Nintendo's Profits Increase to $801 million for FY2005 - Still Growing!

Ecofreak

Ecofreak

CAGiversary!
Feedback
24 (100%)
Good news for Big N. While largely fueld by the success of the DS, here is hoping that this is a sign that the Revolution will follow suit, although expect their profits to decrease for FY2006 due to the cost of launching the Revolution later this year.

[quote name='Article']While profits for Nintendo were on decline for the first two quarters of 2005, the company reported that Nintendo hit its stride for Q3 of the fiscal year and delivered knockout profits. For the period from October-December, Nintendo's operating profit increased from 55.56 billion yen ($479.7 million US) compared to 21.3 billion yen for 2004. This gives makes Nintendo's net profit for 2005 a whopping 92.2 billion yen ($801 million US), which is a 36% increase from Nintendo's 2004 net profit of 67.8 billion yen. The company also announced that they should easily be able to hit their profit goal of 75 billion yen ($652 million US) at the conclusion of the company's fiscal year in March. Nintendo's great increase in profits can most likely be attributed by the incredible worldwide success of the Nintendo DS, which finally began to obtain must-have software in Q3 like Castlevania, Animal Crossing, and Mario Kart DS. [/QUOTE]

Source: Gamecube Cafe - http://www.gccafe.com/

I wonder how well Sony did last year.

Edit: Can a mod please move this to "General Gaming and Industry News?" Since CheapyD posted M$'s figures there, this post should go there too.
 
Not suprising. I'm sure you've all seen the sales figures in Japan. For like the 7th week in a row, 9 out of the top 10 selling games are Nintendo, and almost all of those have been DS (Mario Strikers in Number 3 this week).
 
[quote name='Strell']But remember, kids. They are going to die this generation. Nintendo is TEH DOOMED after all.[/QUOTE]

Right on... I give the Revolution six months *max* before it puts Nintendo out of business! Then they'll come back and develop games for Microsoft, but they won't be very good. Then they'll close their video game division in the following generation and focus exclusively on playing cards. And Reggie will apply for a job at the McDonald's where he held the DS event a couple weeks ago.
 
[quote name='Scobie'] And Reggie will apply for a job at the McDonald's where he held the DS event a couple weeks ago.[/QUOTE]

Reggie> WELCOME TO MCDONALD'S. I AM HERE TO TAKE YOUR NAME ORDER!
 
Nintendo is the one company that can survive based upon it's internal properties alone. I don't think they will ever be the #1 selling home console ever again, but people will always buy a Nintendo console due to it's generally high quality and recognizable 1st party titles. When the top selling games for your system are all published in house, it is extremely easy to turn a profit and Sony and Microsoft aspire to develop/buy IP's that can carry there systems as well.
 
[quote name='Strell']No it's not.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it quite frankly is. It could certainly be considered a failure in many gamer's eyes. The third party support and online capabilities just were not on par with the competitor's consoles and here in North America it was outsold by both the Xbox and the PS2. The long droughts between games when compared to the other two systems could be another example how the GameCube failed. GameCube only owners were left out on a lot of the multiplatform games that only came out for the PS2 and Xbox. It failed to introduce many new franchises and relied heavily on already established internal properties.

Financially, for Nintendo it was not a failure, but many gamer's could call it a failure.

Hey, I like my GameCube, but I can see it's faults as well.
 
Nintendo really turned it around. I was hating on Nintendo early this gen, they were pushing GBA-GCN connectivity, putting out a Warioware port on the Gamecube, saying online play wasn't coming, and making games like Kirby's Air Ride and the millionth Mario Party. Now they're really doing good, putting out great games, great system bundles, online play, very good prices, and they're doing good beause of it. Funny, Microsoft was my absolute favorite two years ago, I was a huge Xbox fanboy, and Nintendo was my least favorite and I really was waiting for them to go under. Now it's the exact opposite with Mircosoft putting out a shitty product at a premium price, and Nintendo kicking ass.

I honestly can't wait for the Revolution. The only problem I have with Nintendo is their of lack HD support, but I'll probably get over that. Hopefully...
 
[quote name='shipwreck']
Financially, for Nintendo it was not a failure, but many gamer's could call it a failure.[/QUOTE]

Oxymorons are fun!

I don't feel like wasting a lot of time debunking some things, so I'll be quick:

1) No new franchises? Because Microsoft and Sony somehow made more? The industry is relying on franchises at this point. Everyone is. New stuff came mostly from third parties. If you're counting Halo, I'm counting Pikmin, and you can count Ico, but in all cases there was very little "new" this generation.

2) Game droughts. Maybe, but I've got plenty of GC games (even specific ones) that I still haven't finished. I agree this could have been handled better, but all systems have droughts.

3) Online is still not profitable, hence why Nitnendo held back, but ok, argue that if you want.

4) Third party support sucked. The converse to this? Why do you buy a GC for third party? You get it for Nintendo games.

5) I love the failure word with Nintendo. You know, cuz the other companies do not pull a profit compared to them, or not even worth comparing to them.

