Isn't Agent a R* North game? Surely everyone there was drafted onto GTAV for a long time, so I wouldn't expect Agent in 2015. I still expect GTAV PS4/XB1 this holiday season, and a chance of RDR 2015, and I wouldn't believe any Agent release date until we see a lot of gameplay and coverage. You know how R* tends to delay its games by up to two years after the first announced release date. It's also possible there's something TBA from R*, but again, see above re "deadlines".
Not sure why you bring up console prices, when 360/PS3 cost more at launch. You said, "software tends to sell in proportion to the hardware sales", which means 100% more consoles should mean 100% more games sold, right? But it's nowhere close to that.
So let me ask you then, how many PS4/XB1's would need to be sold compared to PS3/360's in the same time frame, before sales of games double? Three times as many consoles? Ten times as many consoles? One hundred times as many consoles?
It's reasonable to expect that 100% more consoles sold should result in 100% more games sold, not 40% more. You may say there has been a lack of good games, nothing at all like the PS3/360 launches with the likes of Genji, Resistance and Kameo? Also remember PS3's main sku launched at $600, which is closer to $700 today with inflation.
Some sales info (NPD) after 6 months of new consoles:
Consoles +100% PS4/XB1 compared to 360/PS3
Software +40% PS4/XB1 compared to 360/PS3 (shouldn't that be 100% if sales are as strong as you say?)
Total software sales:
"the software for the new consoles is selling very fast"
In other posts you excuse poor software sales on your opinion that people have spent all their money on the hardware and can't afford the software.
Homer, consider Titanfall. Its sales figures aren't good enough for EA to release any, and it's obvious from seeing Charttrack and VGChartz that the XB1 version dominates the 360 version in sales, despite the huge difference in install base. That's because as I've said here before, the majority of the new console buyers are hard-core gamers upgrading. I am one of those gamers who has upgraded and even though I was a huge fan of the BL franchise, there is zero chance I'm buying a last gen full price retail game this holiday season, never mind one that has been sub-contracted.
It's like Batman Arkham Origins, sequel to popular game done by different developer and released too late in the cycle, and it didn't sell well. It came out Oct 2013, about a full year earlier than the next BL.
If they keep costs low they might make a little profit on it, bearing in mind Gearbox probably takes a big royalty too, but no way it sells like BL2.
I'm still waiting for you two math geniuses to explain how TTWO could have 50% of the round while Thrive has more and three others have some too.
"Attack me rather than the subject again"
I responded to your own post, you hypocrite:
"compare to your #$%$"
"you sound like a disgruntled employee Z laid off"
"Youre the herpes of the board"
I see your English is as bad as your math. I called the Twitch deal "a decent profit". Yet you say, "nothing this company does is right in your eyes even this twitch deal sounds like an utter failure." You're taking lying lessons from Insince.
I'm still waiting for you two math geniuses to explain how TTWO could have 50% of the round while Thrive has more and three others have some too. Come on, it's not exactly sixth grade algebra is it?
"Funny thing is I can't even think of three bears...."
You're thinking like a child. Any rational person should appreciate objective postings regardless of their own position, rather than wanting a board full of BS such as, "...based on my utterly false numbers I pulled FMA this means profits will EXPLODE yo, buy buy." Although perhaps you need that validation.
You credit him for his math when he says TTWO could have had 50% of that round, even while Thrive put in more than the other four investors. Yeah, that's some solid math right there...
I'm not in the habit of talking my book here. At any given time I may be long, short, or out, and I may be posting, or not posting.
Since you are a conspiracy theorist you should explain how my objective post outlining that fools lies got 4 thumbs down. Hmmm?
You're a liar because of the multiple lies you wrote, which I already outlined. I don't use multiple ID's here and even if I did, that wouldn't make me a liar. Also, I'm not short. My most recent position was long.
From TTWO's own PR for their most recent earnings, "GAAP net income from continuing operations increased to a record $361.7 million, or $3.20 per diluted share".
Everyone here knows, partly because the facts have been posted here and anyway it takes seconds to find on the internet, that 5 funds contributed to the C series investment, and Thrive led the funding. So if TTWO had 50% of that $20M, and Thrive had more, and the other 3 funds bought some too.... hmmmm.... wait.... ummm that doesn't add up, does it? Why are certain longs here so abysmal at simple math?
Also the idea that Twitch leaped in value by about 1200% from September to May sounds optimistic at best, or more likely ludicrous.
And the dates, Insince says the deal took place before the release of GTA5. The game launched Sep 17th, the Twitch investment deal was announced Sep 30th. Another lie from Insince.
$125M == $1.56 a share? Which companies share count were you using here?
So what is Insince's motive for posting these lies here, and what fool gave a thumbs up for such fiction?
When so many of their games run late, there's obviously some systemic problem. There's also one thing in common with all the missed deadlines: management. Of course it should go without saying that if a reasonable delay might be the difference between an OK seller and a massive seller, that's not the same situation as a huge delay just to get it to the state they thought it would be in a year or two earlier.
