Little Monser
Banned
Why?
Because they're scared
Why?
Lol. That animatronic is awesome.
It's NOT a real word. 100%. It is a word made up by idiots who don't realise it is a total tautology (regardless already means regardless, the ir is totally redundant).
Irregardless is a word commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since the early twentieth century, though the word appeared in print as early as 1795.[1] Most dictionaries list it as nonstandard or incorrect usage, and recommend that "regardless" should be used instead.[2][3][4]
They only went up to begin with because it seemed people didn't realize Nintendo has very little to do with the game.
Because they're scared
Vena, you're better than this. Irregardless is not a word.
It's NOT a real word. 100%. It is a word made up by idiots who don't realise it is a total tautology (regardless already means regardless, the ir is totally redundant).
Man, how does Nintendo negotiate a mere 13% of stake in this game?
As baffling as that is, i imagined that the stock jump was more based on future prospects of other Nintendo IP's going mobile.
Yes, that is the way the stock market works. Which is why I've always found these "ZOMG Nintendo stock jumped 5%" threads to be very amusing to keep an eye on.People in the stock market is so goddamn fickle
Man, how does Nintendo negotiate a mere 13% of stake in this game?
As baffling as that is, i imagined that the stock jump was more based on future prospects of other Nintendo IP's going mobile.
The stock price will find its level, but I'd be concerned Go may have raised expectations a little high for NX and future in house mobile ventures. I think Animal Crossing could do well, but it is not going to have this kind of reach.
doesn’t expect to revise its annual forecast higher based on "current conditions." It also said sales of Pokemon Go Plus, a Nintendo-produced accessory for the game, have already been factored into its existing profit forecast.
There's nothing Nintendo can put out that's going to outperform the first mobile Pokémon game, especially one that's free and leverages social connections. I'm not even sure what it would be.
Pretty much serves them right for not taking mobile seriously. This should be the biggest wake up call of all time that people want Nintendo games on non-Nintendo hardware.
There are several other Pokémon games on mobile, nobody cares.They could pop on a 70 pence shit little Pokémon app on the store, doing anything, and make millions upon millions.
Not the first mobile Pokémon game.There's nothing Nintendo can put out that's going to outperform the first mobile Pokémon game, especially one that's free and leverages social connections. I'm not even sure what it would be.
How does Nintendo have only 13% stake in the app?
That's madness.
How does Nintendo have only 13% stake in the app?
That's madness.
mobile gaming is fucking garbage and its cool how nintendo are basically using it as an advertising platform for their console (good) games
the mobile gaming market shouldn't be taken seriously
You really don't understand how Pokémon ownership is. Nintendo never gets 100% stake in them
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1008721&page=1#post155571604
You do know there has been a craptonne of Pokémon games on mobile platforms over the last 5 years and this is the first to do well.
Just because this does well doesn't mean all will
This shows a massive lack of understanding in Nintendo's ownership of Pokémon, investment in Pokémon GO and involvement in Pokémon GO, as well as a lack of historical data showing Pokémon on mobile's lack of success before now
Yeah no
It's a guess from an analyst. I understand that the article isn't great but at least read it guys.How does Nintendo have only 13% stake in the app?
That's madness.
I suggest you take a look at this post:Because they don't own pokemon, they only have 32% stake/share in pokemon Co. They also mostly fronted less than 20 Million for backend of the app to use googles infrastructure. They don't own pokemon just they are the main publisher for console games of pokemon.
Which is why me along with pachter and few other business articles think this will actually put NIntendo in a worse position. Because all the hype surrounding the huge over night success of the app puts pressure on them to develop their own mobile games that may or may not measure up to pokemon's success.
If you can understand its meaning, it's a real word. Doesn't matter how redundant or not. It's a functioning linguistic form.
I said to a builder helping around my house last week - "this wall is definitely plasterable".
You won't find 'plasterable' in any dictionary. Doesn't stop it being a real word that follows grammatical logic.
Because they are grossly understimating the potential of the mobile market, and see it as mere tool to salvage their declining dedicated hardware business.
except no one is playing pokemon go and thinking "woah, I've got pokemon fever! time to buy a $100 2DS and the new, $40 pokemon with a bunch of new pokemon I don't care about this november!"
nowadays, most peoples "gaming" experience starts and ends with mobile.
