StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I wasn't the one making the argument that Nintendo should let themselves be bought by a competitor when they're very successful under their own leadership.

The Kernel wrote: Can you not connect A to B? If Nintendo sees the DS outselling the GBA in one market, why are they going to assume it will undersell the GBA in another market (in which the GBA was the biggest success)?

I'm sure that they won't admit it underperformed expectations, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Where are these vaunted numbers?

Of course, even IF the DS and the GBA ARE selling in relatively equal proportions in America, doesn't mean that the DS is underperforming.

DPDarkPrimus wrote: I would believe this statement if you could provide the sales numbers of the GBA after it was out for two years.

Right Here:

IGN

See those sales numbers? 20 million in the US by the end of 2003.

According to this, Nintendo has only sold over 6 million DS systems thus far.

Nintendo originally marketed the DS as "the third pillar" of the company, the other two being the GBA and the GC, of course. They announced recently that they've decided not to do another incarnation of the Game Boy, and focus on the DS. Why would they do this, if sales have been less than they expected?

Because the GBA has reached a saturation point and they want to continue the march of progress forward to their new platform.

You know where we are Kernel, so you shouldn't be suprised that I'm going to have to ask you for proof of that.

Read above.

The DS is the fastest-selling console EVER in Japan. This fact contradicts your statement.

Only if you have poor reading comprehension. I agree that in Japan the DS has outperformed the GBA.

As I've already said, the DS has become the fastest-selling console in Japan, and it's the first Nintendo console to ever sell out. Reality seems to be conflicting with your so-called "proofs".

Japan has nothing to do with the US. Giant red herring, and one that I've addressed several times.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

The Kernel wrote: Can you not connect A to B? If Nintendo sees the DS outselling the GBA in one market, why are they going to assume it will undersell the GBA in another market (in which the GBA was the biggest success)?

I'm sure that they won't admit it underperformed expectations, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Where are these vaunted numbers?

Of course, even IF the DS and the GBA ARE selling in relatively equal proportions in America, doesn't mean that the DS is underperforming.

Not equal numbers. The DS has been outsold by the GBA by a wide margin in the US.

The Kernel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote: I would believe this statement if you could provide the sales numbers of the GBA after it was out for two years.

Right Here:

IGN

See those sales numbers? 20 million in the US by the end of 2003.

According to this, Nintendo has only sold over 6 million DS systems thus far.

So it's sold less-well than the GBA in America. America != the world. You stated that it's done less than they hoped, period. If you had added the qualification "in America" to that, then it would be more accurate- except that you've not shown that they ever expected to get sales equal to the GBA during it's first two years in America. Simply having a slower adoption rate does not mean that it's not living up to their expectations.

The DS is the fastest-selling console EVER in Japan. This fact contradicts your statement.

Only if you have poor reading comprehension. I agree that in Japan the DS has outperformed the GBA.

I was responding to this:

they DS didn't sell nearly as well as Japan if you look at the adoption rates for the GBA.

I didn't misread that statement.

As I've already said, the DS has become the fastest-selling console in Japan, and it's the first Nintendo console to ever sell out. Reality seems to be conflicting with your so-called "proofs".

Japan has nothing to do with the US. Giant red herring, and one that I've addressed several times.

Actually, you've done a giant shifting of the goal posts, since your original statement was that the DS is underperforming, and now you're going on about it underperforming... IN AMERICA.

The Kernel wrote:Don't be an idiot. That's like saying "we're doing great making $5 million dollars a year, so lets not sell our company and make twice that".

Actually, I would assume that maintaining creative (and financial) control is probably a greater issue. As well as perhaps that a Japanese company doesn't want to be owned by an American one. Those are both analogues that have certainly been seen before.

DPDarkPrimus wrote: So it's sold less-well than the GBA in America. America != the world. You stated that it's done less than they hoped, period. If you had added the qualification "in America" to that, then it would be more accurate- except that you've not shown that they ever expected to get sales equal to the GBA during it's first two years in America.

Go ahead, backpedal faster.

The US was the largest market of the GBA (and games in general) by FAR. On a worldwide level, the DS has not sold nearly as well as the DS. Hell, if you compare worldwide DS sales after two years to GBA sales in the US ALONE you come up with parity.

But go ahead, wave your hands and try to explain away a 14 million unit sold disparity in the US.

