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?

jarrod 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.

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.

i dout very much nintendo hav he money to by R* they could prob pull it off but ther would never get here money back. the game R* make would simply not sell on WII



Around the Network
ImJustBayuum said:
Linkasf said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Linkasf said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Grimes said:

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

Some people forgot about the financial crisis? They slashed thousands of workers so I don't think they'd be able to afford buying a game studio as big as R*.

they slashed workers cause they were restructuring,this has nothing to do with their ability to buy a company.it depends on the fact on whether it is good for the business or not

Exactly. Restructuring and cutting losses.

Restructuring (ie cutting losses) suggests that the company is in a bad financial position. Rarely during these kind of situation would a company like Sony buy significant entities (even if they predicted it will be a good investment). This is because they are in a position where they had no choice but to be conservative regarding material spendings as their going concern, ability to borrow etc are in fragile positions. ie they cannot afford to just go out and buy a company like R*.

BTW, Its not as simple as S.Snake4RD has put it "sony has 250 billion" assets, therefore they could afford to buy R* if they want. For example i assume a significant % of that 250b assets are inventory, because sony afterall is a inventory base company. Therefore their ability to generate cash depends if they sell iventory or not. The financial crisis has made difficult for companies like sony to sell inventories therefore affecting their revenue/cash reserves.

yeah posting a big definition shows nerdism.leave the words and try to understand what it means and works in the real world.just going by the words won't let you anywhere

restructuring can also be done as protection for the future.also many company can't normally offload people but during rescession it can as many other companies are.not saying this has anything to do with sony but for you that their are various ways it can used in.

 

why don't you understand,assets are not only tangible things,it can also consist of liquid cash.also assets do not mean inventory,inventory is just a part of it.and inventoty amounts for very low percentage of assets.inventory is just what you have produced and is in your backyard.it is just their before it ships out.a very low percentage of assets.

 

i am an accounting student.

 

assets mainly consist of cash,building,brand value and goodwill,machinery owned,patents and trademarks,factories,offices,bills receivable,etc.

 

and  if you are talking about alot of inventory from recession time in sony backyard,they reduced production too.not that they will produce at the same rate.

 

 

i never meant to say sony can do anything but some other poster said sony had nothing just because they were making a lose was just rubbish.lose can only be made on investment.

i agree sony being affected by the recession,but a big company like it alwasy has alot pre planned for any future problems.not like a family that when dad loses a job,we are doomed



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

It doesn't even matter who has more cash. Most transactions are not even done with cash. Even if a company has no cash they could sell bonds or something to generate cash to buy the company then pay it off over time. Or have a loan, or sell more shares of common stock or 1 of a number of things that allow a company to purchase another company without having a large cash reserve. 



ElGranCabeza said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:

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

I don't man, a company that has U$230 billion in assets and generates over U$70 billion in revenue should have profits of at least U$ 10 billion/year - non recession years I mean, all the other big companies generate that type of profit, Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, Google, LG I think, Panasonic probably on non recession years, Nintendo is a videogame only company and generate $4billion a year

 

don't talk about MS here.it is a mainly a software company.most of its cost is from their software developers salary and then they print that software on a cd or a dvd and packaging which costs them a Dime and then sell it for at $100 which is big profit cause they sell big amounts of those cause its essential for PC's which everybody has.they can fire their workers if their profits go down not like hardware companies where hardware cannot be fired and once made is made.

 

apple just lives on the brand name.they have a comparatively less R&D,you can just see their ipad,even though its not anything significant and just a bigger version of iphone which wouldn't have cost too much r&d is still gonna sell big amounts cause its the new 'COOL' out their which all kids are gonna want to show off.the day apple 'i' brand starts to fade,they are doomed and you know it.

 

samsung and lg are just another electronic company,they produce hardware and sell and advertise to make people that they are there but how many times have they peioneered in anything.their products aren't anything special.hey how many people do you know that care about their tv's specs,most just see an ad and go to the store and buy the product.not everybody is a hardcore and check what is the FPS,refreshrate,contrast ratios of its tv or what chip and medium is in their console.

 

one of the reasons sony having thise period is because last time when PS1 and PS2 launched their phsical mediums were already there.cd and dvd drives were becoming cheap already but this time sony had to do Blu-ray from the starting.they beared most of the cost and they are now gonna have most of blu-ray profit.PS4 releases and blue-ray would be cheap so they will price it low from the start.also Sony has too many brands,it sometimes a headache to manage them all.

like if you see apple,they had only one succesful brand earlier,the iPOD.they used it for their cellphone launch.what will sony do,walkman phone,cybersot phone,playstation phone,it gets mixed then and people tend to get confused.for exaple sony digital music player and online store Sony Connect came before iPOD but people got saturated with the brand name.it will happen to Apple too in the future.sony has always been like this,they invent a medium like cd,bluray and then will reap rewards for next 10-15 years and then redevelop.

for the past 4-6 years sony was just investing for the tech and mainly for the future,now they have got what that tech and now they are gonna use it.



