PDA

View Full Version : Sony target of hostile takeover?


DBJAY
03-08-2005, 11:24 AM
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4e302fb4-8f1a-11d9-bb12-00000e2511c8.html

Interesting. Remember when Sony acquired MGM?

"Standard & Poor's today said it is reviewing Sony's A+ long- term debt rating, its fifth-highest, for a possible downgrade because the acquisition may damage Sony's balance sheet. MGM's losses over three years, which total about $740 million, make it ``uncertain what contribution MGM can make to Sony's profits,'' S&P said. Sony's total debt stood at 6.71 trillion yen ($61 billion) on June 30."

The issue is that companies deep in debt sometimes make incredibly bad decisions, like Sega for example. With Sony, it will be very interesting to see how much of a loss they are willing to take on the PS3 to get that machine out the door. With the PSP selling at a loss, they will have two product lines that do not make money until software royalties start rolling in and make up the difference. They really have only a couple of options, raise the initial cost of the PS3 to 400 to close the gap to what it really costs to produce, or cut back on features like RAM to lower costs, or a combination of both.

It will be an interesting year at Sony.

FinalSolace2
03-08-2005, 12:15 PM
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4e302fb4-8f1a-11d9-bb12-00000e2511c8.html

Interesting. Remember when Sony acquired MGM?

"Standard & Poor's today said it is reviewing Sony's A+ long- term debt rating, its fifth-highest, for a possible downgrade because the acquisition may damage Sony's balance sheet. MGM's losses over three years, which total about $740 million, make it ``uncertain what contribution MGM can make to Sony's profits,'' S&P said. Sony's total debt stood at 6.71 trillion yen ($61 billion) on June 30."

The issue is that companies deep in debt sometimes make incredibly bad decisions, like Sega for example. With Sony, it will be very interesting to see how much of a loss they are willing to take on the PS3 to get that machine out the door. With the PSP selling at a loss, they will have two product lines that do not make money until software royalties start rolling in and make up the difference. They really have only a couple of options, raise the initial cost of the PS3 to 400 to close the gap to what it really costs to produce, or cut back on features like RAM to lower costs, or a combination of both.

It will be an interesting year at Sony.

this could spell doom for sony,

this could be good news for korean electronics keen to make a splash in the market share boost it could potentially produce.

matsuhita too.

a takeover by companies outside of japan would be a huge prestige wound and a dark day if it were to happen for electronics industry in japan.

i wonder how this will affect warrenties and all that stuff.

Zod
03-08-2005, 12:54 PM
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4e302fb4-8f1a-11d9-bb12-00000e2511c8.html

Interesting. Remember when Sony acquired MGM?

"Standard & Poor's today said it is reviewing Sony's A+ long- term debt rating, its fifth-highest, for a possible downgrade because the acquisition may damage Sony's balance sheet. MGM's losses over three years, which total about $740 million, make it ``uncertain what contribution MGM can make to Sony's profits,'' S&P said. Sony's total debt stood at 6.71 trillion yen ($61 billion) on June 30."

The issue is that companies deep in debt sometimes make incredibly bad decisions, like Sega for example. With Sony, it will be very interesting to see how much of a loss they are willing to take on the PS3 to get that machine out the door. With the PSP selling at a loss, they will have two product lines that do not make money until software royalties start rolling in and make up the difference. They really have only a couple of options, raise the initial cost of the PS3 to 400 to close the gap to what it really costs to produce, or cut back on features like RAM to lower costs, or a combination of both.

It will be an interesting year at Sony.

99% of their money problems can be solved with price cuts since 99% of their problems are caused by too-high pricees, but they're too god-damn stupid to figure that out. Where did they get their business degrees? DAU (dumb-ass university)?

It's almost frustrating watching people walk into totally avoidable problems.

I hate seeing once-great companies fall down because of a combination of stupidity and arrogance. I hated watching Sega take a fall, then hated watching Nintendo take a fall, then now Sony is taking a fall.

FinalSolace2
03-08-2005, 01:11 PM
ive been hearing rumours that sony plans for ps4 and future gaming has been cancelled, can anyone comfirm this??

also i've been hearing that PS3 maybe also in severe trouble- the cell chip cost -and price point of ps3 too high- thers to much risk to sell at a loss the next gen system.

sony really is teh doomed.

nintendo has been smart up till now with theyre buisness ettiquete.

sony's buisness is teh stupid-

and microsoft spending billions of dollars os debt money??

only time will decide the fate of the industry,

i personnally hope xbox2 flops or takes to much financial dammage.
and Sony gets takenover and all products in part suspention, including PS3. maybe they could postpone theyre launch long enough until, microsoft and nintendo get a foothold.

though i would prefer to see a slug match between sony and microsoft, and all the stress its gonna bring fanboys wallets.

Dr. Bombay
03-08-2005, 02:35 PM
If M$ buys them, I will laugh.

manicdvln
03-08-2005, 02:39 PM
99% of their money problems can be solved with price cuts since 99% of their problems are caused by too-high pricees, but they're too god-damn stupid to figure that out. Where did they get their business degrees? DAU (dumb-ass university)?

It's almost frustrating watching people walk into totally avoidable problems.

I hate seeing once-great companies fall down because of a combination of stupidity and arrogance. I hated watching Sega take a fall, then hated watching Nintendo take a fall, then now Sony is taking a fall.

Since when did Nintendo take a fall? They have been a profitable company for over 20 years now...

Decado
03-08-2005, 02:40 PM
AFAIK, gaming is practically Sony's only profitable sector. They should start dumping the rest of their crap.

Zod
03-08-2005, 03:03 PM
Since when did Nintendo take a fall? They have been a profitable company for over 20 years now...


They went from being #1 by a hug margin almos tto the pint of being a monopoly, to #3 and having all sorts of problems with signing 3rd-party developers. Sure they're still making money, but their glory days are long gone.

