By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - What happend to the "Sony is going to buy Rockstar" rumor?

badgenome on 07 April 2010

Wait for E3!



Around the Network
fighter on 07 April 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Grimes 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.

 

but they wudn't do it cause they only want Rockstar

Sony does not have more money than Nintendo. Sony has more assets but has much higher debt and expenses. Nintendo has built a huge cash reserve over the past few years and has little debt and low expenses.

u really think a company like Sony with $250B ASSESTS has less money than a company with $19 assets.

 

sony didn't just survive their huge losses with PS3 just like that.they have a big big pocket full of cash.and they are gonna make alot now

AMAZING !! A few posts back you are stating there is no way to know how mush liquidities it has and now you state it has deep pockets full of cash ???

Read the link i provided you, you'll be amazed how much debt Sony has contracted. And if you want to know just how tied Sony's pockets are read this :


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116057893247189397-search.html?KEYWORDS=fitch&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

Back in 2006, when Playstation brand was still almighty investors considered PS3's business model as a liability !! This shows how Sony's financial power depends on investors, how each and every of its' decisions needs to be backed up by the people they owe money to.


Solid_Snake4RD on 07 April 2010
ElGranCabeza said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
ElGranCabeza said:
Rpruett said:
Sony has a lot more money than Nintendo and it's not even close. Nintendo might have more active cash at a given moment but that really means virtually nothing on an overall sense.

Every asset that Sony has could be liquidated for a ridiculous amount of money and trump anything Nintendo could ever want. Game Studios, Movie studios, Music Studios, Technology, Buildings, Product lines, etc, etc ,etc.

In that sense yes, but I think the other folks were talking about money in the bank, which I always thought Nintendo had more money in the bank than Sony. Is that information divulged in the FY financials? If so, can someone tell me how much Sony and Nintendo have each?

Nobody knows the exact cash and other tangible assets.Companies only give out overall figures of all assets whether it is liquid cash of or other assets.

 

Also many people are arguing on the basis that just because Sony lost so much with PS3 its bankrupt.it made alot more with PS and also other electronics

To be fair, AFAIK, they lost pretty much all their Playstation money with the PS3. Plus Sony is a huge company, with more assets than Samsung or Apple even, but on their best years their net profits were U$4 billion whereas Samsung and Apple do U$10 billion, Nintendo gets close to that net profit and they only have a gaming division.

My point is, AFAIK, Sony has always been great in generating revenue, but having way too much expenses and stuff, means they don't have as much revenue. This is all my limited opinion on the matter of course.

Sony's profits have been higher.Its just that Sony always has alot in R&d.like If you look at Sony's profit in in PS2's era,they were actually alot more but they had alot in R&D so their profits showed to the public were alot less.Blu-ray and Cell cost a bomb in R&d and still sony was able to make profit in PS2 era.

If you look at samsung,they barely invet anything.even LG,they just sell and do little R&D



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 April 2010
ChrisIsNotSexy said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Seece said:
Solid_Snake you havn't got a clue, why don't you leave the financial talk up to the people that know what they're talking about ...

so why don't you explain me,i could learn from you

He's just jealous

yeah...............LOL



fighter on 07 April 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
ElGranCabeza said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
ElGranCabeza said:
Rpruett said:
Sony has a lot more money than Nintendo and it's not even close. Nintendo might have more active cash at a given moment but that really means virtually nothing on an overall sense.

Every asset that Sony has could be liquidated for a ridiculous amount of money and trump anything Nintendo could ever want. Game Studios, Movie studios, Music Studios, Technology, Buildings, Product lines, etc, etc ,etc.

In that sense yes, but I think the other folks were talking about money in the bank, which I always thought Nintendo had more money in the bank than Sony. Is that information divulged in the FY financials? If so, can someone tell me how much Sony and Nintendo have each?

Nobody knows the exact cash and other tangible assets.Companies only give out overall figures of all assets whether it is liquid cash of or other assets.

 

Also many people are arguing on the basis that just because Sony lost so much with PS3 its bankrupt.it made alot more with PS and also other electronics

To be fair, AFAIK, they lost pretty much all their Playstation money with the PS3. Plus Sony is a huge company, with more assets than Samsung or Apple even, but on their best years their net profits were U$4 billion whereas Samsung and Apple do U$10 billion, Nintendo gets close to that net profit and they only have a gaming division.

