Support NeoGAF

[lwilliams3]

Oh, there's certainly a very valid argument to be had about why Nintendo immediately rushing to smartphone development could backfire, and why it's a bad idea for their company culture.

Really, the largest blight at Nintendo right now is the Wii U. 3DS is underperforming in overseas retail (compared to the DS third-party wise) most definitely, but Wii U in particular is draining company profits. Unfortunately, Nintendo seems to have lost the knack for staying afloat despite a mediocre console.

The decent profitability we saw during the GameCube / GBA / early DS era can't seem to be sufficiently recouped by the 3DS, and Wii U losses are certainly more extravagant and systemic than the GameCube.

(Keep in mind, the 3DS underperforming / handheld market shrinking is a larger long-term problem)

But you're right. This fiscal year, Nintendo's marketing / research and development costs are 23 billion JPY larger than their initial 100 billion JPY operating income forecast accounted for. However, that doesn't excuse an overall operating loss, especially another 35 billion JPY loss.

Investors were willing to give Iwata allowances because of the expectations behind the Wii U. When the Wii U initially flopped, investors gave the console the benefit of the doubt out of goodwill. But now that we have a full year of underwhelming holiday performance and widely-reported worldwide failure?

I'm just worried that if Iwata underdelivers with nothing but half-baked, relatively minor changes to corporate strategy, many will lose faith in his abilities...and this could have repercussions.


Personally I hate the Wii U. Don't get me wrong, I love my console and I adore the 15+ games I've purchased for it, but I feel that in a business sense it's becoming more and more of a lost cause...a Virtual Boy-esque burden for the company because of its heavily flawed implementation that should be replaced by something more fundamentally promising...with a "third pillar," so to speak.

I don't think the Wii U should be supported software-wise after Zelda / Smash Bros. / Mario Kart / other scheduled, tentpole projects come out. I think Nintendo should prioritize its time and attention on what's next on the horizon.

Some issues may come up either way:

1) Since Nintendo likely has many Wii U projects in various development stages, will it be possible to create a new system that is BC with the Wii U to ensure easier transition (and to not completely burn fans that have brought a Wii U) without signicantly increasing the development costs?

2) If it is BC with the Wii U, will that compromise their goal on developing a next-gen system that has a unified architecture with it's next-gen portable?

It is unfortunate that I don't believe Nintendo was considering architecture unification with their systems when they came up with the specs of the Wii U since it not really in sync with common current portable technology. The hellish development of the system and the increase of workforce needed to make games for the Wii U and 3DS may be the reason why Nintendo decided to do this next time. BC with the Wii U may have be sacrificed to make integrated systems for the future.

A focus of BC for their next-gen systems will have issues either way since the CPU architecture for the Wii U has been stretched to near its feasible limit aside from adding more cores. If anymore tech-savvy people are able to contribute to that conclusion, I'm open to hear what they have to say.

 

[chaosblade]

Which brings me to something I've been wondering about. What are the odds of NIntendo's next system not being a low powered mistake. Even if they themselves don't use the power what if they actually develop the hardware third parties want and are in line with what Sony and Microsoft have out now or will have out?

Nintendo can still be unique when it comes to controls schemes and software. Can they afford to be unique, drop the ball again, when it comes to the home console hardware instead of just sucking it up and playing ball? Wouldn't that be more likely to get them third party royalty fees vs getting nothing now since games simply aren't being released?

How expensive would it actually be to go to the companies providing the parts to Sony and work out a deal for similar or even the same parts. Couldn't they do that for most of the stuff that isn't proprietary on the Sony front? Or is there something stopping that? Could this be a way of getting a higher powered system out there and not break the bank since those companies already have product lines running due to supply parts to Sony and maybe Microsoft?

I think if Nintendo intends to stay in the console space it's something they're going to have to do. "The west" is largely where home consoles are largely relevant so that's the market they need to consider, and I'm hopeful given Iwata's comment about being out of touch is a sign they're going to move in the right direction.

