I find it perplexing when people use the argument "the 3DS will keep Nintendo...

#81Lemmywinks13Posted 12/26/2012 1:49:12 PM
This is one of the dumbest topics ever. I was going to post a legit reply but it would just get ignored by the trolls. It helps me figure out my ignore list at least!
#82squatch22Posted 12/26/2012 1:49:29 PM
Good luck getting a source from the Dookie
---
LR posted: And the PSP isn't a Sony console so why would I make that claim?
http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/1/9/b/gfs_75574_2_16.jpg
#83AceAndJunpeiPosted 12/26/2012 1:50:13 PM
LMAO @ Phange failing just as hard here as he always did on the PS3 board.

It's sad he's not man enough to address the link that blows his whole topic out of the water.

Typical uneducated Sony fans, we can't expect any better from the bro-gamer union.
---
Now Playing:Persona 4 Golden (Vita), NSMB U (WiiU), Zero Escape (3DS), Wipeout 2048 (Vita) Metal Gear Solid 4 Trophy Run (PS3)
#84kissdadookiePosted 12/26/2012 1:58:47 PM
Enigma149 posted...

The dramatic slowdown of Wii sales, which prevented them from using Wii profits to cover 3DS losses. Yeah, I read the report.

Actually, no. My argument was that Nintendo made money off of the Nintendo 64 and the GameCube. And the Wii is selling enough to cover Nintendo's expenses for the Wii. Just not Nintendo's expenses for the Wii, and the 3DS, and the Wii U.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did bother to look at why Sony was doing so badly. Let's look at their Q4 2011 earning's report, shall we?

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/11q4_sony.pdf

Page 5
Sales decreased 18.5% year-on-year to 3,136.8 billion yen. Sales to outside customers decreased 18.8% year-on-year. This was primarily due to a decrease in sales of LCD televisions, PCs, digital imaging products including digital cameras, and the game business.

The decrease in the game business reflects lower sales of the PlayStation 3 hardware due to a strategic price reduction and lower sales of PlayStation 2 due to platform migration

Of course, this isn't the only reason, but there was nothing about manufacturing anywhere.

I don't think you understand. I was using Microsoft to point out your hypocrisy in saying that it's perfectly fine for Microsoft to take losses, because they have money in the "war chest", but that Nintendo taking losses for a few years would doom them.


See, your just mixing and matching things and thinking that they are all the same. Again, you are ASSUMING that the losses came from the 3DS and thus the Wii needed to cover the losses of the 3DS. THAT ISN'T TRUE. The reality is that 3DS did pose to have a loss but it wasn't exactly a glacial loss. You are ASSUMING that it's a glacial loss. The fact of the matter was that Nintendo had a projection of how many Wii's they would sell and then they budgeted X amount of money that they will spend that year. The projections felt short and they ended up overspending. Simple as that. The 3DS didn't alleviate the situation but if you think that the 3DS had THAT big of an impact, then you clearly have NO CLUE as to how companies are run nor do you have a clue as to WHY the drop in Wii sales along with exchange rates was so troublesome.

As for Sony's manufacturing, yeah, they stated that they had losses due to not selling enough of what ever products but this brings it all back to EXPENSES. They NEED to sell X amount of units to COVER EXPENSES, simple as that. Manufacturing adds to those expenses. They are both an asset as well as an expense, thus comes back to my point, Sony is ABLE to liquidate assets, that brings in revenue AND cuts out an expense. Thus it's COMPLETELY different from Nintendo selling their stakes in a baseball team. Apples and oranges here.

As for MS, it's not as simple as just having a war chest. MS again has VARIOUS sources of revenue AND they have PLENTY of assets which they can liquidate. Thus, it's not hypocritical of me to say that MS is in a better situation than NIntendo, because again, apples to oranges comparison. Nintendo has but one main business that brings in practically 80% of their revenue, that is the business of exporting game consoles. What part of this is so hard for you to grasp? Nintendo is in now way shape or form as flexible as MS or Sony nor is Nintendo anywhere near as liquidable as those other companies. For Nintendo to liquidate anything in a significant way, that would basically mean having another company essentially buy Nintendo out.

As for N64 and GC, again, you are looking at those profits and expenses for just those systems, but all N64 and GC is for Nintendo is revenue streams, revenue MUST exceed OPERATIONAL EXPENSES before it turns into a profit. Yet you fail to understand this. How stupid are you?
#85kissdadookiePosted 12/26/2012 1:59:54 PM
squatch22 posted...
Good luck getting a source from the Dookie


Again, all you have to do to prove me wrong is show me how N64 and GC revenues alone exceeds operational expenses for Nintendo. Unless they exceed expenses, then they are not a profit for them. Good luck disproving me.
#86kissdadookiePosted 12/26/2012 2:02:04 PM
Enigma149 posted...

And you show me that they didn't. You've been saying all along that the GameCube and Nintendo 64 didn't make enough money to make up for operating costs, that they represented only a sliver of Nintendo's profits, etc., yet you have yet to cite a single source.


I've done more than more share of breaking things down in detail. You not only failed to bother to read and absorb what I'm saying, you're now wanting me to waste even more time to break things down further for you. How about you go and look at the financials for those years yourself? Simple as that.
#87ish0turfac3Posted 12/26/2012 2:02:15 PM
WHOOOOOOOOYEAH EVERYBODY!!

