Rpruett said:
Rpruett said:
Rpruett said:
scottie said:
Rpruett said:
They live and die the most by their systems. Microsoft and Sony have sustainable business elsewhere to prop their companies up if things go South for a generation or two.
|
|
|
I never said the end of Nintendo is imminent. I just said they are the most likely to be the 'next' to leave. The wild success and profit of the Nintendo Wii has saved Nintendo for a forseeable timeframe in my estimate. However, Nintendo has no assets or sustainable business beyond video games. Where as Microsoft and Sony have far more resources at their disposal for a bad streak of generations. If Sony wanted to adopt a strategy similar to Nintendo, they could produce the components of a PS3.5 at a bargain rate similar to how Nintendo created a GC 2.0 with the Wii. And it's likely the strategy they would take if it ever came down to it.
|
|
I agree with your above underlined statements, but they actually work against your main point as much as they help it.
I get what your saying: Citing Microsoft's and Sony's numerous resources, you believe they could hold out longer if they had to. But the very fact that Microsoft and Sony do have other lines of business to fall back on and Nintendo doesn't is the very reason why Nintendo would logically be that last one of the three to leave the game industry... that's their entire business model.
Of course, they could screw up and be forced out ala Sega (from console making at least), but if the question was, "What company would be in the most trouble if their gaming division went south", then it would make sense to say Nintendo.