Quellex
03-08-2005, 03:15 PM
99% of their money problems can be solved with price cuts since 99% of their problems are caused by too-high pricees, but they're too god-damn stupid to figure that out. Where did they get their business degrees? DAU (dumb-ass university)?

It's almost frustrating watching people walk into totally avoidable problems.

I hate seeing once-great companies fall down because of a combination of stupidity and arrogance. I hated watching Sega take a fall, then hated watching Nintendo take a fall, then now Sony is taking a fall.

Nintendo never fell (Obviously), they just got booted out of position number one. Sony hasnt fallen YET, that's why this leadership and position shuffle is going on at sony, so they wont fall, they are trying to get things back on track. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the future. Lets see if this new leadership can turn things around for them. I for one hope they do get back on track because more competition in the gaming industry means better content and lower prices. :thumb-up:

Edit - Zod addressed the first point above. Very True. ;)

littlewig
03-08-2005, 03:42 PM
If you're in debt for 61 billion dollars, I think it's save to consider your company fallen.


I don't see Sony lasting much longer if things don't get better, there's going to be a consumer backlash soon, and Sony is not helping at all, seems like they are encouraging it. :annoyed:

manicdvln
03-08-2005, 03:53 PM
They went from being #1 by a hug margin almos tto the pint of being a monopoly, to #3 and having all sorts of problems with signing 3rd-party developers. Sure they're still making money, but their glory days are long gone.

They are still number 1 in handhelds worldwide and number 2 in Japan in console sales.

Also, in all 3 console makers, Nintendo always came out the most profitable. Last quarter, they made 600 million dollars.

While XBOX didnt make a cent and Sony PSP either. On top of that Sony is 60 billion in debt.

Number of sales not always means the most successfull or profitable. Nintendo is a good evidence of that.

Dr. Bombay
03-08-2005, 06:22 PM
More on this

Kutaragi forced off Sony's board

The father of the PlayStation gets booted from his position as Sony?s executive deputy president as part of a major executive shuffle.
TOKYO--Today, Sony announced a major reshuffling of its board of directors. As a part of the changes, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi, 54, will step down from his position as executive deputy president of the Sony group. Industry watchers were stunned at the announcement, as Kutaragi had been considered a likely candidate for the top spot at Sony. He will remain with Sony as the head of the SCE gaming division and will also be given a new title, that of group executive officer, as of April 1.

In addition to resigning as executive deputy president, Kutaragi will also step down as head of Sony's home electronics and semiconductor solutions divisions. The home electronics division will be taken over by executive deputy president Katsumi Ihara, 54, who has been seen as Kutaragi?s main rival for the top spot at Sony. Unlike Kutaragi, Ihara will continue to hold his position as executive deputy president on the board. The semiconductors solutions division will be managed by Sony executive deputy president Ryoji Chubachi, 57.

Sony also announced that its CEO, Nobuyuki Idei, 67, will resign after final decisions are made at the general shareholders meeting on June 22. Taking over Idei's position will be Howard Stringer, 63, Sony group vice chairman and head of Sony Corporation of America. This will be the first time since its establishment in 1946 that Sony will appoint a foreigner to lead its operations.

Stringer joined Sony in 1997 and led the company to acquire Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) last year. Prior to joining Sony, Stringer had a 30-year career as a journalist, producer, and executive at CBS, including seven years as president from 1988 to 1995. Since Stringer's specialties are concentrated in the content and software sector, analysts expect that Chubachi will be managing Sony's electronics businesses. While Sony's electronics division accounts for more than 60 percent of the group's total sales, it has been falling behind in its operations, such as with its late entrance into the flat-screen TV market. In January, Sony lowered its operating profit estimate for the current business year by 31 percent due to falling prices of electronic products, such as TV and DVD recorders, bringing analysts to speculate the possibility that the electronics division may face its second year of red ink.

Along with CEO Idei, Sony president Kunitake Ando, 63, is also scheduled to step down from his position, which Chubachi will also take over.

Alucard
03-08-2005, 10:24 PM
Sony, I will make your grave stone for FREE! Please come to me! :D

Reivenlocke
03-08-2005, 11:02 PM
Sell the Playstation development unit to Namco! Now, dammit! :lol:

Icarus4578
03-09-2005, 08:32 AM
If Sony takes the plunge, EGM/Ziff Davis will follow suit. YESSSSSS!!!!

sharky~
03-09-2005, 08:45 AM
I'd LOVE to see SEGA/Sammy buy up Sony..
Think about it, for all the things Sony did too try and distroy SEGA..

SEGA/Sammy rake in Profits of over half a billion dollers a year..

I would piss my self Laughing... PISS I TELL YOU!!

Icarus4578
03-09-2005, 08:46 AM
They wouldn't because then they'd have to handle their debt.

Reality
03-09-2005, 09:32 AM
Not to mention actually have the money to buy such a company.

sharky~
03-09-2005, 10:00 AM
I asume SEGA Sammy have enough money,
but probably not to handle the depts as well..

But then would I really want too see SEGA join with there nemisis?
NOPE!

Escaflowne2001
03-09-2005, 11:30 AM
Microsoft! Microsoft! Microsoft!

BGM
03-09-2005, 12:51 PM
I can't believe all the Sony haters, especially in light of the other 2 loser choices you have between Nintendo and Microsoft. They have always treated me right unlike Nintendo with their money grubbing practices to line their wallets and the heack with their customers-fans.Sega brought all their misfortunes on themselves by screwing millions of people over several times with shoddy unsupported systems (Sega cd, 32x Saturn) spring to mind. So i doubt they will be buying anybody out anytime soon. Besides they ned to work on their own games and get them right. They still haven't shown they can do a 3d game right in my opinion,Sonic Heroes sucks. Also their practice of exclusives needs to go, I don't own an xbox and I'm not getting one, so if you don't make games for ps2 you don't sell games to me.Sorry for getting off subject , but Sony is the number 1 system out there whether Sony haters like it or not.

DBJAY
03-09-2005, 01:09 PM
I'm not too sure that any company wants to take control of Sony with such a massive debt load. I imagine what will happen is that Sony will sell off businesses or assetts that are dragging them down and refocus on core products.

