RolStoppable said:
I was wrong on the breakdown of shares, but said breakdown should make it clear how unlikely it is that investors will overthrow Nintendo's leadership because the shares are divided among so many individuals. As for Nintendo's board of directors, they are all on the same page. So yes, in that sense Nintendo is special. Everyone on the board of directors has risen from within the company, there are no outsiders. Hence why the board of directors won't command a drastic change in corporate culture such as abandoning dedicated video game hardware and software. Since the possibility for it to happen is so itty bitty tiny, I call your argumentation FUD. You are trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt when there's actually little reason to be concerned about Nintendo. The arrow is pointing up for them right now. The first portion of your post that I highlighted in bold font is funny because in said paragraph you complain about me planting a strawman, then in the second portion highlighted in bold you go on to make the argument that is supposedly a strawman. It can't be a strawman when it is your actual argument. This is the kind of scenario that you need as a prerequisite to make your posts about Nintendo being in trouble and possibly going third party in the not too distant future. You need to doom the Switch to make the scenario of Nintendo changing course in a drastic manner at least somewhat realistic. If you have a problem with the hardware Nintendo makes, then you have a problem with Nintendo making hardware. That's where the logical conclusion that you want to play Nintendo games on your PlayStation comes in. You include the Wii in your list of hardware that Nintendo has done wrong, but that console was a huge success. Your arguments are driven by emotions, that's also why each one of your posts has a condescending tone. |
That "special" board of directors? Why? They're all on the same page? Well yes, that's how Board of Directors work. They're all still beholden to the shareholders, they're all still driven by profits. But, they all came up within the company?
Shuntaro Furukawa has only been with Nintendo since 2012. Katsuhiro Umeyama,Yoshio Mitamura, and Naoki Mizutani appear to have never worked for Nintendo. They are "Outside" directors after all. So that's half the board that doesn't appear to have "risen from within the company". Even Kimishima made a career in the banking industry and was brought in to be the CFO of the Pokemon Company in 2000 and worked his way up from there over 15 years. But hey, keep moving those goal posts about why Nintendo is special. I'm sure you'll come up with something both equally unique and meaningless eventually.
So first it was economics, now I need to educate you on what a straw man is. See a straw man is when you argue against a point someone never actually made. I fail to see how showing you a plausible scenario that might have Nintendo seriously considering switching gears on the whole "hardware" thing to show you have current Wii U and 3DS sales are in fact irrelevant to when such a decision likely could be made, is in fact arguing against a point you never made? Are you are or you not arguing that Nintendo's 80 million in sales between the two is relevant? Because if you are, then there's no straw man to be seen here, at least, not by me.
See that's the thing. You don't need doom for Nintendo to stop making hardware, you just need more lucrative revenue streams that are more worthy of investment than Nintendo making hardware. That's why I keep harping on profits. That's why I keep pointing out that Nintendo is in fact beholden to its share holders. Nintendo, like any other publicly traded company is driven by profit. The only thing Nintendo needs in order to stop making hardware is to be convinced that it is more profitable not to. That's it.
As for me having a problem with Nintendo making hardware? First off, thanks for telling me what I think. You definitely know more about my thoughts than I do. Secondly, what? So the idea of Nintendo making hardware is directly related to the hardware they currently make? No. Not at all. I don't want Nintendo to stop making hardware, I just want them to start making hardware that I want to buy. I want them to make different hardware than what they are making. That is far and away different from wanting them to go third party.
But here you are saying my arguments are being driven by emotions, as if you're somehow being objective? Please. You just falsely argued that Nintendo was majority owned from within. Now you're arguing that the Nintendo board of directors is somehow special and different from other corporations when you have absolutely no basis to make that claim. You just see Nintendo as a special company, and therefore the people within it are special people, and I get that, but surely you can admit that such a stance is a blatant and obvious bias.
