Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6514120" data-attributes="member: 37579">It doesn't mean much. Net revenue is revenue after expenses. It's the profit. D&D makes a good example to trot out since its net revenues for the first 9 months of 2014 will be higher than in 2013. Because product was actually released, opposed to the first 9 months of 2013 when they released two things: "eff" and "all". Staffing expenses would likely have wiped out much of the profit earned during that time. So the net revenue looks significantly higher in comparison, not being a negative number. Which makes it useful for that kind of explanatory statement justifying finances. Even during the transition between 2e and 3e and 3e to 4e there was still product. A dead year is unusual. So this kind of comparison would never have occurred before for D&D, when you'd be able to compare no sales (aside from PDFs) with sales of highly anticipated core books. The percentage of increase will look great on the sheets, and casual investors won't know enough of the game to notice the reasons. It just makes Hasbro look good, because they increased sales by X amount.We don't know if net revenue is up from 2008 or 2000, when other editions launched.We don't know if sales are consistently good of if it was a short spike. We don't know if sales will continue to be good or drop off. We don't know if sales will satisfy Hasbro and the higher ups at WotC.</blockquote>