Viewing Thread:
"Ditch the Gamecube Nintendo (43% drop in profit)"

I know some of you will point out the fact that, in spite of the loss compared to last year's earnings, Nintendo has still accrued a profit to the tune of $600,000,000. While that is a large sum of money it needs to be realized that the amount of that profit is not too far from being HALF of their previous year's profits. That means that Nintendo has that much money LESS to put into things like research and development for things like new games and new systems. Also, game companies are less likely to put their time and money into a company that posts losses as massive as 43%. If this trend continues, it could have some nasty repercussions. People could lose their jobs (I feel sure some heads have already rolled after the news of a profit loss this significant), for one thing. And companies will not want to invest in another company that will not post a meaningful profit for their efforts. So yeah, Nintendo still posted a profit. But when that profit is in the shadow of a previous year that was 43% HIGHER, then the 'profit' tends to lose significance. Just some things to consider.

The Gamecube is costing Nintendo big and sagging sales are a large part of their problem, ditch the deadwood before it's to late.

But the revolution will run Windows XPX3000...

FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Dear ukchatforums users currently posting in this foum (132) thread
> number 118120,
>
> No-one cares.
> Four-fiths of my body, mind and soul slipped into a coma upon
> clicking into this thread. It has taken 5 days, several million volts
>
> Please use it to vent this pointless, endless, mindless, interestless
> drivel. Or, if you wish, place you ugly fase in a barrel of rabid
> gibbons armed with potato peelers and meat hooks.
>
> ThankyoueversomuchforyourIMMEDIATEcooperation,
> Yours, slowly slipping back into sleepy town,
>
> Micky "The Finger" Bishop, mk II

FFF for notable!

NINE-TEN-ELEVEN...

**** !

I got lost. :S

Macintosh wrote:
> This one has gone on rather well, even with my input!
>
> I thought Win3.x was 16bit, while one of the major factors of Win95
> onwards was the 32bit.

Er didn't you just listen to what he just said?

Lets say it together.

NIN-TEN-DO FOR-UM

The last bit is a bit tricky.

This one has gone on rather well, even without my input!

I thought Win3.x was 16bit, while one of the major factors of Win95 onwards was the 32bit.

This one has gone on rather well, even with my input!

I thought Win3.x was 16bit, while one of the major factors of Win95 onwards was the 32bit.

Well at least YOU'RE in a 'stable condition'.

Unlike windows. :D

Dear ukchatforums users currently posting in this foum (132) thread number 118120,

No-one cares.
Four-fiths of my body, mind and soul slipped into a coma upon clicking into this thread. It has taken 5 days, several million volts and a complex arrangement of levers and pulleys to enable me to write the message. As such, I would request you all to SHUT UP and LISTEN GOOD.

This is a) a reasonably interesting place, and b) a Nintendo forum. As such (again) all this windows tedium is not required. I know, and partially admire, your tactics to fight fire with fire or, in this case, troll with troll. But, no, shut up.

We do have a windows forum right here! On this very site! Which, gladly, I never intend to enter.

Please use it to vent this pointless, endless, mindless, interestless drivel. Or, if you wish, place you ugly fase in a barrel of rabid gibbons armed with potato peelers and meat hooks.

ThankyoueversomuchforyourIMMEDIATEcooperation,
Yours, slowly slipping back into sleepy town,

Micky "The Finger" Bishop, mk II

tigamilla wrote:
> and rock solid stability...

Windows? Stable? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I mean er, this is a Nintendo forum kids, lets keep it that way.

Christian Networking.

[URL]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/xncom.htm[/URL]

Case closed.