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

Forums - Gaming - IF Capcom Goes Under Where Do You Want Their Franchises To Go?

ishiki said:
savisn said:
ishiki said:
Company Total Assets Total Liabilities Quick Ratio (Higher Is Better)
Nintendo 16.3 Billion 3.5 Billion 5.22
Actvision Blizzard 13.4 Billion 3.2 Billion 4.38
Capcom 1.04 Billion 410 Million 1.69
Sega Sammy 528 Million 208 Million 2.63
Square-Enix 1.98 Billion .79 Billion
3.42
Take 2 1.277 Billion 689 Million 2.48
EA 5.07 Billion 2.8 Billion

1.21

Sony 155 Billion
125 Billion

.76


While your analysis is correct, you aren't showing a Quick Ratio from what I can tell unless your column headings are incorrect.   You've shown Assets to Liabiliities which isn't the same.  The QR is more concerned with liquidity so removes non-liquid items like plant etc.     The calculation is here:  http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quickratio.asp

yeah my mistake. I just did Total Assets/Total Liabilities which was wrong. It should have been (Current Assets-Inventory)/Current liabilities for quick ratio. Which ofcourse being different numbers changes it altogether,  and capcom does have a bit of issues in that aspect comparativelyAll of which are unrelated to the other numbers.

I made the table a bit quick and made some mistakes. I'm edited them, if anyone wants to look and check and correct

Looks good now.   Nice job bringing some numbers to the discussion.   My suspicion is that a QR in videogame development above 1.5 is adequate and that they fluctuate quite a bit.  The main expenses would be game development labor I would think.  Revenue is notoriously spiked at game release while expenses build relatively evenly throughout a game's development cycle.  Assuming they don't have a lot of debt covenants that get broken and send them into a death spiral CAPCOM should be fine.  Revenue from MH4 starts hitting now while all but the marketing expenses were being spent over the last few years.   Presumably they keep labor expenses relatively even so it was low due to meh revenue performance of RE and DMC.  It probably jumps up quite a bit this quarter.    The main risk for these companies is a big flop or 2 back-to-back since the fixed costs of developing and releasing a game are huge.  It would be interesting to see how the QR changes over the next while for them and others like UbiSoft who have had some big misses lately.



Around the Network

I think they'd merge or be bought by Nintendo before something like that ever happened.

They still have Resident Evil, Monster Hunter, and Street Fighter which sell enough to keep them afloat as long as they don't go overboard with the budget.



ListerOfSmeg said:
think-man said:
ListerOfSmeg said:


The only one I dont agree with is DMC to Sony. We would see 9 DMCs over the next 6 years til people tired of it then it would be left for dead. They make good games but they also oversaturate the market with them. Killzone is slowly falling and its not because of a lack of quality. Its just too many games in too little time.

Name me one game that Sony has made 9 of in 6 years? There has been 6 Killzones in 9 years and only 4 in the main series that hasn't got shit on half the franchises out there. Assassins Creed anyone? 10 games in 6 years? Halo 9 in 12 years. These are common thrends Sony doesn't do it anymore than others so don't try spin that rubbish.

Neither Ubisoft or MS were mentioned. Dont get angry. Just accept an opinion that doesnt match your own. The only one trying to spin things is you out of anger. Rather than accept a valid critizism you are trying to put it off on other companies. Had anyone mention Ubisoft, MS or even Activision my reply would have been the same. Would yours?


I would accept it if you could answer my question. But you can't because its not true. I mentioned other companies that have done what you have said, Sony was not one of them. So how about you stop dodging and back up your opinion with some evidance?



Monster Hunter with Monolith and Viewtiful Joe with Platinum. The rest can burn.



 

 

 

g

Last edited by vodkasosa1000 - on 21 January 2026

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:

I neither agree or disagree because I'm not sure what your points are.

Ideas/discussion. Alas...



Hmm, pie.

think-man said:
Tbh I wouldn't give anything to Nintendo, They would just turn the franchises into something I just wouldn't want to see.
Mega Man - Give it Keiji Inafune
Resident Evil - Konami
Street Fighter - Namco
Monster Hunter - Koei, Namco or Sony
Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney - Level-5
Breath of Fire - Level-5
Dead Rising - Valve
Devil May Cry - Sony
Lost Planet - Scrap it
Okami - Sony (Japan Studio with team Ico)
Viewtiful Joe - Platinum Games
Marvel vs Capcom - Namco

I would rather like you to elaborate on that.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

man koei was so awesome back in the days with nobunagas ambitions and romance of the three kingdoms back then, its sad they completly changed and stop making games like that.
because of them i read romance of the three kingdoms



KingdomHeartsFan said:

Here's my list:


Mega Man - Nintendo
Resident Evil - Konami
Street Fighter - Namco
Monster Hunter - Nintendo, more specifically Monolith Soft
Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney - Nintendo
Breath of Fire - Nintendo, Intelligent Systems
Dead Rising - Valve
Devil May Cry - Sony, undecided which studio yet
Lost Planet - LET IT DIE!
Okami - Nintendo
Viewtiful Joe - Platinum Games
Marvel vs Capcom - Netherealm Studios

 

If there are any that I forgot let me know.


I agree with most of your choices but DMC should go to Platinum Games and Marvel vs Capcom should go to Namco. 



Steam/Origin ID: salorider

Nintendo Network ID: salorider

PSN: salorider

3DS Friend Code: 4983-4984-4179

 

think-man said:
ListerOfSmeg said:
think-man said:
ListerOfSmeg said:


The only one I dont agree with is DMC to Sony. We would see 9 DMCs over the next 6 years til people tired of it then it would be left for dead. They make good games but they also oversaturate the market with them. Killzone is slowly falling and its not because of a lack of quality. Its just too many games in too little time.

Name me one game that Sony has made 9 of in 6 years? There has been 6 Killzones in 9 years and only 4 in the main series that hasn't got shit on half the franchises out there. Assassins Creed anyone? 10 games in 6 years? Halo 9 in 12 years. These are common thrends Sony doesn't do it anymore than others so don't try spin that rubbish.

Neither Ubisoft or MS were mentioned. Dont get angry. Just accept an opinion that doesnt match your own. The only one trying to spin things is you out of anger. Rather than accept a valid critizism you are trying to put it off on other companies. Had anyone mention Ubisoft, MS or even Activision my reply would have been the same. Would yours?


I would accept it if you could answer my question. But you can't because its not true. I mentioned other companies that have done what you have said, Sony was not one of them. So how about you stop dodging and back up your opinion with some evidance?

Well... From 2005-2013 there have been 8 GOW games.  That's not including collections.  Counting three collections, you get 10 in 8 years. 

Including Karting, we've had 5 LBP games since 2008.  So 5 in 5 years. 

Uncharted has seen 5 games over 5 years including Fight for Fortune.

Infamous will see its 3rd entry in just over 4 years.

Once Into the Nexus hits, we'll have had 9 Ratchet and Clank games (including collections) since 2007.  So, there you go.  9 in 6 years.  Don't know why Sony felt the need to make so many Ratchet games, but there you have it.

They're certainly not as bad as other companies, but Sony definitely isn't afraid to produce a lot of sequels in quick succession when they think it will make them money.  They're trending towards yearly releases, but they're probably held back by the fact that their franchises don't have the strong fanbases to make that sustainable.