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

Forums - Sony - What if Blu-ray, PS3 and PSP died. Would Sony survive?

hunter_alien on 08 September 2007
FishyJoe said:
hunter_alien said:
leo-j said:
@happy squrriel

It was only japan not the rest of the world.

And it was only about there share value . Yes , maybe it was more powerfull , but it didnt say how many shares , because Sony has probably 5oooook while I dont think that Sony has more than 1oooook shares ... the share value was higher not the overall . And that to only in Japan .


No. You shouldn't comment on something you have zero knowledge. Unless you're being sarcastic, then ignore what I said.


Really , than please explain it to me ... I read about this on GS back when it was released , and this is exactly what I and proabbly 9o% of the people understand ...  You know not every company has the same amount of shares , how do you think Sony can sell now shares worth of 3.2 billion dollars ? I know that Nintendos share went of from 16 to 45 dolars in a year , but that still says nothing about the companys overall value .



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

Around the Network
Hus on 08 September 2007

Why are you still arguing, this is just a stupid troll thread.

For nearly a decade SCE kept Sony in the profits, now its time for the other divisions to do it. PS3 will be near breaking even early 08 now add PSP/PS2 profits that = SCE out of the red.

As for Br its not just Sony, alot of other corps have sunk plenty into it. And the PSP is profits right now, if it were to die (its not) they would make PSP2 duhh.



W29 on 08 September 2007

Sony isn't going to fail, cause they don't want to be in a hole like Sega was. Generally speaking if Sony was to fail on the PS3 that would put a dent between Sony and consumers which then start a similar scenario with Sega, which again lost a lot of fans because of its failing consoles.



FishyJoe on 08 September 2007
hunter_alien said:

Really , than please explain it to me ... I read about this on GS back when it was released , and this is exactly what I and proabbly 9o% of the people understand ... You know not every company has the same amount of shares , how do you think Sony can sell now shares worth of 3.2 billion dollars ? I know that Nintendos share went of from 16 to 45 dolars in a year , but that still says nothing about the companys overall value .


I'm not going to spend my time explaining it because you are too lazy to do your own research. I've already explained it numerous times on this forum and the information is readily available on the internet. 



routsounmanman on 08 September 2007
hunter_alien said:
FishyJoe said:
hunter_alien said:
leo-j said:
@happy squrriel

It was only japan not the rest of the world.

And it was only about there share value . Yes , maybe it was more powerfull , but it didnt say how many shares , because Sony has probably 5oooook while I dont think that Sony has more than 1oooook shares ... the share value was higher not the overall . And that to only in Japan .


No. You shouldn't comment on something you have zero knowledge. Unless you're being sarcastic, then ignore what I said.


Really , than please explain it to me ... I read about this on GS back when it was released , and this is exactly what I and proabbly 9o% of the people understand ...  You know not every company has the same amount of shares , how do you think Sony can sell now shares worth of 3.2 billion dollars ? I know that Nintendos share went of from 16 to 45 dolars in a year , but that still says nothing about the companys overall value .


It's not about quantity of the shares, it's about their individual value.

My themeforest portfolio:

http://themeforest.net/user/corethemes/portfolio

Around the Network
sieanr on 08 September 2007
hunter_alien said:
FishyJoe said:
hunter_alien said:
leo-j said:
@happy squrriel

It was only japan not the rest of the world.

And it was only about there share value . Yes , maybe it was more powerfull , but it didnt say how many shares , because Sony has probably 5oooook while I dont think that Sony has more than 1oooook shares ... the share value was higher not the overall . And that to only in Japan .


No. You shouldn't comment on something you have zero knowledge. Unless you're being sarcastic, then ignore what I said.


Really , than please explain it to me ... I read about this on GS back when it was released , and this is exactly what I and proabbly 9o% of the people understand ...  You know not every company has the same amount of shares , how do you think Sony can sell now shares worth of 3.2 billion dollars ? I know that Nintendos share went of from 16 to 45 dolars in a year , but that still says nothing about the companys overall value .

Just stop, you're digging yourself into a deeper hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization - read this and then see HappySquirels post. Currently, Nintendo has a market cap at 64 million. Sony is at 47 million.

As for stock value, Nintendo is at 56.85 and Sony is at 47.35.



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

FishyJoe on 08 September 2007
sieanr said:

Just stop, you're digging yourself into a deeper hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization - read this and then see HappySquirels post. Currently, Nintendo has a market cap at 64 million. Sony is at 47 million.

As for stock value, Nintendo is at 56.85 and Sony is at 47.35.


That's not quite correct. Both of these companies trade on Japanese exchanges. These dollar values are for the ADRs which are only holding for Japanese shares. The correct market cap is calcualted with the shares on the Japanese market. 



dtewi on 08 September 2007

Sony would survive.

@Hus

Do you know the meaning of troll? It means to insult other's opinions and provide no basis for biased posts. I certainly don't see that here.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

johnsobas on 08 September 2007

Sony would be better off without their gaming division right now, so yea they would easily survive. Sony's gaming division was profitable before the PS3 came out, but they just ate away every cent they made with the PS2.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

SlorgNet on 08 September 2007
FishyJoe said:
Wal-mart sells over half the DVDs in the USA. Wal-mart is going to nickel and dime to get the best deal. It's anybody's guess if they will choose one or both formats, but they could change the face of the format wars in an instant.

Wal-mart could sell 4.5 million players in a week if the price was low enough.

It's more complicated than that. You need an up-to-spec HDTV for next-gen video to really shine, and then you need distribution outlets so that people can buy/rent next-gen media. All the parts have to fit before you make a single penny of profit. Sony's BluRay strategy is a product of bitter experience - a long time ago, they had a great product, the Betamax, and got clobbered by Toshiba's less sophisticated VHS standard, because Toshiba emphasized access and availability. With BluRay, Sony made sure the studios and infrastructure were rolled out first.

The funny thing is, Microsoft never understood this side of Sony's strategy. I'm not sure why, they have some bright executives. Maybe they're just too much of a computer company to think like a media company.