Let's see if I do understand your point and fkusumot's rebuttal. Let's see :) You believe that if Nintendo was to flop the next two generations they would be effectively dead whereas Sony and MS, while not making their shareholder happy, would be fine. WRONG "if Nintnedo didn't profit for two generations ( or as I said flopped) then how would it not severley damage or even kill them off completley" "Sony and Microsoft have more capacity to survive periods of loss in their respective gaming divisions Sony" The most important thing about disproving some one is actualy accuratley disroving what they said , you've already failed on that count. After being pointed out that Nintendo did flop the last two generation you tried to change the definition of a flop so as to consider them successful, just less so than the PS1 and PS2. You may use flop in a different context than I have but I didn't "change the definition for my own purposes". And Nintendo DID not flop the last two generations , where are you getting this information from ? did the GBC , GBA also flop ? .WTF are you talking about ?
[ Snip Irelevant argument ] Now did I misunderstand your point (or fkusumot's, though I just know I didn't misunderstood him as his makes sense)? If so you might want to rephrase it as I took your point ot be what you wrote, not what you meant as I cannot read your mind. You only understood my point to the extent which was convenient for you to count argue , I never at any point said two generations of loss making would kill nintendo I said it "could" the word could implies there is a impossibility as in could kill Nintendo but at the same time may not kill nintendo ,I then went on to further elaborate what I was saying . Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points is it ?
|
Meister how does the first statement relate to the second ?