It's kind of like Viacom being interested in selling of Paramount theme parks, because they don't consider it a "core" business, or when Vivendi sold Universal to NBC/GE.

I think part of the reason the old guard was changed is that the cell project has cost billions of dollars, and there is no clear pay off. Cell was not only supposed to power the PS3, but more importantly, make Sony the new Intel and find it's way into many devices. A 300 console selling at a loss certainly will never recover the entire R&D budget for cell. It was an incredibly bold and expensive move, but man did they decide to take on some extremely well entrenched competitors!

I'm sure they are many people at Sony that are questioning the logic of using a custom cpu, when other companies have used vendors to achieve similar or better results. Case in point, the Gamecube. Nintendo used vendors for their machine, and coming out only 12 months later, had graphics on par and in most cases improved over the PS2 counterparts running on a "emotion engine." And, Nintendo didn't put themselves into massive debt creating the GC! Why go through all the related expenses if a vendor can achieve nearly the same results for far less cost?

Reality
03-09-2005, 01:23 PM
Realistically the only companies that be serious about Sony wouldn't be Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft ect. It their their real competitors, like Panasonic, Philips ect. People who actually compete with Sony with thousands of products.

NES4EVER
03-09-2005, 01:37 PM
I'm wondering if the MGM buyout was to gain rights to all of MGM's movie archives so they would have even more titles they could potentially release on UMD?

Still it seems Sony is spreading itself to thin. I think their first venture into the handheld market should not have been to try and make a Rolls-Royce game system. They should've kept it basic enough to where they weren't going to lose lots of money on the units and/or rely on uncertainties of other media like mp3, umd movies which are heavy gambles, to help recover costs. If UMD movies flop then Sony has nothing else to recoop losses of the consoles with except for games. This is why they should have made it more focused on primarily gaming imo.

With the losses in other divisions, uncertainty of when/if PS3 is coming, and how well PSP will hold-up in the handheld market to actually start making profits, the mighty Sony looks pretty chaotic at this point. I hope they get their $hit together because they are needed in the gaming market. Nintendo is needed too. Competition is needed to keep the video gaming industry thriving. A video game industry completely controlled by M$ & EA would be no thanks! :thumb-dn:

DBJAY
03-09-2005, 02:15 PM
Also, part of the MGM aquisition was to push their blue-ray format for HD DVD.

Thunder Force 6
03-09-2005, 04:36 PM
The Sony fanboys of the world are dying of irony poisoning. :P

Alucard
03-09-2005, 07:32 PM
I hope Sony die, I hpoe sega die, and I hope they die painfully and fast. Though if anyone were to buy Sony I dont think it would be Microsoft. It would be some japanese company like probably Mitsubishi. I dont think they'd want to go through the embarressment of letting a western company buy them out.

Rot and die.

Kwestone
03-09-2005, 09:29 PM
99% of their money problems can be solved with price cuts since 99% of their problems are caused by too-high pricees, but they're too god-damn stupid to figure that out. Where did they get their business degrees? DAU (dumb-ass university)?

It's almost frustrating watching people walk into totally avoidable problems.

I hate seeing once-great companies fall down because of a combination of stupidity and arrogance. I hated watching Sega take a fall, then hated watching Nintendo take a fall, then now Sony is taking a fall.

I dont understand this post at all... How is sony a great company? The only thing they know how to do is make a splash when it comes to overall design of a product and promotions. Sony products are shody to say the least and that ranges from there cd players to the PS2's to the now released psps with the various problems. How does a price cut solve there problems when they are losing money on some of the things they sell... also to add to the fact.. They outsource alot of the parts so they dont determine the overall price. Id rather see them make a product that is innovative in design which would keep costs low.. And stand the test of time for a decent price.

And how did nintendo fall??? they have had 1 quarter in the red in something like 14 yrs.. THere market share has gone down but they are still making the most money out of the three... And they still make great games so there first party development houses are alive and kicking with a slew of world famous games.

Kwestone
03-09-2005, 09:41 PM
I hope Sony die, I hpoe sega die, and I hope they die painfully and fast. Though if anyone were to buy Sony I dont think it would be Microsoft. It would be some japanese company like probably Mitsubishi. I dont think they'd want to go through the embarressment of letting a western company buy them out.

Rot and die.

ANd it wouldnt be mitsubishi

It would be somebody like matsushi-ta (forum edits it out so i put a slash there) as they are the biggest electronics company in the world.. that and general electric

Also it really wouldnt matter who bought them as long as enought money was put up... money talks and share holders listen... And if that means there shares going up.. they will probably go for it as they make money on the deal.

But buying a company like sony means u inherate all the other sub companies below it and all the debt.

So i doubt this will happen

Alucard
03-09-2005, 11:42 PM
Mitsubishi wouldnt, but that was more of an example. They could afford it easily since Mitsubishi are VERY huge. I'm sure if they wanted to they could pick up Sony, Sega and possibly Nintendo in one go.

I dont know why, but I love your avatar. Give me a while to figure out why though..

Kwestone
03-10-2005, 12:34 AM
Mitsubishi wouldnt, but that was more of an example. They could afford it easily since Mitsubishi are VERY huge. I'm sure if they wanted to they could pick up Sony, Sega and possibly Nintendo in one go.

I dont know why, but I love your avatar. Give me a while to figure out why though..

Yeah they are big... but they wouldnt buy sony.. as sony doesnt turn a profit 100% of the time.. sega is making alot of money now as they have become a 3rd party player.. and nintendo makes the most money out of the current three

In regards to my avatar.. thats jenn.. my gf

Icarus4578
03-10-2005, 09:26 AM
BGM ~ "I can't believe all the Sony haters, especially in light of the other 2 loser choices you have between Nintendo and Microsoft. They have always treated me right unlike Nintendo with their money grubbing practices to line their wallets and the heack with their customers-fans."

Sony is just as much of a money grubber as the others, if not moreso.

