Once upon a time I used to refer to it as the "Event Horizon".
(nowadays I just avoid talking about it)
Once upon a time I used to refer to it as the "Event Horizon".
(nowadays I just avoid talking about it)
According to available near-real-time data (CLD payouts), they are doing worse than last year; 14.5% worse if we compare the first 44 weeks of 2013 and 2014. In addition, CLD return over time has never been at a lower point. If we assume a strong correlation between Calypso (by far the strongest economy in Entropia) and MA revenue, that paints a rather pale picture that does not agree with your assertion.1.) MA did substantially better this year than last year.
According to available near-real-time data (CLD payouts), they are doing worse than last year; 14.5% worse if we compare the first 44 weeks of 2013 and 2014. In addition, CLD return over time has never been at a lower point. If we assume a strong correlation between Calypso (by far the strongest economy in Entropia) and MA revenue, that paints a rather pale picture that does not agree with your assertion.
Could you share the data, and sources of the data, making you think they are doing better, even substantially better 2014 than 2013?
How is that? Previous financial statements have displayed a strong correlation between Calypso income, and MA as a whole. If a company gets less revenue while keeping expenses, it's doing worse - not better, and most certainly not substantially better.'lower cost to play' and the fact that even when some players can play with CLD income the ROI is almost the same makes your conclusions invalid
How is that? Previous financial statements have displayed a strong correlation between Calypso income, and MA as a whole. If a company gets less revenue while keeping expenses, it's doing worse - not better, and most certainly not substantially better.
So what part of my conclusion do you claim is invalid? The only variable I see would be the correlation between Calypso revenue and MA. That seems to suggest you know something that I don't, that MA have magically detached its revenue from Calypso?
Please elaborate.
P.S. A 15% drop from one year to the next isn't "almost the same". Not even close.
Translated a little bit: For a player born on Calypso (and playing on Calypso), 50% of the revenue generated from that player goes to Mindark (what you're calling running the game, though a good portion goes to salaries of the MA executives). The other 50% is split equally between Planet Calypso (paying salaries of the developers and paying for their operating expenses, including fees they pay to Mindark for servers and other fees) and the owners of the CLDs, who get the remaining 25% of your revenue.
If you're playing on another planet, then MA gets 50% of your revenue, Calypso (including CLD owners) gets 25% and the planet you're playing on gets 25%.
Didn't we already see one planet partner pack it in, terminate his development team and turn his investment attention towards other non-Entropia things?
MA1: Cost to play 1$ per day + 20 000 players = 20 000 $ per day income - CLD ROI 20%
MA2: Cost to play 0,5$ per day + 30 000 players = 15 000 $ per day income - CLD ROI 15%
now what is better MA1 or MA2?
and not to mention that planet Arkadia and other planets also generate MA profit but less CLD ROI
ill be highfiving my friends over in the elderly home and kickin it with entropia!
Nurse bring me more redbull!!!
You've stolen my lifelong plan , though in my version there was beer and/or Monster
Me too!
This community will also be marketed towards slightly aging strippers looking for a place to retire early.
According to available near-real-time data (CLD payouts), they are doing worse than last year; 14.5% worse if we compare the first 44 weeks of 2013 and 2014. In addition, CLD return over time has never been at a lower point. If we assume a strong correlation between Calypso (by far the strongest economy in Entropia) and MA revenue, that paints a rather pale picture that does not agree with your assertion.
Could you share the data, and sources of the data, making you think they are doing better, even substantially better 2014 than 2013?
Why are people using CLDs as a means to measure revenue? It only counts for Calypso anyways. How about activity in Arkadia and other planets. It seems many players has been active else were reducing CLD revenue. I don't think CLD generate revenue from
Orotan events or other planets anyways.
I did - when it was released.Read the financial statement
Speaking only for myself, it's due to Calypso historically has been the by far largest source of revenue for MA - even with other planets created. I believe this correlation has not changed in a massive way, despite other planet running events, but we'll have to wait until approx July 2015 to see whether or not I have to modify that standpoint. It's also the only reasonable (and hopefully 100% reliable) source of information available unless we always want to be 7 months behind the curve (and get info only once/year).Why are people using CLDs as a means to measure revenue?
I did - when it was released.
