The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/6456/Microsoft-Interested-in-Buying-Nintendo[/URL]
Discuss.
Discuss.
Page:
Edgy wrote:
> Foszy wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> It would be no different would it?
>
> Okay, lets look at it like this.
>
> Nintendo buy Retro Studios. Nintendo sack most the staff and decide
> that they're going to can all but one game.
>
> Where's the developing as normal?
>
> Microsoft could easily do that to Nintendo should they buy them.
>
> I very much doudt that to, i would see microsoft use nintendos image
> to start in the handheld market. Plus they can also start to
> increase
> there image to younger kids for the xbox (not trying to take the
> mickey) as the gamecube does have some titles which would appeal to
> kids. If microsoft had these then they could increase the sales of
> the xbox and there games. Plus they can then use Nintendos image, i
> could not see microsoft making such a big company make one game.
>
> Whats the point Bill pays billions of quid on a company and decides
> to fire everyone up to a point where there is enough people to ake
> one game, not only would the company lose all value Bill would
> theoretically be throwing his money away. As the old saying goes its
> the people in the company that make it work not the company,
>
> Now who's making assumptions. Nintendo have done it and have profited
> from it. Who's to say Microsoft wouldn't keep the bare minimum needed
> and get rid of everyone else?
As just gettign rid of people and downsizing the company it will lose millions on the stock market. Why would Microsoft want to shell out billions just to get the bae minimum of the company. If you were to buy such a big and very sucessful company you dont want to make it smaller as your just not going to make enough money from it to make a profit. Microsoft would have to pay about 30 to 40 times Nintendos profits in one year to buy the compnay. Unless they see it as extremly long term then yes they may cut the company down a little. But you will find in the world of business a company buys another company to expand this can be done through buying up competitiors or diversifying. Everyone knows Microsofts long terms aims are to pratically control the games industry to. To do this they also need to have a handheld. Of course Edgy as you said these are my assumptions. But i find it hard to belive that they would downsize the company.
I know they have done that to previous companys but they have been game developers and there profit depends very much on how good the game is and sells. They sell one thing and that is software. Nintendo is a diffrent it makes computer consoles and games, which in turn has made the company extremly profitable. Nintendo is probably worth many times more than that of all of its game developers. Its in a different league. This is where i presume Microsoft would want to keep that and profit from it to, not to spend billions to get another game developer.
We may be discussing this in great detail but i can never see Microsoft purchasing Nintendo, although they will have a stake in the shares already.
> Foszy wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> It would be no different would it?
>
> Okay, lets look at it like this.
>
> Nintendo buy Retro Studios. Nintendo sack most the staff and decide
> that they're going to can all but one game.
>
> Where's the developing as normal?
>
> Microsoft could easily do that to Nintendo should they buy them.
>
> I very much doudt that to, i would see microsoft use nintendos image
> to start in the handheld market. Plus they can also start to
> increase
> there image to younger kids for the xbox (not trying to take the
> mickey) as the gamecube does have some titles which would appeal to
> kids. If microsoft had these then they could increase the sales of
> the xbox and there games. Plus they can then use Nintendos image, i
> could not see microsoft making such a big company make one game.
>
> Whats the point Bill pays billions of quid on a company and decides
> to fire everyone up to a point where there is enough people to ake
> one game, not only would the company lose all value Bill would
> theoretically be throwing his money away. As the old saying goes its
> the people in the company that make it work not the company,
>
> Now who's making assumptions. Nintendo have done it and have profited
> from it. Who's to say Microsoft wouldn't keep the bare minimum needed
> and get rid of everyone else?
As just gettign rid of people and downsizing the company it will lose millions on the stock market. Why would Microsoft want to shell out billions just to get the bae minimum of the company. If you were to buy such a big and very sucessful company you dont want to make it smaller as your just not going to make enough money from it to make a profit. Microsoft would have to pay about 30 to 40 times Nintendos profits in one year to buy the compnay. Unless they see it as extremly long term then yes they may cut the company down a little. But you will find in the world of business a company buys another company to expand this can be done through buying up competitiors or diversifying. Everyone knows Microsofts long terms aims are to pratically control the games industry to. To do this they also need to have a handheld. Of course Edgy as you said these are my assumptions. But i find it hard to belive that they would downsize the company.
I know they have done that to previous companys but they have been game developers and there profit depends very much on how good the game is and sells. They sell one thing and that is software. Nintendo is a diffrent it makes computer consoles and games, which in turn has made the company extremly profitable. Nintendo is probably worth many times more than that of all of its game developers. Its in a different league. This is where i presume Microsoft would want to keep that and profit from it to, not to spend billions to get another game developer.
