I'm confused by this wording. Are they saying it cost $200m to produce or earned 200m less than they forecast?
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
35 points (87.2% liked)
Games
16369 readers
616 users here now
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.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
OP did the right thing by using the linked headline, but that headline is incoherent.
It cost an extra $200m in expense due to impairment (it wasn't worth as much as they originally put on the books, so they had to write it down).
The only revenue impact is a note that it didn't sell as well as Hogwarts Legacy, which was released in the same quarter last year. The article conflates those two things into one for the headline, which is just wrong.
I’m always baffled how little some journalists understand the topics they write about. Still, isn’t there an editor who have read WSJ once, to ask for a correction of the headline?
You’re confused because it doesn’t make sense, the journalist who wrote it doesn’t have even a basic understanding of business or finance