Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: WeatherOp on January 11, 2006, 05:24:40 pm
-
Yep, the end is near, whether the fact that game systems are becoming too pricey or that I posted a game topic. :p
The analists put out their first thoughts on the PS3 today, $399 to $699. And the saddest part about it is that people would pay $700 bucks for a gaming system. The highest I would pay for a gaming system is $200, and it would have to impress me quite a bit.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6142242.html
-
$699! That would surely spell death. Hell, $399 is a gigantic gamble, especially if the xbox360 goes down in price (although I did read a report that an IBM insider put the manufacturing cost of that at about $700). The question would surely be - will the PS3 win the DVD format war for Blu-ray, or will Blu-ray lose the console war for the PS3?
-
*grumbles*
M$ was smart to not put an inbuilt HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive in the 360. I sense serious conflict before the issue is resolved.
And I really doubt $699 would be right. The hardware is comparable to the 360s with the only major cost difference being a lack of HD and the inclusion of a Blu-ray drive.
Then again, that inclusion could push prices up, with the cheapest standalone Blu-ray players coming out at $1000 compared to $400 HD-DVD players.
I predict $500.
-
I predict the 700 for the special cases in Japan.
It's a hell of a buisness move, because the Japanese can afford, are crazy enough and will buy it, I'd bet, it's a very good and strong market just there. Nobody there could give a **** about the Xbox no matter what the price is, but for another Playstation and the "Sony Mania", I can see it.
But I'd never buy anything that costs 700. Not even if it was uber rare special MEGA DEATH MACHINE PS3. Then again I wouldn't buy anything that costs 300-400 either. 200-250 max for me, which means I'll have to wait for prices to drop anyway.
-
If it was $700 it would go down in flames in the US and EU markets. Hell, a lot of people complain about the X360 being too expensive (which it currently is :p).
-
I predict the 700 for the special cases in Japan.
It's a hell of a buisness move, because the Japanese can afford, are crazy enough and will buy it, I'd bet, it's a very good and strong market just there. Nobody there could give a **** about the Xbox no matter what the price is, but for another Playstation and the "Sony Mania", I can see it.
But I'd never buy anything that costs 700. Not even if it was uber rare special MEGA DEATH MACHINE PS3. Then again I wouldn't buy anything that costs 300-400 either. 200-250 max for me, which means I'll have to wait for prices to drop anyway.
'cept the PS3 will be competing with the Rev in Japan anyways. Granted, the 2 are aiming for mainly different demographics (PS3; current gameplayers & mainly the 14-30 males, Rev; non-gameplayers, females & outside the Ps3 age brackets), but they'll still be an overlap. Of course, the Japanese tend to be willing to buy more than one console if the games are right, IIRC, so it could be a moot point in any case.
-
Keep in mind that the Nintendo DS is absolutely killing each and every other console in Japan. The PS2 only had 2 games on the top sales list. The rest were DS titles.
-
If it was $700 it would go down in flames in the US and EU markets. Hell, a lot of people complain about the X360 being too expensive (which it currently is :p).
That's because the Xbox is a buggy console with no good games, so you're basically paying for a 400 dollar toaster as is. Naturally when Halo and all that **** arrives that people want, then it's a different story, and the machine will probably be worthwhile. Anyone with common sense evaded the trainwreck of features that were offered at release. Besides, price will go down by the time Halo and all that arrives I bet as well.
But PS3? Heh. The only reason - ONLY - reason Microsoft pushed the Xbox out a year earlier, is because they knew if they went head to head, Sony mania coupled with common sense would end them and their sales. It was a good move too, because they managed and still manage to sell a lot of units before their nemesis comes along - and in the end the sales will probably be equal, however I predict Sony taking the good ole lead anyway.
Seriously, just Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid are reason enough to pay 700. I know I'd search my shoes for the money, even though I wouldn't find anything. However most others (read Japanese) would, and I'm fairly certain a good amount of Americans and Europeans. And then when enough people buy for the ridiculous amount, scale your prices down to what the competition is working with.
Naturally a good thing to push it further would be the alternative cheaper "core" version too.
Revolution? Not too many good things I've got to say for it. It'll be third yet again. I just feel sorry for them. Everyone's going to grab a PS3 over Xbox or Xbox over Nintendo (except in japan probably).
My opinion anyway.