BGM ~ "Sega brought all their misfortunes on themselves by screwing millions of people over several times with shoddy unsupported systems (Sega cd, 32x Saturn) spring to mind."

But the reason the Sega CD died was because of bad marketing and lack of quality software, not because the product itself was a mistake. Also, do you really consider the Saturn to be a failure? I think it's much better than the PS and PS2.

BGM ~ "So i doubt they will be buying anybody out anytime soon. Besides they ned to work on their own games and get them right. They still haven't shown they can do a 3d game right in my opinion,Sonic Heroes sucks. Also their practice of exclusives needs to go, I don't own an xbox and I'm not getting one, so if you don't make games for ps2 you don't sell games to me."

Here I have to agree with you. Sega hasn't lived up to their old standards as of late. Hopefully, things will change down the road.

BGM ~ "Sorry for getting off subject , but Sony is the number 1 system out there whether Sony haters like it or not."

Maybe so, but a lot of their user-base figures are fluff and a lot of people who bought the PS2 bought it not for gaming but for anomalous purposes (mainly because it makes for a cheap DVD player, albeit a lower quality one which breaks easily). If they wanted, Nintendo could've also took the same route and their figure would probably be double what they are, but then you'd have a rather deceptive number and it would be hard to estimate how much of those sales were to actual gamers, much less which type.

FinalSolace2
03-10-2005, 12:06 PM
Yeah they are big... but they wouldnt buy sony.. as sony doesnt turn a profit 100% of the time.. sega is making alot of money now as they have become a 3rd party player.. and nintendo makes the most money out of the current three

In regards to my avatar.. thats jenn.. my gf

judas judas....liess

DeathStroke
03-10-2005, 12:44 PM
Man, it's funny reading all the drama in this thread. Most of you missed the point that Sony took on MGM's debt willingly on top of everything else they owe. Big business decisions like that are more concerned with the long term then turning a profit right away. Sony will survive this because they are not a stuffy Japanese company that is too proud to realize that they are sinking into obscurity, ie, Sony is not Nintendo. Hell, they even appointed a Western guy as President over several of their own because they wanted to bring about change in the company.

Oh and I have heard that the 61 billion dollar figure is wrong and Sony's own financial statments dispute it.

DBJAY
03-10-2005, 01:10 PM
For those interested, here is a forbes article about how Sony is faring overall.
They may have 61 billion in debt, but they do sales of 20 billion, so it's not like they are falling apart rapidly. With the right combination of products and cost cutting (here come more layoffs!), it's a possibility they can reverse their decline.

http://www.forbes.com/management/2005/03/07/cx_ah_0307sne.html

Kwestone
03-10-2005, 07:06 PM
.BGM ~ "Sorry for getting off subject , but Sony is the number 1 system out there whether Sony haters like it or not."

Maybe so, but a lot of their user-base figures are fluff and a lot of people who bought the PS2 bought it not for gaming but for anomalous purposes (mainly because it makes for a cheap DVD player, albeit a lower quality one which breaks easily). If they wanted, Nintendo could've also took the same route and their figure would probably be double what they are, but then you'd have a rather deceptive number and it would be hard to estimate how much of those sales were to actual gamers, much less which type.

The bulk of the sony ps2 sales came halfway to later on in its life... the dvd was basically a obsolete option by then as everybody had dvd players in there pcs.. and under there tvs.. we have about 5 in total now. Other then that the fluff is right.. many ps2 gamers only buy a couple games here and there.. mostly stuff like gta SA or dynasty warriors or possibly the EA titles.. the fluff doesnt repersent the gaming community and over all sales of better games shows this like the megaman collection which actually outsold the ps2 version.

Kwestone
03-10-2005, 07:08 PM
For those interested, here is a forbes article about how Sony is faring overall.
They may have 61 billion in debt, but they do sales of 20 billion, so it's not like they are falling apart rapidly. With the right combination of products and cost cutting (here come more layoffs!), it's a possibility they can reverse their decline.

http://www.forbes.com/management/2005/03/07/cx_ah_0307sne.html

Sony has been in the red and then in the black on a constant basis.. maybe the smaller version ps2 will fix this. However with the psp launch and the ps3 around the corner.. Im sure we are going to see more red in its future

Kwestone
03-10-2005, 07:12 PM
Man, it's funny reading all the drama in this thread. Most of you missed the point that Sony took on MGM's debt willingly on top of everything else they owe. Big business decisions like that are more concerned with the long term then turning a profit right away. Sony will survive this because they are not a stuffy Japanese company that is too proud to realize that they are sinking into obscurity, ie, Sony is not Nintendo. Hell, they even appointed a Western guy as President over several of their own because they wanted to bring about change in the company.

Oh and I have heard that the 61 billion dollar figure is wrong and Sony's own financial statments dispute it.

Yes this statement makes total sense.. lets buy a company so we can lose money now and make money later... wtf is the frame of mind for this thinking.. I dont seem to understand it... I wouldnt touch a company unless i seen hidden potential that i could personally restructure myself to turn a decent worthwhile profit... owning equity just to turn a profit later is bogus.. thats like buying a bummed out stock and hoping it goes up... stocks go up for a reason and its better to buy at new heights in stock price that is breaking out of the common price range.. same goes with companies.. u dont buy companies that have debt.. they are in debt for a reason. and that reason is they are poorly run. And that my friend is the straight up truth

Kwestone
03-10-2005, 07:19 PM
judas judas....liess

Whats lies?? My gf?

http://photobucket.com/albums/v483/wizkid007/JennOtherpics/?action=view&current=New5.jpg

I have a photobucket of her.. there all there u can check out

DeathStroke
03-10-2005, 08:21 PM
Yes this statement makes total sense.. lets buy a company so we can lose money now and make money later... wtf is the frame of mind for this thinking..

I submit as an example, the X-box. MS lost money on the console and has repeatedly stated that the X-box series of platforms are a long term investiture. Hell, every console maker sells the console for a loss at the beginning. Even Sony took a year or two to become profitable after the PS2's launch.