Is that not...literally exactly what I was highlighting? You are a fool if you don't think the suits at nintendo wish they had been more involved and had more of a stake in the app.
mobile gaming is garbage and anyone who actually wants nintendo to seriously develop mobile game and focus resources on developing mobile games doesn't actually care about games as a medium and wants one of the most consistent and greatest developers to participate in the hyper capitalistic race to the bottom that is the mobile gaming
you want to destroy gaming
mobile gaming is garbage and anyone who actually wants nintendo to seriously develop mobile game and focus resources on developing mobile games doesn't actually care about games as a medium and wants one of the most consistent and greatest developers to participate in the hyper capitalistic race to the bottom that is the mobile gaming
you want to destroy gaming
Shows how poorly investors prepare when deciding to take a plunge. If they would have done even just a small amount of research , they would have seen that Nintendo was never going to profit heavily from this. It's a Niantic-Pokemon Company joint. The app will likely still skyrocket, so maybe they should invest in Niantic stock instead.
I don't know if any company other than Niantic could have made Pokemon Go. It heavily leverages all of the technology and ideas that went into their previous game, Ingress, and most of the selling points stem from that. This is one of the reasons why Niantic would be such a good pick up for Nintendo.Maybe. But I think it's kind of oversimplifying things to assume that Nintendo shot themselves in the foot here for a crummy licensing deal. What's the alternative idea here? That the Sun and Moon team should have developed something themselves for mobile? What would the percentage cut of that even be?
I don't necessarily think the takeaway here is that Pokemon Go hasn't been great for Nintendo. It's just also apparently not the cash cow for Nintendo specifically that reactionaries that saw this as another hit by Nintendo thought. I'm not sure that Nintendo going it alone would have been more fruitful as the game is built on tech that Nintendo doesn't have expertise with. And I think we need more information about the specific breakdowns to understand whether or not Nintendo should be in a better position in terms of their ownership stake here.
they are actually, its entirely anecdotal but several friends are buying pokemon games after playing go. i imagine they arent the only ones
I don't know if any company other than Niantic could have made Pokemon Go. It heavily leverages all of the technology and ideas that went into their previous game, Ingress, and most of the selling points stem from that. This is one of the reasons why Niantic would be such a good pick up for Nintendo.
It's a guess from an analyst. I understand that the article isn't great but at least read it guys.
I suggest you take a look at this post:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1008721&page=1#post155571604
Poor joe keeps linking it around but nobody bothers to read it lol
Because they don't own pokemon, they only have 32% stake/share in pokemon Co. They also mostly fronted less than 20 Million for backend of the app to use googles infrastructure. They don't own pokemon just they are the main publisher for console games of pokemon.
Which is why me along with pachter and few other business articles think this will actually put NIntendo in a worse position. Because all the hype surrounding the huge over night success of the app puts pressure on them to develop their own mobile games that may or may not measure up to pokemon's success.
Because they are grossly understimating the potential of the mobile market, and see it as mere tool to salvage their declining dedicated hardware business.
Sales of the games are up in UK (as well as merchandise amd hardware sales here) and Japan.my experience is entirely opposite. friends who are obsessed with pokemon go laughed in my face when i asked if they'll buy sun/moon this holiday.
anything newer than the first 250 are "shit".
Of what?
Nintendo performing well in the markets does not automatically mean Sony performs poorly. Especially when the reason for that good performance is a product that doesn't compete with anything Sony makes.
The only option was to buy up Niantic. It looks like they grabbed a chunk of it, but refrained from picking up the whole company. But that's in hindsight; I don't think that Nintendo was in the position, both financially and institutionally, to go around acquiring companies that are so different from themselves.Right. Some sort of internally-developed game would have been completely different. And what are the alternative suggestions here in terms of Nintendo having a bigger piece of this pie? That they should have played hardball for more ownership share? Like I said, I feel like it's kind of hard to argue that point without understanding the complexity of the current situation. Pokemon isn't Mario (i.e. a franchise they completely own), and iOS/Android aren't Nintendo hardware where this is first party software.
Maybe. But I think it's kind of oversimplifying things to assume that Nintendo shot themselves in the foot here for a crummy licensing deal. What's the alternative idea here? That the Sun and Moon team should have developed something themselves for mobile? What would the percentage cut of that even be?
I don't necessarily think the takeaway here is that Pokemon Go hasn't been great for Nintendo. It's just also apparently not the cash cow for Nintendo specifically that reactionaries that saw this as another hit by Nintendo thought. I'm not sure that Nintendo going it alone would have been more fruitful as the game is built on tech that Nintendo doesn't have expertise with. And I think we need more information about the specific breakdowns to understand whether or not Nintendo should be in a better position in terms of their ownership stake here.