-
If it was $700 it would go down in flames in the US and EU markets. Hell, a lot of people complain about the X360 being too expensive (which it currently is :p).
That's because the Xbox is a buggy console with no good games, so you're basically paying for a 400 dollar toaster as is. Naturally when Halo and all that **** arrives that people want, then it's a different story, and the machine will probably be worthwhile. Anyone with common sense evaded the trainwreck of features that were offered at release. Besides, price will go down by the time Halo and all that arrives I bet as well.
But PS3? Heh. The only reason - ONLY - reason Microsoft pushed the Xbox out a year earlier, is because they knew if they went head to head, Sony mania coupled with common sense would end them and their sales. It was a good move too, because they managed and still manage to sell a lot of units before their nemesis comes along - and in the end the sales will probably be equal, however I predict Sony taking the good ole lead anyway.
Seriously, just Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid are reason enough to pay 700. I know I'd search my shoes for the money, even though I wouldn't find anything. However most others (read Japanese) would, and I'm fairly certain a good amount of Americans and Europeans. And then when enough people buy for the ridiculous amount, scale your prices down to what the competition is working with.
Naturally a good thing to push it further would be the alternative cheaper "core" version too.
Revolution? Not too many good things I've got to say for it. It'll be third yet again. I just feel sorry for them. Everyone's going to grab a PS3 over Xbox or Xbox over Nintendo (except in japan probably).
My opinion anyway.
*cough*flamebait*cough*
-
*cough*flamebait*cough*
*cough*fanboy*cough*
-
*cough*flamebait*cough*
*cough*fanboy*cough*
I hope you were talking about him...
"That's because the Xbox is a buggy console with no good games, so you're basically paying for a 400 dollar toaster as is."
"Seriously, just Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid are reason enough to pay 700."
-
Revolution? Not too many good things I've got to say for it. It'll be third yet again. I just feel sorry for them. Everyone's going to grab a PS3 over Xbox or Xbox over Nintendo (except in japan probably).
My opinion anyway.
Well, your opinion is wrong. Sorry to say it, but quite, quite wrong. Price estimates based on what Big N have previously stated in regard to the Rev have put the revolutionary (:p) price tag from as low as US$200, to a staggaring US$80. Even if it is given a US$200 price-tag - around the highest estimated price Nintendo would ever charge for it - it would still be smaller than one third of the PS3's highest estimated price.
IMO, I believe Big N are going for a suppplementary angle, not only appealing to audiences outside the 18-30 Males demographic (Blue ocean concept), but aimed to not replace any console, but to supplement it. If you already have a '360, you could forgo getting two games and instead get a Rev for the same pricetag, which is damn good value if you ask me.
Of course, this sort of thing hasn't been attempted before on such a major scale, so only time will tell, but to count out the Rev so early is pure folly, and only evidence that you don't know what the f*** you're on about.
-
Sigh... I'm a n00b and don't have any gaming systems (besides PC. Of course, saying my computer is a gaming computer would be and insult to everything). I'm not allowed to buy any ( :( ), so I guess the highest I would buy a console for is $0. If I COULD buy one, probly no more than $150, because my little sister is always watching some crappy PBS plege drive/cartoons. When she's not, my dad is watching Everybodey Loves Raymond, My mom would be watching the news, my older brother watching some stupid movie about some weird dudes, and my older sister would be watching Anchorman again or something. Anyway, it wouldn't be worth it with our 36 inch glass screen no HD TV. (no, I'm not poor. My family just buys lots of computers. my mom has a laptop, my lil sister has one thats even worse than mine, my dad has one with 3 or 4 120 gig Hard drives, My older brother has a server computer, a gaming computer, and an old computer that I might be allowed to salvage some stuff off of, my older sister has a normal-everyday-nongamer-computer.)
*hopes I didn't get too much off-topic*
-
Revolution? Not too many good things I've got to say for it. It'll be third yet again. I just feel sorry for them. Everyone's going to grab a PS3 over Xbox or Xbox over Nintendo (except in japan probably).
My opinion anyway.
Well, your opinion is wrong. Sorry to say it, but quite, quite wrong. Price estimates based on what Big N have previously stated in regard to the Rev have put the revolutionary (:p) price tag from as low as US$200, to a staggaring US$80. Even if it is given a US$200 price-tag - around the highest estimated price Nintendo would ever charge for it - it would still be smaller than one third of the PS3's highest estimated price.
