I think the point was that GameCube wasn't bringing huge losses, it at least broke even.  And this despite being priced below it's competitors with comparable (or better) performance.   Really, it was technological marvel, pretty easily the most smartly designed console last gen.

O_O

I have never once thought of it like that.

Haha neither have I.  The Chronicles of Riddick games are some of the best first person shooter games ever made and up in the quality level of that of the highest rated ones ever.  Great franchise that isn't picked up by the mainstream gamers, mainly because it is one fo the few shooters that actually isn't for a mainstream audience.  Oh well then. 

^ps2 reached 99$ in its 9 year.

but it was sold at lost for the first 2 years.

An interesting thread, Squill.

I have a few questions (for anyone):

(1) What would the current market look like, if all three major HW manufacturers had taken the Wii route/model from the last gen to this one?
(2) Is the Wii software situation a sustainable one for all market demographics?
(3) Is there a demographic vacuum the Wii doesn't cover well? How large is it? Will it grow as the industry matures, or shrink?
(4) If all manufacturers made Wii-like consoles (low-cost, profitable "razors"), what would happen if a new company entered the picture, and introduced a low-cost razor that used the "make money on blades" model, in the face of multiple-Wii-like competitors?

Hrm apparently my post didn't appear. 

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57802

Look at the numbers, even being a better seller than GC and GBA on some periods, then eventually outselling both combined

http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=GBA&reg1=All&cons2=PS2&reg2=All&cons3=GC&reg3=All&weeks=330

Nintendo still had better returns despite things like the higher production costs of the carts for the GBA. 

Their R&D department is pretty extensive I have no idea where you're getting your claim from, they have a partnership with IBM which is probably one of the best partners you could ever have... these guys have been in the business of making game consoles longer than anyone else still around today, to say they can't design a console with a lot of power all of a sudden is simply ludacris.

Nintendo profits hugely from business external to consoles... i.e. other-media Pokemon, The Seattle Mariners (Nintendo owns a majority share) etc.

I always find it odd to compare those numbers directly to game division profits from Sony and MS. Pokemon has been a huge boon to Nintendo for the entirety of this, and last console generations. The Mariners are a huge sports franchise, and have been quite profitable for a long while. I believe the profits from all those sources are included in reported profits in the links above...

Isn't comparing those profits directly to console game divisions a bit... spin, in favor of Nintendo? Heck, Sony uses their game division to bolster their income for their BD, UMD, & DVD disc and drive royalties (yep Sony gets royalties from DVDs... not a lot though), and disc manufacturing divisions as well (they "pay" other divisions for the goods/services/licenses, showing as a loss on the games division, and a gain for the other divisions).  MS profits hugely from their accessories (PC keyboards + mice, which sell like hotcakes), which is included in their EDD profits, etc. -- its just not as simple as the raw numbers make it seem.

In short, the GameCube was not as awesomely profitable as it first appears, from Nintendo's financials... as if that were Nintendo's only source of income during those periods.  Heck, the GBA alone would have dwarfed it, if the 'Cube was indeed profitable at all.

Wii proves that filling more needs is more successful than beating the needs.

I "need" entertainment to relax. I "need" it to be in my price range. Does it make my needs. If yes then I buy. That's been pretty standard since Sumeria. It's about the only social consumer behaviour that is constant in a large mass market appeal.

1. Impossible to say.

2. I believe the Wii software situation came about in part because the good third party developers migrated away from the system whereas the small, bad or mad developers were left with a choice to either develop for the Wii or not develop at all. It relates back to the first statement as well because with a different market dynamic there are different rules to follow.

3. Obviously it doesn't cover the people that don't like the interface just as the current HD consoles definately don't cover their interface. Aside from that im not sure what you're asking. Are you asking are there large demographics of people who would have abstained from this generation of consoles if the performance was not offered? Yes probably as there are a lot of ex pc gamers in the ranks of console gamers as we have seen with the rise of genres which were formally in the PC realm like WRPG and shooters. In the longer term it will probably shrink as even greater multiples of performance are needed for appreciable improvements in visual quality and the gap between a bleeding edge console and a mainstream one shrinks.

4. Its extremely difficult to break into the industry as is. I wouldn't rank it as a plausible problem personally, almost every new entrant to the industry has been burnt.

Meanwhile my wii is nothing but a dust collector. If there was nothing but wii like gaming currently, I would probably not be a console gamer right now.