Age of Conan

Im linking to this article .Go ahead and attempt to debunk it and even try to say the website the article is linked to is on the take from FC.

FC is opening in new markets.Doesnt look so bad to me.They made more than the loss they took and the article says 1 patch every week.Seems to me they are looking forward to the future.

Go ahead and flame and tell the rest of us how FC is going bankrupt or is goimg to be bought out or even just going out of business.

Hmm you did see the Q2 in the article right?

not new, they just skimmed through the powerpoint version of the Q2 report and said that. Gamespot did the same, they didnt even read the real report.

Check this link

www.massively.com/2008/08/15/funcom-quarterly-report-reveals-age-of-conan-performance/

The part where it says the exceeded their expectations by $1 million?

Sure did.Oh i see you want me to see the part about taking a loss at launch.Not the part where they actually retain customers and make money......

Originally posted by Myrdek

not new, they just skimmed through the powerpoint version of the Q2 report and said that. Gamespot did the same, they didnt even read the real report.

Check this link

www.massively.com/2008/08/15/funcom-quarterly-report-reveals-age-of-conan-performance/

Good link Myrdek. Thanks. A lot of good, valid information in there with logical justification. Unlike the OPs canned 'report'.

Originally posted by Grunties

Originally posted by Myrdek

not new, they just skimmed through the powerpoint version of the Q2 report and said that. Gamespot did the same, they didnt even read the real report.

Check this link

www.massively.com/2008/08/15/funcom-quarterly-report-reveals-age-of-conan-performance/

 

Good link Myrdek. Thanks. A lot of good, valid information in there. Unlike the OPs canned 'report'.

Wasnt my report i linked it.In no way did i write it or contribute to said report.

Get your facts straight.Let me guess that website doesnt count now?

Originally posted by Opticaleye

Originally posted by Grunties

Originally posted by Myrdek

not new, they just skimmed through the powerpoint version of the Q2 report and said that. Gamespot did the same, they didnt even read the real report.

Check this link

www.massively.com/2008/08/15/funcom-quarterly-report-reveals-age-of-conan-performance/

 

Good link Myrdek. Thanks. A lot of good, valid information in there. Unlike the OPs canned 'report'.

 

Wasnt my report i linked it.In no way did i write it or contribute to said report.

Get your facts straight.Let me guess that website doesnt count now?

I know you didn't write it. But it was what you linked. So I called it yours. Your just arguing semantics.

Its not that the website doesn't count. I just don't agree with what I refer to as 'faith-based financials'. I believe in numbers that can be backed up with observable evidence. Myrdek's link had lots of points that are backed up and directly observable. Your link had blanket numbers that were just claims from funcom. Nothing that can be confirmed by anyone not in the position to profit from it.

Must we be reminded how many claims we have received from funcom so far, that have been completely false?

If they can say 'here are the numbers, and we can prove these numbers by this this and this', than maybe it will have some validity. Until then, I will trust the data that funcom has no power over skewing.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=FUNCOM.OL&t=6m 

The fact that the stock has dropped and the CEO himself has sold 18.7% of his own shares isnt  a good thing either.

Originally posted by Grunties

Originally posted by Opticaleye

Originally posted by Grunties

Originally posted by Myrdek

not new, they just skimmed through the powerpoint version of the Q2 report and said that. Gamespot did the same, they didnt even read the real report.

Check this link

www.massively.com/2008/08/15/funcom-quarterly-report-reveals-age-of-conan-performance/

 

Good link Myrdek. Thanks. A lot of good, valid information in there. Unlike the OPs canned 'report'.

 

Wasnt my report i linked it.In no way did i write it or contribute to said report.

Get your facts straight.Let me guess that website doesnt count now?

 

I know you didn't write it. But it was what you linked. So I called it yours. Your just arguing semantics.

Its not that the website doesn't count. I just don't agree with what I refer to as 'faith-based financials'. I believe in numbers that can be backed up with observable evidence. Myrdek's link had lots of points that are backed up and directly observable. Your link had blanket numbers that were just claims from funcom. Nothing that can be confirmed by anyone not in the position to profit from it.

Must we be reminded how many claims we have received from funcom so far, that have been completely false?

If they can say 'here are the numbers, and we can prove these numbers by this this and this', than maybe it will have some validity. Until then, I will trust the data that funcom has no power over skewing.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=FUNCOM.OL&t=6m 

Nobody and i mean NOBODY outside of Funcom really knows for sure what the performance of AoC is ATM.

EVERYTHING else is speculation.

We can talk about it all day long and it wont change the fact that for all perceptions that FC is representing a company that is doing well.Despite the fact that people are more than willing to see them fail miserably.

FC like most any big company would not admit to doing less than good.

Must we be subject to mere speculation from people who know nothing of FC's inner workings?

If your not happy with AoC and FC just move on already.Anything beyond that is just mere spitefullness.

After all it is just a game.