IMO, I believe Big N are going for a suppplementary angle, not only appealing to audiences outside the 18-30 Males demographic (Blue ocean concept), but aimed to not replace any console, but to supplement it. If you already have a '360, you could forgo getting two games and instead get a Rev for the same pricetag, which is damn good value if you ask me.
Of course, this sort of thing hasn't been attempted before on such a major scale, so only time will tell, but to count out the Rev so early is pure folly, and only evidence that you don't know what the f*** you're on about.
No, I don't think so.
People will rather spend their money on Games, than on a system they rarely wish to use. Games are time. Let's face it, the minority are the diehard Nintendo fans, and even they (I was around, and have bought NES when it was new) willl most probably go for buying a game or two rather than the Rev when it comes down to consoles and choices.
I'm sorry, but the Revolution, even as a supplemental, still suffers the logical third place. Gamecube was significantly lower priced as well, but it still came in as a third console, and it could have been argued that it was supplemental for many people as well.
Thanks for the "don't know what the **** you're on about" comment though, that's really mature in a thread where we're basing our estimations on opinion and past track-record alone (well we know something about the 360 now that it's released, and that's that it's not worth any money...yet), considering none of us know what will actually happen.
-
Yeah, you got me, sorry about the 'don't know what the f*** what you're talking about', a temporary lapse in my otherwise stoic demeanor :nervous:
But my point remains valid. The Rev is a completely new concept to the mainstream console market, and if the success of the Sony Eyetoy is anything to go by, the Rev's more active take on controlling gameplay should prove quite successful on a market quickly being dulled to the effects of 'OMG W3 GOt c00L Gr4phiCS!' If Nintendo's gamble is successful, and it can grab a hold of a wider demographic, and the ever-so-ellusive female demographic, the Rev should do quite well for itself. IMO of course :p.
And anyway, 'coming in third' as you put it doesn't really mean much. Sure, the GCN didn't seem to do nearly as well as the PS2 or Xbox360, but even with the cheaper price tag, Big N made the largest profit of that particular generation.
-
Yeah, you got me, sorry about the 'don't know what the f*** what you're talking about', a temporary lapse in my otherwise stoic demeanor :nervous:
But my point remains valid. The Rev is a completely new concept to the mainstream console market, and if the success of the Sony Eyetoy is anything to go by, the Rev's more active take on controlling gameplay should prove quite successful on a market quickly being dulled to the effects of 'OMG W3 GOt c00L Gr4phiCS!' If Nintendo's gamble is successful, and it can grab a hold of a wider demographic, and the ever-so-ellusive female demographic, the Rev should do quite well for itself. IMO of course :p.
And anyway, 'coming in third' as you put it doesn't really mean much. Sure, the GCN didn't seem to do nearly as well as the PS2 or Xbox360, but even with the cheaper price tag, Big N made the largest profit of that particular generation.
Again, even if the profit part is true, I still feel sorry for them, like I said above.
They _will_ come in third again, because Microsoft and Sony are MONSTERS. Like someone said on another forum about Microsoft - which I think also goes for Sony to a degree:
"They are middlemen. Buisnessmen. Truly parasites."
The syndication agreements they'll have when it comes to games and compainies making them will overshadow Nintendo almost always, since they put their eggs in many baskets. The interest for gamers who like the most quality (not original games though sadly) out of their games, they'll go for the "killer apps" or games in this sense, which are at Xbox and PS3.
Nintendo is just simply not financially capable of taking the market, and they really never will be unless Microsoft and Sony go bankrupt. The pool for the worthwhile therefore goes to them. Nintendo can only be third, even though I agree with the disertation (sp err...) that someone wrote a while ago when they unveiled the controller which basically stated that they're truly the ONLY ones who are innovative.
Sadly however, I don't see BIG things happening for them. Xbox and PS3 in the end however, will make substantial billions which they'll invest in future suffocation of the market, like they do today.
-
The Revolution is a really a different kind of console than the PS3 and 360. In my opinion saying it's going to come third is like saying a dishwasher is going to come third in a competition for kitchen sinks. Nintendo isn't even in the same war as Sony and Microsoft, they're aiming for quite a different market.
-
Yes... though I don't think we see it in the same context.
I see it as PS3 and Xbox being in a different leauge, but their league is the more worthwhile one to join, because of the money, and therefore time and quality and content involved.
