It was just another unsubstantiated rumour that ended up being false.
EA, Ubisoft, Activision or Microsoft would of out bid Sony. Anyway Rockstar make enough money by working independently developing games for multi-platform releases + some timed exclusives providing the price is right.
jarrod said:
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.
Anyone can guess. It takes no effort to throw out lots of predictions and have some of them be correct. You are not and wiser or better for having your guesses be right. Even a blind man can hit the bullseye.
Sony isn't into buying big business.
Most big business has been sucked free of creative juices.
They go for the up and coming devs. The ones that are either struggling or just getting started.
We won't see them buying Take-Two, EA, UbiSoft, Square-Enix, Capcom or any other established company. So it was just a rumor.
Grimes said:
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. |
Nintendo has more liquid assets than Sony. Literally more money sitting in the bank doing nothing. Nintendo is a ridiculously conservative company, and has also been ridiculously profitable over the last 20 years.
Sony didn't buy Rockstar because they don't have the money. I doubt anyone has the money, or incentive, to buy them. Buying Rockstar would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Wii has more 20 million sellers than PS3 has 5 million sellers.
Acolyte of Disruption
Showertea said:
Nintendo has more liquid assets than Sony. Literally more money sitting in the bank doing nothing. Nintendo is a ridiculously conservative company, and has also been ridiculously profitable over the last 20 years.
Sony didn't buy Rockstar because they don't have the money. I doubt anyone has the money, or incentive, to buy them. Buying Rockstar would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. |
If you look at their balance sheets they have about $6 billion more debt than cash.
Contrast that to a company like Microsoft which has about $27.5 more cash than debt.
It's pretty clear that if MS wanted to buy it they easily could. Whether it makes business sense is a different question.
Some people think that a company like Rockstar is a gold mine, but even gold mines can lose money in the real world.
Anyone can guess. It takes no effort to throw out lots of predictions and have some of them be correct. You are not and wiser or better for having your guesses be right. Even a blind man can hit the bullseye.
Why would a company that is trying to shed cost to become profitable like it was a few years ago, go out a buy a company that is losing money?
nobody could afford rockstar, im sure they have had offers but when they slap you with a number like 800 mill to 1 billion what company is going to do that , you are not guarenteed anything only the possibilities that your investment will pay off.
look what happened with the timed exclusives , microsoft payed rockstar 50 mill i really dont believe that investment was worth the money im sure they regret it, eventually everyone grows tired of the same ol.
| flowjo said: look what happened with the timed exclusives , microsoft payed rockstar 50 mill i really dont believe that investment was worth the money im sure they regret it, eventually everyone grows tired of the same ol. |
The $50m was a loan iirc. But your point still stands... if EA, Activision, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc really wanted Rockstar's assets, they'd be better served hiring away everyone at Rockstar North and starting up a new studio. GTA's already waning this gen, what's really valuable are the people behind it...
Damn, I never even heard of this.
Who's the best Pac, Nas, and Big. Just leave it to that.
PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E
Slaughterhouse Is The Sh*t .... NOW ........ B_E_L_I_E_V_E
jarrod said:
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. |
u really think they would tell us how much cash reserves they have.they keep that a secret.a company that invented portable music,tv,radio,and every succesfull disc format wouldn't have good cash reserves.they didn't survive PS3's big loses for nothing.
I know Nintendo has alot of liquid assets but not more that around $10-20b maximum.Sony would definately dwarf them.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
