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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Corporate Health of Sony, Nintendo and MS

Swordmasterman on 30 January 2016

tag



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 30 January 2016
Swordmasterman said:
DonFerrari said:
KLAMarine said:

Do we have access to any figures? Because if we don't, we're just pointlessly speculating.

nope i don't. but the sheer size of sony as hw manufacturer puts their profit margin a lot lower than nintendo. average wages and total payroll I have no clue.

AsGryffynn said:
I'd have said something, but it seems DonFerrari already read my mind...

Edit: Specially in Russia...

what part of it have I read?

I Think that we need to update this thread, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, already gave another Quarter's Revenue, and Profit's data, isn't ?.

Could be. I said so many things in this thread that I can't be sure what part he is saying.



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."

Soundwave on 30 January 2016
AsGryffynn said:
DonFerrari said:
KLAMarine said:

I'm not messing with you. The fact that I bothered to do the math to support my statements will attest to that.

Eddie_Raja said:

Your math clearly showed that Sony is worth more money overall.
Eddie_Raja said:
SpokenTruth said:

I think the issue here is that you are looking at absolute values and he's looking as at ratios and percentages.

 

If that is the case, you are both correct in from those viewpoints.  The question then becomes, which viewpoint is actually a better indicator of corporate health and how well they could weather problems?

Which is why I have said several times that absolute value is more important in the case of disaster - that is one my main points.  Having the best Ratios is nice for investor meetings, but when the shit hits the fan what matters is how long can you survive hardship while you steer your company back on course.  Sony's (Too?) massive size allowed them to sell off nearly endless pieces of their business when some of their divisions were going through hard times.   If Nintendo were to be hit anywhere near as hard they would go bankrupt very quickly.

Sony has more employees than Nintendo. If we divide "armor" by employee size, we get the following:

Nintendo:

$17.4 billion / 5,000 = $3,480,000 per employee

Sony:

$22.1 billion / 130,000 = $170,000 per employee


What do you make of this? Who do you think might be able to hold onto their workforce for longer during times of crisis?

I certainly know who I'd rather work for.

You assume you have almost no knowledge on the issue but keep doing meaningless math to prove Nintendo is safier or have more armor? If you don't know what you are talking about it's better to just say you don't know.

AsGryffynn said:
DonFerrari said:
Teeqoz said:

Even the most profitable companies take up loans, because sometimes you need short term cash to cover expenses, and it makes no sense to take that cash from your main reserves. This is the same reason the country I live in (Norway) can run a surplus on its federal budget, but still takes up loans to cover costs. It's not as simple as a "They have enough money to pay it, so why don't they."

Also corporate bonds don't work like that. It's not like you can pay it whenever you want. They have due dates and set interest payments for years.

Government debt is a little more complicated... A lot of the reserve is used to manipulate the market in some way and play with exchange rates, and serve as cushion. So they can't dispose of that money and need external money. Other times like in Brazil they take money from banks with like 14% interest and lend subsized to "improve industries" and that money is lent by the same bank by 4% interest rate, and basically the bank is making 10% profit with a money it doesn't even own.

On company side, you could see on simpler term that a investiment have 25% return rate while the lent money will cost 10% on that period, so it's better to own money because it'll generate profit to cover the cost of it... That is why MS even having much more cash than Ninty still pick a lot of loans on the market... Ninty is probably too risk adverse and preffer to sit on their cash and invest very little and lend even less.

As far as I know USA always wanted to swallow the world economy and MS in 90's were already quite big. But what does that have to do with Sony problems? MS never caused much trouble to Sony besisdes maybe pushing them to bad decisions on PS3 (which I doubt, they would probably release the same HW independt of MS being or not in the market) or having to drop the price to fast and losing money (Sony usually drops HW price fast, but yes I can see MS pressure being a decisive ingredient here).

They weren't the juggernauts they are now. Windows was only starting to become popular (Windows 98 was when the rollout started) and the US economy swallowed the world whole during the Clinton years, so American companies started expanding like crazy until the Great Recession. When the Xbox appeared, they weren't that important, but with the 360 they started to pressure Sony into severing what they didn't profit from and created competition to help lower game prices.

They didn't really change anything. I just wanted to clarify they weren't as big back then...

 

Errr ... Bill Gates was the most famous business man on the planet in the 90s and Microsoft was the biggest corporation in the 90s. Way before Windows 98. 



