Age of Conan

Originally posted by Yamoth

Originally posted by Mitara

and yet dear Mr. OP you post this posts anyways...

What really is interesting is the Blizzard'hs chairman was out saying that yes, we do see people leaving to try out AoC, 40% of them returns to us. That actually means that 60% doesnt return but stay in AoC. Thats a lot. Funcom must have done something right in that game.

 

Not at all.  Just because 40% of the playerbase return to WoW doesn't mean the other 60% percent will stay with AoC.  Quite of few of them migrated to EQ2, LoTRo, or simply quitting mmo all together.

I seriously doubt that is the case. They might have stopped playing in anticipation of Warhammer, but going back to EQ2 or Lotro, would be such a step backwards that you might as well calculate them totally out of MMO's industry numbers.

Originally posted by Mitara

Originally posted by Yamoth

Originally posted by Mitara

and yet dear Mr. OP you post this posts anyways...

What really is interesting is the Blizzard'hs chairman was out saying that yes, we do see people leaving to try out AoC, 40% of them returns to us. That actually means that 60% doesnt return but stay in AoC. Thats a lot. Funcom must have done something right in that game.

 

Not at all.  Just because 40% of the playerbase return to WoW doesn't mean the other 60% percent will stay with AoC.  Quite of few of them migrated to EQ2, LoTRo, or simply quitting mmo all together.

 

I seriously doubt that is the case. They might have stopped playing in anticipation of Warhammer, but going back to EQ2 or Lotro, would be such a step backwards that you might as well calculate them totally out of MMO's industry numbers.

Lawl. A 40% return rate is very good considering people are leaving for a new game. Many people are tired of WoW, yet 40% come back? Thats great for Blizz.

Originally posted by Mitara

Originally posted by Yamoth

Originally posted by Mitara

and yet dear Mr. OP you post this posts anyways...

What really is interesting is the Blizzard'hs chairman was out saying that yes, we do see people leaving to try out AoC, 40% of them returns to us. That actually means that 60% doesnt return but stay in AoC. Thats a lot. Funcom must have done something right in that game.

 

Not at all.  Just because 40% of the playerbase return to WoW doesn't mean the other 60% percent will stay with AoC.  Quite of few of them migrated to EQ2, LoTRo, or simply quitting mmo all together.

 

I seriously doubt that is the case. They might have stopped playing in anticipation of Warhammer, but going back to EQ2 or Lotro, would be such a step backwards that you might as well calculate them totally out of MMO's industry numbers.

I, and a lot of others, went back to LotRO, after the AoC debacle.  Why is it a step backwards to go back to a game you enjoyed?  Just because I wanted to try out AoC does not mean that there was, or is, anything wrong with LotRO.  Like any other game, some are going to like it, and some aren't.   The fact that you referred to a return to LotRO as "such a step backwards" indicates you do not like LotRO.  So be it.  But, do not assume that because others return to a game YOU do not like means they are stepping backwards.  Besides, how do you know they have not "stopped playing [AoC] in anticipation of " Mines of Moria?

u might want to take te test again then...prolly a change the age to ur actual age it might work 

Originally posted by Skooma2

Originally posted by Mitara

Originally posted by Yamoth

Originally posted by Mitara

and yet dear Mr. OP you post this posts anyways...

What really is interesting is the Blizzard'hs chairman was out saying that yes, we do see people leaving to try out AoC, 40% of them returns to us. That actually means that 60% doesnt return but stay in AoC. Thats a lot. Funcom must have done something right in that game.

 

Not at all.  Just because 40% of the playerbase return to WoW doesn't mean the other 60% percent will stay with AoC.  Quite of few of them migrated to EQ2, LoTRo, or simply quitting mmo all together.

 

I seriously doubt that is the case. They might have stopped playing in anticipation of Warhammer, but going back to EQ2 or Lotro, would be such a step backwards that you might as well calculate them totally out of MMO's industry numbers.

 

I, and a lot of others, went back to LotRO, after the AoC debacle.  Why is it a step backwards to go back to a game you enjoyed?  Just because I wanted to try out AoC does not mean that there was, or is, anything wrong with LotRO.  Like any other game, some are going to like it, and some aren't.   The fact that you referred to a return to LotRO as "such a step backwards" indicates you do not like LotRO.  So be it.  But, do not assume that because others return to a game YOU do not like means they are stepping backwards.  Besides, how do you know they have not "stopped playing [AoC] in anticipation of " Mines of Moria?

Lotro is a fine game. But given that you left Lotro to try out Aoc, tells us something, you were tired of Lotro and wanted something new.

Anticipation is what this business is surviving on. Most of the times the anticipiation is not satisfied, just like with AoC. It doesnt mean we all run to the stores and get a copy of "Mines of Moria". IMHO Warhammer will have a good chance of attracting people from the 3 look-alike games (Lotro, Wow and Aoc). But its just an opinion of course, shared by many on these forums, at least until they learn that Warhammer isnt really all that new an exciting, and then they quit that game and start waiting for, who knows. Its simply the way its works.

"Lotro is a fine game. But given that you left Lotro to try out Aoc, tells us something, you were tired of Lotro and wanted something new."

It wasn't so much that I was "tired of Lotro", but, I must admit, I got caught in the hype for AoC (a mistake I will not make again).   Just because you like prime rib doesn't mean you are abandoning it because you wanted to try the rack of lamb.  In this case the rack of lamb (AoC) was undercooked, ill-prepared and served up by moron waiters (FailCom).  

Originally posted by octa

I won't blame you guys if you don't give this comment/opinion any credence, this is the internet after all:

My wife is a senior auditor & chartered accountant for one of the "big four" accounting firms in the world.  At the risk of her laughing at me for caring so much I asked her if she could look at the report and tell me if the number quoted was for the end of the term or at the time of the report.  Her reply:

In Q2 report it is always as of the Q2 date (as is with any financial report), not the report date unless it is in the context of discussing FORECASTED information but as this appears to be a statement where it is not a forecasted but actual.

 

If attached to a financial report (eg statements), the management discussion & analysis, when discussing metrics associated with revenues, etc always uses #s as of the financial statement date, otherwise investors would be comparing apples and oranges.

 

Think about it this way, it takes MINIMUM a week to know after a quarter end to know how may subscribers there are.  You have to compile data, and there is always a lag between retail purchase and initial registration.  Funcom probably does not have details on retail copies sold…

 

I do admit that this is the sketchiest MD&A I have ever seen, it is hard to see when they are discussing past, present and future.

I love that woman.

I'm no financial wiz either but after reading this if his info is right I'd tend to agree with Lit because it for me shows the logical progression of this management team they really seem to be like the "kid caught in a lie" where they just keep lying more and to more people and the lies just get bigger and bigger until one day they just have to face the facts.
 

So given that the xfire numbers are now below LoTR and LoTR has around 150K subs can we anticipate that AoC is in the low 100K range of subs now?  What does that mean for their financial projections for the end of Q3 which is only a 2-3 weeks away?

My guess would be right around a 100k.

What does this mean for their stock price...  Nothing.  The stock price is already near the absolute low it can go.   Currently the market has given AOC and AO a value of about  $0.. the stock is trading for like $1.50 USD, which comes out to be about what they have cash on hand.   In other words, you could buy Funcom right now for only a little more than the cash they have in the bank.

There is basically no bad news Funcom can announce (as far as AOC)  that could make the stock go any lower.. except of course if they say they no longer have that cash in the bank .

Edit:   Just to point out, while the quarter ends on the 30th of September,  Funcom won't be releasing their financial report until the middle of November.  They also stated last time that they would not be stating subscription numbers (although we can estimate them)