
Nintendo Plunges After Saying Pokemon Go’s Impact Is Limited - hereonbusiness
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-25/nintendo-set-to-plunge-after-saying-pokemon-go-s-impact-limited
======
Cookingboy
So everyone understands that the short term downloads/revenue would NOT
justify the crazy increase in market cap of Nintendo so far.

However, what distressed investor is not the fact that Nintendo didn't adjust
quarterly earnings, but the conservative management team refused to signal
that they acknowledge the potential of their IP + mobile + new technology such
as AR and change their future strategy to be beyond in-house consoles + first
party games.

It almost seems to me that their management is embarrassed by the meteoric
success of Pokemon Go, considering that they have traditionally been very
reluctant of creating contents for smartphones. Now despite their pride, the
biggest value jump in their company's history was not lead by any in-house
product, but literally a 3rd party American startup writing an app on a
platform they traditionally ignored.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to downplay the impact of Pokemon
Go just to save face.

Investors, on the other hand, just want to see them acknowledge this potential
gold mine and commit a strategy in the future.

~~~
ben_jones
Yup what a stupid, stupid, company. If only they had the wisdom of Silicon
Valley Startups. Then they would be a real company and be able to create
innovative and disruptive products that changed the world! \s

~~~
Cookingboy
You used such strong sarcastic tone as if that statement is so ridiculous, but
the truth has been that the Japanese tech industry is in the process of being
MURDURED by everyone, from the Americans to the Koreans and to the Chinese.

Sure Nintendo has been able to protect their moat relatively well (after
losing their home console castle), but just like the overall Japanese economy,
their traditional culture is really limiting how they can compete in today's
cutting edge tech markets.

~~~
majewsky
I can't stop wondering if the typo in the all-caps word is intentional. :)

------
hkmurakami
As expected. Pokemon Go proves that Nintendo has tremendous potential to
monetize its IP on mobile in the coming years, but investors expected short
term bang for the buck.

I can guarantee you Nintendo, as a tightly controlled company, could care less
about this volatility.

~~~
ljk
> _I can guarantee you Nintendo, as a tightly controlled company, could care
> less about this volatility._

couldn't* care less?

~~~
noonespecial
Put it on the list with "lowest common denominator" and "begs the question".
That battle is lost.

~~~
flukus
Can you show an example of "lowest common denominator" being misused? I've
never noticed it so fear I may be guilty of misusing it.

~~~
tylan1
The correct version is greatest common denominator. The lowest common
denominator is usually 1.

~~~
level3
Maybe you're thinking of divisor instead of denominator?

~~~
foota
They're pretty much the same thing, some fractions are expressed as
numerator/denominator

~~~
level3
Divisor in the sense of greatest common divisor is not the same as a
denominator. More to the point, we may indeed care about greatest common
divisors, but we also care about least common denominators (i.e. least common
multiples)

------
flukus
Perfect example of how irrational the stock market can be. Billions of dollars
moved around based on nothing but hype.

~~~
wrren
It's a pretty sensical and predictable movement though; Nintendo's first real
foray into smartphone games becomes the most successful launch ever, leading
the stock market to rationally believe that Nintendo will begin to really push
their IP into this space and make lots of money. The irrational party is
Nintendo, since they now give every indication that the success of Pokemon Go
will have no effect on their strategy; the stock market has now responded and
said 'we don't think Nintendo will make as much money in future as we'd
previously predicted'.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
In fact, you're making the same mistake investors did: Believing Nintendo made
a foray into smartphone games. Nintendo did not make Pokémon Go, nor is it
receiving much profit from it. Niantic, Google, and Apple are all getting the
lion's share of the profit, Pokémon Company gets a bit of it too, but then
Nintendo only gets a fraction of that.

~~~
wrren
I may be incorrect, but Pokemon Go was released with Nintendo's approval;
meaning they've dipped a toe into smartphone games.

------
em3rgent0rdr
This diagram depicts the real ownership relations for Pokemon Go:
[http://blogs-
images.forbes.com/insertcoin/files/2016/07/poke...](http://blogs-
images.forbes.com/insertcoin/files/2016/07/pokemon-go-owns.jpg)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/07/25/nintendo-d...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/07/25/nintendo-
does-not-deserve-most-of-the-credit-for-pokemon-gos-success/#330cfce933e9)

------
legohead
So is Nintendo saying that they had already calculated the success & revenue
from Pokemon Go and its side effects, or are they saying that their original
projections are falling short and Pokemon Go saved them?

~~~
adzicg
>> It also said sales of Pokemon Go Plus, a Nintendo-produced accessory for
the game, have already been factored into its existing profit forecast.

It's funny how the plunge, a singular event, is now news, rather than the
trend over time. sure enough, last week it was the surge, another singular
event... short term view presented in market news never stops amusing.

------
United857
Nintendo did not create Pokémon Go, Ninantic did. The game's success is not an
indication that Nintendo finally gets mobile.

This is the key point in the article which should be stressed much more.