RVDondaPC 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

It doesn't even matter who has more cash. Most transactions are not even done with cash. Even if a company has no cash they could sell bonds or something to generate cash to buy the company then pay it off over time. Or have a loan, or sell more shares of common stock or 1 of a number of things that allow a company to purchase another company without having a large cash reserve. 

yeah thats another source.these people jsut don't understand.they think just because its making lose it won't be able to purchase another company when they don't think lose mad is on the existing investment and cause they sruvived it,they woul have more money.

 

and talk about shareholders power is not being discussed



Around the Network

Maybe with red dead redemption, Sony changed their minds



                                  

                                       That's Gordon Freeman in "Real-Life"
 

 

Solid_Snake4RD said:
ImJustBayuum said:
Linkasf said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Linkasf said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Grimes said:

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

Some people forgot about the financial crisis? They slashed thousands of workers so I don't think they'd be able to afford buying a game studio as big as R*.

they slashed workers cause they were restructuring,this has nothing to do with their ability to buy a company.it depends on the fact on whether it is good for the business or not

Exactly. Restructuring and cutting losses.

Restructuring (ie cutting losses) suggests that the company is in a bad financial position. Rarely during these kind of situation would a company like Sony buy significant entities (even if they predicted it will be a good investment). This is because they are in a position where they had no choice but to be conservative regarding material spendings as their going concern, ability to borrow etc are in fragile positions. ie they cannot afford to just go out and buy a company like R*.

BTW, Its not as simple as S.Snake4RD has put it "sony has 250 billion" assets, therefore they could afford to buy R* if they want. For example i assume a significant % of that 250b assets are inventory, because sony afterall is a inventory base company. Therefore their ability to generate cash depends if they sell iventory or not. The financial crisis has made difficult for companies like sony to sell inventories therefore affecting their revenue/cash reserves.

yeah posting a big definition shows nerdism.leave the words and try to understand what it means and works in the real world.just going by the words won't let you anywhere

restructuring can also be done as protection for the future.also many company can't normally offload people but during rescession it can as many other companies are.not saying this has anything to do with sony but for you that their are various ways it can used in.

 

why don't you understand,assets are not only tangible things,it can also consist of liquid cash.also assets do not mean inventory,inventory is just a part of it.and inventoty amounts for very low percentage of assets.inventory is just what you have produced and is in your backyard.it is just their before it ships out.a very low percentage of assets.

 

i am an accounting student.

 

assets mainly consist of cash,building,brand value and goodwill,machinery owned,patents and trademarks,factories,offices,bills receivable,etc.

 

and  if you are talking about alot of inventory from recession time in sony backyard,they reduced production too.not that they will produce at the same rate.

 

 

i never meant to say sony can do anything but some other poster said sony had nothing just because they were making a lose was just rubbish.lose can only be made on investment.

i agree sony being affected by the recession,but a big company like it alwasy has alot pre planned for any future problems.not like a family that when dad loses a job,we are doomed

lmfao...you are an accounting student..for reals???

- Restructructuring = is done primarily when the company is in financial distress or if they anticipate in the near future that they are going to be in financial difficulties..so my statement still holds - restructuring suggests that the company (sony) is in bad financial position now or they expect to in the near future, which therefore make it extremely dificult for them to make such huge investments.

- i know what assets are...current assets consist of inventory, cash, accounts receivable...blah blah...i was merely pointing out the nature of the company, that it is a inventory-oriented company, and simply point out the fact that at that point in time, these kind of companies' ability to generate their main source of revenue (cash + credit) will be greatly affected. And its funny how you mention brands + trademarks which are intangible assets ie extremely difficult to quantify. This is a major reason why the accounting standards dont recognise intangible assets (with the exception of goodwill). So why the hell do you keep arguing intangible assets to measure the companies ability to buy another company.

Secondly, no lending institution will accept the inclusion of intangible assets when calculating the firms ability to pay back their money. They are inefficient measure of security because they are extremely hard to quantify/measure and their value fluctuates frequently. So this would definitely not help sony acquiring funds needed to invest in another company.

-"inventory amounts for very low % of assets" = Inventory is a huge percentage of sony's current assets. youre a fucking accounting student for god's sake. All manufacturing & merchandise companies have huge inventory accounts constantly. It is likely that the company had a huge 'finish goods' inventory at that time because,  retailers (buyers) find it difficult to sell products therefore they cut back on their orders.Sure they can cut production, but that takes time to implement and to come into effect. eg jobs has to be cut, financial reports have to be analysed....etc these takes considerable effort &  time.By that time, there will be a huge unsold inventory and invenotory will likely become obscolete.

-That person whas technically right in respect to the topic & at that specific point in time. Sony cannot afford to buy R*

-I dont see where contingency planning helps out your argument. Is restructuring & reduce material spendings not part of the contingency planning.

