1MrGawainFri 22nd Feb 2013 This is something that's been rattling around in my head for a while now, so bear with me. We all know that early on in a console's life, build costs are high, even so high that they are sold at a loss. As time goes on, the production cost goes down and the console becomes more profitable. We also know any new console comes with technical problems that need to be ironed out in a real life scenario (e.g. early adopters find these problems better than members of hardware staff before he launch). Other problems include lack of awareness of the product of non gamers, and a slow pick up of 3rd party developers producing high quality games. Time heals all of these problems. So my question is: In the long run, is it better for sales to start slow with loyal fans who put up with the crud, and when the masses start to buy the system when the big games turn up it's more profitable and you're not losing money on each console (and having to fix loads of tech problems for a mass market). It cuts out a lot of bad PR on a big scale, plus you're better the games getting better and more frequent (like the 3ds), than starting out with you're best games in the first 18 months and then running out of steam (like the Wii). This question obviously applies to the Wii U, but also to consoles in general. Not sure which way I perceive it, but have been thinking about it. Isn't it obvious that Falco Lombardi is actually a parrot?