I don't think it's so much "it needs to be powerful!" so much as "it needs support and feature-completeness to compete for gamers' attention." And the Wii U is clearly not getting that, not just because of it's lack of power but also issues like this. They need to get out of their 90s mindset that Japan is the end-all-be-all of console gaming, because these days the opposite is far closer to the truth.

The expense is probably not the issue, at least not in the way a lot of people seem to believe it is. The company isn't full of idiots incapable of designing a more powerful system (especially since the actual work on the components is done by AMD, IBM, etc), their priorities have just been to put money elsewhere, like the gamepad and spending money modifying their existing components to keep backward compatibility instead of going with newer, cheaper, more powerful ones.

 

[monome]

cheap ass WiiU redesign will be Nintendo's BC solution.

and Nintendo should definitely offer a Netflixesque solution towards VC.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Backwards compatibility just isn't something that really warrants excessive devotion of resources to. If it really mattered I don't think 7M PS4s and XB1s would have been sold over the last two months.

The PS4 and XB1 are pretty similar. I wouldn't be surprised if we're heading towards a more unified standard, where platform holders simply need to distinguish themselves through their features, services and self-published titles.
(This would presumably aid in reducing the inflation of development costs for third parties.)

I don't really see anything stopping Nintendo from building a similar machine to the other two. It doesn't need to break the bank either, as neither the PS4 nor XB1 are bleeding edge. But I don't think that's necessarily a solution in itself without a concurrent concerted effort to build a brand and ecosystem that appeals to that mass market of gamers.

 

[RAIDEN1]

The modern-day SNES is what Nintendo needs...The Nintendo Ultra Entertainment System ..bring it!

 

[Log4Girlz]

Backwards compatibility just isn't something that really warrants excessive devotion of resources to. If it really mattered I don't think 7M PS4s and XB1s would have been sold over the last two months.

The PS4 and XB1 are pretty similar. I wouldn't be surprised if we're heading towards a more unified standard, where platform holders simply need to distinguish themselves through their features, services and self-published titles.
(This would presumably aid in reducing the inflation of development costs for third parties.)

I don't really see anything stopping Nintendo from building a similar machine to the other two. It doesn't need to break the bank either, as neither the PS4 nor XB1 are bleeding edge. But I don't think that's necessarily a solution in itself without a concurrent concerted effort to build a brand and ecosystem that appeals to that mass market of gamers.

Nintendo wants a certain return on their investments. Going for a console as powerful as say, the PS4, or something appropriate for the year it is released, guarantees a huge increase in development costs and another loss per console sold.

I anticipate them going very cheap next time around.

 

[Lunar15]

I fully expect Iwata to bring up the 15b Yen R&D costs in the meeting. Excuse or not, it at least has the effect of making it look like he's doing "something".

 

[popeutlal]

Nintendo is a software company first, hardware company second.

If no one buys their hardware, they can't sell the software.

Since the N64 days Nintendo has shown that they are unable to design hardware that'll satisfy developers and consumers.

They don't have a choice but to leave the hardware business.

 

[metalslimer]

Nintendo is a software company first, hardware company second.

If no one buys their hardware, they can't sell the software.

Since the N64 days Nintendo has shown that they are unable to design hardware that'll satisfy developers and consumers.

They don't have a choice but to leave the hardware business.

Or they can just axe their current hardware design team and specifically Konno who seems to have no idea what he is doing with modern technology. One could have said that Sony will always make hard to develop for machines until recently.

 

[JoeM86]

I fully expect Iwata to bring up the 15b Yen R&D costs in the meeting. Excuse or not, it at least has the effect of making it look like he's doing "something".

Well it's not really an excuse. Nintendo have been heavily expanding the last year and anyone can see that it would have a knock-on effect with their finances, without having any returns yet.

Nintendo is a software company first, hardware company second.

If no one buys their hardware, they can't sell the software.

Since the N64 days Nintendo has shown that they are unable to design hardware that'll satisfy developers and consumers.

They don't have a choice but to leave the hardware business.

Based on how their finances usually work, it's hardware first, software second. Just because they've had a bad run of it of late does not change that. I'm guessing that the company themselves think of the two as equal.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Nintendo is a software company first, hardware company second.

If no one buys their hardware, they can't sell the software.