Simply having a slower adoption rate does not mean that it's not living up to their expectations.

So it's a "slower adoption rate" now huh? How is this different from what I said about the DS not selling as well? Gee, maybe guess it's just a bullshit attempt on your part to salvage something from your bullshit argument? No couldn't be.

I was responding to this:

they DS didn't sell nearly as well as Japan if you look at the adoption rates for the GBA.

I didn't misread that statement.

You are still misreading. The DS didn't sell as well as IN JAPAN if you look at the adoption rates for the GBA. I am talking about the US here and its ratio of DS:GBA versus Japan. Are you trying to make my argument for me?

Actually, you've done a giant shifting of the goal posts, since your original statement was that the DS is underperforming, and now you're going on about it underperforming... IN AMERICA.

As a whole it is underperforming and in America it is seriously underperforming.

Your ONLY point back about this is that it outperformed expectations in Japan, to which I agreed. Not that this changes anything about the worldwide picture at all. Looks like YOU are the one shifting the goalposts.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

The Kernel wrote:Don't be an idiot. That's like saying "we're doing great making $5 million dollars a year, so lets not sell our company and make twice that".

Actually, I would assume that maintaining creative (and financial) control is probably a greater issue. As well as perhaps that a Japanese company doesn't want to be owned by an American one. Those are both analogues that have certainly been seen before.

Good, I'm glad you are finally making some sense and agreeing that it is not for financial reasons.

As for your other reasons:

1) Possibly a concern, but Microsoft certainly doesn't want to mess with a good thing as has been known to leave divisions alone if they are a success. You ever hear about how Microsoft treats Bungie? Microsoft project/product managers aren't allowed to go anywhere near Bungie, and they set their own release schedule. Remember when Bungie refuted Bill Gates' statement about when Halo 3 was coming out? Would you talk that way to your boss?

2) I agree this is probably the primary motivation, combined with a huge sense of pride on the part of the Nintendo executives and board. After all, they were kings of the world in the 80's, and I think they would rather bite the dust then sell out to Redmond. Not that they are in danger of this anytime soon.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT SELLING AS FAST AS THE GAME BOY ADVANCED DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT MEETING NINTENDO'S EXPECTATIONS.

Selling as fast, underperforming, not meeting expectations...do you want to continue this semantics debate any further? You've lost on the key points, just shut the fuck up and back out gracefully.

The Kernel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT SELLING AS FAST AS THE GAME BOY ADVANCED DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT MEETING NINTENDO'S EXPECTATIONS.

Selling as fast, underperforming, not meeting expectations...do you want to continue this semantics debate any further? You've lost on the key points, just shut the fuck up and back out gracefully.

Fuck you. You said it's not meeting their expectations, and then you go and point to GBA sales numbers as proof of this. You're asserting that they expected it to sell just as well as the GBA did- so when did they ever say that?

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

The Kernel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT SELLING AS FAST AS THE GAME BOY ADVANCED DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT MEETING NINTENDO'S EXPECTATIONS.

Selling as fast, underperforming, not meeting expectations...do you want to continue this semantics debate any further? You've lost on the key points, just shut the fuck up and back out gracefully.

Fuck you. You said it's not meeting their expectations, and then you go and point to GBA sales numbers as proof of this. You're asserting that they expected it to sell just as well as the GBA did- so when did they ever say that?

You're right, they totally expected it to sell 1/4 the amount of units in the US in the same time frame despite better sales than the GBA in Japan.

Like anyone buys that bullshit.

DPDarkPrimus wrote: Fuck you. You said it's not meeting their expectations, and then you go and point to GBA sales numbers as proof of this. You're asserting that they expected it to sell just as well as the GBA did- so when did they ever say that?

Why would they expect it to not sell as well as the GBA? That's incredible to me.

Vympel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote: Fuck you. You said it's not meeting their expectations, and then you go and point to GBA sales numbers as proof of this. You're asserting that they expected it to sell just as well as the GBA did- so when did they ever say that?

Why would they expect it to not sell as well as the GBA? That's incredible to me.

When the GBA launched, it was in competition with what, the Game Boy Color?

The DS had both the PSP and the GBA to fight with for sales. It's not unreasonable to expect lower numbers.

They were initially so unsure about the concept they didn't attach the 'Game Boy' brand to it, so as not to damage it through possible failure.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Vympel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote: Fuck you. You said it's not meeting their expectations, and then you go and point to GBA sales numbers as proof of this. You're asserting that they expected it to sell just as well as the GBA did- so when did they ever say that?