My point is, AFAIK, Sony has always been great in generating revenue, but having way too much expenses and stuff, means they don't have as much revenue. This is all my limited opinion on the matter of course.

Sony's profits have been higher.Its just that Sony always has alot in R&d.like If you look at Sony's profit in in PS2's era,they were actually alot more but they had alot in R&D so their profits showed to the public were alot less.Blu-ray and Cell cost a bomb in R&d and still sony was able to make profit in PS2 era.

If you look at samsung,they barely invet anything.even LG,they just sell and do little R&D

 

Dude, you have to stop, you're basically writing lies now.

 

Samsung announced an ambitious $44.9 billion investment plan aimed at vastly expanding the R&D capabilities of Samsung affiliates in the areas of electronics, mechanics, and chemicals. The plan, which also envisions the recruitment of some 30,000 new R&D staff by the year 2010, should ensure Samsung's top-tier technological leadership through the next decade.

http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800388415_1800007_NT_71ba24ea.HTM



Around the Network
fighter on 07 April 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
ChrisIsNotSexy said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Seece said:
Solid_Snake you havn't got a clue, why don't you leave the financial talk up to the people that know what they're talking about ...

so why don't you explain me,i could learn from you

He's just jealous

yeah...............LOL

 

Seece was actually warning you for your own good.



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 April 2010
fighter said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
fighter said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Rpruett said:
Sony has a lot more money than Nintendo and it's not even close. Nintendo might have more active cash at a given moment but that really means virtually nothing on an overall sense.

Every asset that Sony has could be liquidated for a ridiculous amount of money and trump anything Nintendo could ever want. Game Studios, Movie studios, Music Studios, Technology, Buildings, Product lines, etc, etc ,etc.

thankyou.atleast somebody understands

 

it's not as much understanding as repeating your mistake

 

 

The financial state of Sony is publicly known (financial results are an obligation).

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/index.html

 

Having such a huge debt is crippling Sony by the day. Nintendo has way more financial power than Sony.

financial results are an obligation but they do not disclose the exact amount of liquid or tangible assets.

 

and what debt are you talking about Sony,Sony just has loses but no debt.

Debt is what you have to pay back.Losses are suffered on your existing cash invested.

 

Abt "Nintendo has way more financial power than sony".I would have even considered you were debating if you said Nintendo had more liquid assets but you are talking about the whole Fiancial power and in that case Nintendo is noway near sony

 

Nintendo assets overall -$19b

Sony assets overall - $231b

 

LOL you are actually clueless

http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NYSE:SNE

 

Financial power is self explanatory dude, whenever You want to buy something the easyness with wich you will do it depends on your purchase power. The more debt you have the less people are going to let you take risks.

 

Nintendo has almost always maintained huge liquidities in order to invest as it wants. Sony on the opposite has been confined in a doyuble binding since the 90's to maintain its' infrastructures (which can be measured by its' assets : fuckng heavyweight man) while trying to remain responsive, fit and competitive.

Since japanese are allergic to lay-offs in general Sony has had to call an American CEO for it to make the tough decisions. In the meantime it has contracted quite a few debts :

       

 

                        2009  -  2008  -  2007  -  2006
Total Current Liabilities 3,810,900.00 4,023,367.00 3,551,852.00 3,200,228.00
Long Term Debt 660,147.00 729,059.00 1,001,005.00 764,898.00

and wat did you mean by that?

 

We still don't know Sony and Nintendo Liquid and Tangible assets.

 

and what does appointment of Sir Howard Stringer appoint has to do with Sony's ability to buy Rockstar.

 

You are talking abt what Sony's shareholders won't let Sony do or do not.We are talking about the ability.if its that way then if Nintendo had the money,their shareholders wouldn't let them buy it cause Rockstar and Nintendo audience don't match.

 

and FYI debt doesn't really affect a company's liquid assests.Many company like to pay debt over a long period of time and still have the Liquid Cash reserves for safety.

