Forums - Sony Discussion - Why Sony's Take-Two Aquisition RUMOR seems possible now?

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

There are plenty of times when a companies stock is way over or under valued, and it wouldn't be crazy to think with the high that Take Two is on, that they very well may be over valued at this point in time. Meaning if a buyout occurred, they probably wouldn't get all that much more for the company than what it's valued at now.

Depending on how the companies stock is divided, it's quite possible the individuals running the company may have very little control over whether or not they can stop the company from being purchased. There are literally hostile takeovers at times when one company buys up the overwhelming majority of shares of another and that's that.

This may or may not be the case, but I doubt Sony would take over Take Two if they didn't think it was a good idea to sell, yet anything is possible. I'd still guess it's unlikely but there are certainly good reasons why it would be a worthy purchase for SNY. Depends on what PS has planned for the future.

Yes I know it. My company when bought had like a 20% bonus on the share or less when they decided the price. When it gone for the stockholders to decide because the rumor spread out and stock evaluated the bonus was like 5%. They sold anyway because they expected the stock to fall in the short and middle term because the company had evaluated almost 100% in 2 years.

I'm talking more about bid war (on a deal that was secret before leak), sharing profits (when you are already making your profit and some on the sale) and other stuff.

And yes I agree it's unlikely to happen.

I was just using your point to elaborate for those who didn't realize public companies don't exactly operate in the same way as a private company and that the stock market isn't the perfect indicator of a public companies overall position. I could've been more clear on that in retrospect.



Around the Network
Azzanation said:
lightningfunk said:

I know you seem really passionate about this move, but its not as good as it sounds in reality. 

1st - Sony already make a fortune with Take-Two as it is with the giant sales on PS platforms.. so the money isn't that much greater than if they went out brought them which would be considered a lot of money for Sony to spend as a corporation. Not only do you choke hold the games from Take-Two which means Take-Two sell less units overall, it means the profits wont be as high as they are now. 

2nd - You never buy companies when there at there peak which would be the case here thanks to Rockstar etc. Its corporate suicide to spend so much at such a peak time. They need to play is smart and wait for companies to devalue than you jump on board. Look at MS and the studios they brought, they didn't just go out and buy the biggest studios in the world at there very best, they brought what would have been good prices and talent for the money. So the companies under them can gain value and grow over the course of being successful which will increase MS stocks. Take-Two is already extremely successful so there value as a company wont go up as much, but they can drop extremely low if mistakes happen or they fall apart. 

3rd - Its a giant slap in the face to the industry and gamers alike who play there games, we are not talking about 1 or 2 million gamers missing out here, we are talking about the likes of 40m+ GTA fans missing out due to this idea. That's not a good image to have. And definitely not a good financial one either. We know Sony well enough now that anything they own will be locked, they wont share it with others, maybe PC.. big maybe.. Unless Sony do what MS do with Minecraft and make the big games multiplat so they can make the most amount of profit to earn back there spending's. But its Sony, I highly doubt they would.

4th - You don't make these big purchases on the brim of a new generation especially when the competition is going to be fierce. Don't expect Xbox to fall over the starter line next gen and don't expect Nintendo to make another WiiU mistake. Next gen is going to be big for all 3 as it looks promising on all sides. Take-Two joining Sony sounds good only on Paper but if the next Xbox outsells the next Playstation console or even if its on Par or close than Take-Two already lost in the deal because the more customers the industry has = more sales potential they could have earned overall, but not if you are tied to one or two platforms.

Nvidia just bought out Mellanox who is at an all time 12 year high. It's a cash deal and Nvidia has about $7.5 bil in cash and is paying $7.0 bil in cash to acquire them. Nvidia is purchasing them for $125 per share when the stock was around $110 when rumors came out that Nvidia may outbid Intel. Nvidia's market cap is $100 bil, but in a cash deal that doesn't mean a whole lot, and Mellanox has a $6.5 bil market cap.

SNY has $25 bil in cash. SNY market cap is $60 bil and Take Two market cap is $10 bil. Take Two stock was floating around $90 per share before the SNY rumors, and is now closer to $95 per share. Take Two is down from the all time high of $140 per share over the past couple of years, but is still on an overall 20+ year high. SNY should be able to buy Take Two if the deal can be made for anywhere between $11 and $15 bil. It would leave SNY with at least $10 bil in the bank still.

Nvidia is worth way more than SNY but doesn't have near the cash sitting around. Mellanox is mostly being bought for it's tech know how and IP so Nvidia can make a better product and more money in the future, and their net income over the last couple of years isn't that much different than Take Two. Take Two actually made slightly more then Mellanox. Intel even has $11.5 bil in cash and lost the bid to Nvidia.

