Except not really, I saw it on Forbes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonusKun
http://puu.sh/jfF4e.png
Do not blame me for your lack of ability to read or do math.
Printable View
Except not really, I saw it on Forbes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonusKun
http://puu.sh/jfF4e.png
Do not blame me for your lack of ability to read or do math.
If anyone's failing at reading comprehension it might be you bud. I wish you could pass around some of whatever it is you're smoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kogen
It all started with..
And you tried to say Sega has the same value as Nintendo which everyone knows they don't.Quote:
Nintendo has more money in the bank, than the value of Sega's total worth.
I don't know what's wrong with you but you're 27 years old and you seem to have a problem turning off your Sega fanboy issues. When's the last time Sega even did anything noteworthy in this industry? Hell right now Sonic of all things is known as an Amiibo character these days which seems to be what most people know about him from a newer generation of gamers.
You need to stop this childish tantrum you're having because people are telling you the facts and you can't accept them in some sort of vain attempt to call people "Nintendo Fanboys" when your precious company is being put to light for how it's really been for them in these recent years. I like Sega... for what it was back then. I don't like the Sega now because it's a fucking shadow of what it used to be. When you open your eyes and see that yourself, you might actually move onto something else more important then this shit.
Assets are not money in the bank.
You might want to read what the title of the site is too. You seem very angry and confused.
lol Ok man. You need some serious help.
I am doing fine, just like SEGA is doing fine with their 300% profits over Nintendo.
That's not how it works. If Nintendo were to buy Sega, that would be an acquisition, not a merger. Sega would not take over. The bought company does not take over the company doing the buying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kogen
You fail to account for the fact that most of Sega-Sammy's profits come on the Sammy side, from Pachinko sales (it's almost twice as profitable as its consumer products side). Sega itself did better than expected last year (they were expecting a loss) but still revised its 2014 profit forecast from $6.6 billion to $5 billion. Did you forget the restructuring announcement earlier this year that affected all three regions?Quote:
SEGA makes 3x the profit Nintendo makes according to Forbes with half the assets. SEGA is more efficient. That is 600% more efficiency. Bigger =/= Better.
You're the one that is confused. I posted an article that showed you that Nintendo had over $10 billion in cold hard cash sitting in the bank earning interest. They could lose $240 million a year for decades and still stay in business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kogen
You're the one that was getting pissed off and calling people fanboys, when we were proving just how wrong you were.
Since when is Nintendo in a position to buy SEGA-Sammy Holdings? Someone feel free to explain that.
I also want to know how hot that Wii U console is. What a blockbuster seller that must be! (Pretty sure Dreamcast did better, and today we have a bigger gaming market.) Nintendo is not some infallible god that can just go around buying casino giants.
No one has proved me wrong on anything. Nintendo is a struggling console developer that might be exiting the console business with NX in 2016. Why they are being worshipped as great business leaders is beyond me. A great developer of software, sure, but they are clueless with today's console market.
Why manchildren keep repeating 'me right me right!' instead of actually providing a solid response to anything is also bewildering. I am not a Nintendo fanboy that just bows down to someone who screams 'I da best, you dumb!'. Maybe that works on your friends, but not on strangers.
And why are gambling machines not relevant? SEGA-Sammy makes them and they are profitable. Mobile is profitable too. Apparently for Konami, as a business, this was the route to take. Gamers never liked it, but it logically made sense to focus on the reality of modern Japanese gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
SEGA is still a far more efficient business than Nintendo. If all Nintendo can do is profit off of interest, well, that is pretty sad. Enjoy inflation or something.
You need to get over this whole man children bs Kogen. We're trying to have a respectable conversation and you are turning it into a mud slinging fanboy session. My opinion of the financial state of Sega and Nintendo has nothing to do with being a fan boy of either company. No, Nintendo would not buy Sega, unless it was on the chopping block for a good price. If Nintnendo chose to though, their financial situation would allow them to do so without taking a huge burden on their financial situation.
Gamevet, which one do you want me to put in?
http://i.imgur.com/CQ4wMGh.jpg
I gave plenty of input on my thoughts on a SEGA console, until Nintendo fanboyism crept it for no reason.
When it comes to specs, I would want a SEGA console to have more than just standard affair 'lol HDMI only!' hookups. Maybe they could brand something like a Steambox and focus heavily on PC/Steambox games? I want DisplayPort, VGA/DVI-A, HDMI, analogue audio, even retro ports if possible to use retro SEGA hardware. Too many 'Android boxes' are bare-bones. HDMI, USB, that is it, yawn. And they are so thin. I want a solid brick of a machine with actual physical features.
Current profit is not the end-all indicator of how well a company is doing. Amazon has been operating at a loss for years, it's still worth $175.1 billion.
I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue here. That Sega is better because on paper it's enjoying higher profits? Why does that even matter when to paraphrase the statement you're arguing against is that Nintendo has more money than Sega has assets, which is true (the later argument that Nintendo can just buy Sega Sammy Holdings is not because that's not how the world works).
It doesn't really matter. Nintendo is a bigger, wealthier company than Sega. Maybe sometime in the distant future this won't be the case but as of now it's not even a debate.
So efficiency and tomorrow do not matter at all, alright. We can just live in a fantasy world where the Wii U is not dying, where Nintendo never totally missed the mark on amusement machines and mobile, where 3DS is not threatened to be surpassed by mobile, and where Nintendo is not totally goofing up with third parties - all of which together could kill the company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obviously
Nope, no debate, all the facts are in - this is the global warming of videos games where you have frost warnings in July.
http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/k...-records-22869
Nothing to worry about!
Who really cares about any of this anyway? As gamers we'll just play the games we like no? If Sega or Nintendo do well or badly so what? We'll just play the games another company makes if either or both disappear. Who cares who 'won the "console war"' and who's made a failing machine today.
Either that or play what is left behind (MegaDrive, SNES etc...) and enjoy what there is. There is a lot more to international finance than I or other members of this forum will be able to grasp in order to argue convincingly one way or another anyhow (apologies to anyone who understands financial stuff that posted actual facts, I wouldn't have known either way!).
I personally prefer Sega, and neither know or care if they are the top dog financially speaking, it just doesn't matter as any games they made in which I have an interest have been made long ago - which is the readon I post on this site.
Good games are good games, whenever made and for whatever machine and by whatever company that is either doing well or not. It's not an issue, there are more important things in life to get worked up over, this is just games.
The WiiU is not Nintendo's only product. You're talking about a company that has only shown a couple of losses over 100 year existence. Sega-Sammy would fold if they showed losses for a couple of years. A failed console launch would destroy them as a company, much like the failures of 32X, Saturn and DC put Sega in such a dire financial situation, that they had to be acquired by little old Sammy to survive.
You need to quit looking at this as some fanboy (I really don't care about Nintendo's current consoles) discussion Kogan. You're being really childish about the whole subject; The Muppet bs is a good example.