Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony sell Tokyo office building for 1.2 Billion dollars.

kowenicki said:

Where are my words harsh?

and we are to shy away from topics for fear of people who don't want "reminding of a bad situation" because they are too "touchy"?

I see what he means though. This may not be your attitude, but it's possible that someone may come in a thread like this to beat Sony while it's down, if they were a hater.

In other words, since we just want to talk about it, let's try to remain as neutral about it as possible, if at least to avoid having to run into this rubbish again, you know what I mean.

For example, Kowen, what about this move is a bad thing, relatively speaking (as compared to other options, were there any)?



Around the Network
happydolphin said:
Chark said:

There is a divide between what Kowen says and how people react to him. His words are harsh and hard to react to properly even if his responders have an understanding of the subject. People really just don't want reminders of Sony's bad position, especially when they take measures that might alter that. To many it just seems people are damning Sony for past errors and being overly critical of any decision they make. It's a touchy issue at least.

Okay, but if it's touchy for them, why do they enter threads like this and not bring anything to the topic but dividing people with lables fanboy and hater? If this topic is a place where people talk about the reasons or lackthereof, or implications of a business move like this, they should know that if it's a touchy subject for them they should stay away. If they can't resist and come in, they should be ready for tough words because let's face it the move is kind of a last resort. We both agree that they wouldn't be doing this if they were doing ok. It's a ballsy move and a good one because this way they stay in the game.

That's true, people should have more composure or stay out of threads that can't contribute in, but people can wait around all day for that to happen. The best way is to reason otherwise things can just end up with moderation. VGC is full of this. Most recently I've seen has been in the touchy subjects of trusting MS and the reactions users on here have had and their unwillingness to adress the subject matter. It is like this in a lot of threads.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

man some of those people who posted needs to calm down ASAP!!!



happydolphin said:
kowenicki said:

Where are my words harsh?

and we are to shy away from topics for fear of people who don't want "reminding of a bad situation" because they are too "touchy"?

I see what he means though. This may not be your attitude, but it's possible that someone may come in a thread like this to beat Sony while it's down, if they were a hater.

In other words, since we just want to talk about it, let's try to remain as neutral about it as possible, if at least to avoid having to run into this rubbish again, you know what I mean.

For example, Kowen, what about this move is a bad thing, relatively speaking (as compared to other options, were there any)?

I agree that can happen, but it hadn't until they came in.  They caused it.  Perhaps that's what they want to derail and hope it gets closed. 

 

Anyhow.

Sony really didn't have other options. As I said earlier its hobsons choice.  They already did a large bond issue late last year (which shocked a few people) and their credit rating is such that any new borrowing would probably be relatively expensive. Not to mention hey already a have significant ongoing debt to service. So yes it is a move they had to undertake rather than one they would want to IMO.  

That is not to say it may not prove beneficial, it may well do so long as sales revenues follow in the coming 12 months. The point is if that If they don't and they are here again in a years time, what then? 



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


@Chark. That's honestly sad, it makes me sad that we can't just avoid that kind of thing, on all sides (haters and over-sensitive ones).

kowenicki said:

 I agree hat can happen, but it hadn't until they came in.  They caused it.  Perhaps that's what they want to derail and hope it gets closed. 

 

Anyhow.

they reall didn't have other options. As I said earlier its hi sins choice.  They already did a large bond issue late last year (which shocked a few people) and their credit rating is such that any new borrowing would probably be relatively expensive. Not to mention hey already a have significant ongoing debt to service. So yes it is a move they had to undertake rather than one they would want to IMO.  

That is not to say it may not prove beneficial, it may well do so long as sales revenues follow in the coming 12 months. The point is if that If they don't and they are here again in a years time, what then? 

I agree and I think that's a very good point. As good a move this is, as much as it's a one-shot deal. If they are in this situation again they will not have this card to play and will be in serious trouble. In essence this move is not only their only resort atm (imho), but a play-once card that is something Sony must be betting on pretty hard right now. 

The crux is that when you are such a huge operating business that you can't sacrifice one segment easily to focus on the benefits of another (for fear of losing momentum, infrastructure, opportunity), Sony would have a very hard time putting more risky divisions on pause and focus only on its certainly lucrative ones (was it life insurance?). The Playstation 3 has been a source of revenue for them on the long run I believe, but the playstation business is a risky one I don't think anyone can deny that. As much as they want to stay in it, they can't get rid of it either even if they wanted to, it's a bit of an Achiles heel.



Around the Network
happydolphin said:

@Chark. That's honestly sad, it makes me sad that we can't just avoid that kind of thing, on all sides (haters and over-sensitive ones).

kowenicki said:

 I agree hat can happen, but it hadn't until they came in.  They caused it.  Perhaps that's what they want to derail and hope it gets closed. 

 

Anyhow.

they reall didn't have other options. As I said earlier its hi sins choice.  They already did a large bond issue late last year (which shocked a few people) and their credit rating is such that any new borrowing would probably be relatively expensive. Not to mention hey already a have significant ongoing debt to service. So yes it is a move they had to undertake rather than one they would want to IMO.  

