Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

ComPet & CombatPet Deeds (CPD)

billairboy said:
I was already mentioned in the annual report for 2012
Click to expand...

Ah yes, really missed that. Then things are better than I thought.

But then either they didn't announce their new partnership for 1.5+ years, or it's totally unrelated to this whole pet buzz and ComPet is developed by the same company that made the Tycoon. In that case in the next 1.5 years we might see a crowdfunding for some other side project :)
 
billairboy said:
I was already mentioned in the annual report for 2012
http://www.mindark.se/investor-relations/financial-reports/documents/ANNUAL_REPORT_MindArk_2012.pdf
Note8,Page 24.

So we/I know something was coming, but I thought it was connected to the in game pets.
Click to expand...

a good catch... but then that begs a new question: what do they need $2m for now if they've already developed the app. kids are spinning up apps on the cloud with no money behind them, and we know MA seem incapabale of actually spending money on marketing. are they just raising funds to cover normal expenses?

its an interesting business model they seem to be developing, and one i'm not against. just think its time they spelt out exactly what they are doing.
 
Is it finished but MA can't pay the bill and the deeds are for the final payment?

When CLD's were released and the majority "sold" to an undisclosed party we (actually me) jumped to the conclusion it was to the company who made the Virtual Tycoon app.

If it's the same company developing the ComPet app then MA could be doing the same thing again.
 
Last edited:
So, does MA have the $$$, or does it need to make more???
 
SpikeBlack said:
Is it finished but MA can't pay the bill and the deeds are for the final payment?

When CLD's were released and the majority "sold" to an undisclosed party we (actually me) jumped to the conclusion it was to the company who made the Virtual Tycoon app.

If it's the same company developing the ComPet app then MA could be doing the same thing again.
Click to expand...
No way to know, but that's an interesting theory.

This Compet thing could be 'the next' big system similar to the Planet Partners... except instead of creating full planets, they'll simply create a bunch of crowdsourcing deeds and sell em off left and right. I suspect that that's been a direction Mindark's been aiming to go for a while, and folks like Neverdie has been pushing in that direction since it's far easier to do some android or iphone app for something like the arctic for various movies coming out which will only go live for a few months rather than put in a whole new continent... like NDS did with the arctic, and then have to reopen it after it closed since the community still wanted to play in there.
 
SpikeBlack said:
Is it finished but MA can't pay the bill and the deeds are for the final payment?

When CLD's were released and the majority "sold" to an undisclosed party we (actually me) jumped to the conclusion it was to the company who made the Virtual Tycoon app.

If it's the same company developing the ComPet app then MA could be doing the same thing again.
Click to expand...

Well do you really think the virtual Tycoon app costed 2 million dollars? Maybe it was 100k but i doubt it was more expensive.
 
aridash said:
a good catch... but then that begs a new question: what do they need $2m for now if they've already developed the app. kids are spinning up apps on the cloud with no money behind them, and we know MA seem incapabale of actually spending money on marketing. are they just raising funds to cover normal expenses?
Click to expand...

Well as they say "The remaining 70% (or 55% in the case of an affiliate-referred user) of revenue will go toward marketing, operation and support for the ComPet App. "

It's probably that any surplus will go to updates of the game.
 
Harmony. said:
Well do you really think the virtual Tycoon app costed 2 million dollars? Maybe it was 100k but i doubt it was more expensive.
Click to expand...

Nope but if I was developing an app for another company I'd want something to sweeten the deal if I wasn't going to get any money for 2 years.

Alternatively they could be given deeds instead of real shares in MA. Which as MA isn't making a profit would give them cash immediately.

