routsounmanman said:
They are more fincancially stable than Sony, precicely because they're being cautious. And do you know what happened during the (early) PS3 days to Sony? Huge amounts of losses for an extended amount of time. If that were to happen to Nintendo, lights out. |
Companies like Microsoft and Sony, work differently compared to Nintendo.
Nintendo has for the past couple of console generations decided they want to make revenue per each console sold at launch or with minimal "outside costs"(a single game, or accessory difference). Which is why they sell lesser specced consoles but usually cheaper than competitors because they still can because of the specs. Almost the same way as companies like Samsung and Apple work with their smartphones (they like revenue for each device sold) although they work towards the high spec-high price route. While companies like Microsoft and Sony don't mind taking a loss on the console at launch if it means more powerful specced systems and make revenue from the services (XBL and PS+), along with the licenses for each game sold on the system. Eventually making money on each console once the component prices go down.
Nintendo probably could have released the Switch with Nvidia's Tegra X2 chip (more powerful and efficient than the X1) but probably felt they wouldn't make enough per system without increasing the cost of the Switch by $50 or so, which could have been beyond the pricepoint they found reasonable.
Nintendo has $47 billion in marketcap, Sony has $48 billion in marketcap including their tv, electronics, and movie divisions apart from the gaming division. Both companies can handle a system or two of losses.
