They made money on the Cube at launch. Broke even with it was 150, and lost money when it was 99 and their system was left for dead by the public. Excellent and efficient design gave them the advantage. Better manufacturing standards picked up the slack during pricecuts. However, all console makers use the "sell the razor cheap and charge the most for the razorblades" model. Nintendo got its ass kicked on that front, but it wasn't losing hundreds of dollars per box like MS. I've owned all of Nintendo's consoles and I can say that they are study systems built to last. Their customer service is also top-notch. I probably won't buy a PS3 until I know Sony's systems last longer than the 3 year average.... But it still bothers me that they'll cut corners around the edges in the design process that leaves behind any potential for future-proofing. You could say that the added functions only benefits hardcore fans in the longrun (or out the gate like N64 cartridges), but Sony and MS have shamed them in that respect. When they cut prices on the Cube, the public took that as and act of desperation from an inferior console. It was Nintendo's fault for not making the Cube look greater than how it really was for most owners.
They're doing okay on the console front because it's a new generation and they have 9 billion dollars in the bank to spend. They need a console to sell their games. Their games are very profitable and if they went 3rd party, they'd have to pay royaltees like Sega and focus blindly to each consoles demographics. Instead of receiving royaltees, they pay them, so it's like a 5 point swing in bball when you turn the ball over and they score 3 pts on you. So I think they'll sell consoles until they're ruined or taken over. You outgrew Nintendo games. You're better off with a PS or Xbox. Nintendo will constantly frustrate you to no end, but you don't buy oranges to make grape juice. Their potential for those games you want will come once in a while in the form of a Zelda or a Metroid, but they don't have the talent to constantly make those games. Nintendo fans don't really like them either, such as a Conker, Eternal Darkness, or a Metal Gear. So picky only wanting Nintendo's first parties to make them... You want a PC but hate Microsoft. So you buy an Mac hoping they'll become the next MS. Apple is still Apple and they're making a lot of money doing so. It's frustrating, but they won't change anytime soon.
Thing is; very few people do. That's the point; they make money, aren't going to risk losing craploads of it like Sony and MS, still put out content people enjoy, and are still being creative/innovative. You can always say 'well you could be making more money'...but so could everyone else. If they can be successful, still do things/take risks that if they pan out will be copied by everyone else years from now anyway, and still retain their identity, I'd say they are doing the right thing. "What else is there?" is what Nintendo is becoming. Sony/MS are the mainstream now, and offer alot of stuff that is more the 'common' themes/games. What they are turning into is what a person turns to after they've played FPS #300, and want to try something different. I think this is a good move. And Rare did Perfect Dark, and not much else. I was a big fan of Conker, but it seems no one else is. They haven't exactly turned out to be the big loss that it seemed at the time. No matter when they would release their next console, people would group it together. That is unavoidable. And I'd say the route they are going is pretty darn seperate from the competition, so they're doing just as you are suggesting. The games go only where the fanbase is. The only reason the Playstation gets so many titles is because development houses know that's where they'll make the most money. So that game is won, generally, with the money. But Nintendo is good at creating their own properties, so they'll always have something to offer. Personally, I don't think they can win the money game that it would take to have the crapload of third party stuff (which is often crap, but still fleshes out the library) predominantly on their system, so there's no point in trying. But that's the reason I would have an XBOX 360 or a PS3 along with a Revolution. Again, they are very much the same in their offerings. It's just a matter of deciding which one it is. (Which is exactly what MS and Sony are throwing all that money around to try and help convince people to do). Hey! The SNES was absolutely outstanding. Of course, I didn't actually know that at the time - I was a Genesis guy. Ah well. Playstation definitely had the biggest selection, despite the hardware. I agree with you there. However, you just said it yourself; if the PS3 fails miserably. What exactly is your criteria for that? How long would you have to go, how much faith would you put behind it, before you gave up on the PS3? Clearly, it's Sony's game to lose for you (and a lot of other folks). That's the task that MS faces. It's going to take a lot of $$$, and losses, to tackle it. Microsoft can, and is willing, to do that. I don't think Nintendo can, or should. That's all I'm saying; it's a dangerous game to try and play, to get folks to shift like that. And I don't think it's in Nintendo's best interests - particularly financially - to try and play it like MS and Sony do. But why? People keep saying they're doomed, but no one can really say why. It's not because of money. They still have an audience and marketable content. And why do we want them out of the consoles? I like the fact that they'll be out there, with something different. It's at least another option. As consumers, the more options we have, the better. They already do a bangup job with the handhelds, and give us console offerings. Nintendo is exploring potential all over the place, it's just a lot of folks don't seem to want to believe it.
This is absolutely true. Nintendo really sucks at the marketing/hype/style game. They have some intellectual properties that just scream for some good marketing, but are unable to do it. They leave it up to the people who are willing to find out on their own just what the system was capable of.
