Disney's management did all the right things not only to keep their company dominant in their core business, but also make them more than relevant in other areas of entertainment too. So I agree, Nintendo has a LOT to learn from Disney.

Disney and Apple's management is far smarter and more adaptive than Nintendo's aging Japanese group of higher ups. Nintendo has no chance of being a Disney with its existing leadership. They don't know much about the Western market (even Iwata admits this is not his strong suit) which is 90% of the game business now.

Also Nintendo did not bother to aquire/expand studios when they were swimming in money from the Wii/DS ... don't count on that suddenly happening now when they are losing money.

Nintendo is not spending $3+ billion dollars on aquistions just so you can play Megaman 12 only on the 3DS or something. 

they should release a pokemon anime that is only watchable via WiiU (for free).

This is not a prediction thread. Stop replying as if it is. Nintendo is still swimming in money from the Wii/DS. And if you seriously think that all that would come out of an aquisition of Capcom is "Mega Man 12 only on the 3DS," I can see why you don't run a major gaming company. And why none of your "suggestions" follow any real logic.

Consoles don't have to be phones for it to work. Who says that every new console has to have a new operating system, new specs, new games? Who made that law? Someone can use an ipad as a gaming console. What's the difference if a console uses the same upgrade mentality? 

How many people would buy a new console if they knew that a better version would be released just one or two years from now? The same amount that buy an ipad or a macbook knowing that a new one will be released in a year or two. If you build your hardware the way I layed out in the post, it won't be a problem. Sega's never done what I'm talking about, so I see no reason to bring them up.

As for the retail chain, Nintendo would make enough to offset the cost. Not initially, but eventually. That's what an investment is.

I don't think buying Capcom would be a very good idea either. Why spend billions when you can spend a few million on purchasing and developing studios instead? Nintendo buying Monolithsoft last generation was a great move, for example. Then there was also retro studios, 1-up studios. They should do much more of that.

I'm not saying they shouldn't. I specifically said that they should, buy they should buy Capcom first, because what Nintendo is really missing is relevant IPs, and purchasing talent alone won't bring that. Purchasing relevant IPs will.

I wasn't making a prediction above, how can you cite Nintendo as needing to be like Disney and Apple when they simply don't have that level of management? It's not a prediction, it's reality, Nintendo can't be like Disney because they don't have the competent management to get it done, period. They are a small, even smaller-minded Japanese game company that happens to have a few really great game studios, but are mediocre at marketing anything, mediocre at keeping up with industry trends, etc. etc. 

Good game developer, awful management, that's the here and now of it, not tomorrow. 

Nintendo already has virtual exclusivity on the major Capcom franchise they need -- Monster Hunter. 

The longer they ignore any real Western collaboration (not just having a few studios work on their own franchises), the further removed from the gaming mainstream Nintendo will become because the Western developer is now the dominant force in the industry. 

Sinking billions into a company like Capcom would be an investment they'd likely never ever sniff a profit on, the people who have a PS4/X1 and refuse to buy a Nintendo console would simply just stop playing the Resident Evil and Street Fighter series, neither of which is a "spring chicken" franchise. 

It'd be 100x smarter to buy the rights to the available James Bond franchise. That's an IP that's cooler than any game character created, has a history with Nintendo, and would cost not even 1/1000th of what it would cost to overpay for a few Capcom IP. It's also a character property that's more relevant in North America, Europe, and well known everywhere else in world if you give it to a very talented studio (ahem, Retro Studios) and you could put Daniel Craig in TV commercials to bring some badly needly class/"cool" to a brand that needs it worse than a desert needs rain. 

How can I cite what a company needs to do to succeed? Is that even a real question? Who cares about how bad their management is? That doesn't change that they need to change and that this are how they should do it. 

Street Fighter is the most relevant fighting franchise in the world. People wouldn't just "stop playing it" because it's on a Nintendo platform. Evo wouldn't just stop using it because they don't like Nintendo. Die hard fans would still buy it, because that's what fans do. Same with Resident Evil and any other relevant franchises. These are no Bayonetta 2. If you seriously are trying to compare 007 games to Capcom franchises, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Golden Eye 007 was a one hit wonder. It's no franchise worth purchasing over Capcom and it wouldn't have nearly the impact that purchasing an entire bouquet of popular gaming IPs would, western or otherwise.

That being said, I see no reason why it wouldn't be a good idea to purchase the James Bond franchise on top of buying Capcom. I do see why it is a worth while investment, but when choosing between 007 and Capcom, you choose Capcom every time.

The James Bond IP is actually available for sale (Activision relinquished the rights). Capcom is not, and Nintendo is the last company that would pay what for Capcom to begin with (MS would buy them first if they were ever available, followed by EA, followed by Activision).

Buying out such a large company is simply not in Nintendo's business rule book, they don't operate that way, and people need to wake up and realize Nintendo *values* being a small company employee wise. 

Nintendo had Resident Evil exclusivity for a few years and it didn't save the GameCube, so whats it supposed to do now when its a tired shadow of its former self anyway?

Nintendo needs IP that Western teenagers and adults relate to, not more B-tier Japanese franchises. If you're going to spend that kind of money you could get considerably better bang for your buck in any number of ways. Paying billions of dollars for Capcom and then limiting them to a tiny userbase and hoping that Capcom's old franchises can somehow increase your console share is grossly irresponsible IMO. It would more likely backfire and leave a huge chunk of Nintendo's cash reserves (which is about their only saving grace right now) gone. 

Bond would be one I'd look at right now. Game of Thrones might be another IP that could buy Nintendo real credibility with older audiences in the West perhaps. I'd look at signing a deal with Disney/Marvel too to perhaps make games based on the Avengers/Iron Man movies, much like Nintendo had a deal with LucasArts in the 90s for exclusive Star Wars games. These three combined would buy Nintendo real credibility with core consumers in the West for probably well under $100 million so long as the quality of the games behind them was kept high. 

Capcom isn't, but that doesn't mean Capcom can't be acquired. It's worth a fraction of what it was even in 2009. Resident Evil on the gamecube of one franchise. This would be everything. By rebooting the franchises that are shadows of their former selves, they can maintain a steady stream of quality games with a reliable fanbase.

Nintendo DOES need IPs that Western teens can relate to. Like I said, James Bond would be smart. Game of Thrones would also be smart. A deal with Marvel would be excellent too.

I know that Take-Two would never let Nintendo outright purchase them, but I think it would be beneficial for them to buy a small piece of their company. If Nintendo pays like $200 mil for like 12% of their stock, they could guarantee all their games while securing some exclusives here and there. It's not an all out purchase, which Nintendo has the funds to do, but it is something they would benefit from.

That being said, the GTA brand is huge. Everything T2 owns is huge. If Nintendo made an agressive bid at T2 and won, that would gamechanging. A lot of people think that Microsoft would take an active bid to compete, but with the current unhappiness Microsoft investers seem to gave for the Xbox brand, dropping billions of the companies dollars on what inverstors consider to be an unsuccessful brand wouldn't go over well. And in Sony's case, the last thing they want to be doing while restructuring their failing company is make a multibillion dollar investment. That leaves EA, whom Take-Two already denied. Activision and Ubisoft would be the only bidding competitors Nintendo would really have to worry about. If Nintendo could convince T2 to allow the purchase, Nintendo would be, quite literally, unstopable. Of course, they'd need more compitent people to manage the entire thing, but GTA VI exclusive to the Wii U? Give me a break. Throw in the towels.