Part of the money will pay for the infrastructure to run the system for coping with 200,000 players (if it ever happens) and that doesn't come cheap. As MA are unlikely to be supporting the system then it also helps pay for that as well.
 
jetsina said:
[in short: it's point 3, the ARPU, which is probably the misleading bit]

Hi folks. I know it's a pain to work out everything oneself, but what options do we really have, given the 'reliability' of the sources otherwise available. Obviously you have to check for your own reliability as well, but here goes my thinking:

if 200,000 each buy 1 deed and generate 36 USD of revenue a year, then each would get 30% of that paid back out as his/her share = 10.8 USD. That's a bit more than 100% a year.
Now there's something wrong already, as that graph suggests unique players, but assuming only 20% actually pay to play. That doesn't match!
Click to expand...
This is where you go wrong.
They are giving an ARPU of $3. But that is AFTER the 20% paying rate assumption.

Basically, they are assuming three things. Perhaps I should quote:

Assumptions underlying the graph:
1. That the average user lifespan will be six months
2. That 80% of the users will play for free and 20% will pay to play
3. That the Average Revenue per Paying User and month (ARPU) will be 3 USD.
Click to expand...

So if there are 100 players playing for 6 months, then we will have a revenue of (20% of 100 = ) 20 players x $ 3= $60 per month.

You are just adding your own assumptions here, and making things overly complicated. The way I read it, their assumptions are clear. They assume a certain income of the game, and from that, calculate how much the deed yield would be.

Of course, the final outcome will be quite different from what we are expecting anyway. Maybe it will be even better, maybe we will just see it go down in flames. But from my point of view, you are confusing people, and throwing oil upon the fire of people distrusting MA. And while we have good reason to not blindly trust them, in this case, it is not suitable.
 
billairboy said:
I must say the graph is a bit confusing, something is seems wrong to me about it.
Let's say they mean the 30 % share of revenue is 36USD/year (3USD/month). If we have 50 000 players each year and they stay for 6 month at average we have at average 25 000 players, and 5000 (20 %) of those are paying players. That would give us 5000*36=180 000 USD in revenue or 180/2000=9% ROI. That not near 22-25% ROI you see a the 50 000 mark of the graph. So it a bit confusing at the moment, if I have not missed something?:scratch2:

Anyway, these deeds are more of a gamble and risk compared to the CLD deeds that already had a established cash flow, at the same time the reward could have more potential.
Click to expand...


I think you have missed a zero :)
The graph ends at 250K, not 25K. Your calculations and the graph for 25K users don't really disagree.
 
Wollongong said:
So if there are 100 players playing for 6 months, then we will have a revenue of (20% of 100 = ) 20 players x $ 3= $60 per month.

You are just adding your own assumptions here, and making things overly complicated. The way I read it, their assumptions are clear. They assume a certain income of the game, and from that, calculate how much the deed yield would be.
Click to expand...

So, we'd have a revenue of $60 per month for 6 months.
So with 100k unique players for 6 months we'd have $60k for 6 months = $360k.
A year has 12 months, so do whatever not "overly complicated" maths you wish and then look at the graph!
Do the figures match? NO!

[AND, on top of that, each player that gives deed holders a revenue of $3USD actually has to spend $10USD a month, as deed holders are not the only ones getting a share.]

I am simply doing maths and not adding assumptions. The revenue share is also stated elsewhere.
Maybe you can try and get closer to fitting your numbers to the graph than just the quote above....
Whichever one of us doesn't see it, as far as I can tell, we've both tried, so let's leave it there.
 
If 200,000 Divided by 30% = 666,666.67
Then the total business shares is 666,666.67

Given the game has a worldwide audience that have mobiles, excluding tablets potential, and maybe pc browser access, I'd say there's huge potential.

Especially if you can game-on with MA automated pets, which I assume is the method to earn ped.
Where PVP is the likely method to earn skills for free.

Anyhow hope pic helps.



Rick
 
The deed revenue is easy to figure using MA's assumptions (provided that the last line of the original post should read: "3. That the Average Revenue per Paying User per month (ARPU) will be 3 USD." and not the way they have it.)

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?263253-ComPet-App-Deeds

100,000 players = 20,000 paying players x $3 dollars per month = $60000 per month x 12 months = $720,000 per year x .3 (30%) = $216,000 paid to the deeds each year / 200,000 deeds = $1.08 per year per deed.

