These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

GOLD PUSH
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ZERO-101
Red Bluff
#1 - 2012-05-25 22:06:16 UTC
Its such a massive push to sell plex on the part of ccp, they created this whole thing to make more revenue, start of inferno and a new plex mega sale.

You can see the effect the extra plex has already had on its price. The volume sold is almost steady at 3000 a day.

I remember reading an email from one of there bosses about AURA sales and how excited he was when we where buying them.

I hope they put all this cash to good use and spend it on us instead of themselves
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-05-25 22:12:50 UTC
CCP is a business that tries to make money??? OMG! Shocked

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#3 - 2012-05-25 22:16:58 UTC
They have to make money to fund things like:

Planetside : Playstation

The new Inventory

The runners up Alliance tournament X
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#4 - 2012-05-25 22:17:10 UTC
You of course know that PLEX that doesn't go to AUR is a liability on the books? Question

I'm an American, English is my second language...
ZERO-101
Red Bluff
#5 - 2012-05-25 22:18:09 UTC
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:
CCP is a business that tries to make money??? OMG! Shocked



Nothing worng with that, but theres too many nagging issues that they wont address.

Customer service with GM's is way too long.

Putting items up for contract and in the market and to have it vanish, there's no log to prove this happened.

It seem's geared to keeping pvp players happy.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#6 - 2012-05-25 22:21:00 UTC
Bootleg Jack wrote:
You of course know that PLEX that doesn't go to AUR is a liability on the books? Question

No it isn't its already been paid for, so no problem for CCP. Also, in general PLEX cost more than a sub.
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-05-25 23:31:08 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Bootleg Jack wrote:
You of course know that PLEX that doesn't go to AUR is a liability on the books? Question

No it isn't its already been paid for, so no problem for CCP. Also, in general PLEX cost more than a sub.


There's a slight difference between getting cash for a PLEX sale and being able to count it for revenue. CCP can't recognize PLEX sale as revenue until it is applied in some way.

So while CCP will be able to record all PLEX sales as revenue eventually, it makes their bottom line look better if PLEX are used up quicker
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-05-25 23:38:39 UTC
when you buy a plex they get the money pretty much instantly how is it not revenue on the books? whether its used for game time, lost in a ship cargo, or turned into aurum doesn't matter, its like a gift card kinda.
Daneirkus Auralex
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2012-05-25 23:43:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneirkus Auralex
http://archiwum.polygamia.pl/files/CCP_registration_2.pdf

Deferred income, sure. But cash flows and IFRS or GAAP liabilities are two different things.. While a balance sheet may show unearned revenue, it doesn't mean that cash is unavailable for use. Especially since we have no option to reverse-transact PLEX for RL cash.
Daneirkus Auralex
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2012-05-25 23:44:18 UTC
oh wait, I'm in the CFC - SPERG PUBBIE YOU IDIOTS BLAH BLAHBLAH

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!!!!
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc
Cat Scratch Fevers
#11 - 2012-05-25 23:45:58 UTC
Vaal Erit wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Bootleg Jack wrote:
You of course know that PLEX that doesn't go to AUR is a liability on the books? Question

No it isn't its already been paid for, so no problem for CCP. Also, in general PLEX cost more than a sub.


There's a slight difference between getting cash for a PLEX sale and being able to count it for revenue. CCP can't recognize PLEX sale as revenue until it is applied in some way.

So while CCP will be able to record all PLEX sales as revenue eventually, it makes their bottom line look better if PLEX are used up quicker


Bolded the part I think may be wrong.
If that were true, then there would be no way CCP would allow it to be a destroyable item.
That would mean CCP looses X real life money each time a PLEX is destroyed?

Of course, I could be missing something ... searched but couldn't find anything yet.

Nothing clever at this time.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-05-26 00:01:34 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
They have to make money to fund things like:

Planetside : Playstation

The new Inventory

The runners up Alliance tournament X


World of Darkness. Yeah, it's back alive again.

Also, kitchen renovations. Yeah, CCP has a kitchen in their office. The place is like an art-deco exhibit, as opposed to an office. Guess where the money for that comes from.Big smile
Sup B1tches
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2012-05-26 00:06:46 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
They have to make money to fund things like:

Planetside : Playstation

The new Inventory

The runners up Alliance tournament X


World of Darkness. Yeah, it's back alive again.

Also, kitchen renovations. Yeah, CCP has a kitchen in their office. The place is like an art-deco exhibit, as opposed to an office. Guess where the money for that comes from.Big smile


And don't forget nerf guns for cube warz!
Daneirkus Auralex
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2012-05-26 00:18:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneirkus Auralex
Nick Bison wrote:
Bolded the part I think may be wrong.
If that were true, then there would be no way CCP would allow it to be a destroyable item.
That would mean CCP looses X real life money each time a PLEX is destroyed?

Of course, I could be missing something ... searched but couldn't find anything yet.