We may be discussing this in great detail but i can never see Microsoft purchasing Nintendo, although they will have a stake in the shares already.
Gar-J wrote:
> There is of course the fact that Bill only said he'd be interested if
> Nintendo gave him a call. They're not in any talks so everyone in
> here has jumped on the "what if" bandwagon for no reason at
> all.
No reason? So in addition to the expressed interest, we're ignoring the attempts to buy Nintendo and Sega before the Xbox was released, the purchase of Rare which manifested itself in rumours across the internet before it was confirmed, the declaration that Microsoft are looking to purchase even more development houses, are we?
I personally think it'll never happen. Nintendo have stated that the day they cease hardware production is the day they close their doors, and on top of that, Microsoft are an American company - and a very American one at that too. You just have to look at Japanese Xbox sales to see how welcoming the Japanese are to such companies.
But I'm trying to put across my opinion that Microsoft acquiring Nintendo would be a horrible prospect.
> There is of course the fact that Bill only said he'd be interested if
> Nintendo gave him a call. They're not in any talks so everyone in
> here has jumped on the "what if" bandwagon for no reason at
> all.
No reason? So in addition to the expressed interest, we're ignoring the attempts to buy Nintendo and Sega before the Xbox was released, the purchase of Rare which manifested itself in rumours across the internet before it was confirmed, the declaration that Microsoft are looking to purchase even more development houses, are we?
I personally think it'll never happen. Nintendo have stated that the day they cease hardware production is the day they close their doors, and on top of that, Microsoft are an American company - and a very American one at that too. You just have to look at Japanese Xbox sales to see how welcoming the Japanese are to such companies.
But I'm trying to put across my opinion that Microsoft acquiring Nintendo would be a horrible prospect.
Gar-J wrote:
> So "some" translates to "all" in your little
> world then? Sacking the tea lady is hardly going to effect the
> games.
>
> Talk about jumping to conclusions.
How has anybody jumped to conclusions?
Nobody mentioned sacking "all" of the staff. The argument here is that it's a very real possibility that Microsoft could sack staff at Nintendo, and even reorganise the entire company. Considering they both work in different ways, it's likely that MS would want Ninty to conform to their business plan.
> So "some" translates to "all" in your little
> world then? Sacking the tea lady is hardly going to effect the
> games.
>
> Talk about jumping to conclusions.
How has anybody jumped to conclusions?
Nobody mentioned sacking "all" of the staff. The argument here is that it's a very real possibility that Microsoft could sack staff at Nintendo, and even reorganise the entire company. Considering they both work in different ways, it's likely that MS would want Ninty to conform to their business plan.
There is of course the fact that Bill only said he'd be interested if Nintendo gave him a call. They're not in any talks so everyone in here has jumped on the "what if" bandwagon for no reason at all.
Let's just hope Bill doesn't make public his fascinatin for leathers in the bedroom, or you'll all be creating threads on what will happen when Bill buys all the cows in the world to make leather.
Let's just hope Bill doesn't make public his fascinatin for leathers in the bedroom, or you'll all be creating threads on what will happen when Bill buys all the cows in the world to make leather.
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Gar-J wrote:
>
> It must be nice to just be able to assume everything in life with
> such confidence. How though can you assume Nintendo would sack the
> staff at Retro Studios?
>
> Oh dear. Looks like someone hasn't got their facts straight.
>
> See, this has already happened, it's called the past.
>
> Nintendo have bought Retro, they did remove some staff
> and they did cancel all of their games and then babysit them
> through making Metroid Prime.
So "some" translates to "all" in your little world then? Sacking the tea lady is hardly going to effect the games.
Talk about jumping to conclusions.
> Gar-J wrote:
>
> It must be nice to just be able to assume everything in life with
> such confidence. How though can you assume Nintendo would sack the
> staff at Retro Studios?
>
> Oh dear. Looks like someone hasn't got their facts straight.
>
> See, this has already happened, it's called the past.
>
> Nintendo have bought Retro, they did remove some staff
> and they did cancel all of their games and then babysit them
> through making Metroid Prime.
So "some" translates to "all" in your little world then? Sacking the tea lady is hardly going to effect the games.
Talk about jumping to conclusions.
People say "how will Nintendo's games suffer?". I think that one has already been fielded by Edgy.
Few of you seem to ask the question of "how will Nintendo's hardware suffer?". It is unlikely that Microsoft would buy Nintendo and then use them to develop their next console - there's a stand-alone team who will design Xbox 2 and Microsoft's furture gaming hardware projects.
Nintendo have made countless hardware innovations; many of which have been borrowed in the design of the Xbox and PS2. I'm not saying Microsoft and Sony are incapable of creating interesting new hardware, but out of the three, Nintendo is the company who has really pushed things forward.
