[yubyub]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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. Now I need to go and find Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.

[BlackDove]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Ransom]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[BlackDove]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[BlackDove]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Martinus]

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.