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

#91SteeI_ShadowsPosted 12/26/2012 2:11:54 PM
Hey, debating protip:

Typing more words doesn't make your word a better authority than a source. Jesus f***ing Christ.
---
An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. B****in', eye patches for everyone!
#92squatch22Posted 12/26/2012 2:12:38 PM
Yep. Dookie makes a claim and expects others to prove it.
---
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
#93lDarkdrakPosted 12/26/2012 2:14:35 PM
too bad for you, kissdadookie, cuz even if you hate nintendo you'll need a Wii U if you wanna play Bayonetta 2.

BTW. when you post aguments, if you don't back your claims with proofs, they are worthless. just sayin
---
Beware, I live!
#94oxnerdPosted 12/26/2012 2:17:30 PM
Quit sounding like you're some financial analyst. I don't know why people even bother to care about this stuff its not your company or your money, if you don't work for them don't worry about it.
#95kissdadookiePosted 12/26/2012 2:19:27 PM
Enigma149 posted...

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?

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.

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.

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?


Read the 2004 fiscal reports. Look at their earnings. Look at the number of systems they sold. The handheld sales more than DOUBLES that of the N64 and GC. If you took the handheld out of the equation, Nintendo would have had a hard time breaking even with just the N64 and GC.

Also, it's not about we spent more money than we made on the Wii. We are not talking about lifetime earnings. We're talking about annuals. So the VOLUME of Wii sales were lower than projected and thus CORPORATE SPENDING (when the heck did I ever say that spending was isolated to just spending on the Wii?) went over the amount of money they made. Again, what part of these systems being REVENUE streams do you not understand? You can't just take them and isolate them, they all go towards the same formula of overall revenues minus operational expenses which gives you a net positive or net loss. Simple as that, yet you are STILL here arguing counter to this very simple to understand fact. How big of an idiot are you? Seriously.

As for your Mariners argument, again, you keep looking at all this in a short term perspective. We are talking LONG term here. Nintendo has NO alternative revenue stream that is meaningful apart from hardware revenue. That is no longer a viable revenue stream for them seeing how the economy will take at least 5+ years to get back on track AND Nintendo is no longer moving anywhere near the volume they've been moving before. They NEED to change change the way they make money, simple as that. This is especially important since they make roughly 80% of their revenue from selling consoles.

Lastly, for some reason you think that what MS has made over the years is in any way comparable to Nintendo's bank account. Again, do I need to bring up the fact that MS literally loss 5 billion on the first Xbox alone? That's ONE console. ONE short console cycle. 5 billion. How many console cycles can Nintendo afford to lose on for them to quickly tap out their 20 billion? See, these are things that you are not accounting for, most probably because you see 20 billion as being a lot of money (which it is) but you do not understand just how incredibly costly expenses amounts to.
#96squatch22Posted 12/26/2012 2:22:18 PM
kissdadookie posted...
Enigma149 posted...

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?

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.

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.

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?


Read the 2004 fiscal reports. Look at their earnings. Look at the number of systems they sold. The handheld sales more than DOUBLES that of the N64 and GC. If you took the handheld out of the equation, Nintendo would have had a hard time breaking even with just the N64 and GC.

Also, it's not about we spent more money than we made on the Wii. We are not talking about lifetime earnings. We're talking about annuals. So the VOLUME of Wii sales were lower than projected and thus CORPORATE SPENDING (when the heck did I ever say that spending was isolated to just spending on the Wii?) went over the amount of money they made. Again, what part of these systems being REVENUE streams do you not understand? You can't just take them and isolate them, they all go towards the same formula of overall revenues minus operational expenses which gives you a net positive or net loss. Simple as that, yet you are STILL here arguing counter to this very simple to understand fact. How big of an idiot are you? Seriously.

As for your Mariners argument, again, you keep looking at all this in a short term perspective. We are talking LONG term here. Nintendo has NO alternative revenue stream that is meaningful apart from hardware revenue. That is no longer a viable revenue stream for them seeing how the economy will take at least 5+ years to get back on track AND Nintendo is no longer moving anywhere near the volume they've been moving before. They NEED to change change the way they make money, simple as that. This is especially important since they make roughly 80% of their revenue from selling consoles.