That is not to say it may not prove beneficial, it may well do so long as sales revenues follow in the coming 12 months. The point is if that If they don't and they are here again in a years time, what then? 

I agree and I think that's a very good point. As good a move this is, as much as it's a one-shot deal. If they are in this situation again they will not have this card to play and will be in serious trouble. In essence this move is not only their only resort atm (imho), but a play-once card that is something Sony must be betting on pretty hard right now. 

The crux is that when you are such a huge operating business that you can't sacrifice one segment easily to focus on the benefits of another (for fear of losing momentum, infrastructure, opportunity), Sony would have a very hard time putting more risky divisions on pause and focus only on its certainly lucrative ones (was it life insurance?). The Playstation 3 has been a source of revenue for them on the long run I believe, but the playstation business is a risky one I don't think anyone can deny that. As much as they want to stay in it, they can't get rid of it either even if they wanted to, it's a bit of an Achiles heel.

Absolutely. They can't leave gaming, it's part of what Sony is. Ditch that and the brand is massively damaged.

It's the same dilemma with TV's.  it's a hard choice to leave TV's because they are what made Sony what it is and has been.  But TV's are absolutely killing them.



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Chark said:
happydolphin said:

I can agree with that to an extent, but Kowen was bringing up points others wouldn't dream of even being able of thinking that far. For instance, after reading the article carefully (which I know you have because I know you're a good user), it's true that they now have to pay rent and it makes you wonder how that will cost them in the long run. Kowen may come from the perspective that it's hurting them, then I brought up the point that it's a lesser evil because they get some short-term cash they can use.

I agree Kowen can be negative about these things but it's a far cry from saying he wasn't insightful or at least to a certain measure reasonably critical about it. Problem is, to those people I confronted, all they see is "He's critical" or "He's too positive about it", instead of looking at the points people actually raised which are interesting for some of us who visit vgchartz for business discussion in the gaming market.


There is a divide between what Kowen says and how people react to him. His words are harsh and hard to react to properly even if his responders have an understanding of the subject. People really just don't want reminders of Sony's bad position, especially when they take measures that might alter that. To many it just seems people are damning Sony for past errors and being overly critical of any decision they make. It's a touchy issue at least.

We have some people here who defend anything that Sony does, whatever is the result. The same people who defended Sony decisions on PS3 (Cell and Blu Ray) and now are defending Sony decisions on PS4 (Off the shelf components and PC-lite architecture), and are the same people who don't want anyone to remember them that Sony misbehaves have consequences. They are the same people who want more powerful hardware at cheaper prices, the ones out of touch, and anyone who remembers them this is a hater and harsh. Living in a bubble won't change the reality.



forest-spirit said:
I'd say that those seeing this as something entirely positive/negative are in the wrong. It's a double edged sword.
On the plus side it'll make Sony's results for this quarter look better and they get some money to (hopefully) invest into something useful.
On the downside it does say a lot when you have to sell stuff to stay afloat. It's a one use only item and the next quarter the effect will be gone.

Exactly, they have the cash to invest now, but assets can only be sold one time. I honestly cannot see how selling an asset while creating a debt for the next 5 years is only good.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Never a good idea to sell a home and chose to rent. Its better to buy the home and rent it out yourself. However, I'm no CEO and I'm sure the guy Hirai knows more about this than anyone of us here. Hard to believe he'd just take the shaft....maybe the building maintenance was more trouble than it was worth. We'll see how it pans out.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

deskpro2k3 said:
Selling off assets they don't need is good in the long run. Anything they don't need just leeches money away that can be put to better use.

Surely Kaz have a plan to dominate the world.

This has nothing to do with "Selling off assets they don't need". Obviously those employees need some place to work. Here is the whole problem explained for those who don't get it. Sony, like many other japanese TV makers, has too many plants and overproduces TVs that are too expensive. They also have a building full of employees that are part of the TV selling business group. Now in America, the solution is always the same : Fire the employees and shut down the plants as needed, within 15 minute's notices. In Japan, it is completely impossible to fire people (technically you can, but you have to pay their salaries until retirement. This has lead to an institution called "window jobs"). Combine that with a foreigner as ceo (Stringer, whose underlings seem to have apparently worked against him as rumours are fircling around),  Sony has, in the past years, fired every person and plant they could _outside_ of Japan (the console group in my country is history in a few weeks from now, so this is still going on). At this point, Sony is pretty much stripped bare outside of Japan. Enter Kaz Hirai, the Uebermensch as some think here he is, and guess what - not even Kaz has any solutions to the fundamental problem. There is no Kaz Superplan. I'm with Kowenicki this time (rare occasion I should add), Hirai is just buying time for himself by selling the table silver, and hoping that the problem slowly goes away over the next years while burning through the money for the two buildings (5000 employees means about 150-250 employees less per year through retirement and other causes). In the end, I see for the first time a Japanese company gutting Japanese plants and firing Japanese employees wholesale, because Sony does not have enough table silver to hunger through the losses (mainly from the TV business).