What's this guy's name again? He's a G.
It's all a money laundering scheme where they have bots and A.I. making up the player numbers.This is that kind of game like GTA Online where no one I know plays it, but lots of people play it. Awesome numbers for Hello Games, though. It's amazing to see where they've come from the rocky PS4 launch.
Higher operating profit than revenue? Uh. I don't understand.
One time items can do this. Sometimes things happen that generate income that are not reported in the revenue from the operation of the business, such as gains from an investment. I don't know what the particular instance is for Hello Games, but if they had something like an equity investment in a company and that company was sold for a profit the money earned from that sale wouldn't be considered revenue because it didn't come from the normal operation of the business, but it would be considered income.Higher operating profit than revenue? Uh. I don't understand.
Why is this slowly becoming the new metric on this forum? I feel like people here didn't used to care about active player count of single player games* before.Forget dollars, can they speak to what the engagement numbers are?
What's this guy's name again? He's a G.
It's not really GaaS now is it, though? I mean, they don't charge anything extra. All the updates are free. But I've been wondering how they can afford it, and here you go. Good for them.GAAS done right.
A certain player in the games industry chooses to advertise their userbase/success by said metric. It's stupid, which is why people are making fun of it.Why is this slowly becoming the new metric on this forum?
Yep it's not GaaS at all. It's more like following Nintendo business model with Animal crossing. They found a great formula and simply stick with it and are constantly improving it.It's not really GaaS now is it, though? I mean, they don't charge anything extra. All the updates are free. But I've been wondering how they can afford it, and here you go. Good for them.
It 100% is GaaS. The S in GaaS is not a dollar sign. They have a live service game that they're generating revenue from. How is that not GaaS?It's not really GaaS now is it, though? I mean, they don't charge anything extra. All the updates are free. But I've been wondering how they can afford it, and here you go. Good for them.
How is it a live service? There are some servers out there for sure to facilitate the multiplayer component (which, I'm willing to bet, is not used very extensively), but apart from that, it's a one time fee for a game. Whereas what people generally consider a GaaS game includes microtransactions, season/battle passes, paying for latest expansions, whatnot. You know, continued revenue, the thing that makes the suits come. There's none of that here.It 100% is GaaS. The S in GaaS is not a dollar sign. They have a live service game that they're generating revenue from. How is that not GaaS?
Why is this slowly becoming the new metric on this forum? I feel like people here didn't used to care about active player count of single player games* before.
*=Yes I know NMS can technically have multiplayer but it is also an experience that can be easily enjoyed solo and offline.
A certain player in the games industry chooses to advertise their userbase/success by said metric. It's stupid, which is why people are making fun of it.
Right. But just releasing engagement figures, instead of actual sales (especially when it comes to hardware) is pretty lame and pretty transparently a smoke screen.Engagement as a metric is not new, or unique to gaming/neogaf. It's actually pretty useful. It's the number of people actively and continually using the product/service.
Yes, but why would this metric matter in a thread about a small-time developer earning 40 million in revenue? That's already a win and arguing about current day player count muddies the waters for no reason. Even if someone's intent were to point to steam concurrent and say 'See! the game is dead there's only 100 people playing!' that wouldn't matter because they've already sold well beyond what they've wanted to sell.Engagement as a metric is not new, or unique to gaming/neogaf. It's actually pretty useful. It's the number of people actively and continually using the product/service.
If you track how many people are using your product/service, and how they're using them, you can make fairly accurate predictions on how that behaviour will change and act accordingly (confidently charge more for PSN, for example).
Hello Games believes it isHow is it a live service? There are some servers out there for sure to facilitate the multiplayer component (which, I'm willing to bet, is not used very extensively), but apart from that, it's a one time fee for a game. Whereas what people generally consider a GaaS game includes microtransactions, season/battle passes, paying for latest expansions, whatnot. You know, continued revenue, the thing that makes the suits come. There's none of that here.
I guarantee Microsoft is giving investors actual dollar amounts for everything. I get your point though, and I agree.Right. But just releasing engagement figures, instead of actual sales (especially when it comes to hardware) is pretty lame and pretty transparently a smoke screen.
I'm not sure why the person asked. Just wanted to point out that it's not a nothing metric. Obviously the UK Government has no reason to care about it, so it's not in this statement. And you're right. It's not something that's relevant to this thread.Yes, but why would this metric matter in a thread about a small-time developer earning 40 million in revenue? That's already a win and arguing about current day player count muddies the waters for no reason. Even if someone's intent were to point to steam concurrent and say 'See! the game is dead there's only 100 people playing!' that wouldn't matter because they've already sold well beyond what they've wanted to sell.
He mentioned that part of the team were working on something a few years ago. Last year he said they were still in the early stages, and he also said they wouldn't be talking about it too early to avoid what went down with NMS.I hope they have started development of their next game, because the money won't last forever.
Sony should buy Hello games and release NMS 2 by 2025
I don't know. Sony supported Dreams all this time. I could see them tolerating it longer than Microsoft. I think the thing that really keeps it going is the multi platform expansion. Something like this needs to be on as many platforms as possible to keep selling. Wouldn't have gotten that with being tied to one of the big three.If Sony or Microsoft owned Hello Games, NMS wouldn’t have been supported as long as it has - and wouldn’t be the game it is today.
Leave them be.
As much work as they've put into the game post launch, yea, it's more than deserved. Especially getting this thing to run on the Switch.Explains their massive support
Here's how, for about 6 years.It’s pretty wild. I don’t get how they are making increasing levels of £££ from pure sales
This is like 30 people team that has made hundred+ million pounds and the game is still selling, and will keep selling for many years. I am pretty sure they will be fine, and their kids will be fine, and their grandkids will be fine.I hope they have started development of their next game, because the money won't last forever.