be number of customers, but since business is all about the money, almost all talk of how big a market is refers to how much revenue it generates.

I don't think that there's a business out there that wouldn't dump a third of its customer base if it meant they could double the revenue from their remaining customers.

@griffin
because if there are 10 people buying a 600$ product vs 60 people buying a 100$ product, the market is the same. That market with the higher number of people has expanded the demographic, but not the revenue.

The problem with the argument that everyone is bringing up with me is that while all of these things are very closely related, they are not all the same thing. They are slightly different interpretations. Mine is not wrong simply because your interpretation is different, you just have a slightly different viewpoint.

Like looking at a ball with a color gradient on it, where I stand, the ball looks blue-green, wheras where you are standing, the ball look green-blue. Niether of us are wrong, but it's folly to start saying that only one view can be right.

@mrkahn
very true, and good analysis. However, the revenue would have been grossly higher.

All I'm saying is having more revenue doesn't necessarily mean having more customers. Many people who bought the Wii wouldn't have jumped into this gen at all, I'm one of them.