Nintendo won't enjoy the same perks. It will have others, but they will fade to the big boys'. Sort of... my point.
Naturally tastes differ from person to person, but the big duo has more to offer for the general satisfaction (which PS2 and Xbox proved in comparison to GC - which I don't believe will change anytime soon).
-
Again, even if the profit part is true, I still feel sorry for them, like I said above.
They _will_ come in third again, because Microsoft and Sony are MONSTERS. Like someone said on another forum about Microsoft - which I think also goes for Sony to a degree:
"They are middlemen. Buisnessmen. Truly parasites."
The syndication agreements they'll have when it comes to games and compainies making them will overshadow Nintendo almost always, since they put their eggs in many baskets. The interest for gamers who like the most quality (not original games though sadly) out of their games, they'll go for the "killer apps" or games in this sense, which are at Xbox and PS3.
Nintendo is just simply not financially capable of taking the market, and they really never will be unless Microsoft and Sony go bankrupt. The pool for the worthwhile therefore goes to them. Nintendo can only be third, even though I agree with the disertation (sp err...) that someone wrote a while ago when they unveiled the controller which basically stated that they're truly the ONLY ones who are innovative.
Sadly however, I don't see BIG things happening for them. Xbox and PS3 in the end however, will make substantial billions which they'll invest in future suffocation of the market, like they do today.
How ironic, it would seem you know considerably more about what the f*** you're talking about than I do (:p), and on that note I conceed and agree in full with you, I honstly can't argue with anything you just wrote.
However, Ransom is right, the Rev shouldn't be counted as a direct competitor to the '360 and PS3. Think of the recent handheld releases as a microcosm of what the greater console market will soon bear witness to. Some of my mates are die-hard Sony fanbois, and as such - with the recent release of the PSP - had no qualms in talking s*** about the DS. To do that is pure ignorance, as the two are completely different; the DS is a dedicated handheld gaming system, while the PSP packs much more features in and rates gaming as a secondary concern (as shown by the substandard release of games for that particular platform). Respectively, both have done very well, but cannot possibly be direct competitors, as they are just too different. The exact same thing is going to happen with the up-coming Console Generation (I say 'upcoming' because the release of the '360 was so sub-standard that we haven't really seen the next-gen yet). *Takes cover in preperation of Deepblue's inevitable retort* :p
In line with this, the Rev aims to avoid the people that M$ & Sony are targetting (or warring over), the male 18-30s, and go for different groups. I once again reference the 'Blue Ocean' strategy. As such, the Rev shouldn't really be discounted because of the M$/Sony 'stranglehold' over the industry, namely because Big N is going outside the current industry. This plan, while ambitous, could be enough to put them into the same 'league' as you put it, as the '360 & PS3
Now, on a side note; have people already made up their minds as to which console they plan to buy? Obviously the '360 will only be worth having around the time the PS3 comes out, and I forsee that Sony won't be dumb enough to release their console without some sort of first-gen killer-app, and as such will be worth a little bit more consideration than when the '360 was released. So, what's everyone planning to get?
-
NNff. What a ridiculous price. Me, I can't wait for the Revolution. Not a fanboy; I enjoy screwing around on the Xbox and 360 and PS2 just as much as any other normal person... I'm just intrigued by the design, and plus I grew up on the big N. Plus I'll actually be able to front the cash for one, which is good.
-
I also can't wait for the Revolution. If that system comes out for less then 150 dollars I'll probably buy it within a month. However, my main incentive is that I want to play next-gen games, but I don't have the money for a 360. (I'm anti-sony, so there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I'd get the PS3). If the 360 were affordable, I'd get that instead, but I doubt that the 360 will be below the 150 dollar mark for years, if it ever goes that low.
-
NNff. What a ridiculous price. Me, I can't wait for the Revolution. Not a fanboy; I enjoy screwing around on the Xbox and 360 and PS2 just as much as any other normal person... I'm just intrigued by the design, and plus I grew up on the big N. Plus I'll actually be able to front the cash for one, which is good.
The Rev is the only one I'm even considering, due to the low $200 price tag, and the fact it can play much older games. I've pulled out my SNES and been playing it latley. Super Mario World, Mario RPG and Super Metroid are still loads of fun. And It's kind of sad that you know we have probley reached the high in gameplay. It was at it's highest thru the SNES, Genisis, on into the N64 and PS games like FF7.