Lastly, for some reason you think that what MS has made over the years is in any way comparable to Nintendo's bank account. Again, do I need to bring up the fact that MS literally loss 5 billion on the first Xbox alone? That's ONE console. ONE short console cycle. 5 billion. How many console cycles can Nintendo afford to lose on for them to quickly tap out their 20 billion? See, these are things that you are not accounting for, most probably because you see 20 billion as being a lot of money (which it is) but you do not understand just how incredibly costly expenses amounts to.


Why not post a link to the financials then?
---
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
#97kissdadookiePosted 12/26/2012 2:23:18 PM
squatch22 posted...
Yep. Dookie makes a claim and expects others to prove it.


Look below. Go read Nintendo's annuals from 2003 all the way to the end of the GC cycle. Nintendo was making 200-300 million roughly per year and that's with handhelds outselling their home consoles at a rate of over 2x. Then look at the Wii generation where Nintendo essentially made a large chunk of the billions they have now in reserve.

Using logic and common sense, only an idiot would claim that Nintendo was able to be fine and profitable without having the handheld market. If it only had the N64 and GC, they would basically be breaking even at best. So again, the handheld market basically floated Nintendo through the N64 and GC cycles. GO READ THE FINANCIALS.
#98kissdadookiePosted 12/26/2012 2:24:23 PM
squatch22 posted...
kissdadookie posted...
Enigma149 posted...

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?

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.

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.

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?


Read the 2004 fiscal reports. Look at their earnings. Look at the number of systems they sold. The handheld sales more than DOUBLES that of the N64 and GC. If you took the handheld out of the equation, Nintendo would have had a hard time breaking even with just the N64 and GC.

Also, it's not about we spent more money than we made on the Wii. We are not talking about lifetime earnings. We're talking about annuals. So the VOLUME of Wii sales were lower than projected and thus CORPORATE SPENDING (when the heck did I ever say that spending was isolated to just spending on the Wii?) went over the amount of money they made. Again, what part of these systems being REVENUE streams do you not understand? You can't just take them and isolate them, they all go towards the same formula of overall revenues minus operational expenses which gives you a net positive or net loss. Simple as that, yet you are STILL here arguing counter to this very simple to understand fact. How big of an idiot are you? Seriously.

As for your Mariners argument, again, you keep looking at all this in a short term perspective. We are talking LONG term here. Nintendo has NO alternative revenue stream that is meaningful apart from hardware revenue. That is no longer a viable revenue stream for them seeing how the economy will take at least 5+ years to get back on track AND Nintendo is no longer moving anywhere near the volume they've been moving before. They NEED to change change the way they make money, simple as that. This is especially important since they make roughly 80% of their revenue from selling consoles.

Lastly, for some reason you think that what MS has made over the years is in any way comparable to Nintendo's bank account. Again, do I need to bring up the fact that MS literally loss 5 billion on the first Xbox alone? That's ONE console. ONE short console cycle. 5 billion. How many console cycles can Nintendo afford to lose on for them to quickly tap out their 20 billion? See, these are things that you are not accounting for, most probably because you see 20 billion as being a lot of money (which it is) but you do not understand just how incredibly costly expenses amounts to.


Why not post a link to the financials then?


How pathetic are you?

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/annual_report.jsp
#99squatch22Posted 12/26/2012 2:31:32 PM
Any figures on how much profit they were making on each console at the time 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
#100Devil_wings00Posted 12/26/2012 2:56:54 PM
40Dribylf posted...
And how much money did Nintendo lose? Like $150 million?

Do you understand that's literally pocket change to a company like Nintendo? Who has tens of billions on lock?

Do you understand most companies (like Sony) have losses in the billions?

If Nintendo's biggest loss is $150 million, lmao, they literally have nothing to worry about at all, especially since they usually make a profit.


US$630 Million Net Loss Between April And December 2011

US$923 Million Loss In The First Half Of This Fiscal Year of 2012

Your numbers are a bit low and they are projecting another 250 million dollar loss for this next 6 months from October to march of 2013. This took me a 5 second google search...research is hard. Over a billion dollars in losses over the last two years is NOT chump change for any company. They have a big war chest but continued losses on this scale will drive any company into a bad place.
---
3570k @ 4.6, GTX 580 @ 980/2106, ASUS Sabertooth z77, 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1600MHZ, 2 Mushkin Chronos in raid0, 1TB WD black.