still though, if a company is struggling they push sales. If a company is gonig bankrupt they try to get as many sales as they can through any means before it happens. They wouldnt be so silent on the media side of things if they were that worried.
example APB, they had a hgue media push at release and right up to shutting the project down, this is becasue they wanted to recoup as much as they could before announcing the end. MO isnt doing that. I cant say im not a little worried but when they start pushing media without fixing the game then i will be unsubbing.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
still though, if a company is struggling they push sales. If a company is gonig bankrupt they try to get as many sales as they can through any means before it happens. They wouldnt be so silent on the media side of things if they were that worried.
I don't think SV have any choice. They don't have money for a media push, neither did they reach nessesary quality of the product to make new players stay.
still though, if a company is struggling they push sales. If a company is gonig bankrupt they try to get as many sales as they can through any means before it happens. They wouldnt be so silent on the media side of things if they were that worried.
I don't think SV have any choice. They don't have money for a media push, neither did they reach nessesary quality of the product to make new players stay.
still though, if a company is struggling they push sales. If a company is gonig bankrupt they try to get as many sales as they can through any means before it happens. They wouldnt be so silent on the media side of things if they were that worried.
I don't think SV have any choice. They don't have money for a media push, neither did they reach nessesary quality of the product to make new players stay.
According to there financial reports they were in the red a little less then $8000 USD or around 6000 Euros...
How is that anywhere near bankruptcy for a company worth millions?
While they did mention they prefer to stick with viral advertising or in other words not spend any money on advertising in reality there waiting on adding more newbie friendly features and tutorials to the game before they start advertising to the public. Mortal Online is still very much an underground independent MMO.
Never trust a screenshot or a youtube video without a version stamp!
still though, if a company is struggling they push sales. If a company is gonig bankrupt they try to get as many sales as they can through any means before it happens. They wouldnt be so silent on the media side of things if they were that worried.
I don't think SV have any choice. They don't have money for a media push, neither did they reach nessesary quality of the product to make new players stay.
According to there financial reports they were in the red a little less then $8000 USD or around 6000 Euros...
How is that anywhere near bankruptcy for a company worth millions?
SV has a negative net value, it isnt worth millions.
still though, if a company is struggling they push sales. If a company is gonig bankrupt they try to get as many sales as they can through any means before it happens. They wouldnt be so silent on the media side of things if they were that worried.
I don't think SV have any choice. They don't have money for a media push, neither did they reach nessesary quality of the product to make new players stay.
According to there financial reports they were in the red a little less then $8000 USD or around 6000 Euros...
How is that anywhere near bankruptcy for a company worth millions?
While they did mention they prefer to stick with viral advertising or in other words not spend any money on advertising in reality there waiting on adding more newbie friendly features and tutorials to the game before they start advertising to the public. Mortal Online is still very much an underground independent MMO.
You need to learn how to number crunch and read a business report. SV's net worth is -848075SEK.
In the report from 2010-01-01 to 2010-09-30 9 months the net income was 548,346. But, from 2010-07-01 to 2010-09-30 the net income was -83,333. So, the only loss in the report was in the last three months. Probably the reason the stock fell was because S.V. did not reach their targeted goals in sales, and that affects the price of stock more then anything else.
Extra financing wasn't in the form of a loan, just more money pumped into the company. (Suspect - Henrik's super rich dad)
Aye, many of us think it was Henrik's dad (myself included) but the truth be known we don't know. However, what I stated above does not contradict Thorpes additional comment.
Extra financing wasn't in the form of a loan, just more money pumped into the company. (Suspect - Henrik's super rich dad)
I'm sorry but I must correct this statement.
The "Financing" is 1,150,000 and is listed as "long-term debt" which is a loan. You will also note a line denotes as "Interest payable and similar charges" (97,699 for Q3)... this is where you list the money you have paid in interest on your debt for the recorded period.
If you have some documentation to show that this financial document is incorrect and that "Henrik's super rich dad" gave the company money instead of a loan, I would be happy if you could share it, but otherwise I think I will believe the financial documents...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Extra financing wasn't in the form of a loan, just more money pumped into the company. (Suspect - Henrik's super rich dad)
I'm sorry but I must correct this statement.
The "Financing" is 1,150,000 and is listed as "long-term debt" which is a loan. You will also note a line denotes as "Interest payable and similar charges" (97,699 for Q3)... this is where you list the money you have paid in interest on your debt for the recorded period.
If you have some documentation to show that this financial document is incorrect and that "Henrik's super rich dad" gave the company money instead of a loan, I would be happy if you could share it, but otherwise I think I will believe the financial documents...
