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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony To Post $2 Billion+ Loss

Ka-pi96 said:
burninmylight said:
tiffac said:


I wish FOX would do the same for the X-Men because we need an AvX movie in the future. xD

This is why I boycott those movies. Not saying they are bad, but I don't want to give FOX and Sony any money until they give the rights back to Marvel.


Sony own the Spider Man rights? Way to go Sony!

Lol no. This is bad news.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
WhiteEaglePL said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Sony own the Spider Man rights? Way to go Sony!

Lol no. This is bad news.

Not for me, I think Sony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disney


For me, Pixar >>>>>>> Sony

 

Also, those comedy films and other stuff is from other Hollywood.



Ka-pi96 said:
WhiteEaglePL said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Sony own the Spider Man rights? Way to go Sony!

Lol no. This is bad news.

Not for me, I think Sony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disney


Nothing against Sony, but I hate the way the Marvel properties are split. This is why you will never see Spider-Man, the X-Men and any of their signature enemies in any movies from Marvel Studios and vice versa. So much potential that will not be realized for a long, long time.



FiliusDei said:
DonFerrari said:
BeElite said:


likely in the 50b range, Ips are worth plenty and they do own a few and PS name alone is a massive worth.  

Quite possible... it baffles me that MS during X360 times (without Gears being theirs) the brand was 25B but people saying Sony in entirety were worth less.

All of Sony is worth less than 18 billion. It is quite possible for the ps brand to be 5b.


I think I'll follow your advices for stocks... please give me some of your insight on marketcap and rebounding that could earn a lot... I would seriously pay 5B for SCE or even 18B for Sony.... I'm certain that just by selling their buildings, patents, IPs, etc I could make between 4 and 10x the money quite quick.

burninmylight said:
Ka-pi96 said:
WhiteEaglePL said:

Lol no. This is bad news.

Not for me, I think Sony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disney


Nothing against Sony, but I hate the way the Marvel properties are split. This is why you will never see Spider-Man, the X-Men and any of their signature enemies in any movies from Marvel Studios and vice versa. So much potential that will not be realized for a long, long time.


Well... Marvel could always buy back or Fox (or any other studio) the rights, just pay the price... As far as I know, Sony bought the rights, they didn't stole, or did they?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

joeorc said:
DonFerrari said:
Acevil said:
I will say one thing, this is evil for me to say, but I do hope Sony continues to lose money, until they sell off the rights to Spider man back to the original owner.


They don't need to do bad they need to listen to Dan Loeb... they are cutting or spinning the sectors that have been doing bad for years... but I would happily trade the billion of loss for years in TV and Phone make it all in Pictures so Sony TV were still great, Xperias sold really well and they sold parts of Pictures to make it afloat.


You are asking Sony to let a Fox in the hen house if you will..lmao, not a good idea when you take into account @retail playstation part as a whole from its inception to 2010 generated for Sony over 50 billion in revenue for Sony that was just the playstation part of Sony . That is no small part of a company, its even worth more now than its ever been for Sony because Playstation.

Is a core pillar for Sony,  and Mobile is also they bought out Sony Erricsson for 1.6 Billion, and while the Write Down is not something kaz or the board thought was going to happen, They do know that reduction in manpower, and number of models being removed is better off than putting the Axe completely to the mobile section of Sony. Kaz is far from shy to just Axe cut the Entire section of the company out right the board of directors also in the last share holders meeting the "Majority" of share holders sided with the Board only west centric board investment hedge funds stock holders are still trying to get more west type of company management. 

Again in Japan in the  40 years no japanese company the size of Sony has ever had such a take over by the west holding investor! The fact that many say from "Experience in stock market of thw west" and try to apply the very same techniques there in japan is not going to work against the culture there and the way its been very unyielding to such drastic methods of change that the japanese do not see is right for "japan" Because many look at that as not really a viable way to run a corp. May be right for the west's idea on company management change.

In Japan the culture is not like the west, the speed of change to offset the loss they may have to right down is in of itself very bad news, but to the japanese keeping the "japanese" employed is above profit. That may mean shifting priority and taking more loss, but thay see it as keeping such the idea of looking to keep the workers employed that are japanese to be taken care of to still make sure that japanese worker still is employed , be it by them or another company. If they do have to let them go.

Man, you misuntederstood me...

I said I would be happy if TV and Phone just had made profit for the last 10 years, but instead Pictures done bad (and were spined)... because I like PS, TV and Phones.

Jimbo1337 said:
The 2 Billion plus loss is part of their restructuring. It is not a cash loss, but rather a book loss.

Nope... most of it is real loss, expected loss or things like that... the restructuration was expected to cause less than 0,5B of loss.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
FiliusDei said:
Zekkyou said:
FiliusDei said:

All of Sony is worth less than 18 billion. It is quite possible for the ps brand to be 5b.

$18b is their market cap, not their linear worth.

That is the price the market says it is worth. Sony has about 150billion in assets but has about 130b in liability. If you were to buy sony, you would pay around 18-20 billion maybe a little more. I have no idea what the value of the ps brand is and that would include IPs, studios etc.

I also have no idea what the comparison would be between XB and PS brands value.

If anyone has the info please enlighten us!

I would think the PS is worth more than XB because of all the somy owned studios and IPs.


Xbox were evaluated at 23B, and you say PS should fetch more, but you also said PS brand is worth 5B, so you were quite lost...

On the methodology to determine the Xbox brand worth see this.

foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Quite possible... it baffles me that MS during X360 times (without Gears being theirs) the brand was 25B but people saying Sony in entirety were worth less.

