Nintendo's annual profits sliced in half

[Zaxxon]

I don't know, where is the MS's Xbox profit. Where did I claim MS were making a profit on the Xbox? They're just selling a lot of them. No contradiction at all. I don't know why you're on a witch hunt though. If you don't agree with the way I worded it, I'm ok with that.

[Zaxxon]

We read it carefully enough. We understand it. Profits keep companies afloat, not sales. Nintendo fans are flogging their boners over any news/rumors of MS losses in the their game division, despite strong sales of the Xbox. The Gameboy is the only thing that keeps the company going, same as it's been since the N64 days.

 

It takes a certain type of individual to contradict himself in successive sentences. Where is the profit MS has made on the Xobx? We're still waiting...

 

I see what you're saying now. I already stated in a follow-up post that MS can and does easily absorb the losses. This isn't the first bad financial report for Nintendo. If Nintendo, MS and maybe Sony are all losing money on their consoles, who do you think can afford to stay in the race the longest?

[NintendoDieScreaming]

What I don't understand is why everyone seems intent on seeing Nintendo suffer a horrible death.

 

They did more than their part in killing off my two favorite companies.

 

Sure, call it competition or whatever, they did more than their part in killing off my two favorite companies.

 

Thats all I have to say about that. Thats all I have to say in this thread.

[DracIsBack]

We read it carefully enough. We understand it. Profits keep companies afloat, not sales. Nintendo fans are flogging their boners over any news/rumors of MS losses in the their game division, despite strong sales of the Xbox. The Gameboy is the only thing that keeps the company going, same as it's been since the N64 days.

 

This is a tough market. Everyone is losing money on something. When three known monopolists fight it out, the results aren't pretty.

 

For the record, I have both an XBox and a GameCube.

[DracIsBack]

I don't know, where is the MS's Xbox profit. Where did I claim MS were making a profit on the Xbox? They're just selling a lot of them. No contradiction at all. I don't know why you're on a witch hunt though. If you don't agree with the way I worded it, I'm ok with that.

 

Can you - um - pass the crack pipe?

 

I do find it funny when Xbox fanatics start claiming that Microsoft has "left Nintendo in the dust". Two consoles fighting it out for a very, very, very, very distant second spot behind the PS2 does not equal "selling a lot".

 

Both are sitting in Sony's dust. Neither is selling a lot compared to the PS2. But both have decent size bases and decent sized libraries so it depends on how you look at it ... is the glass half-full or half empty?

 

As you note, GameBoy is where Nintendo making the real money. But if you want to play that game, Windows and MS Office are keeping the XBox business (losses now at nearly 2 billion) afloat.

[Artlover]

On the other hand Microsoft, because of our sold out government, still have millions to spend

 

Try 10's of billions.

 

Specificly just about 30 billion even. Give or take a billion.

 

Lets look at that another way.

 

Even if they pissed away 100 million dollars a year every year, they would still last 300 years.

[Jasoco]

Thats all I have to say about that. Thats all I have to say in this thread.

Thank you for coming. Thank you for your input. Now go get over it. (Curious, what two companies?)

[JB]

Thats all I have to say about that. Thats all I have to say in this thread.

Thank you for coming. Thank you for your input. Now go get over it. (Curious, what two companies?)

OOH OOH!

COMMODORE AND FAIRCHILD!

[Jasoco]

Thats all I have to say about that. Thats all I have to say in this thread.

Thank you for coming. Thank you for your input. Now go get over it. (Curious, what two companies?)

OOH OOH!

COMMODORE AND FAIRCHILD!

Actually, I was guessing Atari and Sega.

[Mayhem]

Atari and Sega killed themselves without really Nintendo needing to do anything directly. History and hindsight lets us see that. Atari were even offered the distribution rights to the NES and turned it down. Bad move space cadet. And Sega imploded interenally due to bad decisions and copious amounts of hardware add-ons.

[DracIsBack]

Atari were even offered the distribution rights to the NES and turned it down.

