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

Forums - Microsoft - What if Microsoft goes on a shopping spree?

 

What's the worst videogame movie of all time?

BloodRayne 208 15.44%
 
DOA: Dead or Alive 166 12.32%
 
House of the Dead 147 10.91%
 
Mortal Kombat 76 5.64%
 
Street Fighter 204 15.14%
 
Super Mario Bros. 546 40.53%
 
Total:1,347
Megadude on 14 April 2009
starcraft said:
dbot said:
The PS3 versions of Bioshock 2 and Assasins Creed 2 will generate 2 million in sales. If the Developer/Publisher split is $40 that's 80 million dollars MS would have to invest in those 2 games. I think the reason you are seeing MS buy the exclusive marketing deals for demos, game announcements, and dlc is that it is too expensive to buy exclusive games. Also, 20 million for the next Bethesda game seems way too low.

Assassin's Creed easily.  But do you really see Bioshock 2 PS3 selling two million?

 

 

1-2 mill why not? It's not coming out 15 month late this time.



Around the Network
mrstickball on 14 April 2009

If I was MS, I'd spend that $200,000,000 and buy out Epic's Unreal Engine, and distribute it freely to developers that want to make a game time exclusive or exclusive for the X360. That'd secure more games than a simple $200m would. Heck, I doubt UE3 would cost $200m to secure.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

disolitude on 14 April 2009
mrstickball said:
If I was MS, I'd spend that $200,000,000 and buy out Epic's Unreal Engine, and distribute it freely to developers that want to make a game time exclusive or exclusive for the X360. That'd secure more games than a simple $200m would. Heck, I doubt UE3 would cost $200m to secure.

 



BengaBenga on 14 April 2009
Megadude said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
Megadude said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
Megadude said:
I am talking about market cap.

"MCAP. Market capitalization represents the aggregate value of a company or stock. It is obtained by multiplying the number of shares outstanding by their current price per share. For example, if XYZ company has 15,000,000 shares outstanding and a share price of $20 per share then the market capitalization is 15,000,000 x $20 = $300,000,000. Generally, the U.S. market recognizes three market cap divisions: large cap (usually $5 billion and above), mid cap (usually $1 billion to $5 billion), and small cap (usually less than $1 billion), although the cutoffs between the categories are not precise or fixed. In our example above, XYZ would be considered a small cap company. also called market cap."

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Microsoft as a corporation makes money. Whatever the perceived value of the shares reflected on the stock price is largely irrelevant since Microsoft doesn't need to perform operations with its own stock since they are churning over four billions of profit per quarter.

If you were talking about Sony, a corporation losing tons of money, then share value might have some relevance since they are in need of resources.

 

Then why are they firing 17% of their employees? I guess all those pinkslips will be somthing for them to perceive right?

 

Oh god. Trying to explain finances to people not acquinted with the matter at hand is... ugh.

Profitable business (like Microsoft) fire employees during economic downturns for two reasons: first, it's easier to trim the fat when the economy is shaking. Second, to lower operating costs in order to turn the same profit with lower revenue.

@kowenicki: no, of course not. Megadude ain't in the business of being rational. He just has an agenda to push.

Their stock is the lowest it's been since the 90's they're getting sued left and right. They've lost over 20 billion on the X-Box brand, cutting employees, vista was fail, Google is killing..... But you say all is well. They should loose more market value it wouldn't matter if their stocks traded for free you sez.

Now I'm not a CPA but my wifey is. We live in downtown Manhattan not the first stage in RE4. Show me the numbers that back up your statement that Microsoft is doing better then ever and has more money to burn then ever before or I call BS on you.

 

And I'm NOT talking about Sony; the OP is saying that M$ should go on a 200 million dollar shopping spree. Alls I'm telling you is that MS may not have as much money to burn as you think, (and you seem to think it's infinite).

 

If you try to come across as knowledgeable, at least get your figures right. Or ask your "wifey" the correct figures. It's nowhere close to 20 billion.

 



badgenome on 14 April 2009
Megadude said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
Megadude said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
Megadude said:
I am talking about market cap.

"MCAP. Market capitalization represents the aggregate value of a company or stock. It is obtained by multiplying the number of shares outstanding by their current price per share. For example, if XYZ company has 15,000,000 shares outstanding and a share price of $20 per share then the market capitalization is 15,000,000 x $20 = $300,000,000. Generally, the U.S. market recognizes three market cap divisions: large cap (usually $5 billion and above), mid cap (usually $1 billion to $5 billion), and small cap (usually less than $1 billion), although the cutoffs between the categories are not precise or fixed. In our example above, XYZ would be considered a small cap company. also called market cap."