*imagine captain kirk* So many sony fanboys.. grasping at straws... not realizing or ignoring.... that sony is failing....
---
GT: ish0turfac3 - Nintendo ID: ish0turfac3
"Beef is evil chicken"
#88Enigma149Posted 12/26/2012 2:09:34 PM
kissdadookie posted...
See, your just mixing and matching things and thinking that they are all the same. Again, you are ASSUMING that the losses came from the 3DS and thus the Wii needed to cover the losses of the 3DS. THAT ISN'T TRUE. The reality is that 3DS did pose to have a loss but it wasn't exactly a glacial loss. You are ASSUMING that it's a glacial loss. The fact of the matter was that Nintendo had a projection of how many Wii's they would sell and then they budgeted X amount of money that they will spend that year. The projections felt short and they ended up overspending. Simple as that. The 3DS didn't alleviate the situation but if you think that the 3DS had THAT big of an impact, then you clearly have NO CLUE as to how companies are run nor do you have a clue as to WHY the drop in Wii sales along with exchange rates was so troublesome.


It isn't true. Okay. And you have the part of the earnings report on-hand with where they said, "We spent more on the Wii than we made on the Wii?" What? You don't?

As for Sony's manufacturing, yeah, they stated that they had losses due to not selling enough of what ever products but this brings it all back to EXPENSES. They NEED to sell X amount of units to COVER EXPENSES, simple as that. Manufacturing adds to those expenses. They are both an asset as well as an expense, thus comes back to my point, Sony is ABLE to liquidate assets, that brings in revenue AND cuts out an expense. Thus it's COMPLETELY different from Nintendo selling their stakes in a baseball team. Apples and oranges here.


Naturally, if they're not selling enough to make a profit, they're not making a profit. Yet that report never said they were losing money on manufacturing costs. And yes, I know companies have expenses. Yet you said Sony was losing money because of manufacturing costs, and I was simply pointing out that Sony was doing badly for many reasons...you know, their expenses?

As for the Mariners, it's not Nintendo's stake - it's the whole team. They own the whole team, and it's worth more than they lost in 2011 and the first half of 2012.

As for MS, it's not as simple as just having a war chest. MS again has VARIOUS sources of revenue AND they have PLENTY of assets which they can liquidate. Thus, it's not hypocritical of me to say that MS is in a better situation than NIntendo, because again, apples to oranges comparison. Nintendo has but one main business that brings in practically 80% of their revenue, that is the business of exporting game consoles. What part of this is so hard for you to grasp? Nintendo is in now way shape or form as flexible as MS or Sony nor is Nintendo anywhere near as liquidable as those other companies. For Nintendo to liquidate anything in a significant way, that would basically mean having another company essentially buy Nintendo out.


I never said Microsoft was in a worse situation than Nintendo. I simply said that Nintendo, like Microsoft, has made a rather large profit over the past three decades, and that the losses these two companies are currently taking can be easily covered by their reserves for at least the next two decades.

As for N64 and GC, again, you are looking at those profits and expenses for just those systems, but all N64 and GC is for Nintendo is revenue streams, revenue MUST exceed OPERATIONAL EXPENSES before it turns into a profit. Yet you fail to understand this. How stupid are you?


You say I'm stupid, fine. But I'm still waiting on a source to prove your claim that Nintendo did not make enough money on Nintendo 64 and GameCube hardware, software, and accessories to pay for their operating expenses.

Also, WHY do you WRITE like THIS?
---
Look kid, when you grow up you'll learn women aren't all that smart or interesting. They do excel for purposes of coitus though.
-Unmoderated post, Wii U board
#89Enigma149Posted 12/26/2012 2:12:08 PM(edited)
kissdadookie posted...
squatch22 posted...
Good luck getting a source from the Dookie


Again, all you have to do to prove me wrong is show me how N64 and GC revenues alone exceeds operational expenses for Nintendo. Unless they exceed expenses, then they are not a profit for them. Good luck disproving me.


But we don't. You're the one who first said the Nintendo 64 and GameCube revenues alone did not exceed operational expenses for Nintendo. Hence, you're the one who needs to cite a source. Not us.

Although I must admit, I have no idea where you'll find what Nintendo's operational expenses would have been had they not had to release the GameBoy, GameBoy Color, GameBoy Advance, and Nintendo DS.

kissdadookie posted...
Enigma149 posted...

And you show me that they didn't. You've been saying all along that the GameCube and Nintendo 64 didn't make enough money to make up for operating costs, that they represented only a sliver of Nintendo's profits, etc., yet you have yet to cite a single source.


I've done more than more share of breaking things down in detail. You not only failed to bother to read and absorb what I'm saying, you're now wanting me to waste even more time to break things down further for you. How about you go and look at the financials for those years yourself? Simple as that.


Because (as I've said numerous times), you were the first person to say that Nintendo would have lost money had they only had the Nintendo 64 and GameCube to rely on. Hence, you have to provide the source.
---
Look kid, when you grow up you'll learn women aren't all that smart or interesting. They do excel for purposes of coitus though.
-Unmoderated post, Wii U board
#90CapnStankyPosted 12/26/2012 2:11:21 PM
Yeah it's dumb. Nintendo is flopping everywhere except Japan with the 3DS. This year it sold nearly half of what it sold last Black Friday. Horrible. They'll be forced to drop the price again, but it wont help them. Intelligent people are asking for tablets and smartphones and leaving the dedicated handhelds to the little children.
---
GOTY 2012 Candidates: Sleeping Dogs, Mark of the Ninja, Borderlands 2, Forza Horizon, Halo 4