Conclusion: Not a failure.
 
[quote name='Strell']Oxymorons are fun!

I don't feel like wasting a lot of time debunking some things, so I'll be quick:

1) No new franchises? Because Microsoft and Sony somehow made more? The industry is relying on franchises at this point. Everyone is. New stuff came mostly from third parties. If you're counting Halo, I'm counting Pikmin, and you can count Ico, but in all cases there was very little "new" this generation.

2) Game droughts. Maybe, but I've got plenty of GC games (even specific ones) that I still haven't finished. I agree this could have been handled better, but all systems have droughts.

3) Online is still not profitable, hence why Nitnendo held back, but ok, argue that if you want.

4) Third party support sucked. The converse to this? Why do you buy a GC for third party? You get it for Nintendo games.

5) I love the failure word with Nintendo. You know, cuz the other companies do not pull a profit compared to them, or not even worth comparing to them.

Conclusion: Not a failure.[/QUOTE]

If you'd get off of Nintendo's jock for a second, maybe you'd be able to understand that I was saying that it was not a financial failure, but it could be considered a failure by many gamers for non-financial reasons.
 
the gamecube was a wake-up call for nintendo. they reilized that gamers would not stand still with them and their conservative ways, and that if they can not compete with something, its much smarter not to compete directly with it. Hopefully, the revolution will use a similar plan to the DS, offering experiences only available on a nintendo system and competeable prices.

on a different note, what gamecube hits were there around the end of the year? I remember strikers, but i can't think of anything else...
 
[quote name='shipwreck']If you'd get off of Nintendo's jock for a second, maybe you'd be able to understand that I was saying that it was not a financial failure, but it could be considered a failure by many gamers for non-financial reasons.[/QUOTE]

So you are changing your definition of "failure" in the middle of a discussion? It's not version A, it's version B? Because I tend to think of that word as all encompassing (RIP Mitch Hedburg).

Wtf.

Ok, so Microsoft loses billions on the Xbox, but that only fails under the jurisdiction of "failure q," subject to the Halo 2 corollary, which covers all other instances.

'Kay.
 
Well, a good portion of their profit was due to a favorable exchange rate. I don't think the bottom line would have looked nearly as good if the Yen was stronger last year.

Overall however, Nintendo did fantastic considering the GCN is pretty much "end of life" product (Zelda notwithstanding). I can't think of any companies in the game industry that can turn a profit like the Big N was able to do in that kind of situation.
 
[quote name='Strell']No it's not.[/QUOTE]
It's debatable because the word failure is very subjective. You can provide as many points as you want to defend your argument but you can't say a person isn't entitled to their opinion as long as they're able to back it up as well.
 
[quote name='Strell']So you are changing your definition of "failure" in the middle of a discussion? It's not version A, it's version B?

Wtf.

Ok, so Microsoft loses billions on the Xbox, but that only fails under the jurisdiction of "failure q," subject to the Halo 2 corollary, which covers all other instances.

'Kay.[/QUOTE]

Umm... I haven't changed my definition at all. I've been consistent with all of my posts. It's you that are trying to twist what I am saying around.

You did the same thing when you jumped all over me for being critical of the Revolution in a topic a couple of months ago, until you found out I was going to buy one.
 
A failure is the Ngage, the Gizmondo, the Virtual Boy.

Implying the GC is even remotely close to those things is laughable.
 
Any company that can turn a profit like that is not a failure in money terms.But in common knowledge, the gamecube is in 3rd place.Due to sales of the other 2 "big"
consoles.They have out sold the Nintendo in volume.But I dont think any console this generation has failed.They all have their great atributes and weaknesses.
Later
Dillon
 
[quote name='Strell']A failure is the Ngage, the Gizmondo, the Virtual Boy.

Implying the GC is even remotely close to those things is laughable.[/QUOTE]
I love Nintendo. Don't get me wrong. I'm fanboy extraordinaire. Anything Nintendo does is gold in my books. But I'm also the devil's advocate. I don't think your argument holds as much water as you think. Sure the GCN was a financial success. Why else has Nintendo been around longer than any other video game company? Because they can turn a profit. But here is where I see the holes:

Nintendo tried to reclaim the #1 spot within the industry with the Gamecube.

Nintendo did not reclaim the #1 spot.

What is that word that we use when we try to do something but can't?

Oh yeah.. failure.
 
[quote name='dcfox']It's debatable because the word failure is very subjective. You can provide as many points as you want to defend your argument but you can't say a person isn't entitled to their opinion as long as they're able to back it up as well.[/QUOTE]

OT: Dude! I love your avatar!!! Yakitate! Japan is one damn funny show. :rofl:
 
[quote name='jkam']Again proving the fact that content is what sells systems.[/QUOTE]

content, smart business + manufacturing practices, the "less is more" approach, decent marketing, and that good ol nintendo name.

they compete in another realm compared to sony and MS.
 