PS.arent the accounting people the nerdiest bunch.lol.its your kind of language so dont be offended



Take 2's market cap is under a billion so any of the big 3 could easily buy it if they wanted to.



gurglesletch said:
Take 2's market cap is under a billion so any of the big 3 could easily buy it if they wanted to.

exactly.most of them don't know however big the company is,its valuation depends on Market cap



ImJustBayuum said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
ImJustBayuum said:
Linkasf said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Linkasf said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Grimes said:

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

Some people forgot about the financial crisis? They slashed thousands of workers so I don't think they'd be able to afford buying a game studio as big as R*.

they slashed workers cause they were restructuring,this has nothing to do with their ability to buy a company.it depends on the fact on whether it is good for the business or not

Exactly. Restructuring and cutting losses.

Restructuring (ie cutting losses) suggests that the company is in a bad financial position. Rarely during these kind of situation would a company like Sony buy significant entities (even if they predicted it will be a good investment). This is because they are in a position where they had no choice but to be conservative regarding material spendings as their going concern, ability to borrow etc are in fragile positions. ie they cannot afford to just go out and buy a company like R*.

BTW, Its not as simple as S.Snake4RD has put it "sony has 250 billion" assets, therefore they could afford to buy R* if they want. For example i assume a significant % of that 250b assets are inventory, because sony afterall is a inventory base company. Therefore their ability to generate cash depends if they sell iventory or not. The financial crisis has made difficult for companies like sony to sell inventories therefore affecting their revenue/cash reserves.

yeah posting a big definition shows nerdism.leave the words and try to understand what it means and works in the real world.just going by the words won't let you anywhere

restructuring can also be done as protection for the future.also many company can't normally offload people but during rescession it can as many other companies are.not saying this has anything to do with sony but for you that their are various ways it can used in.

 

why don't you understand,assets are not only tangible things,it can also consist of liquid cash.also assets do not mean inventory,inventory is just a part of it.and inventoty amounts for very low percentage of assets.inventory is just what you have produced and is in your backyard.it is just their before it ships out.a very low percentage of assets.

 

i am an accounting student.

 

assets mainly consist of cash,building,brand value and goodwill,machinery owned,patents and trademarks,factories,offices,bills receivable,etc.

 

and  if you are talking about alot of inventory from recession time in sony backyard,they reduced production too.not that they will produce at the same rate.

 

 

i never meant to say sony can do anything but some other poster said sony had nothing just because they were making a lose was just rubbish.lose can only be made on investment.

i agree sony being affected by the recession,but a big company like it alwasy has alot pre planned for any future problems.not like a family that when dad loses a job,we are doomed

lmfao...you are an accounting student..for reals???

- Restructructuring = is done primarily when the company is in financial distress or if they anticipate in the near future that they are going to be in financial difficulties..so my statement still holds - restructuring suggests that the company (sony) is in bad financial position now or they expect to in the near future, which therefore make it extremely dificult for them to make such huge investments.

- i know what assets are...current assets consist of inventory, cash, accounts receivable...blah blah...i was merely pointing out the nature of the company, that it is a inventory-oriented company, and simply point out the fact that at that point in time, these kind of companies' ability to generate their main source of revenue (cash + credit) will be greatly affected. And its funny how you mention brands + trademarks which are intangible assets ie extremely difficult to quantify. This is a major reason why the accounting standards dont recognise intangible assets (with the exception of goodwill). So why the hell do you keep arguing intangible assets to measure the companies ability to buy another company.

Secondly, no lending institution will accept the inclusion of intangible assets when calculating the firms ability to pay back their money. They are inefficient measure of security because they are extremely hard to quantify/measure and their value fluctuates frequently. So this would definitely not help sony acquiring funds needed to invest in another company.

-"inventory amounts for very low % of assets" = Inventory is a huge percentage of sony's current assets. youre a fucking accounting student for god's sake. All manufacturing & merchandise companies have huge inventory accounts constantly. It is likely that the company had a huge 'finish goods' inventory at that time because,  retailers (buyers) find it difficult to sell products therefore they cut back on their orders.Sure they can cut production, but that takes time to implement and to come into effect. eg jobs has to be cut, financial reports have to be analysed....etc these takes considerable effort &  time.By that time, there will be a huge unsold inventory and invenotory will likely become obscolete.

-That person whas technically right in respect to the topic & at that specific point in time. Sony cannot afford to buy R*

-I dont see where contingency planning helps out your argument. Is restructuring & reduce material spendings not part of the contingency planning.

PS.arent the accounting people the nerdiest bunch.lol.its your kind of language so dont be offended

dodn't you understand anything?you are behaving like a nerd who just sticks to the defintions in the book and not understand what it means.

 

gving out big para's of definitons isn't gonna prove your point.Sorry,i writng this without reading most of your last cause i have got tired now

 

and i wasn't even talking whether lending institution will lend to sony or not and what on what basis will it lend to sony.I was talking about tyhe liquid assets sony would have.

 

anyways i didn't mean to offend in any way.but you are just posting big walls of definitons.And just being an accounting student just make you a nerd.its how you study it,If you have no interest in your subject and you are just stuyding the hell out to be the first in class and show every that you study the most and don't have a clue about anything other than what is in your books,that is nerdism.