Might be… the article is really unclear, but I really don’t think it is, they already factored in 42million in charges from the 49m… There something I don’t understand with this.
Thats due to 0 economic knowledge of the author. The article says 49 mil profit, which should be revenue. If you mix up such basic figures I wouldn’t trust any other ‘analysis’ of the article.
Exactly. Things like loan payments would be part of expenses, so either the $7m isn’t profit, or they have a really bad deal with their investors if they’re taking pretty much all of the profit.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
I don’t understand, the article says of the 7 million after break-even they only got 567, who got the rest of the money ? Where did it go ?
And even then, hundreds of people recieved a salary for a few years, is it not pretty good already ? To be able to sustain all these people ?
Could be loan payments, repaying investors, taxes …
Might be… the article is really unclear, but I really don’t think it is, they already factored in 42million in charges from the 49m… There something I don’t understand with this.
Thats due to 0 economic knowledge of the author. The article says 49 mil profit, which should be revenue. If you mix up such basic figures I wouldn’t trust any other ‘analysis’ of the article.
Exactly. Things like loan payments would be part of expenses, so either the $7m isn’t profit, or they have a really bad deal with their investors if they’re taking pretty much all of the profit.
I assume the salaries are included in the break even?