Since the N64 days Nintendo has shown that they are unable to design hardware that'll satisfy developers and consumers.

They don't have a choice but to leave the hardware business.

They're both and hardware usually brings them a lot of money to boot (3DS and Wii U being the exception).

They created hardware and software together since the 70s (Color TV Game / Arcade) and hardware comes first logically.

Create Hardware -> Announce Games -> Sell Hardware -> Create more Games -> Sell more Hardware -> Sell more software & accessories through more hardware and so on.

 

[Effect]

Nintendo is just as much a hardware developer as they are a software developer. I don't know where this idea comes from that they don't know how to make hardware. I'd say their issue is with software more then hardware. Software on the operating system front and not the game front.

Well it's not really an excuse. Nintendo have been heavily expanding the last year and anyone can see that it would have a knock-on effect with their finances, without having any returns yet.



Based on how their finances usually work, it's hardware first, software second. Just because they've had a bad run of it of late does not change that. I'm guessing that the company themselves think of the two as equal.

The question is will Iwata be able to show any positive results from all that expanding they've done. If they can show how that it was used to provide a better software environment for the Wii U and 3DS or a system closer in line with Sony or will somehow result in better advertising, etc then great. I would think investors want to know where the money is going and if it's justified and will produce a positive result. If he can't satisfyingly provide an answer that will make them happy then how bad could it get I wonder.

 

[numble]

Based on how their finances usually work, it's hardware first, software second. Just because they've had a bad run of it of late does not change that. I'm guessing that the company themselves think of the two as equal.

They're both and hardware usually brings them a lot of money to boot (3DS and Wii U being the exception).

They created hardware and software together since the 70s (Color TV Game / Arcade) and hardware comes first logically.

Create Hardware -> Announce Games -> Sell Hardware -> Create more Games -> Sell more Hardware -> Sell more software & accessories through more hardware and so on.

Can you indicate any evidence where the margins on hardware or total profit on hardware are actually very high? Please do not quote revenue numbers, which have no bearing on profit.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Can you indicate any evidence where the margins on hardware or total profit on hardware are actually very high? Please do not quote revenue numbers, which have no bearing on profit.

They wouldn't have created operating profits since the 80s if hardware didn't make significant profits. You can see what happens if hardware makes loss @ 3DS & Wii U downfall (Notice this is their overall busines):

 

[JoeM86]

They wouldn't have created operating profits since the 80s if hardware didn't make significant profits. You can see what happens if hardware makes loss @ 3DS & Wii U downfall (Notice this is their overall busines):

That 3DS price drop was so damaging...

 

[numble]

They wouldn't have created operating profits since the 80s if hardware didn't make significant profits. You can see what happens if hardware makes loss @ 3DS & Wii U downfall:

That only hints that it is non-negative, not that it is significant profit from hardware. And it could still be poor, just that adoption of higher margin software was slow, it could even be because 3DS software is much more expensive and lower margin. How else can the 3DS launch be comparable to NES, GB, N64, GBA in terms of gross profit ratio?

Even taking it at the most positive conclusion, the chart only shows that the subsequent It could be 1-10% and that would be worth giving up if you can sell many multiples more much more higher margin software.

 

[wrowa]

Nintendo is a software company first, hardware company second.

If no one buys their hardware, they can't sell the software.

Since the N64 days Nintendo has shown that they are unable to design hardware that'll satisfy developers and consumers.

They don't have a choice but to leave the hardware business.

Gotta love posts like this. They sold 250 million Wii and DS units, making the late 00's their most successful period since they've entered the industry. So how exactly have they shown that they are "unable to design hardware that'll satisfy consumers" since the N64?

It's okay if you want to play Nintendo's games on other hardware. But making up claims that having nothing to do with reality is not going to help your stance.

 

[Captain Smoker]

That only hints that it is non-negative, not that it is significant profit from hardware. And it could still be poor, just that adoption of higher margin software was slow, it could even be because 3DS software is much more expensive and lower margin. How else can the 3DS launch be comparable to NES, GB, N64, GBA in terms of gross profit ratio?