 

While it does apear that way, courtesy of the press, m'thinks no one that has ever reported that "fact" has ever been involved in a business development negotiation regarding a distribution agreement, an acquisition etc.

 

It's never an "open-shut" thing like the press portrays it ... ever. There are lawyers, contracts spanning dozens of pages, months and months of negotiations, arguments over clauses, money, royalty payments, distribution rights, obligations etc. Many companies in this type of venture send out teams to explore many different alternatives to see which will be most profitable.

 

It would be correct to say that Nintendo explored the possibility of Atari licensing the NES for US distribution as one possible distribution method. It would be correct to say that the negotiations didn't get far enough along to lead to a deal, especially with the constant turnover at Atari. It would be correct to assume that neither Nintendo or Atari felt really strong enough to get "the deal done".

 

It's not correct to assume Nintendo offered Atari the NES on a silver platter and Atari laughed at them. Business negotiations don't work that way.

 

History has shown that Nintendo didn't feel strongly enough about the idea to want to make it work and that Atari was in too many transitions at the time to devote energy to the deal. Remember, in 1983 and 1984, Atari had undergone some massive job cuts. The people working on the Nintendo negotiations at Atari kept getting laid off. Then, in the midst of it all, the company changed owners.

 

Trust me folks - deals like this take months and a lot of back and forth to work out. It wasn't as open and shut as it ignorantly portrayed by the media. Heck, if memory serves, the Atari-Sega negotiations for the "Atari Genesis" got much, much, much farther than the "Atari NES" discussions.

 

Let's put this one to bed shall we?

[Zaxxon]

I don't know, where is the MS's Xbox profit. Where did I claim MS were making a profit on the Xbox? They're just selling a lot of them. No contradiction at all. I don't know why you're on a witch hunt though. If you don't agree with the way I worded it, I'm ok with that.

 

Can you - um - pass the crack pipe?

 

I do find it funny when Xbox fanatics start claiming that Microsoft has "left Nintendo in the dust". Two consoles fighting it out for a very, very, very, very distant second spot behind the PS2 does not equal "selling a lot".

 

Both are sitting in Sony's dust. Neither is selling a lot compared to the PS2. But both have decent size bases and decent sized libraries so it depends on how you look at it ... is the glass half-full or half empty?

 

As you note, GameBoy is where Nintendo making the real money. But if you want to play that game, Windows and MS Office are keeping the XBox business (losses now at nearly 2 billion) afloat.

 

I'm not an Xbox fanatic. Just because MS haven't sold as many as the PS2 doesn't mean it's not a lot of consoles, it's several million. Sure, MS lost money in their game division, but they have many other income streams. MS started with 0% market share and $0 dollars in sales from videogames/consoles just a few years ago. They have nowhere to go but up. When Nintendo loses money it's much more of a problem for them since all they make are games/systems, that's it. When a report comes out stating Nintendo's profits are down 51%, following other reports in recent years of declining market share and real losses, it doesn't sound like good news to me. Of course Nintendo fans will try and label you a doomsayer just for posting a factual news story.

[DracIsBack]

MS haven't sold as many as the PS2 doesn't mean it's not a lot of consoles, it's several million.

 

Fair enough. At first glance, I must confess that I thought you were giving the XBox fanboy response of "Sony and Microsoft have left Nintendo in the dust". This obviously isn't the case. Still, this notion that some have amuses me greatly. The XBox is so distantly behind the PS2 in sales that it's amusing to me when some XBox fanatics paint Sony and Microsoft as neck and neck and Nintendo as hopelessly behind.

 

Depending on who you believe, either Microsoft or Nintendo is holding onto that distant second spot but both are relatively close in sales and installed base - and significantly behind the PS2. For the record, Nintendo has also sold millions (by your definition, a "lot") of GameCubes as well. Just some perspective. This isn't a "two-horse race", the way XBox fans like to think it is.

 

MS lost money in their game division, but they have many other income streams.

 

Well, two really. Most Microsoft divisions are actually losing money, but everything is bolstered by the sales of Windows and Microsoft Office, which Microsoft guards with the usual monopolistic tactics that have landed them in so much trouble.