Aye slappy, we have no proof....just rumour and speculation mate.
The thing is in the former report they had to take financing. My belief is that they have to do that again or declare...well.........
What was the financing for?
To stay afloat.
Was it for capital, payroll, or any other expense that companies finance money. "To stay aflot" sound like a guess on your part, or do you what the money was used for. A company getting financing not a bad thing.
In the report from 2010-01-01 to 2010-09-30 9 months the net income was 548,346. But, from 2010-07-01 to 2010-09-30 the net income was -83,333. So, the only loss in the report was in the last three months. Probably the reason the stock fell was because S.V. did not reach their targeted goals in sales, and that affects the price of stock more then anything else.
When did MO go live? When did MO start CHARGING monthly fees? (4 months ago) To show a loss after billing your subsciption base is rather damning, one would expect the opposite. It clearly shows MO can not support itself on subsciptions. I surely hope SVs "business plan" isn't founded on new sales over recurring subsciptions .
The thing is in the former report they had to take financing. My belief is that they have to do that again or declare...well.........
What was the financing for?
To stay afloat.
Was it for capital, payroll, or any other expense that companies finance money. "To stay aflot" sound like a guess on your part, or do you what the money was used for. A company getting financing not a bad thing.
Aye Emperor, thats the issue. Henrik is very vague and ambiguous in his reports. I just looked at running costs and projected running costs and income + the finance. Those numbers informed my comment 'to stay afloat'. The most recent report also inclines me to stick with the 'to stay afloat' comment. Yeah, I could be lacking information that contradicts my statement but I am just working with the intel released.
EDIT: Hanover has a point. Regardless of my interpretations of the last report the latest report is more inline with the statement 'sv is struggling financially'
They have not met their subscription or box sale targets, meaning their cashflow is seriously low right now.
Without a large increase in the player base the company cannot really go on except as a vanity project paid for by Henrik's father (who would have to buy out any other shareholders).
In the report from 2010-01-01 to 2010-09-30 9 months the net income was 548,346. But, from 2010-07-01 to 2010-09-30 the net income was -83,333. So, the only loss in the report was in the last three months. Probably the reason the stock fell was because S.V. did not reach their targeted goals in sales, and that affects the price of stock more then anything else.
When did MO go live? When did MO start CHARGING monthly fees? (4 months ago) To show a loss after billing your subsciption base is rather damning, one would expect the opposite. It clearly shows MO can not support itself on subsciptions. I surely hope SVs "business plan" isn't founded on new sales over recurring subsciptions .
Yes, they lost money in three months out nine months. So, their was still positive net income for the nine including the three months that they were at a loss in net income. The loss could mean anything. It could mean that was unexpected expenses, and not a drop revenue.
The thing is in the former report they had to take financing. My belief is that they have to do that again or declare...well.........
What was the financing for?
To stay afloat.
Was it for capital, payroll, or any other expense that companies finance money. "To stay aflot" sound like a guess on your part, or do you what the money was used for. A company getting financing not a bad thing.
Aye Emperor, thats the issue. Henrik is very vague and ambiguous in his reports. I just looked at running costs and projected running costs and income + the finance. Those numbers informed my comment 'to stay afloat'. The most recent report also inclines me to stick with the 'to stay afloat' comment. Yeah, I could be lacking information that contradicts my statement but I am just working with the intel released.
EDIT: Hanover has a point. Regardless of my interpretations of the last report the latest report is more inline with the statement 'sv is struggling financially'
So, your default thought was they must be struggling financially. Because, they got some financing in the past. But, pass over the fact that in 18 months they had a positive net income, and only in last 3 months was there a negative net income.
The loss could mean anything. It could mean that was unexpected expenses, and not a drop revenue.
It means one thing and one thing only... Perhaps you should try reading the report... There really isnt mush left for interpretation, its very clear.
"* Third quarter of 2010 has been weak in many ways, which is reflected in sales and earnings for the period"
" The number of players we have today is of course much lower than we expected"
Maybe you put those quote in to context. The first one is stating is that they did loss money in that quarter. The second well if you knew how company do their sell numbers which. They estmate future for their investors, and it was stated that they miss their estmate. In the report really the only thing that matter is the numbers, but you are useing quote. That going to show that you do not know how to read the report.