Even taking it at the most positive conclusion, the chart only shows that the subsequent It could be 1-10% and that would be worth giving up if you can sell many multiples more much more higher margin software.

If you sell 10.000.000 to 20.000.000 hardware units per year and earn 10$ to 50$ per unit (average), it's already 100.000.000 $ to 1.000.000.000 $ in profits, how isn't this significant (despite the large gap in the calculation because we don't know the exact margins)? Consider that they usually increase their margins in the second / third year of a console cycle. Plus accessories which also bring millions.

And do you really think that 3DS software production costs are the reason for the big downfall? They should've increased their software profitability thanks to the eShop.

We know that Nintendo made loss with the 3DS and they had to cut the price fast, that's the anomally in their business, not software production costs, which should be expected regarding the 3DS. Not to forget that Wii U makes loss per unit.

Wii U software production cost should be more significant if you wan't to bring up this topic.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

The modern-day SNES is what Nintendo needs...The Nintendo Ultra Entertainment System ..bring it!

I would pay big money

 

[numble]

If you sell 10.000.000 to 20.000.000 hardware units per year and earn 10$ to 50$ per unit (average), it's already 100.000.000 $ to 1.000.000.000 $ in profits, how isn't this significant (despite the large gap in the calculation because we don't know the exact margins)? Consider that they usually increase their margins in the second / third year of a console cycle. Plus accessories which also bring millions.

You can't claim that it is significant on one hand and say you don't know the margins on the other hand. Where do you see that there is a $10-$50 unit margin on hardware? If the hardware was making up to 20% margin, you are actually claiming that software margins are much lower than the norm for software, given that Nintendo's gross profit ratio historically hovers between 30-50%.

And do you really think that 3DS software production costs are the reason for the big downfall? They should've increased their software profitability thanks to the eShop.

We objectively know that the software margins are down from DS software margins. Besides the higher cost from inflation and higher development costs, this is objectively indicated by the decreased software attach ratio in the 3DS. Selling less software units will mean software margins are lower.

 

[JoeM86]

If you sell 10.000.000 to 20.000.000 hardware units per year and earn 10$ to 50$ per unit (average), it's already 100.000.000 $ to 1.000.000.000 $ in profits, how isn't this significant (despite the large gap in the calculation because we don't know the exact margins)? Consider that they usually increase their margins in the second / third year of a console cycle. Plus accessories which also bring millions.

Conversely, if you sell 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 hardware units a year and lose 10 to 50 per unit, it's -$100m to -$1bn.

I'm not sure what the PS4's actual loss is, but let's say for the sake of argument that it's $50. They sold 4.2 million units in just 2 months, so that would be $210,000,000 in loss.

Like you said, it's a large portion of why Nintendo had poor financials when the 3DS took off too. The 3DS took off drastically, selling 11 million units in 5 months (going from 6m in Sept 2011 to 17.2m in March 2012), but it did so at considerable loss.

Nintendo as a company really can't handle losses like that. Yes, we may go for "we want power", but loss such as this is killing the industry, just look at how many developers have folded in recent years. Wii U's struggles, plus the 3DS's initial struggles indicated people want Nintendo hardware to be cheap. If they went for PS4 level power/tech and had to do it at say $200-$250, that's around $150-$200 loss a unit. If it takes off, that would be horrifically damaging to the company, possibly to the point of bankruptcy. Of course, other things would aid in bringing that bug up, such as third party royalties, profits on peripherals and of course Nintendo's own software, but the damage would definitely be done.

 

[DragonSworne]

Conversely, if you sell 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 hardware units a year and lose 10 to 50 per unit, it's -$100m to -$1bn.

I'm not sure what the PS4's actual loss is, but let's say for the sake of argument that it's $50. They sold 4.2 million units in just 2 months, so that would be $210,000,000 in loss.

Like you said, it's a large portion of why Nintendo had poor financials when the 3DS took off too. The 3DS took off drastically, selling 11 million units in 5 months (going from 6m in Sept 2011 to 17.2m in March 2012), but it did so at considerable loss.

