RolStoppable said:
You said that if Nintendo leadership fails to meet expectations, new leadership will be put in place. That is wrong. Nintendo's leadership has failed to meet expectations for several years in a row and the only change in leadership was caused by Iwata's death. You are welcome to provide facts to the contrary. Unfortunately, there are none. Do you want to know why? Because it would require a majority of shareholders (as in, a majority of share ownership) to band together and call for the company's heads. But the catch here is that Nintendo themselves (the company and the board of directors) hold the majority, so that's not going to happen. You said that Sega's ~10m of hardware is comparable to Nintendo's ~80m, along with Sega's significantly lower first party software sales and dire financial situation. How can you even make such a claim with a straight face? You keep repeating the same asinine statements and somehow hope that they'll be considered true eventually. And you believe that you are the voice of reason here. No, you are not. Your reasoning is outright terrible. I lash out because you do not deserve any better. Respect is reserved for people who treat others with respect. You do not qualify, because for you anyone who has a positive outlook for Nintendo as a console manufacturer is preaching straight from the Nintendo bible. |
What's that you're getting on with about facts, and logic and reason?
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/stock/information/index.html
On what planet does 15% of treasury shares represent a majority stake in the company? No one person owns a majority stake in Nintendo, which means its board of directors controls the executive. In fact, Nintendo's largest share holder is JP Morgan/ Chase Bank, who own 12% of the company. I'm not sure why you think that, but Nintendo's board of directors don't actually represent over 50% ownership of Nintendo's company. Furthermore, just because Iwata wasn't fired doesn't mean that Iwata wasn't able to be fired. The board of directors chose not to do that, that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't. I don't understand why on earth do you think Nintendo is special? Ohh right. Wishful thinking. It explains everything with you.
I also have never said that Nintendo's current situation means that Nintendo will go third party tomorrow, or next year, or even necessarily in the next 5. I'm not sure why you seem to think that because Nintendo is coming off of two devices and a combined 80 m in sales that means anything regarding whether it still makes sense to keep making hardware after the Switch. You wont find a single quote or anything inferring that I thought that Nintendo should stop making hardware before the announcement of the Switch. I never said it, because I've never thought it. But here you are arguing against a position I never took. They call that a "strawman argument". But hey, logical and reasonable people totally employ logical fallacies when arguing against others, right?
Let me paint a little picture for you to explain why you harping on Wii U + 3DS sales do not matter. Let's fast forward 5 years into the future to a hypothetical worst case scenario: 250m sales between WIi and DS -> 80 million in sales between WIi U and 3DS -> 25 million in sales for Switch. That's a 90% drop in hardware sales over what? a 17 year period between 2005 and 2022. So the Wii U and 3DS did 80 million in sales between 2011 and 2016? So what? Why does that matter at all in 2022? What does that have to do with Nintendo's profitability right then, or how profitable it'll be in 2022 or 2027? In 2022, 5 years after the Switch is released, if Nintendo is looking at 25 million in sales, what Nintendo's board of directors are going to think? "Well appears our marketshare in the console space is at a all time low, while our mobile sales is keeping our company in the black but hey, we sold 80 million consoles between 2012 and 2017 so let's make the Switch 2! No. They won't do that. They'll do a post-mortem on the Switch, figure out what went right and what went wrong, maybe decide to make a new console, or maybe decide that there's more profit to be made making games for an install base of 150+ million on the PS4 (or PS5 or whatever) rather than sticking to their current install base of 25 million with yet another failed attempt to recapture past audiences. If the board of directors doesn't have the confidence its their executive to make the right decision, they will fire, and replace them with people that will.
I just painted an entirely plausible scenario. Care to refute it with some more wishful thinking?
Do I want that to happen? No. I don't. I don't want to play Nintendo games on my Playstation unless I have to. I have no problem with Nintendo making hardware, I have a problem with the hardware Nintendo makes. I just don't want Nintendo hardware to be so unappealing that I would rather not play Nintendo games than be forced to buy their terrible hardware. Nintendo has failed me with the Wii, they failed me with the Wii U, and they have already failed me with the Switch (and even then I still might buy one anyways, because as a Nintendo fan, it feels wrong to me that my son might grow up without playing Nintendo games) I don't like the direction Nintendo has been headed in for quite some time. I've seen the direction they've headed in and I'm not surprised to see them continue to stumble as they have been. Nintendo doesn't want my money? That's fine. I'm quite happy with the gaming experiences I'm getting elsewhere. That doesn't mean I hate Nintendo, it doesn't mean I want them to fail. It just means that they currently suck horribly and continue to sucks far as my gaming needs are concerned. Understand?