However if I were Sony I would start out the console at $700 bucks, then once I get all the die hard Fanboy's money then lower it down. :lol: Now I need to go and find Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.
-
Personally I'm a game fanboy before having any kind of a console preference.
The only reason I have the PS2 here, is because I have three games to go with it, and it will be four overall just before it becomes defunct. They are:
Final Fantasy 10 (and soon to be 12, my fourth game)
Metal Gear Solid 2
Metal Gear Solid 3
Period for me. If those games were on Xbox, I'd buy the Xbox instead of the PS3. Simple.
That's really the reason I'll be buying PS3 as well. Final Fantasy titles which I enjoy, and the Metal Gear one(s). If they produce something else I like, I'll buy that too, though I'm not going to hold my breath, most of the games are aimed at the retarded jock who needs their FIFA and NBA and all those bull**** games that are the same like the one last year. Again, if the 360 offered those games I want to play, I'd buy the 360.
I have really no vested interest in Nintendo, no matter how cool the Rev sounds to be. Sounds original, sounds like fun, is substantially cheaper - but nothing on it really grabs me. It just doesn't target my attention, and it can't, because the two behemoths stole the market and game companies for themselves, and I really have no choice but to follow what I... let's call it need.
-
Are you aware that Nintendo is the only company of the three that is actually making profit from the 'whatever' generation console the NGC, PS2, Xbox fall in to? Sony and MS have had to soak up so much cost of the consoles that game sales are simply not making up for it. Take a walk into most games stores today, you'll see an awful lot of trading in used games. This means that people are buying cheap consoles, buying cheap second-hand games and Sony/MS aren't seeing a hell of a lot of money pouring their way other than from the early adopters which obviously dissappear as the console's life increases.
Nintendo aren't really fighting this so called war on the same battleground, like Apple they have a staunch, dedicated fanbase who have stuck with them through thick and thin. Their machines push fun over swish visuals (though the NGC was no walkover in that department). Nintendo market fun, the other two market entertainment systems that play games. There's an important distinction there. Half the reason that PSX got such a big market share in the first place was because copying the games was a fairly cheap endeavour.
-
I'll almost definitely be getting a Revolution, and eventually I'll be getting a PS3 for the same games BlackDove mentioned probably a year or two after it's released once the price has come down.
There are games on the 360 that interest me, but not enough to justify buying it at the moment.
-
No, I don't think so.
People will rather spend their money on Games, than on a system they rarely wish to use. Games are time. Let's face it, the minority are the diehard Nintendo fans, and even they (I was around, and have bought NES when it was new) willl most probably go for buying a game or two rather than the Rev when it comes down to consoles and choices.
I'm sorry, but the Revolution, even as a supplemental, still suffers the logical third place. Gamecube was significantly lower priced as well, but it still came in as a third console, and it could have been argued that it was supplemental for many people as well.
Thanks for the "don't know what the **** you're on about" comment though, that's really mature in a thread where we're basing our estimations on opinion and past track-record alone (well we know something about the 360 now that it's released, and that's that it's not worth any money...yet), considering none of us know what will actually happen.
On the other hand, Nintendo are now one of if not the most profitable games publisher in the world; it's worth remembering that units sold does not always equate to profitability (I think the 1st X-box is still being sold at a loss). They're certainly not 'suffering' at the moment; I think they're making more money than either Sony or Microsoft off their hardware+games.
As for Nintendo targeting a new demographic; I think we've seen how well that's worked with the DS, which IIRC has absolutely hammered every other console (handheld or otherwise) this Christmas in terms of units - so we know that's a strategy that works, and the question is whether it can be applied as well to the traditional console market. But it's already obvious both the PS3 and Xbox 360 are targeting the aforementioned 'traditional' area of the market where Nintendo struggled in the last 2 generations, so it makes perfect sense for them to focus their interests somewhere else. You just have to remember when analysing the Rev, that you and I are no longer its core market.
Personally, I've not made up my mind whether I'll buy a console atall, let alone which one. Of the 3 next gen ones... the 360 has absolutely no appeal to me at present (I have a PC, after all), the PS3 doesn't have much of a better selection of games than the 360 (I'm not interested in Metal Gear or FFS; although I might be tempted by a sequel to God of War - but not enough to pay anywhere near full price), so the Revolution is the most interesting for me. The only problem is that I'm interested in the Rev because of the new direction it's taking - I don't know how much I'll like that direction yet. I'll probably end up plumping for the one with the best version of Pro Evo. If any.