And you know how they came up with all those pointless valuations for the Xbox brand, all they did was use a simple revenue multiple (price-to-sales) that used Nintendo as the benchmark.  

It all depended on how much Nintendo's stock sold for times its trailing 12-month revenue then applied to Xbox revenue estimates.  The higher that multiple was on Nintendo's end, the higher value they could say the Xbox was worth.  

It's a simple and erroneous calculation that has little basis in the reality of the situation.  Nintendo shouldn't be used to determine the value of Xbox because they are too different and using multiples gives us a shortsighted view.

Well we can both agree it was bad made evaluation... because if we would evaluate PS brand worth based on earning using Mojang (350M but sold for 2.5B) then PS Brand would be worth like 75B.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

kowenicki said:
DonFerrari said:
BeElite said:


moronicism runs rampent in the world.


And quite often they pretend to be quite smart and reliable, with respectable credentials.

You didnt get back to me on those figures you had showing gaming to be more profitable than financials recently and being a major financial contributor to Sony Corp always.

Guess you realised how wildly wrong you were.

No worries.

 

And I guess you said it wasn't necessary, and I said I probably read wrong...

But yes, you felt it was necessary to bring it for some sactisfactition since you are pretty much disregarded in all the other parts of the site for completely oblivious prediction, discussion and incapacity to say you were wrong.

Guess you could also learn to read so you could see I said I was possibly wrong on the financials having ever had a loss for a quarter and as I SAID about 20 times, PS was doing GOOD profit numbers in the last quart. I NEVER, and I will repeat NEVER said they were a major contributor... and if you had the trouble to read the thread you will see myself saying the same to a lot of people... PS losses and earnings weren't never a deciding factor (or hold much weight) in sony final numbers... even if we consider PS3 as a whole losing something between 4-5B (or as some account, all the profit PS1 and 2 had made) it was spread in like 10years, but sony had quite sometimes lost almost that much in a single year... but yes, keep guessing wrong and trying to fell superior to think you are any better than anyone.

And also not sure why you quoted this convo, because also haven't said I had credentials in financials or pretended to be reliable, and quite sure haven't named or quoted you in here... have you by any chance think you were being mentioned in this? Why would that be?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:

Xbox were evaluated at 23B, and you say PS should fetch more, but you also said PS brand is worth 5B, so you were quite lost...

On the methodology to determine the Xbox brand worth see this.

foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Quite possible... it baffles me that MS during X360 times (without Gears being theirs) the brand was 25B but people saying Sony in entirety were worth less.

And you know how they came up with all those pointless valuations for the Xbox brand, all they did was use a simple revenue multiple (price-to-sales) that used Nintendo as the benchmark.  

It all depended on how much Nintendo's stock sold for times its trailing 12-month revenue then applied to Xbox revenue estimates.  The higher that multiple was on Nintendo's end, the higher value they could say the Xbox was worth.  

It's a simple and erroneous calculation that has little basis in the reality of the situation.  Nintendo shouldn't be used to determine the value of Xbox because they are too different and using multiples gives us a shortsighted view.

Well we can both agree it was bad made evaluation... because if we would evaluate PS brand worth based on earning using Mojang (350M but sold for 2.5B) then PS Brand would be worth like 75B.

I see where you're going but it wouldn't work that way since Mojang wasn't a publicly traded company so you couldn't calculate with a revenue multiple.  

One reason I think Bloomberg shouldn't have used Nintendo to measure the Xbox brand value using multiples is because a large portion of Nintendo's revenue comes from it's handhelds and Xbox doesn't compete in that space.  Again multiples are too simple.



Soundwave said:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=896186

Looks like another year of massive losses at Sony. Not good. Apparently the smartphone division is not doing too well. 


the smartphone division would do way better if they advertised and made them available on all carriers stateside.  i wanted a Z3 but could get one easily for AT&T  so i gave up and got a G3 instead.



foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Xbox were evaluated at 23B, and you say PS should fetch more, but you also said PS brand is worth 5B, so you were quite lost...

On the methodology to determine the Xbox brand worth see this.

foxtail said:
DonFerrari said:

Quite possible... it baffles me that MS during X360 times (without Gears being theirs) the brand was 25B but people saying Sony in entirety were worth less.

And you know how they came up with all those pointless valuations for the Xbox brand, all they did was use a simple revenue multiple (price-to-sales) that used Nintendo as the benchmark.  

It all depended on how much Nintendo's stock sold for times its trailing 12-month revenue then applied to Xbox revenue estimates.  The higher that multiple was on Nintendo's end, the higher value they could say the Xbox was worth.  

It's a simple and erroneous calculation that has little basis in the reality of the situation.  Nintendo shouldn't be used to determine the value of Xbox because they are too different and using multiples gives us a shortsighted view.

Well we can both agree it was bad made evaluation... because if we would evaluate PS brand worth based on earning using Mojang (350M but sold for 2.5B) then PS Brand would be worth like 75B.

I see where you're going but it wouldn't work that way since Mojang wasn't a publicly traded company so you couldn't calculate with a revenue multiple.  

One reason I think Bloomberg shouldn't have used Nintendo to measure the Xbox brand value using multiples is because a large portion of Nintendo's revenue comes from it's handhelds and Xbox doesn't compete in that space.  Again multiples are too simple.

Well any "simplistic" calculation would give this kind of bizarre flaws... Why didn't Bloomberg gone for Sony Marketcap and made the same assumption, because that would also mix useless things... I quite believe they used a more positive number to put their analysis (and I'm not that far from believing 23B would be a fair price to pay on the whole Xbox brand) just said that it was obtuse to say Sony in whole is worth less than Xbox brand while PS brand is far more valueable than Xbox brand.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."