Nintendo as a company really can't handle losses like that. Yes, we may go for "we want power", but loss such as this is killing the industry, just look at how many developers have folded in recent years. Wii U's struggles, plus the 3DS's initial struggles indicated people want Nintendo hardware to be cheap. If they went for PS4 level power/tech and had to do it at say $200-$250, that's around $150-$200 loss a unit. If it takes off, that would be horrifically damaging to the company, possibly to the point of bankruptcy. Of course, other things would aid in bringing that bug up, such as third party royalties, profits on peripherals and of course Nintendo's own software, but the damage would definitely be done.

This is just sign of a poorly thoughtout business plan.

Nintendo is forgoing hundreds of millions in royalties from third party sells to make little margins on hardware sales.

 

[JoeM86]

This is just sign of a poorly thoughtout business plan.

Nintendo is forgoing hundreds of millions in royalties from third party sells to make little margins on hardware sales.

If I were invested in a company, and they said "We'll be making $200 loss on this device, but we should be able to make most of it back through <InsertStuff> if all goes well", I'd want the CEO's head.

Look at Sony and MS. They have fielded years of these losses and they haven't bounced back yet. Their consoles may be selling, but Microsoft's gaming division is still billions in the red despite several years of decent profit. It is NOT a good business strategy. Some loss? Sure. This much? Hell no.

 

[RukusProvider]

Question for Nintendo: how do you make a future handheld that differentiates itself from smartphones and tablets which kids are naturally becoming more accustomed to as they get hand me downs?

Save the "button and joystick" replies as they are not valid for this audience.

 

[jmdajr]

That's not that bad...

right?

 

[FiggyCal]

If I were invested in a company, and they said "We'll be making $200 loss on this device, but we should be able to make most of it back through <InsertStuff> if all goes well", I'd want the CEO's head.

Look at Sony and MS. They have fielded years of these losses and they haven't bounced back yet. Their consoles may be selling, but Microsoft's gaming division is still billions in the red despite several years of decent profit. It is NOT a good business strategy. Some loss? Sure. This much? Hell no.

That's why smart investors should've bailed when stock prices were 19.50. There's no way anyone could invest in Nintendo and not realize how horribly the Wii U is doing.

 

[Log4Girlz]

If I were invested in a company, and they said "We'll be making $200 loss on this device, but we should be able to make most of it back through <InsertStuff> if all goes well", I'd want the CEO's head.

Look at Sony and MS. They have fielded years of these losses and they haven't bounced back yet. Their consoles may be selling, but Microsoft's gaming division is still billions in the red despite several years of decent profit. It is NOT a good business strategy. Some loss? Sure. This much? Hell no.

PS1 and PS2 were profitable. PS3 was a stupid mistake. There's no reason why Nintendo couldn't have been market leader time with the N64 and then onwards and still be prudent, conservative and quite profitable. Lack of vision.

 

[Hiltz]

I think Nintendo faces too many obstacles to compete directly against Sony and Microsoft. I think Nintendo has to stay with a mass market price point and accept its home consoles role as a supplemental system if their not willing to make bigger investments and sacrifices.

 

[JoeM86]

PS1 and PS2 were profitable. PS3 was a stupid mistake. There's no reason why Nintendo couldn't have been market leader time with the N64 and then onwards and still be prudent, conservative and quite profitable. Lack of vision.

PS1 and PS2 were also ridiculously weak compared to their counterparts...

 

[FiggyCal]

PS1 and PS2 were profitable. PS3 was a stupid mistake. There's no reason why Nintendo couldn't have been market leader time with the N64 and then onwards and still be prudent, conservative and quite profitable. Lack of vision.

The model of "make the hardware cheap and make profit off of each system" worked for them in the past and Iwata decided to go against that model... A risky move that didn't pay off.

I do hate when people commend him for turning the 3DS around though. The system was launched at $250 (eurogamer showed that the parts used ammounted to $101 dollars to make). It doesn't take a genius to realize that the launch price was way too much; lowering the price to increase sales is basic economics.

 

[Log4Girlz]

PS1 and PS2 were also ridiculously weak compared to their counterparts...

No, that would be the Wii. They were quite acceptable at their time of launch.

