Little Monser
Banned
Because they're scared
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo Shares Plunge 17% After Saying Pokemon Gos Impact Is Limited
- Thread starter hongcha
- Start date
Because they're scared
Weltall Zero
Member
Indeed it is. It makes it hurt so much more that they've become basically extinct as SFX, replaced by CG that looks horribly unconvincing a couple years later (or, often, from day one).
According to Wikipedia:
So basically it's a real but incorrect word.
It's scary to think about how much ignorance drives something as critical as the stock market.
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.
Surely Go has boosted the brand, though? Like a thousand fold?
Surely it will impact them by proxy through the new DS games and any other Pokémon-related product they release. They could pop on a 70 pence shit little Pokémon app on the store, doing anything, and make millions upon millions.
Surely it will impact them by proxy through the new DS games and any other Pokémon-related product they release. They could pop on a 70 pence shit little Pokémon app on the store, doing anything, and make millions upon millions.
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.
If it was the shares wouldn't have plunged as they did on this "news". Let's not kid ourselves most bought to gain quick buck not build a long term relationship.
Revolutionary
Member
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.
ZeroMaverick
Member
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.
Because a lot goes other places. 30% of all sales to Google and Apple. Google is a large investor in niantic even after they spun them out, then Niantic who made the game and then you have the other partners in the Pokemon company
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.
mikefrails
Banned
People seemed eager to naysay any success on Nintendo's part lol. I guess this is what you prefer.
Complicated
Banned
This should be in bold in the OP. The stock is not going down due to people realizing the Pokemon Company is not Nintendo. Investors were trying to get in prior to earnings which they expected to be a significant beat on expectations due to Pokemon.
It's not the first; there was Shuffle. But no, can't see them getting even remotely near this level of success.
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
There are several other Pokémon games on mobile, nobody cares.
Not the first mobile Pokémon game.
RealityPales
Member
How does Nintendo have only 13% stake in the app?
That's madness.
That's madness.
LordOfChaos
Member
Just goes to show how much stocks are fuzzy money. Up 11 billion over night, down 6 billion on a word. Did those initial investors not know Nintendo only has a partial stake in the actual Pokemon company?
Sammy Samusu
Member
They are over.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Because they are grossly understimating the potential of the mobile market, and see it as mere tool to salvage their declining dedicated hardware business.
Papacheeks
Banned
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.
What I think that Pokemon Go demonstrates is that the market for Nintendo products is pretty high as long as the barriers to entry are low. Pokemon Go's barriers are basically nonexistent so it can reach a wide audience. Not having much actual gameplay helps here as it further lowers the barriers. I don't think that it means too much for Nintendo's non-mobile prospects, and not even that much for any of their mobile ones for that matter. Pokemon is sort of unique in being intrinsically appealing in a Tamagatchi way without the need for any intrusive gameplay.
Nintendo should really look into snatching up Niantic though. It's obvious that those guys are onto something, and it'd be terrible if they got picked up by Tencent or someone like that.
Nintendo should really look into snatching up Niantic though. It's obvious that those guys are onto something, and it'd be terrible if they got picked up by Tencent or someone like that.
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.
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
It's Reyn Time!
Member
Plasterable would mean able to be plastered. Irregardless is used, incorrectly, as the word regardless. The prefix 'irr' (as found in words like irrespective or irredeemable) reverse the meaning of the word they're attached to, so even as a 'made up' word (yes, yes, they all are) it fails to mean what it's intended to mean.
Being wrong a whole bunch of times doesn't make something right, but I'm irrcertain you know that.
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
they are actually, its entirely anecdotal but several friends are buying pokemon games after playing go. i imagine they arent the only ones
Steve Youngblood
Member
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.
GitarooMan
Member
domlolz why don't you tell us how you really feel about mobile gaming.
Hahahahaha
Steve Youngblood
Member
I just want to make it clear that this sort of system wars garbage is absolutely bannable.
It was pretty funny last week when people here were mocking others for saying that some investors might not realize that Nintendo only owns small portion of the game. When history has proven time, and time again, that even major institutional investors don't always research their investments properly.
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.
Whimsical Phil
Ninja School will help you
When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES!"
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".
Steve Youngblood
Member
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.
RealityPales
Member
Did read the article. My question still stands.
Now those are the answers I was looking for - thanks guys. Insightful stuff. Had no idea they didn't actually own Pokemon in its entirety.
someone needs to make a nice graphic explaining how much of pokemon nintendo owns, exactly, and how much they're making off pokemon go after the niantic/pokemon company/google/apple split
we have some great, details posts but in 2016 people don't read. we need big dumb pictures
we have some great, details posts but in 2016 people don't read. we need big dumb pictures
It's a joke. Forget the 14-page thread posted last week?
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.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
They should have bought Niantic 2 years ago, let them develop GO and now their cut would have been considerably higher.
But that could had only happened if they saw mobile gaming as anything else that as a stupid marketing tool.