MisterHero
Super Member
That is not nothing. E3 reignited customer interest (albeit I can't say by how many magnitudes, if at all
).
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
).the guy reggie replaced
he was president or ceo of noa from 2002-2006.
Nvm then, I have no clue about his history but would he be a good choice or not?
There isn't but there is a proper way to ask it....
But, they really aren't. They're just talking about talking about it.
ShockingAlberto
Member
There's definitely no problem with it.
The only thing that makes me laugh is that "angry guy at investor meeting" is kind of a well-known trope that gets lots of people fired up and excited but never really gets any answers.
Sectorseven
Member
Why do the executives own so few shares of the company?
Sequel incoming? It's honestly how I learned to play Roulette and Craps. Thanks Iwata.
Patcher, is that you?
StreetsAhead
Member
I think he was mostly annoyed at other investors for not asking about financials. The Nintendo representatives there can only answer the questions they are asked. If he was angry at the company then I think that borders on unreasonable.
That is not nothing. E3 reignited customer interest (albeit I can't say by how many magnitudes, if at all
No, I'm not diminishing that. I'm saying that the investors already know about the games being released, and therefore questions like "hey are you guys making zelda" is pissing off the investors who want to talk about what the meeting is actually supposed to be about.
That's the thing, I don't know how it was said, or who the "anger" was directed at, so idle speculation is probably dangerous. Oh well, it's over now and I don't think it's that big of a deal.
EDIT: Just read cheesemeister's translation. Rudely asked question, but he's not terribly wrong.
shinra-bansho
Member
Stupid investors wanting to know about financial performance!
Myopic investors using the companies recent struggles to push the conversation towards the mobile bubble.
The way they asked that question 9, was, imo, against a gamer opinion : "we don't care about games, just tell us how are you going to manage to make money" but Nintendo is making games. If games are bad, sells will be bad ans so no money.
Edit : well that kinda, what I understood from Google trad like some other people here.
yeah, but iwata is here with us, reading gaf, because his curious about whats going to happen with him. Like us.
D:
I remember the one investor a while back complaining(?) to Nintendo about the transport to get to the investor meeting.
That makes more sense, yeah.
And_Gignac
Member
Well, they already did just that with motions controllers and 3D.
But, again, they aren't even asking that question.
...
Are you purposefully ignoring the other questions investors asked that pertained to teaching kids how to play casino games?
OrbitalBeard
Member
All that proves is that Iwata, like any other president of any other company in the history of the world, wasn't he only person who led his company to success.
Sounds like you're blaming Iwata for Nintendo's failures, while praising others for their successes. It doesn't work that way. He's been in a high position at Nintendo for many years. He's instrumental in both the good times and the bad.
Mysterious
Banned
Uh... that's the way it works. They don't invest (well mostly) because they love gaming, but because they want to make money. What if you invested $100M, which turned into $50M?
This is not exclusive to Nintendo. They wanted Apple to pay out more dividends, Sony to spin off all entertainment divisions, Microsoft to spinoff Xbox and kill off Bing. Even the big banks, JPMorgan & Chase and Goldman Sachs aren't immune to this.
I think the core question beneath this all is basically a debate about whether Nintendo's hardware still serves as a multiplier for their profit instead of an inhibitor.
Asking about mobile and new business areas are all basically ways to ask in a roundabout fashion "Would you make more money in the modern market by focusing solely on making software on the hardware consumers already own, or will hardware ultimately drive up software sales and hardware margins to the point where it's more lucrative to focus on your own platforms?"
I think before the Wii U and 3DS there weren't a lot of doubters in Nintendo's hardware, even during the GameCube days. I think it's more of an open question now even if there isn't a 100% obviously correct answer. As such, asking these kinds of things are appropriate as basically they're trying to ask at all the facets of the question and decide whether or not they agree with the vision of the company and should keep investing.
Obviously there are some really stupid questions thrown in as well, but I think that should be the main takeaway people get from this.