 

[Ocaso]

PS1 and PS2 were also ridiculously weak compared to their counterparts...

No they werent. PS1 was much better at 3D than the Saturn. PS2 was more powerful than the Dreamcast. Neither console was "ridiculously weak".

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

Question for Nintendo: how do you make a future handheld that differentiates itself from smartphones and tablets which kids are naturally becoming more accustomed to as they get hand me downs?

Save the "button and joystick" replies as they are not valid for this audience.

You don't. You come up with a solution that involves those devices. Mobile device integration into the hardware somehow.

 

[Log4Girlz]

No they werent. PS1 was much better at 3D than the Saturn. PS2 was more powerful than the Dreamcast. Neither console was "ridiculously weak".

He has very strange opinions regarding Nintendo. I'm quite sure he is exaggerating how weak they were to validate Nintendo's philosophy of withered technology.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

If I were invested in a company, and they said "We'll be making $200 loss on this device, but we should be able to make most of it back through <InsertStuff> if all goes well", I'd want the CEO's head.

Look at Sony and MS. They have fielded years of these losses and they haven't bounced back yet. Their consoles may be selling, but Microsoft's gaming division is still billions in the red despite several years of decent profit. It is NOT a good business strategy. Some loss? Sure. This much? Hell no.

It really depends on what else the company gets out of losing that money up front. For the PS3 it allowed Sony to cement Blu-ray as the next generation optical disc format, which has brought benefits to other parts of their business. For MS it has allowed them to push their way into a totally new market that they had zero presence in before. Wrt to the PS4 the losses are relatively minor, and the subscription play has been huge for other divisions of Sony and now with PS TV and PS Now on the way as additional subscription services, incentivising consumers with below cost hardware makes sense for a company like Sony, and to some degree MS.

As for Nintendo who have no assets outside of gaming the loss-leader model makes less sense, at least above $30-50 lost up front on home consoles and $15-25 on portables. They are absolutely 100% reliant on software income to make back those losses and have no other fringe benefits by aggressively expanding their hardware installed base.

It is basically stupid to compare Nintendo to either of the other two platform holders because Nintendo are a game developer and nothing more. Nintendo's business model is closer to that of EA or Activision than it is to SCE or the Xbox division. Selling loss making hardware has hit their margins significantly over the last two years, enough to push them to two consecutive years of operating losses. The financial performance of SCE or the Xbox division are not important to their parent companies but the financial performance of Nintendo is important to their shareholders. SCE exists to push other Sony services and products to consumers and the Xbox does exactly the same for MS. Investors in both companies understand this fact and are generally on board, though there is some unhappiness on the MS side wrt to Xbox.

 

[JoeM86]

Ok, I was exaggerating a little, but the PS2 is weak compared to the Xbox & Gamecube, as is the PS1 compared to the Nintendo64. It's a fact and unlikely that they were sold at huge loss, though I don't have the figures other than the chart that keeps going around of cumulative profits.

 

[Kimawolf]

No they werent. PS1 was much better at 3D than the Saturn. PS2 was more powerful than the Dreamcast. Neither console was "ridiculously weak".

Ridiculously weak is a.. bit of an exaggeration, but ya the PS2 WAS by far weaker than both GC and Xbox. And PS1 was not "stronger" than N64, and Saturn was such a weird, alien device built around 2D games. So ya I suppose in some ways PS1 was more powerful, but PS2 was certainly not. DC could have competed if Sega had stayed in the game. They weren't THAT far behind.

 

[bachikarn]

Also, Sony lost a good amount of money originally on the PS2 (maybe PS1 too, idk). They were the ones that started the business plan of taking a big loss on hardware but making up for it through licensing fees from third party games.

 

[The Boat]

Question for Nintendo: how do you make a future handheld that differentiates itself from smartphones and tablets which kids are naturally becoming more accustomed to as they get hand me downs?

Save the "button and joystick" replies as they are not valid for this audience.

This always was and always will be the million dollar question.

That's why they're always trying to come up with new stuff for their hardware, to differentiate, but it isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. The way I see it, on the handheld side all they can do is bet on quality games that can't be had anywhere else and possibly a very low entry price.

