By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
kowenicki said:
DonFerrari said:
VXIII said:

But... I wasn't joking, I only use "" so I wouldn't get banned.

 

x2


Ok then... let's celebrate that Sony spent 500M less than MS for basically the same effect in their gaming division.

If I buy an asset for $2bn with free cash I have then I still have the $2bn in a different form.  It has zero impact on the value of the company.

If I markd down an asset to the value of $1.5bn then I lose 1.5bn from the value of the company...add that the to 500m operating loss and yes the company will be worth $2bn less.

There is a huge difference.

One is good or neutral, one is horrible.

 

There is no free cash, but I understand you are saying like money that have no cost (no interest), but that money could also be used for other things, but won't enter on this. And I know MS won't get a dump on their shares because of this investment.

And I know the loss of 2B for marking down+losses are bad. This is why I said I was joking for VXIII... but in my second post I was more serious on the effect that Sony lossing 2B (on parts not related to gaming) and MS investing 2.5B (that we know is less aimed to X1 as it's for general products like windowsphone and other things) will have the same general effect in gaming. Don't need to try and pick any further meaning from it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."