Grimes said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Globox said:
Maybe it was pure rumour = BS or maybe there was something to it, maybe there were discusions behind closed doors but it was probably too expensive for Sony. Sony doesn't need rest of 2K they probably wanted Rockstar north (GTA makers). Let's not forget EA was offering 2.1 billion usd to take over 2K, they refused. I don't see Sony spending 2 billion of 2K, not somethingSony does, especialy now when they have been losing money on PS3 for such a long time.
MS could do it, so could Nintendo since they roll in money.
Probably just a rumour. |
Sony has alot of money.alot more than Nintendo.
|
Actually, they don't. Sony Corp overall has more total assets (and they could definitely leverage enough to buy T2) but Nintendo actually has more in liquid assets and cash reserves (ie: money). When you consider that Sony is many, many times larger than Nintendo (180,000 employees to 4,000 employees) that's pretty staggering actually.
|
GM is a huge company too, that don't mean squat if expenses are high and there is a lot of debt and expenses.
Assets can carry debt and expenses, they aren't money in the bank. An unprofitable asset may be worse than owning no asset, because the asset carries debt which may be greater than the money that could obtain by selling that asset. The expenses for that asset could be greater than revenue generated as well.
|
wtf r u talking abt?
GM sells cars which are expensive and people don't buy expensive cars in recession but people can buy a $500 product in recessions.The product of both the companies appeal to different people.
GM faced this situation because they overloaded with subsidary which didn't make profit and you are comparing it to an electronics company
I am an Acoountancy and Finance student.I know how assets and revenue work
