| DrJay said: @Solid_Snake4RD Again I ask: What is your point? You are saying Sony could have made a lot more profit if not for the R&D costs they incurred to develop PS3, Cell and Blu-ray. You are saying Nintendo would not have survived if they spent their hand held profits just like Sony did into their R&D. What this thread is all about is that Nintendo has an acute business acumen that prevented them from spending ridiculous amounts of R&D on such matters as more power, more realistic graphics, larger data formats, when their R&D showed that this is not what their customers (both core and expanded audience) wanted. True, if Nintendo spent their profits like Sony did, they may not have survived... but they weren't that stupid. Tell me, of the two companies: Who received more bang for their buck as far as R&D costs go? We're not talking absolute amounts here as that doesn't matter. Who spent their money more wisely? Whose R&D bore more fruit? If the worst happened to both companies (Nintendo having several generations just like the gamecube or Sony having several generations like the PS3 and PSP) which company will likely survive? |
i didn't say they wouldn't survived but they wouldn't be in the same position
again you are going of the point
you think just because SONY lost this generation they were not wise but they only did it for the future BLU-RAY profits and PS4 will benefit from low price
and YES SONY would have had more profit if their R&D was a bit low
Nintendo was wise but people just saying that Nintendo profits even while losing more than SONY and trying to troll isn't right as alot of what SONY does is for the future products.
