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"
Nice to see you backtracking.
The argument that you found irrelevant explained that. Even in a worse case scenario, 10 years of losses would merely deplete their current cash reserves. Sure, after that then their future would be uncertain (that is their future past those 10 years of losses) as those two generations of flops would have eaten their financial stability, but their current financial stability ensures that those two generations of flops could not effectively kill them. your point was that it could, their financials prove otherwise.
"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.
It is apparently you who failed to grasp how what you said was disproved in two steps, the first being the lengthy analysis expounding on fkusumot's point and the second was pointing out that MS and Sony having other divisions makes them sticking two gens (about 10 years, a very long time in business) with a moneysink division more unlikely than Nintendo as Nintendo doesn't have anything big beside videogames to fall back on (hmm, maybe those Pokemon animes?). This makes MS and Sony more likely to exit the VG market than Nintendo and thus makes their "capacity for long term success" as you so aptly put it, lesser than Nintendo's.
I could see MS sticking it out with 2 gens of losses in the VG market to compete with Sony trying to disrupt Windows (assuming Windows isn't being disrupted from elsewhere during that time) as without Windows (and thus Office as Office benefits greatly from its integration with Windows) MS would be royally buggered.
I cannot see Sony sticking it out 2 gens with an unprofitable SCEI division. Hell, they apparently have a hard time sticking it out with not even half a gen yet as they are making it a top priority to make that division profitable. So much for your theory that "they can afford to operate with divisons making losses year on year" and that "shareholders wouldn't be happy about it but they could live with it".
If Sony is already getting squeamish about less than half a gen of flopping do you really believe that they would stick it out two gens and still invest enough to be successful (as opposed to doing a niche console with little investment to minimise risks of losses, but then SCEI would be effectively killed).
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 ?
No but N64 and GC did, which are Nintendo's last two generation consoles. Their handhelds are certainly the main cause of their current financial stability but their success their does not erase their flops in the main console market.
[ Snip Irelevant argument ]
How is a quantified rebuttal of your naked assertion of Nintendo's uncertain future irrelevent?
In another post you said: 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 ? I'd appreciate a superior analysis from you to demonstrate your point."
I did what you asked (well, almost as I am not fkusumot but it hardly invalidate the point) with respect to kill them off completely (as that was that original point of yours that fkusumot was unimpressed with) so how was it irrelevant outside of a "it contradicts what I want to believe therefore it is irrelevant" type of irrelevancy? Isn;t a company's financial stability paramount in its relevance as it its future prospects?
Your backpedalling to "severely damaging" is more on the mark but it would have to be a xbox-like worst case scenario to severly damage them, which is extremely unlikely. A likely worst case scenario given Nintnedo's past track record in adverse conditions is both console and handheld selling low but being profitable, thus having very little profits during these lean years instead of humongus losses.
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 ?
Yes you said it could, I showed it couldn't (though it would make their future after those two generations uncertain), thus disproving your claim as regardless of whether you argue it will or could kill, if it is shown that it can't then both arguments are defeated.
It looks that I am not the only one with reading comprehension difficulties (or even one of those plagued with it) . May I suggest a course in logic tp help you with that?
|