Say you purchase a $15 gift card to Starbucks. Starbucks creates an accounting entry for a $15 debit to liabilities under "unearned revenue," "prepaid revenue," "deferred income" or something similar. Their cash balance has increased by $15.

When you spend $5 bucks from the card on a coffee, there's no change to starbucks' cash balance (they already have your money), but deferred income decreases by $5 while revenue increases by $5. This continues until the card is depleted, bringing deferred income to 0 and earned revenue to 15.

If the card gets lost or destroyed (and Starbucks was able to know right away) they'd zero out deferred income and credit revenue for the full $15. (This assumes they have a no refund policy). Since they can't possibly know right away, they instead subtract an annual or monthly fee from the card's balance and perhaps provide an expiration date at which it looses all value.

CCP on the other hand, does have the means to know right away - they can just get a report to tell them how many PLEX were destroyed during a given period, or a report on how many PLEX were injected for game time. At that point, they could reduce deferred income and credit revenue/sales accordingly.

Financial accounting aside, none of CCPs revenue recognition policies change the fact that once your cash is in their hands, its theirs to use as they please, presumably after a sensible cool-down period. There are no refunds for PLEX, at least as far as I'm aware. This difference between accounting "revenue" and actual cash flow is one of the reasons behind the need for both an Income Statement and a Statement of Cash Flows in corporate financial statements.
Tyraeil Starblade
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-05-26 00:40:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyraeil Starblade
Pretty sure every PLEX is purchased either through GTCs or outright as PLEX. You could consider the revenue at the point of sale as when they make their money..
AFK Hauler
State War Academy
#16 - 2012-05-26 00:41:58 UTC
Daneirkus Auralex wrote:
Nick Bison wrote:
Bolded the part I think may be wrong.
If that were true, then there would be no way CCP would allow it to be a destroyable item.
That would mean CCP looses X real life money each time a PLEX is destroyed?

Of course, I could be missing something ... searched but couldn't find anything yet.

Say you purchase a $15 gift card to Starbucks. Starbucks creates an accounting entry for a $15 debit to liabilities under "unearned revenue," "prepaid revenue," "deferred income" or something similar. Their cash balance has increased by $15.

When you spend $5 bucks from the card on a coffee, there's no change to starbucks' cash balance (they already have your money), but deferred income decreases by $5 while revenue increases by $5. This continues until the card is depleted, bringing deferred income to 0 and earned revenue to 15.

If the card gets lost or destroyed (and Starbucks was able to know right away) they'd zero out deferred income and credit revenue for the full $15. (This assumes they have a no refund policy). Since they can't possibly know right away, they instead subtract an annual or monthly fee from the card's balance and perhaps provide an expiration date at which it looses all value.

CCP on the other hand, does have the means to know right away - they can just get a report to tell them how many PLEX were destroyed during a given period, or a report on how many PLEX were injected for game time. At that point, they could reduce deferred income and credit revenue/sales accordingly.

Financial accounting aside, none of CCPs revenue recognition policies change the fact that once your cash is in their hands, its theirs to use as they please, presumably after a sensible cool-down period. There are no refunds for PLEX, at least as far as I'm aware. This difference between accounting "revenue" and actual cash flow is one of the reasons behind the need for both an Income Statement and a Statement of Cash Flows in corporate financial statements.




You are not accounting for the fact that a coffee is an actual item that has overhead.. While a PLEX is not an actual item, so it has inferred expenses.
they can spend it at will w/o incurring overhead
Elessa Enaka
Doomheim
#17 - 2012-05-26 00:49:35 UTC
Daneirkus Auralex wrote:

You are obviously someone planted within the CFC by someone else (my guess is some uber-bitter former BoB member).

There is no other explaination, you make far too much sense.

Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been Eve is a great game if you can get past all of the asshats....
Daneirkus Auralex
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2012-05-26 00:50:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneirkus Auralex
Tyraeil Starblade wrote:
Pretty sure every PLEX is purchased either through GTCs or outright as PLEX. You could consider the revenue at the point of sale as when they make their money..

Perhaps, but page 48 of their registration doc linked above would indicate otherwise, under "revenue recognition."

Edit: to be fair, a later paragraph does list the standard IFRS rev-rec guidelines, which could be interpreted in a number of ways and indicates that deferred income includes revenue from people who pay quarterly or yearly sub fees - but page 48 seems to hint towards PLEX/GTC being treated in this way too.

To AFK Hauler, I don't know what you mean. I'm talking about revenue recognition, which doesn't have too much to do with variable or fixed expenses.

On a side note, here's some interesting math about the PLEX for NVidia GPU deal - under the assumptions that the GPU cost 20 PLEX, and each PLEX costs $17.50:

• Retail cost of GTX 560 ~= $180 (not accounting for presumed wholesale discount)
• Trading cost of GPU in USD = $17.50 x 20 = $350
• Number of cards exchanged = 100

This deal presumably net CCP a gain of at least $17,000 on the PLEX to GPU conversion, as each 20 PLEX that were traded in were done so at a $170 premium to CCP.