KLAMarine on 31 January 2016
DonFerrari said:
KLAMarine said:
DonFerrari said:

Of course it would. Sony have a lot more areas and certainly a different distribution of labor and in some cases more outsorced production. Nintendo makes some HW and a lot of SW while Sony as a whole makes a lot more HW than SW. So the type of professionals and the profit margins are very different.

Do we have access to any figures? Because if we don't, we're just pointlessly speculating.

nope i don't. but the sheer size of sony as hw manufacturer puts their profit margin a lot lower than nintendo. average wages and total payroll I have no clue.

Still no solid numbers so I wouldn't say with confidence that Sony's "profit margin" is lower than Nintendo's.



DonFerrari on 31 January 2016
KLAMarine said:
DonFerrari said:
KLAMarine said:

Do we have access to any figures? Because if we don't, we're just pointlessly speculating.

nope i don't. but the sheer size of sony as hw manufacturer puts their profit margin a lot lower than nintendo. average wages and total payroll I have no clue.

Still no solid numbers so I wouldn't say with confidence that Sony's "profit margin" is lower than Nintendo's.

If you look at most Fiscal Year reports you'll see that Sony profit margins are very smaller than Nintendo

Sony revenue Q3: 2,580.8 B Yen for a profit of 202B Yen or 120B Yen for shareholders.... 8% or 4,7% depending on where you look... and that was a record quarter for Sony

Nintendo revenue FY15: 549,8B Yen profit for 24B Yen and 42B Yen for shareholders... 4,3% or 7,6% on a bad year. ... on 2011 1,014.35B Yen revenue for 171,1B Yen profit and 77,6B Yen net... 17% or 7,6%

On general Nintendo show better margins than Sony, it's actually one of the proud points Nintendo fans bring on the site.



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
Swordmasterman on 31 January 2016
Soundwave said:
AsGryffynn said:
DonFerrari said:
KLAMarine said:

I'm not messing with you. The fact that I bothered to do the math to support my statements will attest to that.

Eddie_Raja said:

Your math clearly showed that Sony is worth more money overall.
Eddie_Raja said:
SpokenTruth said:

I think the issue here is that you are looking at absolute values and he's looking as at ratios and percentages.

 

If that is the case, you are both correct in from those viewpoints.  The question then becomes, which viewpoint is actually a better indicator of corporate health and how well they could weather problems?

Which is why I have said several times that absolute value is more important in the case of disaster - that is one my main points.  Having the best Ratios is nice for investor meetings, but when the shit hits the fan what matters is how long can you survive hardship while you steer your company back on course.  Sony's (Too?) massive size allowed them to sell off nearly endless pieces of their business when some of their divisions were going through hard times.   If Nintendo were to be hit anywhere near as hard they would go bankrupt very quickly.

Sony has more employees than Nintendo. If we divide "armor" by employee size, we get the following:

Nintendo:

$17.4 billion / 5,000 = $3,480,000 per employee

Sony:

$22.1 billion / 130,000 = $170,000 per employee


What do you make of this? Who do you think might be able to hold onto their workforce for longer during times of crisis?

I certainly know who I'd rather work for.

You assume you have almost no knowledge on the issue but keep doing meaningless math to prove Nintendo is safier or have more armor? If you don't know what you are talking about it's better to just say you don't know.

AsGryffynn said:
DonFerrari said:
Teeqoz said:

Even the most profitable companies take up loans, because sometimes you need short term cash to cover expenses, and it makes no sense to take that cash from your main reserves. This is the same reason the country I live in (Norway) can run a surplus on its federal budget, but still takes up loans to cover costs. It's not as simple as a "They have enough money to pay it, so why don't they."

Also corporate bonds don't work like that. It's not like you can pay it whenever you want. They have due dates and set interest payments for years.

Government debt is a little more complicated... A lot of the reserve is used to manipulate the market in some way and play with exchange rates, and serve as cushion. So they can't dispose of that money and need external money. Other times like in Brazil they take money from banks with like 14% interest and lend subsized to "improve industries" and that money is lent by the same bank by 4% interest rate, and basically the bank is making 10% profit with a money it doesn't even own.