Part of why Nvidia is probably doing this, is because Intel is coming out with what hopefully will be somewhat competitive GPU's in the next couple of years, and AMD is a year or two away from their redesigned next gen GPU architecture finally. For the graphics sector, it's on the verge of 'next gen' you could say, and so Nvidia is doing what they feel necessary to retain their stranglehold on the market, as well as make headway into new markets. This fits quite well with why SNY may want to try and acquire a company like Take Two, since they've been the market leader this gen, making by far the most money, much like Nvidia has, and they can expand into new markets, while strengthening their existing.

Whether or not the purchase makes sense based on what PS and SNY want to do with the business, and whether Take Two is something they can actually acquire aside from money, the deal shouldn't be much of a problem when it comes to financials. The deciding factor would mostly be Take Two and their ability to sell or resist and how much they feel is a reasonable sale price.

As for making Take Two titles exclusive, while it would be a slap in the face to the industry, so were the studios they bought in the past, as well as the studio's more recently purchased by MS. SNY initially acquired those studios to be able to build their brand to what it is today, and MS is purchasing theirs because they realize what it has done for SNY and that if they don't, they may not be around for long to compete directly with SNY. Just because MS has put themselves on a more even playing field in terms of first party titles, doesn't mean PS is going to just sit there and watch. The fact that PS has had an advantage in terms of first party is part of what has made them the market leader, so it only makes sense to try and hold onto that position. While they could buy many more smaller studios like MS did, buying Take Two takes care of everything and more, all in one easy shot, and while MS pulls their hair out trying to manage and build out their new studios, PS can mostly sit back and let Take Two do their thing, exclusive or not.

While this probably sounds like I think it's going to happen, I don't actually, mostly based on SNY building out their own established studios already, working so closely with Kojima, etc, but I can't deny the possibility that PS will go big like they usually do next gen, but in terms of software this time around and not so much hardware.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 16 March 2019

LudicrousSpeed said:

The

DonFerrari said:
Some people have 0 idea on how business work.

 

DonFerrari said:

If MS paid 2.5B for Minecraft no one can call Sony crazy for paying 10B on TakeTwo (but yes I don't think it is a soundy decision).

What an ironic 1-2 combo of posts.

Please explain to me what irony have in saying the business isn't a very soundy decision, as much as MS putting 2.5B in a game that didn't had assured return of that in profit.

EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes I know it. My company when bought had like a 20% bonus on the share or less when they decided the price. When it gone for the stockholders to decide because the rumor spread out and stock evaluated the bonus was like 5%. They sold anyway because they expected the stock to fall in the short and middle term because the company had evaluated almost 100% in 2 years.

I'm talking more about bid war (on a deal that was secret before leak), sharing profits (when you are already making your profit and some on the sale) and other stuff.

And yes I agree it's unlikely to happen.

I was just using your point to elaborate for those who didn't realize public companies don't exactly operate in the same way as a private company and that the stock market isn't the perfect indicator of a public companies overall position. I could've been more clear on that in retrospect.

I understood your intention, at least I think so, that is why I gave even more information that corroborated your point.

Also to remember is that if Sony intended to do an "agressive" takeover on the stock of TakeDown they likely could as well (even less probable than an amicable purchase with premium on the shares).

So all in all I do agree that if shareholders don't think in the midterm the shares would get anywhere near what Sony is offering I don't see much reason for they to refuse to sell.



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

DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

The

 

What an ironic 1-2 combo of posts.

Please explain to me what irony have in saying the business isn't a very soundy decision, as much as MS putting 2.5B in a game that didn't had assured return of that in profit.

EricHiggin said:

I was just using your point to elaborate for those who didn't realize public companies don't exactly operate in the same way as a private company and that the stock market isn't the perfect indicator of a public companies overall position. I could've been more clear on that in retrospect.

I understood your intention, at least I think so, that is why I gave even more information that corroborated your point.

Also to remember is that if Sony intended to do an "agressive" takeover on the stock of TakeDown they likely could as well (even less probable than an amicable purchase with premium on the shares).

So all in all I do agree that if shareholders don't think in the midterm the shares would get anywhere near what Sony is offering I don't see much reason for they to refuse to sell.

What could hold them back is the potential damaging of how the brand is percieved by consumers,people do not like when company's buy exclusives like this and in the long run it could lead to a loss when those same exclusives are not handled well enough and with a big investment there might be a possible pressure to put games out more quickly which might result into lesser quality.

