By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - LOVELY 3DS games screenshots collection!

Solid_Snake4RD on 27 June 2010
Farmageddon said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Farmageddon said:

What's your point with R&D thing? For one, Nintendo has R&D too. But, more importantly, why should their profits be discussed without counting R&D? When someone says Nintendo made more money than PS they are talking about the entire buisness, so R&D is included for both, just as well as marketing, manufacturing, shipping, etc. It's a buisness, it simply makes no sense to say how much money you made without saying how much you spent to make it.

i am counting Nintendo R&D

just comparing like:

 

                              SONY PS3                              NINTENDO Wii

YEAR 2005             $2b                                             $200(what Nintendo published)

 

i didn't say Nintendo doesn't do R&D but they being gaming sole company only push a TECH when its cheap as they can't be so agressive

but SONY can take the losses and Push for tech that is expensive and in the way make that TECH cheap by mass production even with loss at first

You only answered to a single sentence of mine (that came right before I said "But, more importantly", no less). You completely ignored the point of my post.

Edit: Oh, he's banned.

i read ur post

i was just explaining what i meant in my first post and how you misunderstood me



Around the Network
weezy on 27 June 2010

3rd party support confirmed. :)



I am WEEzY. You can suck my Nintendo loving BALLS!

 

MynameisGARY

Farmageddon on 28 June 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Farmageddon said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Farmageddon said:

What's your point with R&D thing? For one, Nintendo has R&D too. But, more importantly, why should their profits be discussed without counting R&D? When someone says Nintendo made more money than PS they are talking about the entire buisness, so R&D is included for both, just as well as marketing, manufacturing, shipping, etc. It's a buisness, it simply makes no sense to say how much money you made without saying how much you spent to make it.

i am counting Nintendo R&D

just comparing like:

 

                              SONY PS3                              NINTENDO Wii

YEAR 2005             $2b                                             $200(what Nintendo published)

 

i didn't say Nintendo doesn't do R&D but they being gaming sole company only push a TECH when its cheap as they can't be so agressive

but SONY can take the losses and Push for tech that is expensive and in the way make that TECH cheap by mass production even with loss at first

You only answered to a single sentence of mine (that came right before I said "But, more importantly", no less). You completely ignored the point of my post.

Edit: Oh, he's banned.

i read ur post

i was just explaining what i meant in my first post and how you misunderstood me

I'm not saying you didn't read it, but that you completelly ignored the main point of my question:

Why should their profits be discussed without counting R&D?

Look up there, you only answered to the italic part of my post. See?



Solid_Snake4RD on 28 June 2010
Farmageddon said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Farmageddon said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Farmageddon said:

What's your point with R&D thing? For one, Nintendo has R&D too. But, more importantly, why should their profits be discussed without counting R&D? When someone says Nintendo made more money than PS they are talking about the entire buisness, so R&D is included for both, just as well as marketing, manufacturing, shipping, etc. It's a buisness, it simply makes no sense to say how much money you made without saying how much you spent to make it.

i am counting Nintendo R&D

just comparing like:

 

                              SONY PS3                              NINTENDO Wii

YEAR 2005             $2b                                             $200(what Nintendo published)

 

i didn't say Nintendo doesn't do R&D but they being gaming sole company only push a TECH when its cheap as they can't be so agressive

but SONY can take the losses and Push for tech that is expensive and in the way make that TECH cheap by mass production even with loss at first

You only answered to a single sentence of mine (that came right before I said "But, more importantly", no less). You completely ignored the point of my post.

Edit: Oh, he's banned.

i read ur post

i was just explaining what i meant in my first post and how you misunderstood me

I'm not saying you didn't read it, but that you completelly ignored the main point of my question:

Why should their profits be discussed without counting R&D?

Look up there, you only answered to the italic part of my post. See?


their profits are not disscussed without R&D but their R&D is low so their profits are more

in my post i answered what i meant from my maint post so what i meant was if

sony profited $2b in PS2 era,they would easily put $1b in r&d and other departments profits show $1b

for nintendo,in GC era if they profited $2B they would invest around $300m so their profits show $1.7b



Farmageddon on 28 June 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Farmageddon said:

I'm not saying you didn't read it, but that you completelly ignored the main point of my question:

Why should their profits be discussed without counting R&D?

Look up there, you only answered to the italic part of my post. See?


their profits are not disscussed without R&D but their R&D is low so their profits are more

in my post i answered what i meant from my maint post so what i meant was if

sony profited $2b in PS2 era,they would easily put $1b in r&d and other departments profits show $1b

for nintendo,in GC era if they profited $2B they would invest around $300m so their profits show $1.7b

I know what you mean, but that was not my question. My question was why is that relevant at all, because, the way I see it, it's not.



Around the Network
Solid_Snake4RD on 29 June 2010
Farmageddon said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Farmageddon said:

I'm not saying you didn't read it, but that you completelly ignored the main point of my question:

Why should their profits be discussed without counting R&D?

Look up there, you only answered to the italic part of my post. See?


their profits are not disscussed without R&D but their R&D is low so their profits are more

in my post i answered what i meant from my maint post so what i meant was if

sony profited $2b in PS2 era,they would easily put $1b in r&d and other departments profits show $1b

for nintendo,in GC era if they profited $2B they would invest around $300m so their profits show $1.7b

I know what you mean, but that was not my question. My question was why is that relevant at all, because, the way I see it, it's not.

yes it doesn't

 

but i was just saying and explaining that to many people who said NINTENDO profit even if they aren't succesfull and they will continue to be succesfull and SONY can't profit more than them