 

MS started with 0% market share and $0 dollars in sales from videogames/consoles just a few years ago. They have nowhere to go but up.

 

True. And as is the nature of Microsoft, their way is to throw everything they can at it in hopes of wiping out the competition. The challenge for Microsoft is that this time, the'yre against two companies who've also been investigated historically for dirty, underhanded business practices ... Sony and Nintendo. This isn't like other Microsoft conquests ... Sony and Nintendo will fight dirty back. It's interesting and ultimately, the consumer wins.

 

When Nintendo loses money it's much more of a problem for them since all they make are games/systems, that's it. When a report comes out stating Nintendo's profits are down 51%, following other reports in recent years of declining market share and real losses, it doesn't sound like good news to me.

 

A good point, but I need to make a couple.

 

First, since the mid-1980s, Nintendo has been generally a widely profitable company. 1 or 2 quarters with losses isn't exactly doom news considering there have been overwhelmingly profitible quarters over 80 or so. And despite the "decline" in profits, Nintendo is still MAKING MONEY. it's not like they'll have a bad quarter and go into bankruptcy. They have no debt, a strong, strong, strong balance sheets and billions upon billions in the bank.

 

This isn't like Sega where they can't afford to sustain losses for long. While Nintendo is not as loaded as Microsoft, Nintendo is still loaded and could sustain losses for a long, long, long, long, long, LOOOOONG time in this fight.

[NovaXpress]

MS started with 0% market share and $0 dollars in sales from videogames/consoles just a few years ago. They have nowhere to go but up.

Every videogame company starts with 0% market share and $0 from sales, so I guess things look good for all of them!

 

The Big Three companies are all staying in the business through the next decade at least. All three of them are strong enough to survive a down cycle and smart enough to pull something good out at anytime.

[Artlover]

MS started with 0% market share and $0 dollars in sales from videogames/consoles just a few years ago. They have nowhere to go but up.

Every videogame company starts with 0% market share and $0 from sales, so I guess things look good for all of them!

 

The Big Three companies are all staying in the business through the next decade at least. All three of them are strong enough to survive a down cycle and smart enough to pull something good out at anytime.

 

I think the point here was that Nintendo, unlike MS & Sony, is nearly exclusivly a videogame company. Both MS & Sony could abandon the video game market tomorrow and happily continue making money hand over fist. Why, because they make operating systems, software, tv's, vcr's, stereos, accessories. Their primary bulk of operations concern those other markets places.

 

What does Nintendo have? Video games, playing cards (do they even still make those?), The NFC, maybe they still make pachinko machines? If Nintendo pulled out of the videogame business tomorrow, what would they have to make money from?

 

MS isn't all that strong of a company either in that aspect, since the only other thing they sell is software. But with a 90% worldwide strangehold on that market and their insane wealth, it's a moot point.

[Artlover]

Edit: Microsoft also does make PC accessories like mice & keyboards, so they have a limited hardware market too, tho I doubt that is a signifigant source of income for them.

[Jasoco]

Not really. Microsoft simply rebrands their peripherals. They're actually other companies. Last I heard, my first generation Intellimouse Explorer was HP.

[Invader_dag]

i was actually very shocked that this topic was not started by Adrian... and then i saw the second post... I really can't believe that a gaming fan would be happy about good companies losing money, even though Nintendo is not on top, they still are putting out some of the most innovative games around. And so did Sega, we should be more sad at these loses that only make the gap between truly great games grow larger. Who wants to see more GTA knock offs? or how about another new stealth game that in no way captures the original fun of MGS?

Already it`s apparent that crap games are taking up the bulk of shelf space, so why act like this is such great news?

The only game i have played on X-Box for any duration is Halo, and knowing that Bungie would more than likely go down with Microsoft in the event of a collapse, i still want them to stick around so they make more in the Halo series.

It's because of the endless amount of topics like this that make me not as active on the boards as i once was. And what is even more annoying is that the news items aren`t being shared because it`s game related, it`s merely to try to prove to someone else who has the better console.