You might notice it refers to the year 2013. The annual report for 2014 won't be released until around end-of June 2015.
I guess we'll have to return to this subject in approx 8 months.
I did.
Read the financial statement, that I linked in the original post. It compares their previous year to this year. You can see, in plain, straight numbers, that there is improvement of over 10 million dollars in revenue. As I said, they're still operating a loss - just not nearly as bad of one.
[/URL]
I don't know what you are talking about, the net sell for 2013: 46 797 KSEK for 2012: 46 478 KSEK.
I don't know what you are talking about, the net sell for 2013: 46 797 KSEK for 2012: 46 478 KSEK.
(...)
A lot of people make the argument that "Calypso is still owned my MindArk" and this is true but it is by no means their only source of revenue. If it were, MindArk wouldn't keep trying to sell it to a planet partner.
(..)
Right. Now we're making sense. Thanks. Perhaps you should indeed edit that, else it could look like you may be posting today but from a year ago. Time paradoxes...Eh, I should have said last year. I can go back and edit my post to change the date, but I won't really have to change anything else.
What I study is (obviously) the payouts, which reflects Caplypso revenue, not the sales price of the CLD's, which only reflects what people are willing to pay for them (which seems to be the only graphs on the linked-to site - in-system market history). Those two numbers have pretty much no correlation.On looking into CLD value, I actually stumbled across a few graphs that point to CLD's generally being on the incline - not decline anyway.
Just for the record, I didn't intend to express neither pessimism nor optimism. It was just that the statement seemed to contradict data available, and as such I felt it prudent to question the claim. At the time of my initial comment, the claim referred to 2014 vs. 2013, which you now clarified should have been 2013 vs. 2012.That being said we'll see if the trend continues with this upcoming financial report in 8 months, but in the meantime I'm going by what I know, and what I know keeps me thinking positive [...]
Can we all stop being debbie-downers now?
And please.. read the entire statement before posting.......
Source please. Because last I heard, is that the sale to a PP would not go through, and instead, it would eb done through the cld. So CLD owners took the place of the pp (and some dev)
Well hello mister nice guy!
I was answering to your statement:
"You can see, in plain, straight numbers, that there is improvement of over 10 million dollars in revenue."
The reallity is, for the parent company: 44 696 027 SEK 2013 42 396 303 SEK 2012:
That is an increase with 2.3 million SEK, not dollars. And if you look at the group, that is the more interesting thing to look at, I quote from page 6: "Group revenues amounted to SEK 50.1 million (previous year SEK 60.8 million)."
I can understand you did a mistake writing dollars instead of SEK, but it still not correct.
You're right. I made a concerted effort to leave the word "dollars" out of the numbers missed one. Woops. I'll go back and edit it at some point, I guess.
And I apologize for insisting that you read the statement... but I had good reason because I have to correct you again :
The number you're referring to there is just the amount of sales made. There was an increase of sales of the amount you quoted. Sales does not equal total profit. Profit is what you get after all income (which, in part, includes sales) - all expenses (including operating costs).
Total net Profit of parent company (which is at the bottom of page 14) has a difference of exactly 17,686,125 SEK in MindArk's favor between 2012 and 2013. So, thank you for making me do the math, because my rounding was horrible. its more like 17 million, not the 10 I originally noted.
I really wish people would read things...
I have not looked at the papers but revenue and net sells is not the same thing.
Edit: Aha. Sales doesn't even get to 10M USD.
Right. Now we're making sense. Thanks. Perhaps you should indeed edit that, else it could look like you may be posting today but from a year ago. Time paradoxes...
What I study is (obviously) the payouts, which reflects Caplypso revenue, not the sales price of the CLD's, which only reflects what people are willing to pay for them (which seems to be the only graphs on the linked-to site - in-system market history). Those two numbers have pretty much no correlation.
Just for the record, I didn't intend to express neither pessimism nor optimism. It was just that the statement seemed to contradict data available, and as such I felt it prudent to question the claim. At the time of my initial comment, the claim referred to 2014 vs. 2013, which you now clarified should have been 2013 vs. 2012.
Anyway, let's come back to this in 8 months and see where it went.
Cheers!
I know how to read an annual report and what the different things means. Problem is that you are mixing up dollars and Sek, and change wording from "revenue" to "profit", which are two different things.