This is what sets Nintendo consoles apart - you only have to look at the new DS to see how good they are at developing gaming platforms. They need to stay independent so they can create consoles that remind people that pushing gaming forward isn't just about better graphics.
Few of you seem to ask the question of "how will Nintendo's hardware suffer?". It is unlikely that Microsoft would buy Nintendo and then use them to develop their next console - there's a stand-alone team who will design Xbox 2 and Microsoft's furture gaming hardware projects.
Nintendo have made countless hardware innovations; many of which have been borrowed in the design of the Xbox and PS2. I'm not saying Microsoft and Sony are incapable of creating interesting new hardware, but out of the three, Nintendo is the company who has really pushed things forward.
This is what sets Nintendo consoles apart - you only have to look at the new DS to see how good they are at developing gaming platforms. They need to stay independent so they can create consoles that remind people that pushing gaming forward isn't just about better graphics.
Foszy wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> It would be no different would it?
>
> Okay, lets look at it like this.
>
> Nintendo buy Retro Studios. Nintendo sack most the staff and decide
> that they're going to can all but one game.
>
> Where's the developing as normal?
>
> Microsoft could easily do that to Nintendo should they buy them.
>
> I very much doudt that to, i would see microsoft use nintendos image
> to start in the handheld market. Plus they can also start to increase
> there image to younger kids for the xbox (not trying to take the
> mickey) as the gamecube does have some titles which would appeal to
> kids. If microsoft had these then they could increase the sales of
> the xbox and there games. Plus they can then use Nintendos image, i
> could not see microsoft making such a big company make one game.
>
> Whats the point Bill pays billions of quid on a company and decides
> to fire everyone up to a point where there is enough people to ake
> one game, not only would the company lose all value Bill would
> theoretically be throwing his money away. As the old saying goes its
> the people in the company that make it work not the company,
Now who's making assumptions. Nintendo have done it and have profited from it. Who's to say Microsoft wouldn't keep the bare minimum needed and get rid of everyone else?
> Edgy wrote:
> It would be no different would it?
>
> Okay, lets look at it like this.
>
> Nintendo buy Retro Studios. Nintendo sack most the staff and decide
> that they're going to can all but one game.
>
> Where's the developing as normal?
>
> Microsoft could easily do that to Nintendo should they buy them.
>
> I very much doudt that to, i would see microsoft use nintendos image
> to start in the handheld market. Plus they can also start to increase
> there image to younger kids for the xbox (not trying to take the
> mickey) as the gamecube does have some titles which would appeal to
> kids. If microsoft had these then they could increase the sales of
> the xbox and there games. Plus they can then use Nintendos image, i
> could not see microsoft making such a big company make one game.
>
> Whats the point Bill pays billions of quid on a company and decides
> to fire everyone up to a point where there is enough people to ake
> one game, not only would the company lose all value Bill would
> theoretically be throwing his money away. As the old saying goes its
> the people in the company that make it work not the company,
Now who's making assumptions. Nintendo have done it and have profited from it. Who's to say Microsoft wouldn't keep the bare minimum needed and get rid of everyone else?
I was thinking that as well.
Roller_Coaster_Dude! wrote:
> So what I'm trying to say here is they are both great companies, and
> are good for different things. So if Microsoft buy them, it
> might lack in the games or computers sector of their company.
I'm sure that makes a lot of sense in your head, but around here we like to speak English.
> So what I'm trying to say here is they are both great companies, and
> are good for different things. So if Microsoft buy them, it
> might lack in the games or computers sector of their company.
I'm sure that makes a lot of sense in your head, but around here we like to speak English.
No. I don't think it's a good thing. I think they should stay separate companies.
Microsoft is brilliant with computers, absolutely brilliant. Also with all the accesseries like Speakers, Keyboards, Mouses etc. They have brought out an excellent games console with the best graphics, and some of the best games for it.
Nintendo is even better for games and consoles and even portables. They designed the unbeatable classics like Mario and Donkey Kong, they've designed the N64 and GameCube and more, but both highly unique and both bestsellers.
So what I'm trying to say here is they are both great companies, and are good for different things. So if Microsoft buy them, it might lack in the games or computers sector of their company.
Microsoft is brilliant with computers, absolutely brilliant. Also with all the accesseries like Speakers, Keyboards, Mouses etc. They have brought out an excellent games console with the best graphics, and some of the best games for it.
Nintendo is even better for games and consoles and even portables. They designed the unbeatable classics like Mario and Donkey Kong, they've designed the N64 and GameCube and more, but both highly unique and both bestsellers.
So what I'm trying to say here is they are both great companies, and are good for different things. So if Microsoft buy them, it might lack in the games or computers sector of their company.
Page: