Paatar said:
Teeqoz said:
I don't know in the sense that I don't go around remembering it, but as far as I know it is around 10 billion dollars. That is easily found through a Google search (side note: Google search reveals that Nintendo's total assets are 11.5 Billion dollars. Keep in mind that those assets aren't only money in the bank, but literally everything they own). There is no real figure on how much Playstation or Xbox is worth (hence why I don't think you know), and I honestly don't know enough about the Xbox business to make an estimate for it, but Sony has forecast their gaming division to make 640 million dollars profit for this fiscal year, and assuming that figure won't rise as the PS4 matures (which is a silly assumption, mind you), that would mean 6.4 billion in 10 years. That is an absolute minimum for Playstation's value. If you want to make a more realistic estimate, it's worth 13 Billion, though this is probably still on the low end. As a top estimate I'd say 20 Billion dollars. So let's go with the 13 Billion estimate (FYI, Nintendo's market cap is at 18.5 Billion). That is higher than Nintendo's total assets, and much higher than what they "have in the bank".
|
So basically you posted this just for an argument when you can't really prove if Nintendo could buy either of them or not? Doesn't seem like a good use of time. :)
|
I did just prove that Nintendo couldn't, at the very least buy Playstation. If you feel like my estimates are weird or unrealisticially high, feel free to point out so (which I'm guessing is what you think, given it's the only ay you could say I haven't proved that Nintendo can't buy Playstation.)
But if you mean that since there is no official figure for the value of Playstation, you can just claim that Nintendo has enough money in the bank to buy them, because after all, there's no way to absolutely, with 100% certainty disprove it. The closest you can get is to make reasonable estimates and use some logic and use what evidence we have to come to some pretty safe conclusions. This is sort of like the argument about an all-powerful God. I mean, I can't with 100% certainty disprove a God, but there is no evidence backing it up, and there is nothing that should make me believe it. In this case though, it is a bit easier to come up with some evidence (which I did). 
But you are right, if you aren't gonna provide any counterarguments, and just wave away my evidence as nothing, then this isn't a good use of time, so I won't reply anymore if you aren't interested in seriously discussing the matter.