Psui, point taken, but here's my issue - if we twist "failure" around to mean anything big, small, collected, single, multi, or any number of other variables, we can ALWAYS pull something out.

Xbox didn't sell in Japan. Failure.

Sony's hard drive was underutilized. Failure.

Nintendo had no online. Failure.

What is the reality? Sony leads the pack, Microsoft is sitting pretty in America, and Nintendo is second overall.

The beef I have is people thinking anything != #1 is somehow instantly a failure. I don't think that is correct terminology. Not hitting the mark? Unsuccessful in certain areas? I don't know how to classify it, but "failure" sounds so encompassing. The second you take that back and start saying "well it's because of X but not Y," you are negating the word's inherent definition.

If it is phrased as "a failure at x" and not "x was not achieved, therefore you/company is a failure," then there's a big difference.

We can call all of the systems a failure in some degree, form, or fashion. But focussing on those doesn't negate the positive aspects.

Anyway, no more with this discussion, it's not really getting anyone anywhere and no one anything more or less.
 
well said strell. though i just posted this, i really do think they are competing in a different realm-- mainly because of the size of their company, their business model, the audiences they attract and their approach to gaming.

btw, before anyone says it again-- nintendo didn't fail at online. The wifi connection is just the beginning and it's kicking ass so far. If the rev service is as easy, intuitive, and lag free, it'll make more people happy than xbox live, which seems a bit convoluted and has so many little problems right now (though it offers a lot too.)

I mean, sure on the surface, everyone will be all about xbox live, but hey, for the past year everyone has been saying nintendo is going to hell in a handbasket-- then they post these earnings.
 
WTF u newbs?!1 NintendHO is ghey as fuk! U look lik kidz with that shit!

Seriously though, Nintendo has fucked up a great deal, but I never understood how people thought that they weren't profitable. One of my friends was hell-bent on convincing me Nintendo would go bankrupt in a few years because the GC was 3rd in America. As Strell said, and I'm sure many have, not being number 1 in a particular market does not constitute failure(or bankruptcy, or lameness or whatever the hell else). Nintendo will only stop when the market is no longer profitable.
 
I like this news. More money for Nintendo, makes me happy. I know they are going to be making me some great games and I can't wait to piss away money on them.
 
Makes you wonder how much they could have made if the Game Cube wasn't like a lead weight around their neck.

If that thing had any kind of decent software released in the last 18 months (RE 4 excluded.) it may not have been as stangnant on store shelves as afro wigs at a KKK rally. Coulda made an even billion.
 
I just wish nintendo takes the money it has made and really puts a strong push with the Revolution. I remember how the nintendo said that the cube was going to be so much better then the n64. But there still was a huge lack of games. I love my cube but my xbox collection is 3x as big.
 
[quote name='Three Dollar Hooker']Makes you wonder how much they could have made if the Game Cube wasn't like a lead weight around their neck.

If that thing had any kind of decent software released in the last 18 months (RE 4 excluded.) it may not have been as stangnant on store shelves as afro wigs at a KKK rally. Coulda made an even billion.[/QUOTE]

Again, the GC has not been a "dead weight" to Nintendo. It's been profitable since day one, even though it has not been a popular as the PS2 or Xbox (in America and Europe).

Furthermore, there were many reports of the GC selling out this past holiday season w/ the Mario Party 7 bundle. So while it may not have moved as many units as Nintendo would like, it still did reasonably well.
 
[quote name='Strell']Psui, point taken, but here's my issue - if we twist "failure" around to mean anything big, small, collected, single, multi, or any number of other variables, we can ALWAYS pull something out.

Xbox didn't sell in Japan. Failure.

Sony's hard drive was underutilized. Failure.

Nintendo had no online. Failure.

What is the reality? Sony leads the pack, Microsoft is sitting pretty in America, and Nintendo is second overall.

The beef I have is people thinking anything != #1 is somehow instantly a failure. I don't think that is correct terminology. Not hitting the mark? Unsuccessful in certain areas? I don't know how to classify it, but "failure" sounds so encompassing. The second you take that back and start saying "well it's because of X but not Y," you are negating the word's inherent definition.

If it is phrased as "a failure at x" and not "x was not achieved, therefore you/company is a failure," then there's a big difference.

We can call all of the systems a failure in some degree, form, or fashion. But focussing on those doesn't negate the positive aspects.

Anyway, no more with this discussion, it's not really getting anyone anywhere and no one anything more or less.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to quote your entire post - but I gotta say, I agree through and through.

In the all-encompassing sense the GCN was anything but a failure. They may have missed some expectations in the minds of gamers, but overall it was very successful. No one should claim the GCN was a failure - you're right that the word implies "complete" failure.

Not to mention most of the "talkative" gamers nowadays are aged 15-30 and cannot speak for those outside this age range who still play games on and love their GCNs. I'd say our comments are pretty ignorant hinged upon that fact - we simply do not have the complete argument.

Game for game the GCN has been my favorite system this generation. Every title I have tried on it... well every title except P.N. 03 ... has been wonderful. Failure my ass :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top