Nintendo Q109 results drown company in billions

The best part is that if the US Dollar wasn't so weak they would have made even MORE money.

Is that the best part?

Last time I checked I didn't consider the economy being weak the best part of anything.

This is the point where I fearfully hope Nintendo doesn't somehow merge, buy out, or convince the other manufacturers(Sony/MS)into allowing them to make consoles for them from now on.

i.e., the "unified console" scenario that even Yoichi Wada mentioned recently.

If a unified console happens, the PC will regain dominance.

I don't know how it works , but since SCE is part of Sony , wouldn't Nintendo have the buy 51 percent of the whole company to have a hostile takeover , And as far as I know , Sony as a whole , is MANY times bigger than either Nintendo or MS .

Phantom - Unless I'm reading it wrong (I've never done stocks, so if there is some stock-geek that finds fault, please enlighten), but if I'm reading the stock pages right:

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:SNE
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=OTC:NTDOY

As of close today, Sony is worth 37.54 per share at 1.00 Billions shares (equals 37.54 Billions Dollars).
However, Nintendo is worth 65.80 per share at 1.13 Billion shares (equals 74.35 Billion Dollars).

Nintendo is worth more than the entirety of Sony, from where I'm sitting.

Crazy rich Japanese people

There, corrected it for ya.

I will never, so long as I live, be sick of that picture.


Everytime a 25 year old college grad giggles like a schoolgirl, a fanboy gets his wings...

I take it you've seen the animated version?

http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/12/28/633344312192645668.gif

Holy shit indeed.

i immediately had the same thought

use your money Nintendo!!

Don't hold your breath...you'll suffocate. Nintendo will NOT take risks with profits, they never have and look where it has gotten them. Please do not tell me the WSM was a risk, even if the system bombed like its twin brother the GC, they would have still made plenty of money.

They spent very little on the repackaging of the GC. To me a business RISK is doing something that might fail and waste ALOT of money. Since not much money was at risk, it hardly qualifies as one.

Now Nintendo, PROVE me wrong, spend those countless millions on R&D on a REAL next-gen system that appeals to both the hardcore and casual and not just some more gimmicky BS that the lemmings eat up until they get full.

The Ferengi Empire will stop at nothing in destroying gaming as we know it IF we allow them too.

Long live the Federation, DOWN with Ferenginar!!!

Did you just make a Star Trek reference to Nintendo? You blew my mind!

I agree Killjebus. The sad thing is that the "lemmings" will always be satisfied with their purchase. To them, it's not a console that plays games... it is a game. The causal gamer will say "Let's play Wii", not "Let's play (insert name of game)". I can't fault Nintendo. They're a company, and a company's sole purpose is to turn profits. They have lucked out with a winner.

I just don't see it repeating. The casual gamer will not update their console when they are able to still play bowling and tennis fine on their Wii.

Wait... so introducing a machine with clearly last gen graphics / hardware that focused completely on a different mechanism for controlling a game wasn't a risk?

Was it because they went after the masses that enjoyed their DS? Hmm yea... maybe they didn't take a risk... they were just mad smart.

Hey domgbrown, you're an idiot.

"To them, it's not a console that plays games... it is a game. The causal gamer will say "Let's play Wii", not "Let's play (insert name of game)"

I say "Let's play 360" plenty if a friend is over. Because guess what, I have a bunch of 360 games I enjoy playing. Same with the Wii I have.

To 'them' it's not a console that plays games? To somehow suggest that someone verbalizing that they want to play their game console indicates whatever moronic stupid point you're trying to make is so asinine it's beyond words.

You're a moron, and I've stooped to to name calling because of it.

@domgbrown

That is why I call it the WiiSports Machine, because to so many of the lemmings, that is all it is. Is that where I want videogaming to go? Frackity Fruckin Frack NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

The Ferengi stop at NOTHING when it comes to profit, profit is everything to them. At least the Federation (Sony) spends the money they make on making a better machine, and the Borg (Microsoft) assimilate anything they can get their hands on. But at least the Borg continue to better themselves in the pursuit of perfection.

I imagine Killjebus sits in a dark room with his computer while he burns pictures of Nintendo characters while sobbing over how his precious PS3 (which is gold-plated by the way just to show how awesome he is) is losing to such and "inferior" console. He then invites Curmeo 2.0 and the like to join him.

Oh and Killjebus, stop making stupid references to whatever it is. I don't know what you're talking about but it doesn't make you as cool as you think you are. You just look like a douche bag.

Donald, be careful of being a pot when calling the kettle black:

"I seriously hope that Curmeo and Killjebus get shot...

I really wish that all of the fanboys would go to the fanboy specific sub-sites and leave the main site to people that aren't assclowns."

Duke, the main site is actually 360fanboy.com

Im lost, I never watched or got into StarTrek. Star Wars on the other hand...

:P

@Donald

If I were trying to be "cool" would I not agree with the masses on every post? I don't care what you think of me, and if you've never heard of Star Trek then you must live in a bubble.

I don't care if the PS3 is in 3rd place, you would know if you read my other posts that I do not consider the WSM as current gen. So, for now the PS3 is in 2nd place out of two contenders. You would also know that I WANT the 360 to do well, because competition brings out the best in competing companies. To me Nintendo is not relevant to the PS3 and 360 because the technologies and capabilities of the WSM is NO WHERE NEAR close to the 360 and PS3.

It seems to me that for the few diehard Mario faithful that the amount of systems and the amount of money the Ferengi make at the expense of the lemmings is more important to you than the way the PS3 is selling to me.

The PS3 is selling just fine, in FACT it is only 1.5M systems behind the most successful console of all time (the originator of the money printer) the PS2 in the same timeframe.

