The truth about Nintendo

[Zod95]

Pavolink said:

Zod95 said:

Pavolink said:
This looks like another john lucas crazy thread.

Agree with some points, but it's clear that you simply don't understand about bussiness. Are you really that naive to believe what you wrote?

Nintendo is not evil for developing cheap games and taking away a lot of profits (well in the past) and Sony/MS good companies by spending every dollar in new videogames.

Those three companies wants to invest less and generate more profit. You are just fooling yourself believing anything else. Just because Nintendo was capable of doing that, while S/M are not, doesn't mean they are good. In fact, it just proofs how incompetent the later two are. Bussiness is not about pleasing fans and red numbers. It's about selling and keep a "happy" userbase interest in buying your next product.

Think about it for a moment.

All companies want to maximize profits, that's why they are companies and not non-profit organizations. But they have different ways to get there, that's what distinguishes them. Nintendo is more about easy-business and greedy moves. Sony and Microsoft are more about raising up the standards and trying to be the best of the best. If you take a look at the OP, you will realize there's no part saying Nintendo is evil, just what is its mindset and long-term strategy. If you consider that to be evil, that's already your opinion.

Business is not about red numbers, but it's definitely about pleasing fans (and I would add "other stakeholders"). We all can see how successful NES and SNES were and how unsuccessful N64 and GC were (because of Nintendo's bad practices from the past). We can all see how Wii was successful at the beginning and how unsuccessful it was at the end and now Wii U (because of the low quality/price ratio those eco-systems ended up to be). Nintendo doesn't take advantage of its dominant positions to thrive in the long-term, only to cash in as much as possible in the short-term.

Sony and Microsoft act differently. Sony, for example, continued to expand their investments in videogaming despite 2 consecutive massive successes (PS1 and PS2). They think in the long-term, not in getting to 32B$ of profits as quickly as possible.

Think about it for a moment.

Are you naive or just...

ok. Sony is not the god of games and didn't expand because they believe in the long term. If they do they wouldn't have to cut some of their divisions. If they "expand" is because their incompetence to make profits. They cannot compete with Nintendo in the Wii Sports territory (like their copy sport game showed) but they can compete in the areas that the competition lacks.

And I'll like to remind you that Nintendo is investing and expanding to the point of making new buildings and developing new tools to share among devices, while Sony is selling the ones they have. Is selling a building to generate fake profits the same as investment in the long term? NO.

Stop with this bullshit. You clearly doesn't understand.

Really? Then please tell me how keeping declining divisions is thinking about the long-term? I'm very curious on that one.

"If they "expand" is because their incompetence to make profits" - This has potential too. Please elaborate.

Regarding the buildings talk, you fail to understand that behavior / intentions / attitude is shown by % of revenues or profits, not by absolute values. Nintendo did what they could and Sony sold what they must. This very simple analysis and your hugely biased criteria shows that you don't want to understand things. You just want to be unreasonable playing the "MDM challenge".