[bryanlarsen]

Every console that sold over a hundred million consoles had over a decade of solid sales.

Those seven consoles significantly outnumber the 50 consoles that didn't.

Even the PS3 didn't sell 100 million units. Relative flops like the xbox one or the wii U are insignificant fractions of console sales.

[johnnyanmac]

So, 4 consoles?

Yes, I'm aware on how consoles are monetized. They take a loss in the first few years and make up for that with software sales, which they take a 30% cut on.

I'm not dispelling if the model isn't profitable, I'm simply stating that the hardware is historically sold at razor thin margins early on, if not outright a loss (until this generation)

[bryanlarsen]

> So, 4 consoles?

as I said, 7 consoles.

> They take a loss in the first few years and make up for that with software sales, which they take a 30% cut on.

Some consoles took a loss in the first 1-2 years.

> until this generation

Nope. The early generations didn't sell at a loss. Atari 2600, NES, et cetera weren't. That practice started with PS1 / XBox and ended with PS4/XBone.

[johnnyanmac]

>as I said, 7 consoles.

4 consoles 2 handhelds, and a hybrid (switch). I have no clue if the gameboy and DS were actually sold at a loss. These were pre-smartphone devices sold more like toys, so I can see them being manufactured for very cheaply in a pre-smartphone era with minimal peripheral requirements.

> That practice started with PS1 / XBox and ended with PS4/XBone.

Okay, fair enough. Atari and NES were very expensive for their time. Nintendo had a few generations to itself to revive the industry and I'm thankful, but I'm also glad their blunder ended up creating competiton in the market.