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Microsoft as a corporation makes money. Whatever the perceived value of the shares reflected on the stock price is largely irrelevant since Microsoft doesn't need to perform operations with its own stock since they are churning over four billions of profit per quarter.

If you were talking about Sony, a corporation losing tons of money, then share value might have some relevance since they are in need of resources.

 

Then why are they firing 17% of their employees? I guess all those pinkslips will be somthing for them to perceive right?

 

Oh god. Trying to explain finances to people not acquinted with the matter at hand is... ugh.

Profitable business (like Microsoft) fire employees during economic downturns for two reasons: first, it's easier to trim the fat when the economy is shaking. Second, to lower operating costs in order to turn the same profit with lower revenue.

@kowenicki: no, of course not. Megadude ain't in the business of being rational. He just has an agenda to push.

Their stock is the lowest it's been since the 90's they're getting sued left and right. They've lost over 20 billion on the X-Box brand, cutting employees, vista was fail, Google is killing..... But you say all is well. They should loose more market value it wouldn't matter if their stocks traded for free you sez.

Now I'm not a CPA but my wifey is. We live in downtown Manhattan not the first stage in RE4. Show me the numbers that back up your statement that Microsoft is doing better then ever and has more money to burn then ever before or I call BS on you.

 

And I'm NOT talking about Sony; the OP is saying that M$ should go on a 200 million dollar shopping spree. Alls I'm telling you is that MS may not have as much money to burn as you think, (and you seem to think it's infinite).

 

It's more like 6 billion on the Xbox, I think.



Around the Network
WiiStation360 on 14 April 2009

The money would be better spend building quality 1st party studios to make exclusive games.

MS is way behind Nintendo/Sony in that regard.



Jordahn on 14 April 2009
Bitmap Frogs said:
Jordahn said:

That's in of itself is correct.  But in context, it is illegal to use a monopoly to influence decisions on others.  See "Department of Justice vs. Microsoft."  In this specific case of Microsoft buying exclusives in the console industry it might not be illegal, but in principle it's unethical.  It can be argued that Microsoft's "deep pockets" stemmed form their monopolistic practices that has now establish themselves in a somewhat financial secure situation.  This does put Microsoft in an unfair position when compared to other competing companies because most of those those companies will not have that financial leverage gained from legit competition as opposed to monopolistic practices employed by Microsoft.  At one time Microsoft did go on a shopping spree... to buy out Nintendo during "Project Dolphin" now known as the Gamecube.  Whether or not Nintendo took them seriously, Microsoft wanted Nintendo to stop making console hardware.  So Nintendo politely said "Go screw yourself."  So Microsoft blatantly lied to the public that Nintendo wasn't in competition with them.  If Nintendo wasn't, Microsoft would not have tried to employ their monopolistic practices to remove Nintendo from the competition to begin with.  Thank God Nintendo stuck with their guns in the face of Microsoft.  So... What if Microsoft goes on a shopping spree?  The answer is simple: Because of the past and current nature of Microsoft, they hurt the gaming console industry.

 

Have a tissue.

Microsoft is only doing the exact same thing Sony did to enter the market: overpower the traditional players using resources from HQ. Buying exclusives was one of the elements used by Sony in these days as well: Tomb Raider is just an example.

Why does it bother you that Microsoft is doing the same Sony did?

Do you think Sony using the massive resources from their electronics business to trample Nintendo and Sega was fair and ethic?

 

Seems the truth is avoided by at least one...

Nowhere did I say that SONY was innocent of any potential wrong doing.  But you had to interject SONY because you CANNOT argue the FACTS I presented.  The FACTS are that Microsoft is a monopoly and they have used that monopoly to their unethical gains.  And this is just not about gaming consoles because it goes way before that from the "Department of Justice vs. Microsoft" I just quoted.  And I NEVER said that buying exclusives were wrong "in of itself."  The bigger picture paints a more accurate picture.  Try to refute the FACTS that I posted in its correct context.  Otherwise, Wal-mart is having a sale on tampons.  Like for me to get you some...?

;)



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

Jereel Hunter on 14 April 2009
Soleron said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Jereel Hunter said:
...

It absolutely does. If an unknown has made the Wii, it may be big, but it wouldn't be as big as the Wii is today. (Nintendo is both a strong brand, despite the prior 2 generations, and more importantly they have big franchises)

Whereas Sony's brand name is what allowed them to even survive this generation. If the Sony PS3 had been something like the "Acer GameStation", and released at $600, vs the 360 in it's second iteration, it would have bombed. the 360 would be over 40m sales and the GameStation would have had the plug pulled after <5m sales. Sony's powerful brand was the only thing that prevented them from basically ruining their own gaming division.