It's a risk.



Immersiveunreality said:
DonFerrari said:

Please explain to me what irony have in saying the business isn't a very soundy decision, as much as MS putting 2.5B in a game that didn't had assured return of that in profit.

I understood your intention, at least I think so, that is why I gave even more information that corroborated your point.

Also to remember is that if Sony intended to do an "agressive" takeover on the stock of TakeDown they likely could as well (even less probable than an amicable purchase with premium on the shares).

So all in all I do agree that if shareholders don't think in the midterm the shares would get anywhere near what Sony is offering I don't see much reason for they to refuse to sell.

What could hold them back is the potential damaging of how the brand is percieved by consumers,people do not like when company's buy exclusives like this and in the long run it could lead to a loss when those same exclusives are not handled well enough and with a big investment there might be a possible pressure to put games out more quickly which might result into lesser quality.

It's a risk.

A regular buyout would already have a big potential for brand damage, imagine a hostile take over.

Sony would be better using 200M to make sure The Agent comes to PS3 or 5 =p



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

Around the Network

EricHiggin said:

Sip

I don't think anyone is doubting Sony's ability to purchase Take-Two, its more the point of what sense does it make to Sony as a whole. For one, we know Sony well enough that anything Multiplat is not there direction, there more about locking everything to there own eco-system, which is fine with there own games etc. But keep in mind that Take-Two will earn less money, as there sales will be reduced because of this buyout. I wont believe that Take-Two under Sony will sell 90m GTA games on Sony's platform alone.

If Take-Two was brought out, lets face it, its more for Rockstar as there games are the ones that will make the most headlines. The competition like MS will probably just make there own GTA game instead. It will probably cost MS $100m to create an entirely new IP designed to mirror GTA that will probably be multiplatform with cross play which will be a major selling point as GTA and Red Dead Online has shown the games have big potential to go all out with a MMO platform etc. After all MS did just recruit the lead designer of Red Dead who's working at The Initiative. So as you mention MS pulling there hair out trying to get there studios to fire, I think it will be more Sony with this deal as its going to cost them $10b to own. 

You also have to look at Sony as a whole not just a console brand. $25b is a lot of money but not for a company like Sony who's competition with brands like LG and Samsung etc. They need the money for other investments, even there online services are behind as they are probably saving to make PSN a world wide service. To throw almost half of it away for 1 brand is extremely risky and all the competition has to do is invest to make clones. Especially since we don't know how big Xbox, Nintendo or Google will be for that matter next gen.

As Immersiveunreality pointed out, the damage to the consumers of knowing a company is a sell out will also play its toll as we witness with Fortnite when Sony refused Cross play and Sony's shares dropped 2% (Or something like that) because many gamers hold these things personal.

https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/06/14/sony-shares-dip-amid-e3-and-fortnite-cross-play-controversy

This industry is very sensitive as we learnt with the PS3, WiiU and XB1. Its all about the consumers, and the moment they feel like there been taken advantage of there will be outcries. With the industry going for a more friendly approach with game sharing etc, buying something as big as Take-Two will have its negatives as well. It is a giant risk for little reward, remember as it stands now, Sony are already making tons of money with Take-Two.



DonFerrari said:
Immersiveunreality said:

What could hold them back is the potential damaging of how the brand is percieved by consumers,people do not like when company's buy exclusives like this and in the long run it could lead to a loss when those same exclusives are not handled well enough and with a big investment there might be a possible pressure to put games out more quickly which might result into lesser quality.

It's a risk.

A regular buyout would already have a big potential for brand damage, imagine a hostile take over.

Sony would be better using 200M to make sure The Agent comes to PS3 or 5 =p

I always keep forgetting it existed,i agree and just the brand of rockstar on that exclusive might mean big sales for software and consoles.



I´m a bit out of the loop here but was this rumor debunked?



JamesGarret said:
I´m a bit out of the loop here but was this rumor debunked?

Pretty much, from the source, from the companies and it was pretty much baseless rumor to begin with. 



 

JamesGarret said:


I´m a bit out of the loop here but was this rumor debunked?

Sony said they aren't interested in buying TakeTwo and T2 said they won't comment on rumor.

Not that this is relevant as until business is closed (if it is in negotiation) they will keep denying or refusing to comment. And that is probably reason why leaker will do it and in the end when nothing happens they can jut say they didn't reach an agreement.

But considering this was a rumor from a hearsay source on like third degree, it was baseless from the start. It holds as much base as me saying that I heard someone I trust say that McDonalds is on board talking to purchase Disney.



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