By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari on 15 September 2020
Edit Thread
vivster said:
DonFerrari said:
This could mean Nintendo is locked to a single supplier so that supplier have more power against them, or Nintendo becomes more relevant customer since the total expenditure on that supplier will increase. Anything outside of that I wouldn't put much weight into.

Wrong. Nintendo has absolutely no dealings with ARM. They have only ever been a customer to Nvidia who created and manufacturwd the chip after they licensed the design from ARM. The only thing that happens through that deal is that Nvidia now has to pay less for ARM designs.

If you purchase an apple in the supermarket then you don't suddenly have a contract with the orchard. That also doesn't change if the supermarket buys the orchard.

Understood, wrongly assumed Nintendo had business with Arm since the OP was so celebratory.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."