| ListerOfSmeg said: Yeah I can read. I know what it says. I am saying there is nothing to show what it is saying is true. It also talks about reusing production plants... Buying production plants cost money so I'd say that is where the loss comes from sce reusing them will cut losses. It would also include R&D as that is part of hardware.. Suggesting it is just the GC alone is silly especially since there is nothing to back that up and nothing else is even being considered. |
@ Bold: Okay, cool, that has been a problem with someone else sometimes.
@ Italic: Maybe, could be. Maybe not though. First it never says that Nintendo bought production plants sometime in the past. As far as I know Nintendo has made their hardware at Foxconn for a while now (since the GC anyway). Even if they did, I also don't see how 'buying production plants' would end up under the hardware line, since that would be property purchases by Nintendo, which is another expense. Sony's selling off buildings last year also wasn't included under the hardware sales header, and Nintendo's own new headquarters they're building isn't either. Lastly, if taken literally what the article says, I would imagine that the greatest cost-reducing effect from 'reusing the same plants' would be less management expenses when re-hiring the same factory to make your products.
@ Underlined: I mentioned this in an edit, but I'm not sure if this would be taking into account into this hardware figure. Even if it is though, and they were still losing this much on harware alone in 2004, two years after release, they indeed didn't make a lot on the GC in the first place, or the GBA would've made a lot less then I would have thought.
All in all though, I know and agree Nintendo made more money off gaming then SEGA, Microsoft and even Sony did during the 6th gen. If only the division of income wouldn't be so vague 
.