Nintendo for their part seems to be proposing that they want to try totally overhauling their hardware approach first instead of dropping it. I don't think this is an unreasonable position, but I can understand why some investors might feel otherwise.
Asking about mobile and new business areas are all basically ways to ask in a roundabout fashion "Would you make more money in the modern market by focusing solely on making software on the hardware consumers already own, or will hardware ultimately drive up software sales and hardware margins to the point where it's more lucrative to focus on your own platforms?"
I think before the Wii U and 3DS there weren't a lot of doubters in Nintendo's hardware, even during the GameCube days. I think it's more of an open question now even if there isn't a 100% obviously correct answer. As such, asking these kinds of things are appropriate as basically they're trying to ask at all the facets of the question and decide whether or not they agree with the vision of the company and should keep investing.
Obviously there are some really stupid questions thrown in as well, but I think that should be the main takeaway people get from this.
Nintendo for their part seems to be proposing that they want to try totally overhauling their hardware approach first instead of dropping it. I don't think this is an unreasonable position, but I can understand why some investors might feel otherwise.
jts
...hate me...
Eh, looks a bit uptight. Can he even drop bombs, (laugh), present directs, or fight Reggie?the guy reggie replaced
he was president or ceo of noa from 2002-2006.
And this is why most sane people don't become investors.
Mysterious
Banned
If this is the case...
PLEASE IWATA STAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
I WILL CRY FOR GAMING IF THIS GUY BECOMES CEO
MisterHero
Super Member
Lol I understand.
"Will there be gifts for investors?" is still my favorite question.
Now I understand the demand for gambling trainers.
Aquamarine
Member
Is this the first shareholders meeting that actually has a thread on GAF while it's going on?
They tend to be relatively unknown around these parts.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Well, three types of people go to investor meetings:
1) People who are really angry
2) People who are really happy
3) People who don't know what they are
Mysterious
Banned
You officially don't know what you're talking about. What the fuck does sanity have to do with investing? There are millions and millions of investors investing into hundreds of thousands of businesses. And they're all insane? Um ok.
Aquamarine
Member
Seems like Mr. Takeda is including indie developers in that massive list of third-party support.
I feel like we've done some in the past, but maybe I'm just confusing that with their financial results meetings.
If that what the big numbers are? Seems like a lot.
NintendoGal
Member
I think Nintendo needs to find someone with a very polarizing personality such as that of Mr. Yamauchi (RIP). It's a personal belief of mine that you can't run a major company such as Nintendo by being a nice guy. Mr. Iwata strikes me as a nice guy and so does Mr. K.
I guess what I'm saying is, you need an asshole in charge. Obviously this is just how I see things and there are examples where the opposite works nicely (Valve springs to mind), but I digress.
That's not to say I would get rid of those guys, however. Keep them doing what they do best.
shinra-bansho
Member
What does that question (which I've also noted as dumb in this very thread) have to do with a comment about the bizarre reaction to the idea that investors may be frustrated with the loss of value and have questions about financials at an AGM of shareholders.
As managers they're charged with using the assets of the company paid for in the case of Nintendo which holds no debt from memory essentially entirely from SE to provide value for those owners who do not have to care about video games as a requisite.
"Why didn't Nintendo give out WiiFits to Earthquake victims?"
"Why doesn't Nintendo give out gifts?"
"Why doesn't Nintendo teach people to gamble?"
Yup, insane.
goldenpp72
Member
I have some stock in the company, was kind of hoping for a dividend here
EmCeeGramr
Member
let me guess
their next line is, "we will increase the userbase with key titles to incentivize third parties to make games for wii u"
R
Rösti
Unconfirmed Member
It seems so. Kinda hard to make out what is what though, but seems 35 companies regarding downloadable software for Wii U.
And forsake a good source of income?
My understanding is those numbers represent the number of companies in each region developing for each system. Could be wrong.
If Sony and Microsoft can add them to the list, so can Nintendo.
when they look in the mirror in the morning, what do they see
sorakirosaki
Member
A miserable pile of secrets
seems to be the standard nowadays
Similar threads
- Locked