Unless a DS/Wii phenomenon "pops up" with a brilliantly original idea, consoles from here on will have to settle for the small market of dedicated gamers and this goes for MS and Sony as well.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Ridiculously weak is a.. bit of an exaggeration, but ya the PS2 WAS by far weaker than both GC and Xbox. And PS1 was not "stronger" than N64, and Saturn was such a weird, alien device built around 2D games. So ya I suppose in some ways PS1 was more powerful, but PS2 was certainly not. DC could have competed if Sega had stayed in the game. They weren't THAT far behind.

PS2 was not "WAY" less powerful than the GC. It was competitive. As a further example, IMO, the Xbone isn't "WAY" less powerful than the PS4.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

-2.4% yesterday. Some of that could have been profit-taking by active traders, though. I think this next week+ is just going to be a roller coaster.

 

[vinnygambini]

-2.4% yesterday. Some of that could have been profit-taking by active traders, though. I think this next week+ is just going to be a roller coaster.

Most certainly, the stock was actively traded yesterday; nonetheless, the stock should continue declining until the meeting. The meeting will determine the potential of the stock and the prospects of the company.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

PS2 was not "WAY" less powerful than the GC. It was competitive. As a further example, IMO, the Xbone isn't "WAY" less powerful than the PS4.

Yeah they were in the same league unlike Wii and WiiU which are a gen behind.

 

[JoeM86]

Most certainly, the stock was actively traded yesterday; nonetheless, the stock should continue declining until the meeting. The meeting will determine the potential of the stock and the prospects of the company.

Will probably dip because they aren't announcing that they're going to smartphone.

 

[The Boat]

Will probably dip because they aren't announcing that they're going to smartphone.

Yep, that's what investors want and since Nintendo won't do it, the stock will continue dropping. This should be no surprise when it happens.

 

[Effect]

Will probably dip because they aren't announcing that they're going to smartphone.

I thought that was cleared up yesterday though.

 

[JoeM86]

I thought that was cleared up yesterday though.

You'd think, but analysts like Pachter and others are saying Nintendo need to, and investors have been wanting it for two years.

Even though Nintendo has clearly said they're not doing it or going multiplatform, people will still be shocked and stock will drop.

I'm certainly not going to be visiting here on the 30th, it'll give me an aneurysm because people will be insisting Nintendo is doing the wrong thing, without giving it a chance. But I digress. There is more negativity coming from analysts, investors and people here because they're not doing it. Simple as.

 

[RMS Gigantic]

Yep, that's what investors want and since Nintendo won't do it, the stock will continue dropping. This should be no surprise when it happens.

Yup, ever since I started investing in the stock, the ups and downs of this stock ended up making no sense to me. They rose because of ungrounded hype of Nintendo becoming a part of the Nikkei 225, and then plummeted when it didn't happen. On the morning that Nintendo announced all sorts of new games that fans wanted for all of their systems via a Nintendo Direct, the stock took a dive. I swear, Nintendo could announce 100% transparency with third party developers, a new F-Zero, Metroid, a lineup of new first-party IP, and just about everything else that GAF and the rest of their fans want, and the stock would still take a dip due to Nintendo not announcing some other short-sighted, irrelevant concept.

It seems that the big disconnect is that these investors keep pouring short-term money into Nintendo, but Nintendo operates purely in the long-term.

 

[Mpl90]

You'd think, but analysts like Pachter and others are saying Nintendo need to, and investors have been wanting it for two years.

Even though Nintendo has clearly said they're not doing it or going multiplatform, people will still be shocked and stock will drop.

I'm certainly not going to be visiting here on the 30th, it'll give me an aneurysm because people will be insisting Nintendo is doing the wrong thing, without giving it a chance.

Well, it's also to be seen what Iwata will say. We all know it's going to talk about mid-term, so we shouldn't expect everything, and, this time, I feel he'll deliver good things, but it's up in the air if his plans will be good or not, smartphones or not smartphones. That can be judged, I suppose.

 

[jmdajr]

PS1 audio capabilities underrated. Games like Wipeout XL sounded phenomenal. It added a lot to the experience.