Why would they expect it to not sell as well as the GBA? That's incredible to me.

When the GBA launched, it was in competition with what, the Game Boy Color?

The DS had both the PSP and the GBA to fight with for sales. It's not unreasonable to expect lower numbers.

Gee, they don't have the GBA and PSP in Japan? That's fucking amazing.

Stark wrote:They were initially so unsure about the concept they didn't attach the 'Game Boy' brand to it, so as not to damage it through possible failure.

Thus the whole "third pillar" I mentioned. The DS was an experiment, and it has been successful, despite what Kernel may think.

The Kernel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Vympel wrote: Why would they expect it to not sell as well as the GBA? That's incredible to me.

When the GBA launched, it was in competition with what, the Game Boy Color?

The DS had both the PSP and the GBA to fight with for sales. It's not unreasonable to expect lower numbers.

Gee, they don't have the GBA and PSP in Japan? That's fucking amazing.

So now we're talking about the entire world again? But I thought you were specifically focusing on sales in America? Please make up your mind.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Stark wrote:They were initially so unsure about the concept they didn't attach the 'Game Boy' brand to it, so as not to damage it through possible failure.

Thus the whole "third pillar" I mentioned. The DS was an experiment, and it has been successful, despite what Kernel may think.

Massive strawman, show me where I said the DS wasn't a success. Oh right, that must be where I said it WAS a success huh?

DPDarkPrimus wrote: So now we're talking about the entire world again? But I thought you were specifically focusing on sales in America? Please make up your mind.

Shut the fuck up, you are just embarrassing yourself by acting like you have the intelligence of a third grader. Or maybe it isn't an act...

Let me make this simple for you, if the GBA and PSP were such a major factor in the decrease of sales of the DS in the US and Nintendo anticipated this, why was the DS a bigger seller than the GBA in Japan? Got an answer that isn't more circular bullshit?

The Kernel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote: So now we're talking about the entire world again? But I thought you were specifically focusing on sales in America? Please make up your mind.

Shut the fuck up, you are just embarrassing yourself by acting like you have the intelligence of a third grader. Or maybe it isn't an act...

Let me make this simple for you, if the GBA and PSP were such a major factor in the decrease of sales of the DS in the US and Nintendo anticipated this, why was the DS a bigger seller than the GBA in Japan? Got an answer that isn't more circular bullshit?

More advertising is one factor, I would presume, but I can't back that up.

All I want is something showing that Nintendo expected the DS to equal the GBA in sales from the get-go.

DPDarkPrimus wrote: All I want is something showing that Nintendo expected the DS to equal the GBA in sales from the get-go.

Of course, move the goalposts and don't even bother to address the fact that the DS expectations would have been set by the performance in Japan and its predecessor.

Do you REALLY think they expected the DS to sell 1/4 the units of the GBA over a two year period? Don't bullshit me anymore, answer this fucking question.

The Kernel wrote:

DPDarkPrimus wrote:SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT SELLING AS FAST AS THE GAME BOY ADVANCED DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT MEETING NINTENDO'S EXPECTATIONS.

Selling as fast, underperforming, not meeting expectations...do you want to continue this semantics debate any further? You've lost on the key points, just shut the fuck up and back out gracefully.

If the DS isn't selling as well as they expected, it's because of unexpected supply problems and not because of unexpectedly low demand, as you have deceitfully implied.

CNN wrote:A $149 price point would put the PSP in the same range as the DS, which currently sells for $129. Nintendo is less likely to reduce its price as it continues to have problems meeting demand for the machine worldwide.

Didn't they apologise for running out in Japan, something that had never happened before? They clearly underestimated demand, at least initially.

Master of Ossus wrote: If the DS isn't selling as well as they expected, it's because of unexpected supply problems and not because of unexpectedly low demand, as you have deceitfully implied.

Can we say "no limits" fallacy? You think a shortage two years after launch (which is much more likely due to cuts in manufacturing due to lower than anticipated demand due to the 2 years they've had to deal with production issues) is indicative of a 14 million unit shortfall?

Show me hard numbers on supply shortages and I'll take it into consideration. But have you noticed a shortage of DS units at your local store? Are they selling for inflated prices on eBay? Nope.