MS's cash reserves: $80b. However, last year it was 113b. Sorry, I don't follow the ticker every day.
Still, don't act like they are close to being similar in size.
That's not "net worth"... That's market cap. It doesn't represent how much money they actually own, but represents the amount of interest they have from shareholders on the stock market. It doesn't represent real money or assets owned by the company, but represents how much influence they have on the stock market.
The closest thing to a company's actual "net worth" is the total assets:
Microsoft - $470 billion
Sony - $229 billion
In order for Microsoft to purchase Sony, MS would have to use up their entire cash reserves in addition to selling off a third of their total assets. It would be a total waste of Microsoft's cash and assets to purchase Sony. And that's only if the Japanese government doesn't block the purchase, as Japan has Sony on its list of companies protected from foreign buyouts.
@Litchie: Do you hang out with idiots in real life often?
The OG Xbox had some bangers, only an idiot would mod it to play SNES games.
I also modded the OG Xbox to play emulated games back in the early 2000s. While the PC could do that too, I wanted to play them on a large 32" TV, not a small 22" monitor. The TV didn't support PC input, so I modded the OG Xbox and used that as an emulation box with my TV... Me and my mates had a blast playing emulated games on the OG Xbox!
@SolidGame_basic: Considering Microsoft is the biggest company in the world, and could buy Sony with their cash reserves, I'd say Xbox.
Not really. Microsoft's cash reserves aren't nowhere near enough to buy Sony:
Microsoft cash-on-hand - $81 billion
Sony total assets - $229 billion
However, Microsoft does have $470 billion in assets. MS would need to sell off half their assets to afford Sony... And even then, the Japanese government would just block any such purchase anyway. There's no plausible scenario where MS purchases Sony.
In Xbox's defense they came out swinging their first gen and reached second place above the gamecube but I will say its less impressive than sega since they had a trillion dollar mega corp bank rolling them lmao.
True, OG Xbox came second place, but it was a very distant second selling a small fraction of what the PS2 sold. That's like when Sega came second place with the Master System (above the Atari 7800 but below the NES). Yet the Master System was more impressive as it sold close to what OG Xbox sold in an era when the console market was much smaller and even beat the NES in a handful of PAL markets (whereas PS2 dominated Xbox in every market).
According to Ubisoft, they both have different roles:
Naoe is the stealth-oriented ninja assassin.
Yasuke is the combat-oriented samurai warrior.
Loading Video...
So in other words, its not an AssCreed game, and just an rpg with the AssCreed name to move copies.
Seems like they're trying to appease fans of both the classic assassin style (with Naoe) and the new action RPG style (with Yasuke)... But like you said, Capcom tried that before with Resident Evil 6 and that backfired.
@Pedro: I mean why not. Reports say some section of japanese audience disliked the role of Yasuke.
The nioh guy is based on a pretty big deal guy in japan. That important he remembered with statues and memorials in both Japan and UK.
On Japanese Twitter, most Japanese users are fine with Yasuke as the co-protagonist. Japanese reactions range from saying he's "kakkoii" ("cool") and defending his role in the game to being confused over why so many foreign gaijin are outraged. But yes, there are a minority of Japanese users who are offended (mainly critics of "political correctness"), yet even they're confused over gaijin being more offended than Japanese people.
In the UK, I've never seen any statues of William Adams anywhere and very few Brits knew who he was until Shogun on Netflix (except for historians or Nioh fans).
I am also not really understanding what the hell is he supposed to be in the game? Its one of the two playable characters, but this is an AssCreed game, a game that is centered around bending in, and assassinating your targets. How the **** are you supposed to do that with a 6.8feet black guy in Japan with a fucking mace on his shoulder? Did ubishop wen't full braindead on this one or what?
According to Ubisoft, they both have different roles:
Even with the Mega Drive variants, those numbers don’t top Nintendos….and if we then include Nintendo variants we have to add another 5.7 m consoles which puts the Mega drive into a distant second place in a two horse race….why you are trying to discount sales in Japan is beyond me.
360 sales were not a huge gap behind ps3 if at all, given that Xbox stopped releasing sales numbers at 85.4 m while ps3 sold 87.5m.
Regardless, the question was whether Sega or Xbox was a better competitor to Sony. Sega failed at the first hurdle with Dreamcast, while Xbox is still in the race.
You are wrong again the Sega Saturn was in direct competition to the PS1, then the Dreamcast came out it was competing against the PS2. So, Sega fought for 2 gens with Sony, but its poor decisions before the Playstation was a thing left them in a not so good financial position.
So please do some research on Sega before you post as you've made it very clear you know very little about them.
The only reason Xbox is on the market (let's not say race when Phil has already declared Xbox lost) is because MS is a trillion-dollar company.
Yes, you’re right. Saturn was Segas hope against PlayStation. But it didn’t fail because of a lack of finances. It failed because it was more expensive, harder to develop for than a PS, was way worse at 3d games, suffered from a bizarre conceptual advertising campaign and just didn’t get the same support from 3rd party devs.
Sega didn’t win against Nintendo in any race and utterly failed to compete against Sony. Xbox at least went neck and neck with Sony with the 360 and has the staying power to compete.
The Saturn was at least on-par with the PS1 in terms of 3D performance. The Saturn was just harder to develop for, so third-party studios struggled to push its 3D performance. But Sega's first-party and second-party studios were able to pull off 3D performance that could match or even surpass the PS1.
Loading Video...
Sega was neck-and-neck with Nintendo for most of the 16-bit era, both competing for the top spot. In contrast, Xbox was getting dominated by Nintendo in Gen 7... Competing with Sony means nothing when both Xbox and Sony were getting dominated by Nintendo that generation.
Gen 4 (16-bit era)
SNES
Sega Mega Drive
PC Engine
Neo Geo
Gen 7
Wii
PS3
Xbox 360
Spot the difference yet? Mega Drive was second place and fighting for first place. Xbox 360 was third place and fighting for second place. Mega Drive was competing on a higher level than Xbox 360.
No one is talking about retro consoles. The Mega Drive Mini also sold millions a few years ago. Back in the '90s, the Mega Drive sold between 35-40m, only 9-14m behind the SNES (49m). And that lead is entirely due to the 14m lead the SNES had in Japan. Sega fumbled the bag in Japan (like Xbox), but was otherwise the market leader in overseas markets.
The topic is who was a better competitor to both PlayStation and Nintendo. You keep ignoring Nintendo, because it makes the Xbox 360 look worse when it came a distant third behind both the Wii and PS3.
Log in to comment