"Jester I don't have time to explain 6th grade algrebra"
You would need at least a year to learn it first.
You said: "you can spin anything as bad news."
What I said: "At an expected 3-5x return, that should be a decent profit."
So who is spinning? Other than you with your not-as-smart-as-a-6th-grader algebra?
Btw, I was sorry to hear that you loaded up on short term calls when the stock was over $22, and again before the latest earnings.
"I used your numbers to just show you there is a potential for a 25% upside to earnings guidance, with your low ball estimates right or no? Beg to differ?"
If you forget about the cost of investment, and get the number of shares wrong, and count this one-time investment gain in non-GAAP, then I could see how *you* might get to 25%.
I know you're not good with numbers, and in this instance it's because it's impossible for TTWO to have put in $10M. The Series C investment was $20M, it came from 5 investor groups, and it was led by Thrive Capital. Hence why I estimated $5M, give or take. For all we know, it was $1M. You could easily make a realistic case for $3M, if the lead group put in $8M and the other four groups split the rest.
The third round of financing wouldn't have the same ROI expectations as earlier rounds, because of course there's far less risk. That's why I thought 3-5x. Maybe it was higher though. A lot of it comes down to what the exit plan expectation was. Did the investors think Twitch would sell for $500M, or IPO for $2BN? I have a hard time believing it was valued at barely over $100M in late September, on the eve of the console launches and just over 6 months before selling for $1BN.
Everyone knew Twitch would sell before long, so this gain isn't a huge surprise. I think TTWO would have seen more response from an IPO, because more hype. And does it only apply to GAAP earnings? Pubs don't like investors valuing on GAAP because they like to hide many of their costs in non-GAAP.
Perhaps if Z was a fraction of the CEO that K has been, the stock part of his compensation would be worth much more. Never mind, he's still the highest paid guy in the biz. As you reluctanctly agreed, K's salary was $2.1M last year. There are two schools of thought on Z's salary:
1. Anyone who has ever followed the company, and everyone on this board, knows ZM is paid nearly $3M.
2. Everyone except you I mean, who thinks Z only earns $11,000.
Now you're comparing Z's salary to K's salary + bonus + stock sales? LOL, what?
I take back what I said yesterday about you not being stupid. I don't recall seeing the levels of ignorance and hypocrisy you have evinced this weekend in a long, long time.
It's entertaining watching you squirm under the weight of your own hypocrisy. You give Z credit for everything that goes well and say it's "moronic" to hold him accountable for Infinite. You even give him credit for things that happened before you say he took control! On the one hand, I figure your confusion about salary suggests you've never had a job, but your fanatical defense of him suggests he pays you to apply his self tanning lotion or something.
Can you finally admit Z is the highest paid guy in the biz? Approx $2.4M is higher than ATVI and EA CEO's. Maybe Kotick did well via stock based rewards because he helped grow ATVI stock price 1000% in the last decade while Z hasn't done anything for TTWO's stock price since he came in? But on salary, on guaranteed comp, Z is the top dog.
Now go warm those hands up before you get the tanning lotion.
The delusion continues.
Never mind the fact that Z has been the top guy since 2007, you say he isn't accountable for Infinite (2007-2013) even though he was most definitely the CEO (1/1/2011) for the latter half of development, the most expensive part of development (games tend to staff up more during full production periods). At the same time, you credit Z for building the RDR brand (2005-2010), the last game having shipped 8 months before Z became CEO. Because logic? P.S. That's a Rockstar game...
I love the irony that you keep saying other people are confused about compensation, while you evince such ignorance. Yeah Kotick had a lot of compensation in 2012, I remember that. Z's salary is higher than Kotick's though. How do you get from TTWO paying ZelnickMedia $2.97M to Z only having $11K salary?
1. You quote Levine's letter like it's the full story. I suppose you believe that various execs in the business world have "left for family/health reasons", and that the Board truly does "thank them for their hard work". I suppose you also believe your ailing dog is at a nice farm up-State and living the dream.
2. Z started in 2007. TTWO was paying $2.5M for ZelnickMedia, for which ZM contributed the services of Z, Feder and Slatoff. The CEO Feder was paid by ZM. Later, Z realized, "Why am I paying for a CEO, when I can just do the job myself?" So now TTWO pays $2.97M for which they get the services of Z and Slatoff. What do you suppose Slatoff earns? $600K? Z is therefore paid around $2.4M. Kotick's salary in 2013 was $2.1M. EA's CEO had $800K salary.
It's hilarious that in one post you credit Z for "building brands" with Bioshock (after you called the last one underwhelming and unprofitable) then in other posts the same day you say Levine had 100% control over Bioshock.
Thanks for the entertainment yesterday. It's rare to see someone post so much while at the same time knowing so little. You've sailed right past ignorance into the land of delusion.