The deeds cost $10.

$1.08 is clearly not a 50% ROI as shown on the graph.


250,000 players would pay the deeds 2.5 x as much or $2.70 per deed per year which is also clearly not the 130% ROI as shown in the graph.

To get a 50% ROI there would have to be 462,962.96 players on average at all times through the year.
(5$ / 1.08 * 100,000)


Point 1 in the final paragraph of their OP ("1. That the average user lifespan will be six months"), has nothing to do with the graph that I can see, so I'm not sure why that is listed as one of the assumptions underlying the graph.

Unless the whole thing is just piss-poorly worded (it is MA after all), then the graph is not accurate by a long shot.

I may be missing something about the 6 months per player thing, it is getting pretty late here and I'm getting older.

--------------------------

$2.70 a year on a $10 deed is a great ROI but the buyer is making a lot of risky assumptions.

Assumption 1: They will actually finish the app.

Assumption 2: The app will be popular for years to come.

Assumption 3: This will be legal in the US and not be deemed online gambling. (Could still work anyway without US participation.)

Assumption 4: It won't take 4 months to withdraw your 'winnings'. (If it's business as usual, the app would be DOA)

Assumption 5: They will be able to stop people from using exploits. (Good Luck!)


Somewhat off-topic: I haven't seen any discussion of this point from the OP:

"....or enlisted for defense duty at the user’s home base."
 
I suspect if MA takes 50 - 60 business days for people to withdraw money with this app, which will either be bought through iTunes or Google Play the negative reviews will be swift and seen very publicly. MA must have an instant withdrawal 1-2 business days at most for this to work.
If they can't manage EU withdrawals within 50-60 business days I doubt they will do better with this. We can only hope.
 
All here throwing numbers here and there...all provided by MA. Actually if those number will fit or no what MA said will be easy to check. In case it will be "out of hat" numbers we don;t have any possibility to settle that with MA + they can always say it was only projection. So I don't understand where that all hype over ROI of BAD's is coming from ?

But what is more important here is what odds are for MA assumptions to their own predictions to actually fulfill ???
3$ per month out of 20% for 6 months don't look to hard to meet...if we assume there is no better way to spend that 3$ on entartainment in internet.

Base upon so far MA predictions in similar matter, other MA promises and last 2 anual reports I think probablity of BAD's going along that fancy graph is somwhere between 0,1 and 0,2.
 
billairboy said:
The app have been in development for over 1,5 year and I don't think they will throw that away.
Click to expand...

IF they spent 1.5 years on the app they are sure to loose money, a mobile app unless it's a huge budget app should not take longer than 3-6 months to complete, even 3 months is stretching it if you want to be able to recoup.

Wollongong said:
This is where you go wrong.
They are giving an ARPU of $3. But that is AFTER the 20% paying rate assumption.

Basically, they are assuming three things. Perhaps I should quote:



So if there are 100 players playing for 6 months, then we will have a revenue of (20% of 100 = ) 20 players x $ 3= $60 per month.

You are just adding your own assumptions here, and making things overly complicated. The way I read it, their assumptions are clear. They assume a certain income of the game, and from that, calculate how much the deed yield would be.

Of course, the final outcome will be quite different from what we are expecting anyway. Maybe it will be even better, maybe we will just see it go down in flames. But from my point of view, you are confusing people, and throwing oil upon the fire of people distrusting MA. And while we have good reason to not blindly trust them, in this case, it is not suitable.
Click to expand...

And their assumptions as i said in another thread is way overstated.
They do seem to mean ARPPU instead of ARPU though.

1. That the average user lifespan will be six months
2. That 80% of the users will play for free and 20% will pay to play
3. That the Average Revenue per Paying User and month (ARPU) will be 3 USD.
Click to expand...

It would be great if MA knew anything about the mobile game industry before making these assumptions.