I dont seem to understand it... I wouldnt touch a company unless i seen hidden potential that i could personally restructure myself to turn a decent worthwhile profit...

Just because you don't see the hidden potential doesn't mean that it isn't there. For one, there has been quite a bit of speculation as to how this acquisition will help Sony in pushing Blu Ray.

FinalSolace2
03-10-2005, 10:11 PM
Whats lies?? My gf?

http://photobucket.com/albums/v483/wizkid007/JennOtherpics/?action=view&current=New5.jpg

I have a photobucket of her.. there all there u can check out

isnt your girl just a tad on the kinky side.

and why do you show her off so much, shes your avatar, and other "interesting" pics online.


though i gotta say, yoour girls buff :lol:

Thunder Force 6
03-10-2005, 10:55 PM
Oh and I have heard that the 61 billion dollar figure is wrong and Sony's own financial statments dispute it.

Because as we all know, large multinational corporations are prone to complete honesty concerning massive monetary losses in this day and age of squeaky-clean business practices. :clap:

Sony's in the red, and they'll write it off somehow. Hell, that's how the US government is staying afloat. Thank God for the Chinese. I just don't get how some people can so assuredly proclaim the death of a consistently profitable company yet in another breath defend their financially crippled company of choice.

Well, two can play at that game...

SONY IS TEH DOOM3D! :lol:

To Kwestone: :clap:

Kwestone
03-10-2005, 11:44 PM
I submit as an example, the X-box. MS lost money on the console and has repeatedly stated that the X-box series of platforms are a long term investiture. Hell, every console maker sells the console for a loss at the beginning. Even Sony took a year or two to become profitable after the PS2's launch.



Just because you don't see the hidden potential doesn't mean that it isn't there. For one, there has been quite a bit of speculation as to how this acquisition will help Sony in pushing Blu Ray.

THe xbox... has pretty much lost money all the way around and is a lost cause.. Y do u think gates admired nintendo and even stated he was interested in the company. And as for them saying for yrs that the xbox was a long term investment? What is the company going to do?? say this was not a good decision and denounce the company.. lol.. Of course they would say it is a long term investment.. and taking a look at what microsoft does... they have pretty much dominated everybody they have ever taken on in the computer world.. and what does this establish... Image dominance.. and once image dominance is established other products can be announced with easy money to be made.. This has not happened in the video game market for microsoft so all in all it just has been a gamble they have failed to capitalize on.

And not every console was sold at a loss... The only time a console was ever sold at a loss was because there was fierce competition and the company wanted to gain a edge by pricing it at a loss. But by outsourcing and doing a ton of R and D.. one (like nintendo) has kept the costs of the hardware low and has always made money on all there hardware.. only time they did lose money was on teh cube of last yr where they posted there first red in 14 yrs after there christmas price cut while the yen took a beating in the world financial market. And that was because of the price reduction.. since they have have been back in the black due to the cube cost going even lower.

Point is.. innovation takes center stage when designing hardware.. And new companies coming into the market have less experience designing gaming hardware (highly expensive emotion engine and the xbox which is basically a computer), hence there high costs to produce and low profit margins if any at all.

And as far as the mgm acquisiton goes... U dont buy old companies in debt.. they have expanded there reach to the maximum extent that they possibly could which basically maximises there profit potential. And if they were after movie rights as somebody mentioned before.. they could have made a beneficial alliance with them to do so

DeathStroke
03-11-2005, 09:24 AM
THe xbox... has pretty much lost money all the way around and is a lost cause.. Y do u think gates admired nintendo and even stated he was interested in the company.

Could it be the fact that they have a good game development studio and a very fanatical fanbase that buys damn near everything they produce. Nah, it's probably because of their business model which wouldn't matter a damn if MS took them over.

And as for them saying for yrs that the xbox was a long term investment? What is the company going to do?? say this was not a good decision and denounce the company.. lol.. Of course they would say it is a long term investment.. and taking a look at what microsoft does... they have pretty much dominated everybody they have ever taken on in the computer world.. and what does this establish... Image dominance.. and once image dominance is established other products can be announced with easy money to be made.. This has not happened in the video game market for microsoft so all in all it just has been a gamble they have failed to capitalize on.

So, after that meandring paragraph you basically agree with me that MS went into the X-box knowing that they would lose money. Where's that clapping smilie..... Oh, here you are: :clap:

BTW, you never actually refuted my point except to say that big corporations are stubborn and try to hide things.

And not every console was sold at a loss... The only time a console was ever sold at a loss was because there was fierce competition and the company wanted to gain a edge by pricing it at a loss.

I would like to see some actual links in this regard. When something like this is widely thought of as fact, I'm not going to go on just word alone.

But by outsourcing and doing a ton of R and D.. one (like nintendo) has kept the costs of the hardware low and has always made money on all there hardware.. only time they did lose money was on teh cube of last yr where they posted there first red in 14 yrs after there christmas price cut while the yen took a beating in the world financial market.

Nintendo has blamed the Yen two times in a row for their losses. The truth is that they're getting left behind by their other two rivals. And they've probably been losing money on the GC long before that point. The thing is that they can alway make up that money because their own games sell to their fanbase better then anybody else's.

Point is.. innovation takes center stage when designing hardware.. And new companies coming into the market have less experience designing gaming hardware (highly expensive emotion engine and the xbox which is basically a computer), hence there high costs to produce and low profit margins if any at all.

Low profit margins? Sony is probably the only company that is selling the PS2 for a profit. Again, you're disputing something within the industry which is widely seen as fact, ie, selling a console at a loss and making up the money in software. You're going to have to provide me with a link that shows Nintendo makes money on the hardware because I have never believed that old Nintendo fanboy farce. And no actual quotes from Nintendo themselves because as somebody above said:

Because as we all know, large multinational corporations are prone to complete honesty concerning massive monetary losses in this day and age of squeaky-clean business practices.

Heh!!!!!!!!!! Also, that whole paragraph of yours is a perversion of what Allard basically said in his GDC keynote speach.