 

 

If you can get me Sony and Nintendo's invidual assets worth distinguished by tangible and intangible then i may agree with you but till then



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 April 2010
fighter said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
ElGranCabeza said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
ElGranCabeza said:
Rpruett said:
Sony has a lot more money than Nintendo and it's not even close. Nintendo might have more active cash at a given moment but that really means virtually nothing on an overall sense.

Every asset that Sony has could be liquidated for a ridiculous amount of money and trump anything Nintendo could ever want. Game Studios, Movie studios, Music Studios, Technology, Buildings, Product lines, etc, etc ,etc.

In that sense yes, but I think the other folks were talking about money in the bank, which I always thought Nintendo had more money in the bank than Sony. Is that information divulged in the FY financials? If so, can someone tell me how much Sony and Nintendo have each?

Nobody knows the exact cash and other tangible assets.Companies only give out overall figures of all assets whether it is liquid cash of or other assets.

 

Also many people are arguing on the basis that just because Sony lost so much with PS3 its bankrupt.it made alot more with PS and also other electronics

To be fair, AFAIK, they lost pretty much all their Playstation money with the PS3. Plus Sony is a huge company, with more assets than Samsung or Apple even, but on their best years their net profits were U$4 billion whereas Samsung and Apple do U$10 billion, Nintendo gets close to that net profit and they only have a gaming division.

My point is, AFAIK, Sony has always been great in generating revenue, but having way too much expenses and stuff, means they don't have as much revenue. This is all my limited opinion on the matter of course.

Sony's profits have been higher.Its just that Sony always has alot in R&d.like If you look at Sony's profit in in PS2's era,they were actually alot more but they had alot in R&D so their profits showed to the public were alot less.Blu-ray and Cell cost a bomb in R&d and still sony was able to make profit in PS2 era.

If you look at samsung,they barely invet anything.even LG,they just sell and do little R&D

 

Dude, you have to stop, you're basically writing lies now.

 

Samsung announced an ambitious $44.9 billion investment plan aimed at vastly expanding the R&D capabilities of Samsung affiliates in the areas of electronics, mechanics, and chemicals. The plan, which also envisions the recruitment of some 30,000 new R&D staff by the year 2010, should ensure Samsung's top-tier technological leadership through the next decade.

http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800388415_1800007_NT_71ba24ea.HTM

talk about electronics here and leave the CHEMICAL AND MECHANIC part of Samsung group out of this.And can you please name some of the innovation Samsung electronics has done till now.Just doing once in a while investment isn't worth,you have to be constant



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 April 2010
fighter said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
ChrisIsNotSexy said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Seece said:
Solid_Snake you havn't got a clue, why don't you leave the financial talk up to the people that know what they're talking about ...

so why don't you explain me,i could learn from you

He's just jealous

yeah...............LOL

 

Seece was actually warning you for your own good.

warning of wat?

 

and even if he was,i told him to explain to me why i was wrong.he didn't reply



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 April 2010
fighter said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Grimes 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.

 

but they wudn't do it cause they only want Rockstar

Sony does not have more money than Nintendo. Sony has more assets but has much higher debt and expenses. Nintendo has built a huge cash reserve over the past few years and has little debt and low expenses.

u really think a company like Sony with $250B ASSESTS has less money than a company with $19 assets.

 

sony didn't just survive their huge losses with PS3 just like that.they have a big big pocket full of cash.and they are gonna make alot now

AMAZING !! A few posts back you are stating there is no way to know how mush liquidities it has and now you state it has deep pockets full of cash ???

Read the link i provided you, you'll be amazed how much debt Sony has contracted. And if you want to know just how tied Sony's pockets are read this :


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116057893247189397-search.html?KEYWORDS=fitch&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

Back in 2006, when Playstation brand was still almighty investors considered PS3's business model as a liability !! This shows how Sony's financial power depends on investors, how each and every of its' decisions needs to be backed up by the people they owe money to.

i was just estimating what they made from their years of innovation.and i think even you will agree how succesfull they have been,they would have atleast made more than nintendo with their whole electronics business

 

that link had a shit old article,thats all,nothing else.you provide a 4 year old article with no figures.that aricle was a joke

 

and sony was supposed to make heavy losses on PS3 and we all knew it and we know it how they survived it in 2010 today

 

every company's power depends on their investor.you trying to teach me commerce here