Average user lifespan on mobile is less than 3 months for most games http://www.flurry.com/bid/108904/Ben...s#.U9VB67F0fw8
Getting 20% of the users to pay is as unlikely as me getting an uber in EU. Normally getting 3% of your players to pay is considered good in a freemium game. http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/11/conversion-rate/
Also an ARPU (They do seem to mean ARPPU though) of 3 USD is nuts. http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/11/ar...reemium-games/ (note that these numbers are for ARPPU (per paying user, thus it's higher) MA's estimate is for all users.

I made an estimate here that you can look at in the excell sheet i added. http://we.tl/k1K1o2qHLg It's taken from gamesbrief.
I estimated they would maybe be able to get 25k downloads a month, not taking into account any marketing costs (rough cost is 100k usd for a first push the first day to get you in a top spot in the mobile charts, then a little bit less each day to keep you there) If they do get a good chart position though the 25k will go up by a lot. I also estimated a 60% retention rate and $3 ARPPU as MA estimates.

Play around with the numbers if you wish.
 
Amount of paying users

While Entropia indeed is quite different from other environments, especially different from games, IIRC I read somewhere that research had established that approx 0.1% (that is, one in ten thousand) end up paying for free-to-play games.

I believe a larger percentage of MindArk's (actual) customers are paying (perhaps especially as it's not a game?), but it's still research data worth consideration - especially for MA.
 
Few Scars said:
... iTunes or Google Play the negative reviews will be swift and seen very publicly....
Click to expand...

i'm not even sure the app can be in itune or google play, the term of use and the economic model (with withdraw) seem incompatible.
 
tamlin said:
While Entropia indeed is quite different from other environments, especially different from games, IIRC I read somewhere that research had established that approx 0.1% (that is, one in ten thousand) end up paying for free-to-play games.

I believe a larger percentage of MindArk's (actual) customers are paying (perhaps especially as it's not a game?), but it's still research data worth consideration - especially for MA.
Click to expand...

I can agree that most of long term players here paid something at some point ( regularly or accidentaly...no matter ), but that whole Pet mobile thingy is aimed at casuals. Between casuals there is larger % who is not willing to pay for anything - MA assumptions may not take into account this.

Moreover...looking at that famous panda it is aim at younger casuals. Those are even more hard to spend few $ as they usualy dont have any, they need get them from parents.
 
shoti said:
I can agree that most of long term players here paid something at some point ( regularly or accidentaly...no matter ), but that whole Pet mobile thingy is aimed at casuals. Between casuals there is larger % who is not willing to pay for anything - MA assumptions may not take into account this.

Moreover...looking at that famous panda it is aim at younger casuals. Those are even more hard to spend few $ as they usualy dont have any, they need get them from parents.
Click to expand...

I agree I've played settlers online and was determined not to depo, in the end frustration got the better of me, the difference here I guess is being an RCE there's always the chance of the cherry which could hold players longer and entice those with spending power.

This compet has been constantly on my mind for weeks now, thinking about what MA are offering, and the value of investing. MA are good at visuals, and concepts. The game surely has more to it than pets fights. They indicated "home base defence". I've wondered if a player sets his pet on standby for a fight at homebase? maybe you wonder around the neighbourhood, and pick a fight with someones pet, even if offline.

I would imagine the free to play part doesn't skill very fast, whereas the competing for peds does speed pet skilling.,,,who knows. I'm sure chat globals will get people spending.

It's likely they will add loads of stuff like pet armour and loads of added on extras maybe even saddles to ride it. I'm sure it wont be limited just to fights. So likely lots of revenue opportunities.

It is a shame the lack of information. I'm 300+ deeds in at the moments, and constantly wondering if I'm doing the right thing, pushing for a very decent target holding.

I also had concerns about a universal ped cad and account switching between EU and compet, but the more I think about that, it doesn't seem to be a bad thing as long as the accounts are truly separate.

Anyhow MA don't seem that keen to post more deeds in auction. Good sign bad sign, or just holidays.

I'm still trying to stay positive, knowing MA do have the ability to produce something wonderful, even if they're not so great at balancing returns.

Buying more deeds? Probably :yay:

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top