And as far as the mgm acquisiton goes... U dont buy old companies in debt.. they have expanded there reach to the maximum extent that they possibly could which basically maximises there profit potential. And if they were after movie rights as somebody mentioned before.. they could have made a beneficial alliance with them to do so

You're not saying anything you already haven't before. Make a new point because I'm not buying this whole, 'Sony was stupid for buying MGM,' theory.

Nephlabobo
03-11-2005, 09:36 AM
I like my PS2 :spinface:

Kwestone
03-11-2005, 02:31 PM
Could it be the fact that they have a good game development studio and a very fanatical fanbase that buys damn near everything they produce. Nah, it's probably because of their business model which wouldn't matter a damn if MS took them over.

wtf... they make great games.. how can u argue otherwise?? consumers are not stupid anymore and they do the research on what to buy.. nintendo has been a proven player for yrs and knows how to run there franchises. Simply put they are the best inhouse developer on the planet. Take a look at the new zelda trailer if there is any doubt.

So, after that meandring paragraph you basically agree with me that MS went into the X-box knowing that they would lose money. Where's that clapping smilie..... Oh, here you are: :clap:

I didnt say they were going into the xbox to lose money.. They wanted to make money, offered a system with all the extras to gain an avantage with a customer like adding the harddrive etc.. but in the long run didnt.. and any policy they took to get up to the point of releasing the hardware is going to be defended right or wrong because it shows company competence and that is what people look for in companies offering products.. And ask themselves.. Can this company bring the experience that i want to see??? And microsoft has multiply ways of making money even if they did want to make money later.. they can surely afford to do so.. So untill they are making the money, they will concentrate on there overall image and how it is protrayed to the general public.


I would like to see some actual links in this regard. When something like this is widely thought of as fact, I'm not going to go on just word alone.

Go look at the balance sheets for the operating costs. For the gaming sector only.. Im sure the proof lies somewhere in there.

Nintendo has blamed the Yen two times in a row for their losses. The truth is that they're getting left behind by their other two rivals. And they've probably been losing money on the GC long before that point. The thing is that they can alway make up that money because their own games sell to their fanbase better then anybody else's.

Well if u know anything about how the world trade market works like i do U would know that trading value of such currencies is a huge factor in retaining ones company profits. Inflation counts for a huge amount aswell and affects the economic state of both countries in question. (this being japan and us, as they are teh biggest markets)

And in regards to being left behind?? In what exactly?? Financially (they have made the most money out of all three?? in the race for this generation of consoles (which is nearly over)?? Image?? they are known world wide but also about tied with microsoft in sales on a overall all demographic level.

Low profit margins? Sony is probably the only company that is selling the PS2 for a profit. Again, you're disputing something within the industry which is widely seen as fact, ie, selling a console at a loss and making up the money in software. You're going to have to provide me with a link that shows Nintendo makes money on the hardware because I have never believed that old Nintendo fanboy farce. And no actual quotes from Nintendo themselves because as somebody above said:

Whatever man... Sony lost money for yrs on the ps2 and what they make money now on there recently released compact version of there ps2... So did microsoft.. this was there business model.. Nintendo lost money one quarter and still pulled off 125 million in profit last quarter. How can u dispute figures. Your a tool for thinking otherwise.



Heh!!!!!!!!!! Also, that whole paragraph of yours is a perversion of what Allard basically said in his GDC keynote speach.



You're not saying anything you already haven't before. Make a new point because I'm not buying this whole, 'Sony was stupid for buying MGM,' theory.

Go get your CFA before u even begin to talk to me about how business works in the equity market. Untill u understand the basis of economic growth, overall interest and the fundamentals of activity within the world market in regards to bad business buying decisions. U wouldnt know a right or wrong decision based on what one company does to another.

In the end all u are doing is disputing what everbody has been saying for yrs.. and where does this all come from?? balance sheets.. money talks boatloads.

DeathStroke
03-12-2005, 01:39 AM
Well, right off the bat, you missed my first point.

I didnt say they were going into the xbox to lose money.. They wanted to make money, offered a system with all the extras to gain an avantage with a customer like adding the harddrive etc.. but in the long run didnt..

Erroneous resoning considering that the point was that companies willingly take on debt now for a rosier future later. Essentially, you're saying about MS, what I was saying about Sony.

Go look at the balance sheets for the operating costs. For the gaming sector only.. Im sure the proof lies somewhere in there.

Meaning that you looked and couldn't find anything.

And in regards to being left behind?? In what exactly?? Financially (they have made the most money out of all three?? in the race for this generation of consoles (which is nearly over)?? Image?? they are known world wide but also about tied with microsoft in sales on a overall all demographic level.

In terms of userbase, in terms of 3rd party support, in terms of actual support for their next gen console, in terms of online.... etc. etc. The one thing Nintendo has gotten right so far is that they confirmed backwards compatibility for their next console. And that's about all. Nintendo as a worldwide brand is nowhere even close to Sony or MS. And as for sales of GC, X-box left it behind globally a year or two ago. At this was without Japan. With MS focusing much more on Japan next time around, Nintendo is in for a rough couple of years. Of course, they'll probably blame their problems on the Yen like they have been doing.

Whatever man... Sony lost money for yrs on the ps2 and what they make money now on there recently released compact version of there ps2... So did microsoft.. this was there business model.. Nintendo lost money one quarter and still pulled off 125 million in profit last quarter. How can u dispute figures. Your a tool for thinking otherwise.

Yeah but where's the link I asked for? Nintendo being profitable isn't proof that they have never sold their console at a loss because if you look at the top selling games for GC, they are all Nintendo. Now, how do you suppose you recoup the losses you take on hardware..... well, by selling software of course. This is also one of the good surefire ways of alienating third parties because if you cultivate a fanatical fanbase that only buys your software, you're not going to get anything from third parties unless you pony up some of that cash you've been hoarding.

