| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saving Face
   |
Posted - 2011.06.27 20:36:00 -
[1]
Let's put it in clear terms. If they can not get another loan they are bankrupt in October when they have to pay back that $12 million loan. MT in EVE may not actually have to be able to counter the burn rate but increasing profit from EVE would make it easier to get another loan.
|
Saving Face
|
Posted - 2011.06.27 20:50:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Hexxx
They have the capacity to sell equity, liquidate assets, cut costs, or a combination of that and more. Bankruptcy would only be likely if they were ALREADY on the ropes, which they aren't yet.
They generated their positive cash flow in 2010 by selling equity so they are already there.
They can not liquidate much in the way of assets because most of it is a huge rainbow cloud of code that they wrote; it has no real value, the number is just what they pumped into it in dev cost.
They can cut cost by firing developers. However if that causes them to miss the schedule for Dust or WoD then they are in an even worse position than before. If it causes them to lose revenue from EVE they have no income anymore.
|
Saving Face
|
Posted - 2011.06.27 21:25:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Have they been pushing for years to burn the in-game PLEX stockpile? I know that's accepted lore on the forums but point me to an official statement by a CCP authority on RL finances - not a techie developer or a game economist. :)
It's mostly accepted lore because they keep talking about MT. Clothes for PLEX were already a topic for the last CSM etc. One thing they have also done is transition PLEXes so they are full ingame items. Which means CCP owns them anyway, not the person who purchases them.
There is one exception. If they were planning to, say, make EVE f2p, then the subscription terms would change in such a way that, as per the EULA, the change allows us to get a refund for pre-paid subscription time. Something similar would happen if they increased the subscription fee.
|
Saving Face
|
Posted - 2011.06.28 11:34:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Varo Jan
*sigh* They made a profit, as defined by accounting conventions. Not a paper profit. Not a cash profit. Not a fake profit. A profit.
It's a profit with almost no connection whatsoever to the amount of money they are making. Hence, it's profit that exists on paper but its existance in reality depends on the value that all their code will have after Dust and WoD are released.
Quote:
Anecdotal evidence from the various insider leaks points to some questions about their ability to deliver in a timely fashion.
I think there was no way to avoid those rumours, they announced it years ago and people just start going "it's still not out?" eventually.
|
Saving Face
|
Posted - 2011.06.28 12:12:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Varo Jan
The profit for 2010 has nothing to do with future profits or losses from Dust and/or WoD.
If they turn a profit of $X in 2010 that is in part based on $Y in capitalized development expenses from Dust, then they stand to lose $Y in 2012 if they have to write down Dust, and that will impact their profit in 2012.
|
| |
|