Yes but how does this effect your original argument? You said AGS and NW were not going anywhere but up because Amazon had so much money and the losses by AGS were insignificant to the shareholders.
If I were a shareholder with an interest in AGS, I would be very concerned to see $500 million per year being invested for a “one off” return of lets say $200 million including store purchases etc. and so many games being cancelled.
Doubt anyone holding shares in Amazon would care about less than 0.2 percent of JUST one year worth of revenue. (using the original post amount of revenue for the year 2020)
That is revenue, I believe their shareholders would get a cut of the profits, not the total amount of money flowing through the company.
I’m not gonna get into a how shares work discussion with some douche from the NW forums.
"Dividends are a way for companies to distribute profits to shareholders, but not all companies pay dividends. "
This guy is doing some serious mental gymnastics in here and I’m loving reading it.
4 Likes
All that you’re really saying is that Amazon will continue to be successful and make profits, so they can keep throwing money at AG if they so choose which will increase the potential for it to eventually make successful games.
The chatbot spam posts are getting old fast
1 Like
Exactly. @Akraci is basically flipping through some impressive mental gymnastics, as you said, to try to make a point, but failing to do so at each and every time they post. Amazon Games is a net loss for Amazon. New World is a net loss for Amazon. Maybe at some point in the future, Amazon Games will develop their own game that is profitable, because clearly New World is not.
And as to New World in the thread of being better and bigger, the numbers of players clearly show otherwise.
It’s not for you to judge whether it is profitable or not. You have no real data to prove it other than some made up BS posted by some random haters online without any proof to back up their statements.
Each month that has been recorded twice in the above screenshot I posted showed BOTH lower AVERAGE players and PEAK players. But you say New World is “better and bigger”, so I would like to understand WHY you think that is the case, since you have provided no evidence of your own to refute the statements made by myself and others, with the exception of the correction that AGS is now AG and that AG does not have a separate stock listing.
1 Like
New World does not need to have high numbers of concurrent players in the same way a monthly sub game does given it is a one time buy to play game.
It is absolutely OK for player numbers to drop as it is the case with any buy to play game like Elden Ring which also has PvP game modes that nobody seems to bother with much, including the latest arena coliseum mode.
Bigger and better refers to what’s coming in future content releases.
1 Like
See above statement I made. You still provide NO EVIDENCE for your claims.
I am not claiming anything, it is simply stating things objectively and factually. No evidence needed here.
1 Like
What facts have you stated, exactly?
Your statements are claims, until you provide evidence to back them up.
You can read them above.
But, here is a fresh one for you. AGS translating New World to Chinese after making major changes to the way combat works in PVE and finishing the MSQ by Q4 2023 is a very highly likely thing to happen.
The MMO fans in China will be waiting to play their new favorite MMO since Blizzard, its offices, and all its games have been kicked out of China, after the Chinese banned all players from ever touching their games, now and forever.
You’re gonna cry more and keep crying coz you cannot handle the truth.
Your unverified, unsourced statements are indeed CLAIMS, and you have made many of them throughout this thread, while asserting, INCORRECTLY, that your statements are objective facts, which they are not as they have mostly been easily disproven with actual evidence.
It is clear to me you do not have a good comprehension of the terms you use blindly. Best of luck in your future posts, hopefully you will have some good evidence to back up your claims, since you have not provided much, if any, here in this thread.
2 Likes
According to chatGPT men are no more masculine than women. Masculinity and femininity are not gender related according to chatGPT! Let that sink in!
3 Likes
At this point I am convinced its Dave Hall alt on the forums.
3 Likes
you guys are lucky im here to raise the collective IQ of this thread.
1 Like