Comments
still though, if a company is struggling they push sales. If a company is gonig bankrupt they try to get as many sales as they can through any means before it happens. They wouldnt be so silent on the media side of things if they were that worried.
example APB, they had a hgue media push at release and right up to shutting the project down, this is becasue they wanted to recoup as much as they could before announcing the end. MO isnt doing that. I cant say im not a little worried but when they start pushing media without fixing the game then i will be unsubbing.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
I don't think SV have any choice. They don't have money for a media push, neither did they reach nessesary quality of the product to make new players stay.
According to there financial reports they were in the red a little less then $8000 USD or around 6000 Euros...
How is that anywhere near bankruptcy for a company worth millions?
While they did mention they prefer to stick with viral advertising or in other words not spend any money on advertising in reality there waiting on adding more newbie friendly features and tutorials to the game before they start advertising to the public. Mortal Online is still very much an underground independent MMO.
Never trust a screenshot or a youtube video without a version stamp!
SV has a negative net value, it isnt worth millions.
I win!!! LOL@U
You need to learn how to number crunch and read a business report. SV's net worth is -848075SEK.
Henrik claims a "upward" trend in subs during October, but the stocks still in decline. Seems some aren't buying into it.
" What is gratifying is that the trend has reversed in October."
Looking forward to the 4Q report, should be the most telling in regards to actual subsciption numbers and SVs viability as a company.
I win!!! LOL@U
In the report from 2010-01-01 to 2010-09-30 9 months the net income was 548,346. But, from 2010-07-01 to 2010-09-30 the net income was -83,333. So, the only loss in the report was in the last three months. Probably the reason the stock fell was because S.V. did not reach their targeted goals in sales, and that affects the price of stock more then anything else.
The thing is in the former report they had to take financing. My belief is that they have to do that again or declare...well.........
What was the financing for?
To stay afloat.
Extra financing wasn't in the form of a loan, just more money pumped into the company. (Suspect - Henrik's super rich dad)
Aye, many of us think it was Henrik's dad (myself included) but the truth be known we don't know. However, what I stated above does not contradict Thorpes additional comment.
I'm sorry but I must correct this statement.
The "Financing" is 1,150,000 and is listed as "long-term debt" which is a loan. You will also note a line denotes as "Interest payable and similar charges" (97,699 for Q3)... this is where you list the money you have paid in interest on your debt for the recorded period.
If you have some documentation to show that this financial document is incorrect and that "Henrik's super rich dad" gave the company money instead of a loan, I would be happy if you could share it, but otherwise I think I will believe the financial documents...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Aye slappy, we have no proof....just rumour and speculation mate.
Was it for capital, payroll, or any other expense that companies finance money. "To stay aflot" sound like a guess on your part, or do you what the money was used for. A company getting financing not a bad thing.
When did MO go live? When did MO start CHARGING monthly fees? (4 months ago) To show a loss after billing your subsciption base is rather damning, one would expect the opposite. It clearly shows MO can not support itself on subsciptions. I surely hope SVs "business plan" isn't founded on new sales over recurring subsciptions .
I win!!! LOL@U
Aye Emperor, thats the issue. Henrik is very vague and ambiguous in his reports. I just looked at running costs and projected running costs and income + the finance. Those numbers informed my comment 'to stay afloat'. The most recent report also inclines me to stick with the 'to stay afloat' comment. Yeah, I could be lacking information that contradicts my statement but I am just working with the intel released.
EDIT: Hanover has a point. Regardless of my interpretations of the last report the latest report is more inline with the statement 'sv is struggling financially'
They have not met their subscription or box sale targets, meaning their cashflow is seriously low right now.
Without a large increase in the player base the company cannot really go on except as a vanity project paid for by Henrik's father (who would have to buy out any other shareholders).
Yes, they lost money in three months out nine months. So, their was still positive net income for the nine including the three months that they were at a loss in net income. The loss could mean anything. It could mean that was unexpected expenses, and not a drop revenue.
So, your default thought was they must be struggling financially. Because, they got some financing in the past. But, pass over the fact that in 18 months they had a positive net income, and only in last 3 months was there a negative net income.
Emperor it is clear they are CURRENTLY struggling financially.
It means one thing and one thing only...
Perhaps you should try reading the report...
There really isnt mush left for interpretation, its very clear.
"* Third quarter of 2010 has been weak in many ways, which is reflected in sales and earnings for the period"
" The number of players we have today is of course much lower than we expected"
I win!!! LOL@U
How is it clear base on there report?
Maybe you put those quote in to context. The first one is stating is that they did loss money in that quarter. The second well if you knew how company do their sell numbers which. They estmate future for their investors, and it was stated that they miss their estmate. In the report really the only thing that matter is the numbers, but you are useing quote. That going to show that you do not know how to read the report.