-
Profitability is nice, but it's not the key here, and it needs to be viewed in context. Gamecube making more profit than Xbox and Sony on hardware+games? Que? Any profit Nintendo made off the Gamecube, was considerably lower when compared to the profit made by Sony.
Playstation2 has sold over 100 million units worldwide today, Xbox has shipped 22 million before it was discontinued, and Nintendo sold only 18.5 million (those are the numbers according to what I managed to find in the Wikipedia, if you have other sources, please post em)
However, companies making profit off of the box is not the point here. The point are the game sales which the companies have a share of profit in. Out of the numbers above, and the consumer base buying games for said consoles, which one do you think took a bejeesused profit home? Nintendo made a "profit" because they discontinued the manufacturing of the Gamecube, since they were tanking. On the box. Compared to revenue Sony made from games, the difference in any kind of "profit" discussion is laughable.
Like I said. Middlemen. We're talking big buisness here, not how much some box is worth at retail price or if it matches the construction fees of the unit. You don't really think that they're insane and making something for a higher price while selling at a lower without a reason, right?
After all, that was the point of the Gamecube box making profit. They gave up on it, and as much money as it could bring in at the end, that'd be the punchline.
As far as Nintendo having money - yeah, they've been strong through the eariler third/fourth/fifth? generations, and I think we all know how much Gameboy, NES or SNES were ass kicking at its time. They have money stored away. But Microsoft makes a ****load off of Windows and other crap, and Sony likewise with their TV's, Cameras and the entire chokehold they have on the digital media market, not to mention the last 10 years of Playstation mania, the first PS selling over 100million units (and games) and PS2 as well.
-
In Q2 2005, Sony, Microsoft and EA all made overall operating losses. Nintendo was the only company to make a profit from the period spanning q1 2003 - Q2 2005, with Microsoft making a loss every Q bar one (EA and Sony both had majority profit Quarters, EAs only loss was actually in Q2 2005). EDIT; refers to games divisions
In 2005, Sonys gaming division made about $14m profit but it's electronic division made around $995mn loss (Q4, 2005). Microsofts' Home & Entertainment division made a $154m loss (Q3 2005; note - both Microsofts Q3 and Sonys Q4 ended March 31st). Nintendo made about $180m profit for the same period, and about $10bn for the year.
EDIT; I'm not sure if the Electronics division is related to the console manufacturing or not. If not, it's still a good indicator of absorbant losses affecting the whole company.
(See also; http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=11760&page=6)
Nintendo has, however, suffered a profits dip in Q1 2006 due to declining US and Gamecube sales (as well as price cuts to the DS and the development costs for the Revolution); although they've alreay hit 8m for the Nintendo DS, which is rather impressive for a suppossedly 'niche' product.
I think what you're forgetting the is the peripheral benefits of consoles, that mean the likes of Sony and Microsoft are willing to take a loss - sometimes heavy - in return for market positioning. For sony it's blu-ray (for the PS3), for Microsoft it's trying to open up a new market for Windows and multimedia based devices powered by said OS.
-
But Nintendo made the profit through DS - not the Gamecube. Which was my point.
Likewise, Quarterly revenues mean very litle, considering the boom of the consumership has passed. Big picture.
-
I can't find specific Gamecube sales. The only thing I have found, is that in the 3 months to 30 June 2004, Nintendos profits doubled as a result of a sales cut and 712% rise in GC sales. Although if you see significant changes in profits in line with GC sales, it'd be an indication that it's still a core part of the business. They do make a profit on every one, after all, whereas the other manufacturers have to sell games to simply make up the cost of 'selling' the console hardware.
EDIT: re quarterly sales; I posted a link that shows more information on a trend of Nintendo having profits; specifically vs Sony and MS more than against EA.
-
Also it's very evident that Nintendo are indeed making a profit from NGC games, the very fact that they built in backwards compatability with the NGC games and wired controllers means that they know the games still are making them cash and they're going to continue to make cash.
Why build two systems when you can build one at a reduced overall cost while still benefiting from the software library of both?
As for the profit; making 8 million from a venture you dumped 10 million into is not better than making 2 million from a venture you dumped one million into.