 

...

 

Ah. I'd like to take issue with this. I don't think 360 and PS3 sales are either/or. In fact, I don't believe the 360 or Wii would have sold a single unit more if the PS3 did not exist. A lot of the PS3 system sellers so far have been made by Sony. If Sony did not exist these games wouldn't have been made and the gamers who bought them probably wouldn't have spent those dollars on alternative games because those alternatives wouldn't be Sony-quality or continuing the franchises they loved. I can't think of any big PS3 exclusive save MGS4 that Sony didn't develop, publish and/or throw huge amounts of cash and dev help at.

I think the reason most of the people who currently have only a PS3 is the Sony owned or co-developed franchises. If they liked the wider HD game market, they would also have a 360. So Sony's titles are the only reason they even play console games, and if they didn't exist then they wouldn't own any console.

I must disagree there. You think that virtually every person who owns a PS3 and not a 360 would simply give up console gaming if the PS3 didn't exist? Perhaps if many Sony first party titles were considered hardware movers... but thus far, PS3's biggest sellers (with a couple exceptions) have been multiplat. those countless millions of GTA4, CoD4/WoW, Guitar Hero/Rockband, etc purchasers would have simply done without?

With no PS3, the 360 would see a huge boost as it would be the sole HD console on the market... I would agree that Wii would see almost no difference, though(not that it would need it).



Jereel Hunter on 14 April 2009
WiiStation360 said:
The money would be better spend building quality 1st party studios to make exclusive games.

MS is way behind Nintendo/Sony in that regard.

Better spent for whom? GeoW 1/2, Mass Effect, and the timed exclusivity of Bioshock have garnered as many sales as all of Sony's exclusives combined thus far. The 3rd party route seems to be working wonders for MS.



Bitmap Frogs on 14 April 2009
Jordahn said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
Jordahn said:

That's in of itself is correct.  But in context, it is illegal to use a monopoly to influence decisions on others.  See "Department of Justice vs. Microsoft."  In this specific case of Microsoft buying exclusives in the console industry it might not be illegal, but in principle it's unethical.  It can be argued that Microsoft's "deep pockets" stemmed form their monopolistic practices that has now establish themselves in a somewhat financial secure situation.  This does put Microsoft in an unfair position when compared to other competing companies because most of those those companies will not have that financial leverage gained from legit competition as opposed to monopolistic practices employed by Microsoft.  At one time Microsoft did go on a shopping spree... to buy out Nintendo during "Project Dolphin" now known as the Gamecube.  Whether or not Nintendo took them seriously, Microsoft wanted Nintendo to stop making console hardware.  So Nintendo politely said "Go screw yourself."  So Microsoft blatantly lied to the public that Nintendo wasn't in competition with them.  If Nintendo wasn't, Microsoft would not have tried to employ their monopolistic practices to remove Nintendo from the competition to begin with.  Thank God Nintendo stuck with their guns in the face of Microsoft.  So... What if Microsoft goes on a shopping spree?  The answer is simple: Because of the past and current nature of Microsoft, they hurt the gaming console industry.

 

Have a tissue.

Microsoft is only doing the exact same thing Sony did to enter the market: overpower the traditional players using resources from HQ. Buying exclusives was one of the elements used by Sony in these days as well: Tomb Raider is just an example.

Why does it bother you that Microsoft is doing the same Sony did?

Do you think Sony using the massive resources from their electronics business to trample Nintendo and Sega was fair and ethic?

 

Seems the truth is avoided by at least one...

Nowhere did I say that SONY was innocent of any potential wrong doing.  But you had to interject SONY because you CANNOT argue the FACTS I presented.  The FACTS are that Microsoft is a monopoly and they have used that monopoly to their unethical gains.  And this is just not about gaming consoles because it goes way before that from the "Department of Justice vs. Microsoft" I just quoted.  And I NEVER said that buying exclusives were wrong "in of itself."  The bigger picture paints a more accurate picture.  Try to refute the FACTS that I posted in its correct context.  Otherwise, Wal-mart is having a sale on tampons.  Like for me to get you some...?

;)

 

The only facts present here is that you insist on chastizing microsoft for commonplace business strategies while at the same time turning a blind eye and ignoring the same behaviour by other players.

Why do you only care about business ethics when microsoft is involved? 





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).