On company side, you could see on simpler term that a investiment have 25% return rate while the lent money will cost 10% on that period, so it's better to own money because it'll generate profit to cover the cost of it... That is why MS even having much more cash than Ninty still pick a lot of loans on the market... Ninty is probably too risk adverse and preffer to sit on their cash and invest very little and lend even less.

As far as I know USA always wanted to swallow the world economy and MS in 90's were already quite big. But what does that have to do with Sony problems? MS never caused much trouble to Sony besisdes maybe pushing them to bad decisions on PS3 (which I doubt, they would probably release the same HW independt of MS being or not in the market) or having to drop the price to fast and losing money (Sony usually drops HW price fast, but yes I can see MS pressure being a decisive ingredient here).

They weren't the juggernauts they are now. Windows was only starting to become popular (Windows 98 was when the rollout started) and the US economy swallowed the world whole during the Clinton years, so American companies started expanding like crazy until the Great Recession. When the Xbox appeared, they weren't that important, but with the 360 they started to pressure Sony into severing what they didn't profit from and created competition to help lower game prices.

They didn't really change anything. I just wanted to clarify they weren't as big back then...

 

Errr ... Bill Gates was the most famous business man on the planet in the 90s and Microsoft was the biggest corporation in the 90s. Way before Windows 98. 

Microsoft, was not the Biggest corporation in the World, and also is not the biggest corporation nowdays, but Bill Gates, was one of the most famous.





Swordmasterman on 31 January 2016
SpokenTruth said:
Swordmasterman said:

 

I Think that we need to update this thread, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, already gave another Quarter's Revenue, and Profit's data, isn't ?.

Thsi threads shows fiscal year data.  What was released recenty by Sony and MS was just quarterly.  Nintendo will release theirs on Feb 2nd.

Full fiscal year data will come out around early to mid May for Sony and Nintendo while MS is offset by one quarter (we'll get their fiscal year data in mid July).

Good to know, but Why are some companies showing Q2, while others just Q1 ?.





AsGryffynn on 31 January 2016
DonFerrari said:
KLAMarine said:
DonFerrari said:
KLAMarine said:

Seeing as how we don't have numbers pertaining to any of the Big 3's employee salaries, we can't do much but work off of assumptions. Since both make consumer electronics, I assume both Nintendo and Sony hire similarly-paid workers so the average across their workforce would not be very different.

Of course it would. Sony have a lot more areas and certainly a different distribution of labor and in some cases more outsorced production. Nintendo makes some HW and a lot of SW while Sony as a whole makes a lot more HW than SW. So the type of professionals and the profit margins are very different.

Do we have access to any figures? Because if we don't, we're just pointlessly speculating.

nope i don't. but the sheer size of sony as hw manufacturer puts their profit margin a lot lower than nintendo. average wages and total payroll I have no clue.

AsGryffynn said:
I'd have said something, but it seems DonFerrari already read my mind...

Edit: Specially in Russia...

what part of it have I read?

The good part. 





KLAMarine on 31 January 2016
DonFerrari said:
KLAMarine said:
DonFerrari said:

nope i don't. but the sheer size of sony as hw manufacturer puts their profit margin a lot lower than nintendo. average wages and total payroll I have no clue.

Still no solid numbers so I wouldn't say with confidence that Sony's "profit margin" is lower than Nintendo's.

If you look at most Fiscal Year reports you'll see that Sony profit margins are very smaller than Nintendo

Sony revenue Q3: 2,580.8 B Yen for a profit of 202B Yen or 120B Yen for shareholders.... 8% or 4,7% depending on where you look... and that was a record quarter for Sony

Nintendo revenue FY15: 549,8B Yen profit for 24B Yen and 42B Yen for shareholders... 4,3% or 7,6% on a bad year. ... on 2011 1,014.35B Yen revenue for 171,1B Yen profit and 77,6B Yen net... 17% or 7,6%

On general Nintendo show better margins than Sony, it's actually one of the proud points Nintendo fans bring on the site.

Numbers! Good ol' numbers! Math is a lovely thing.

DonFerrari said:

On general Nintendo show better margins than Sony, it's actually one of the proud points Nintendo fans bring on the site.

I think this is the first I've heard of this. I generally don't make a habit out of looking up financials.

 

Good to know.



Natsu on 31 January 2016

I wonder how much money microsoft actually makes from gaming, obviously quite a bit but I would think windows makes them a lot more.