Go get your CFA before u even begin to talk to me about how business works in the equity market. Untill u understand the basis of economic growth, overall interest and the fundamentals of activity within the world market in regards to bad business buying decisions. U wouldnt know a right or wrong decision based on what one company does to another.

I would flex my internet muscle too but that would be a little too much testesterone for this site.

In the end all u are doing is disputing what everbody has been saying for yrs..

Maybe they were all wrong. Just because a 100 Nintendo fanboys say Nintendo has never lost money on the GC and it becomes widely accepted fact because no one questions it, doesn't mean that it is automatically true.

Anyway, I've made my point already about the Sony/MGM deal. Good day sir!!!!!!

Thunder Force 6
03-12-2005, 06:19 AM
Because as we all know, large multinational corporations are prone to complete honesty concerning massive monetary losses in this day and age of squeaky-clean business practices.

Heh!!!!!!!!!! Also, that whole paragraph of yours is a perversion of what Allard basically said in his GDC keynote speach.

Your barometer for sarcasm leaves much to be desired. I haven't heard Allard's speech, so I'm not quite sure what I'm perverting. It's economics. Something you apparently know little about.

Folks, consoles are made at a loss. They have been for at least a few generations now. Money is made on software licencing/production. This includes the Gamecube. This is probably in textbooks by now.

Nintendo has always been about making money. They make smart business decisions, even though on the surface they may seem foolish by armchair economists such as our friend Deathstroke here. They have only recently lost money in one or two quarters because the Japanese economy has been weaker than usual. They're only now beginning to pull out of a recession a decade long. Furthermore, there's a cresting of profitability in the video gaming market in Japan, a trend everyone in the industry is following. Add it all up, and it spells some financial woes to the only major player in the hardware end of the industry whose only interest is in gaming.

Only an idiot would believe Nintendo is doomed. They have kept substantial profitability over the years, and will most likely continue to do so.

Sony, on the other hand, is in substantial debt. A company in such a financial situation shouldn't go around making exhorbatent purchases like, oh, a movie studio. That's not so much economics as it is common sense. In this day and age of mergers and bigger is better, I guess Sony has to grow so it can still run with the Japanese mega-companies.

Microsoft has lost substantial amounts of money on the XBox, but their plan to get into the industry was long-term. The massive losses they have incurred were actually expected, and were easily offset by the profitablity of the rest of the company. They wanted to build a user base, and have succeeded. Now maybe they'll bring out the big guns.

In conclusion, Deathstroke should quit being a dick about this. No one here is an economist, and few like to view the current market without the aid of their rabid fanboy glasses. Nintendo will continue to do fine, Sony will probably drop the ball (name a company that has ruled the roost for three generations), and MS will make more leadway with their new XBox. Speak with authority on things you actually know something of, and don't get so damn toucy.

DeathStroke
03-12-2005, 09:30 AM
Your barometer for sarcasm leaves much to be desired.

I think I'm pretty funny.

I haven't heard Allard's speech, so I'm not quite sure what I'm perverting. It's economics. Something you apparently know little about.

It wasn't you I was replying to when I said that.

Folks, consoles are made at a loss. They have been for at least a few generations now. Money is made on software licencing/production. This includes the Gamecube. This is probably in textbooks by now.

You somehow managed to agree with me while berating me. That's a first for me on messageboards.

Now, I shall go ahead and disregard your entire post except for this little tidbit at the end:

Sony will probably drop the ball (name a company that has ruled the roost for three generations),

That is an argument I heard back in 1999 when everybody was saying Sony would never pull it off with the PS2 because no company had ever ruled the roost for two generations. Closest was Nintendo of course with the NES and SNES but they had fierce competition from Sega. Only the wildest fanboys would call the GC and X-box fierce competition when PS2 trounces them in console sales.

NES4EVER
03-12-2005, 12:52 PM
Sony & M$ have lost money on each console since they have launched. The only way Sony might be making money on any console is the PSTwo since they dropped the motorized drive and component prices have come down since it first released. Still I imagine PSTwo's will even take a price drop when Xenon launches so it will most likely be a short span here where Sony is actually making profits from the consoles themselves.

Nintendo made money off its consoles until the first price drop. Since then they have pretty much just broke even and I imagine the second price drop happened as a result of lowering production costs as well. To even break even on consoles is an astounding feat in this gaming age. My guess is that M$'s hardware shortages are a result of the huge losses they take on hardware so they just don't overstock stores with xbox and are hoping current stock will suffice until Xenon is launched. They have been forced to pricedrop to compete when they were already losing way more money per unit than prolly Sony/Nintendo lost per unit combined. At $149... the xbox is bleeding M$'s money.

Monday, 20 May, 2002
At $149, Nintendo will roughly break even on sales of each GameCube, Harrison said.

The company has kept down manufacturing costs by not including DVD capability on the GameCube, unlike Sony and Microsoft.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/new_media/1998072.stm

As you see, Nintendo was quoted as saying the NGC was costing at or around $150 to make in 2002. I imagine the production costs are now well below $100per unit so they are still breaking even or making small profits from each sale. Like Deathstroke said though, It comes down to software basically. I don't think any of the 3 companies really even try to worry about making money from their consoles although Nintendo seems to continually do this best of the 3.

BGM
03-13-2005, 12:21 AM
BGM ~ "I can't believe all the Sony haters, especially in light of the other 2 loser choices you have between Nintendo and Microsoft. They have always treated me right unlike Nintendo with their money grubbing practices to line their wallets and the heack with their customers-fans."

Sony is just as much of a money grubber as the others, if not moreso.

BGM ~ "Sega brought all their misfortunes on themselves by screwing millions of people over several times with shoddy unsupported systems (Sega cd, 32x Saturn) spring to mind."

But the reason the Sega CD died was because of bad marketing and lack of quality software, not because the product itself was a mistake. Also, do you really consider the Saturn to be a failure? I think it's much better than the PS and PS2.

