Not imo. 

Yes it is, just compare with other companys.

Activision/Blizzard for example. Activision only has 5,6B as total current assets and only 4,2B as cash. Even less than Nintendo, despite Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Skylanders success.

Cash alone means nothing, and stationary money = loss for the stock holder.

Why are you assuming Nintendo had zero short term investments in 2012? It's unreasonable to believe that all of the money they've invested into it was apart of the $10 billion they had in reserve.

Did you miss the part where I said IMO?

What is being pointed is that they had a little more than 10B in current assets in 2012 and now they have 10B. If it is in cash, short term investments or stock, they still have around the same amount of cash, but in different forms. Since they didn't sold any long-term assets (buildings or IPs), than they are about the same.

Maybe they have more liabilities, but i can't say without the 2012/2013 balance sheet.

That's not what the article said at all. Instead of reading articles, I just pulled financial reports: 2012 and 2014.

It looks like Nintendo is clarifying their assets and separating things to be more clear with their newer reports. They've lost a good chunk of money in the recent years, but not a disasterious amount.

That specific evaluation of the Xbox divsion was done Bloomberg and Wedbush and had nothing to do with the Xbox divsion assets.  

It was in fact based on a simple 'revenue multiple' calculation using Nintendo's own numbers as a base.  Below is the quote from Bloomberg:

Below are some negatives about using multiples from wikipedia:

There are a number of criticisms levied against multiples, but in the main these can be summarised as:

• Simplistic: A multiple is a distillation of a great deal of information into a single number or series of numbers. By combining many value drivers into a point estimate, multiples may make it difficult to disaggregate the effect of different drivers, such as growth, on value. The danger is that this encourages simplistic – and possibly erroneous – interpretation.^[3]

• Static: A multiple represents a snapshot of where a firm is at a point in time, but fails to capture the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of business and competition.

• Difficulties in comparisons: Multiples are primarily used to make comparisons of relative value. But comparing multiples is an exacting art form, because there are so many reasons that multiples can differ, not all of which relate to true differences in value. For example, different accounting policies can result in diverging multiples for otherwise identical operating businesses.

• Dependence on correctly valued peers: The use of multiples only reveals patterns in relative values, not absolute values such as those obtained from discounted cash flow valuations. If the peer group as a whole is incorrectly valued (such as may happen during a stock market "bubble") then the resulting multiples will also be misvalued.

• Short-term: Multiples are based on historic data or near-term forecasts. Valuations base on multiples will therefore fail to capture differences in projected performance over the longer term, and will have difficulty correctly valuing cyclical industries unless somewhat subjective normalization adjustements are made.

Excluding exchange rate (looking solely at Yen) that is still a 17% drop in effective assets minus liabilities since 2010 (effectively the company has shrunk 17%), which is a large drop for a company that until a few years ago had never made a loss. Most of that loss has been since 2011. Definitely not 'Nintendo is broke' territory, but it's concerning. 

I see, against 2011 indeed. Against 2012 they still lost something, but not that much.

Total assets: ¥1,368,401 (2012) against  ¥1,306,410 (2014)

Current Assets: ¥1,140,786 (2012) against ¥1,024,136 (2014)

Liabilities: ¥177,376 (2012) against ¥187,971 (2014)

In Yen the fall doesn't look that big to be honest, maybe in U$ the exchange rate is affecting the perception

They are losing money, no point arguing over that.

So basically you're confirming that the value provided up there isn't necessarily based on assets but an analysis on how much Xbox might be worth based off of Nintendo's "multiples"?