The PS2 sold 16M systems in the same timeframe that the PS3 sold 14.57M. So yes, the PS3 is just fine and it will be relevant to gamers for many years to come unlike a "certain" other system.

Co, I don't get your comment. That was his quote - not mine. The point I was making is that attacking fanboys of another console in that way, when you are doing so to defend your console of choice is simply dumb.

@ Markez: It's sad that I have to explain everything to simple minded people like you. Obviously you can say "let's play 360" or "let's play Wii". The difference is that when I am over at someone's house and they say "let's play Wii" and I ask them what games they have, they look at me weird, then proceed to say "Well you can play baseball, bowling, tennis, and boxing on the Wii". They are oblivious that there are other games for it. So, it is quite different retard. A lot of non traditional gamers look at it as something you hook up to the TV to play those four games. Here's an idea moron, why not try to understand what's being said.

I think the real concern for us "core" gamers is the same lingering fear we've had ever since the day Nintendo revealed the Wii. A low-tech machine that sells at a profit from its first day? A console like that has been unheard of for three generations. For the last fifteen or so years, we've enjoyed loss-leader consoles that gave us cutting edge technology for a fraction of the price that it cost to produce the things. It's been one hell of an enjoyable luxury, and we've seen more industry driving technological advancements than we can count. From that perspective, the Wii is a giant step backwards. What reason do Microsoft and Sony have to produce technological beasts when repackaging your last machine with a mass market twist will make more profit? What reason does Nintendo have to invest so much time and money into a Metroid or Zelda game when its much more profitable to produce frisbee simulators? The Wii is driving the industry in this direction whether we choose to see it or not. Here's a sample of recent events: Sony drops Eight Days and The Getaway due to a shift in focus away from single player gaming; Microsoft's longest E3 segment is dedicated not to Gears of War, but a game about running like a clown on camera; and Nintendo's biggest E3 announcement is an air saxophone simulator featuring the great Ravi Drums. Welcome to the next generation, guys. We're no longer the market - we're just a niche.

Duke,

My mistake, didn't read that whole post.

@ Paul: Awesome post.

No problem.

Hurray anecdotal evidence domgbrown! In the town I live in people think cameras steal your soul!

@ Twee: You should probably move. Soul stealing is not cool.

Well said Paul. For the Marios out there, if after reading Paul's post you still fail to understand why I can't stand the WSM and the direction (backward) that the Ferengi are taking....then there is no hope for you.

Paul, I have enjoyed your comments before and with this last one I want to subscribe to your newsletter. That post is so accurate and effective I want to light up a smoke!

"I think the real concern for us "core" gamers is the same lingering fear we've had ever since the day Nintendo revealed the Wii. A low-tech machine that sells at a profit from its first day?"

While I do not doubt your stance on this, you are giving others here way to much credit. Their concern for the "core" gamers is much less civil and more filled with pure hate of the brand.

It's more like the "I don't like you, you have different beliefs than me, I wanna fight you" type of stance.

Paul, great post.

"For the last fifteen or so years, we've enjoyed loss-leader consoles that gave us cutting edge technology for a fraction of the price that it cost to produce the things. It's been one hell of an enjoyable luxury, and we've seen more industry driving technological advancements than we can count. From that perspective, the Wii is a giant step backwards."

Right, but similarly, pulling back from using cutting edge technology at this point is like telling a fat man to stop eating and go on a diet.
I'd agree that the Wii wasn't enough of a step forward in terms of balancing power and affordability/profitability...but that said, I'd rather have NON cutting edge tech that is still affordable, rather than cutting edge tech that is unaffordable.
The PS3 is estimated to be about 20 times more powerful than the PS2, I recall reading. I'd much rather the PS3 have been about 5-8 times as powerful as the PS2 and actually be able to afford the damn thing without having to make budget cutbacks and such.



"What reason does Nintendo have to invest so much time and money into a Metroid or Zelda game when its much more profitable to produce frisbee simulators?"

The reason Nintendo has and will continue to invest in games that are not 'frisbee simulators' is that as a company, they have to DIVERSIFY and show GROWTH. They are obligated to for their shareholder's sake, if nothing else.

If they only cater to the supposedly more profitable casuals and stop catering (either partially or entirely) to their core, they WILL lose money. That is money that they COULD be making, but won't be.
If you look at it like "Wii Sports costs 1 million to make and Zelda costs 5 million", you're simplifying it too much.
If Nintendo was in Majesco's position, it might be another story...but Nintendo, unlike Majesco, wasn't exactly hurting for cash when they launched the Wii.
But there is literally SOOOO much more to it than that. I could try my best to explain it all, but it would make McPoop's deranged rant downpage seem like a tl;dr summary! The gist of it, however, would basically be 'Zelda and Mario are profitable, therefore they will continue to be made'.

Nevermind about the quarter thing.

Also, yeah...their...

I think they were on the verge of this move before the Wii, actually. They'd been trounced for two generations straight, and playing "keep up with the Joneses" against Microsoft and Sony was never going to work. So they rolled the dice with a very different approach with the Wii to see if they could have more success this generation.

Quite frankly, I think Nintendo is nearly as surprised as everyone else at the success of their experiment. If the Wii had been another Gamecube story, I think they would've gone the Sega route in the console market.

Nintendo has never been close to going a Sega route, they have always made money. If the Wii failed, they still would have a profit.

If anything, if the Wii had failed like the GC, they probably just would've focused on delivering a niche console to focus on the tastes of the few dedicated fans, while continuing to roll big on the handheld market

Which is pretty much what they are doing for core gamers on the Wii anyway. Wii has become a magnet for niche gems as well as the big casual titles and the big bridge (appeals to both) titles, not to mention all the steaming mounds of shit