BGM ~ "So i doubt they will be buying anybody out anytime soon. Besides they ned to work on their own games and get them right. They still haven't shown they can do a 3d game right in my opinion,Sonic Heroes sucks. Also their practice of exclusives needs to go, I don't own an xbox and I'm not getting one, so if you don't make games for ps2 you don't sell games to me."

Here I have to agree with you. Sega hasn't lived up to their old standards as of late. Hopefully, things will change down the road.

BGM ~ "Sorry for getting off subject , but Sony is the number 1 system out there whether Sony haters like it or not."

Maybe so, but a lot of their user-base figures are fluff and a lot of people who bought the PS2 bought it not for gaming but for anomalous purposes (mainly because it makes for a cheap DVD player, albeit a lower quality one which breaks easily). If they wanted, Nintendo could've also took the same route and their figure would probably be double what they are, but then you'd have a rather deceptive number and it would be hard to estimate how much of those sales were to actual gamers, much less which type.
Heck yes I believe that PS2 is a heck of a lot better sytem than Saturn, hundreds of games massive support and oh yeah unlike some I still have my original PS2 and it is still working just fine. Only system I've ever had to replace was a 8 bit Nintendo. If people bought PS2 for a dvd player the same argument must be used for the xbox. But no man I have to disagree, they obviously bought PS2 for massive 3rd party support (where the most/best games are).

Thunder Force 6
03-13-2005, 05:24 AM
It wasn't you I was replying to when I said that.

Could've fooled me.

You somehow managed to agree with me while berating me. That's a first for me on messageboards.

I wasn't berating your argument. I was berating your attitude. It sucks. Of course, I wrote that when I thought part of your volley was directed at myself.

Now, I shall go ahead and disregard your entire post except for this little tidbit at the end:

A shame. You could've learned something. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

That is an argument I heard back in 1999 when everybody was saying Sony would never pull it off with the PS2 because no company had ever ruled the roost for two generations. Closest was Nintendo of course with the NES and SNES but they had fierce competition from Sega.

The PS2 was like a freight train with competition standing on the tracks. The very mention of its (embellished) specs caused a veritable no-confidence vote on the Dreamcast, focing it into an early, unwarranted demise. This time, there seems a more balanced interest across all three new systems. The only problem is the PS3's projected price point, which when last I heard was somewhere in the $500 range.

We all know what resounding successes the Neo Geo AES and 3DO were. I don't care if God is peddling a console. No one's going to pay $500 for it. Thus, what I mean by "dropping the ball." Sony's arrogant. They'll screw up eventually, and this may be it.

Only the wildest fanboys would call the GC and X-box fierce competition when PS2 trounces them in console sales.

Where did that come from? Are you making up arguments now?

BGM
03-13-2005, 01:50 PM
Could've fooled me.



I wasn't berating your argument. I was berating your attitude. It sucks. Of course, I wrote that when I thought part of your volley was directed at myself.



A shame. You could've learned something. Ignorance is bliss, eh?



The PS2 was like a freight train with competition standing on the tracks. The very mention of its (embellished) specs caused a veritable no-confidence vote on the Dreamcast, focing it into an early, unwarranted demise. This time, there seems a more balanced interest across all three new systems. The only problem is the PS3's projected price point, which when last I heard was somewhere in the $500 range.

We all know what resounding successes the Neo Geo AES and 3DO were. I don't care if God is peddling a console. No one's going to pay $500 for it. Thus, what I mean by "dropping the ball." Sony's arrogant. They'll screw up eventually, and this may be it.



Where did that come from? Are you making up arguments now?
I believe Sony is way smarter than to release a system at $500 dollars man, they're a lot smarter than people give them credit for. But I do agree with you Sony is getting cocky, and eventually Microsoft will take the crown from Sony. But Sony will never release PS3 at $500, they know that would be suicide.

Thunder Force 6
03-13-2005, 05:07 PM
From the rumblings going about, it would appear the Cell chip costs more to manufacture than was initially assumed by Sony. If they were to still use it, which for now seems to be the case, the cost would be exhorbatent, and the price high. They could try waiting another year or so for production costs to drop just a bit, but that would give Sony and Nintendo the obscene head start. But, if they try a concurrent release, the price gap between offerings would be insane. Sony will have to make a call on whether to abandon the Cell line, or give their competitors the edge in the next generation.

My money's on the latter.

As for Sony being smart... Nintendo was once "smart" too. Just because you're successful doesn't mean you're infallable.

BashingU
03-13-2005, 08:16 PM
Interesting thread, I gotta say that many you brought up some good points...I doubt Sony will let this generation go to their competitors. I believe that Sony will try to not out muscle the competiton, instead they expect to lead the marathon by a few paces as opposed to lapping them...Sony may need to have a whole new incredible franchise to emerge on the PS3 and breathe new life into them...M$ momentum is really getting stronger....How do you combat a potential Halo 3 on the day you launch...that's a nasty manuever on M$ part...

BGM
03-14-2005, 01:16 AM
From the rumblings going about, it would appear the Cell chip costs more to manufacture than was initially assumed by Sony. If they were to still use it, which for now seems to be the case, the cost would be exhorbatent, and the price high. They could try waiting another year or so for production costs to drop just a bit, but that would give Sony and Nintendo the obscene head start. But, if they try a concurrent release, the price gap between offerings would be insane. Sony will have to make a call on whether to abandon the Cell line, or give their competitors the edge in the next generation.

My money's on the latter.

As for Sony being smart... Nintendo was once "smart" too. Just because you're successful doesn't mean you're infallable.
My money is on neither it will come out at the same price as the competition and not 2 years late either, they will take the loss on the machines as in the past and make it up on the software later. They will not give Microsoft and Nintendo a 2 year head start and they will not abandon the cell chip either in my opinion. But that is only my opinion, but anyways who cares if Sony loses money on every machine as long as it doesn't come out of my pocket i could care less. I see that argument about how smart Nintendo is by never losing money on their consoles.Who cares whether they lose money as long as it doesn't cost us gamers any more money? I agree nobody is infallable, but that goes for Microsoft and Nintendo also.