7 ms·
Because it does not cost them to provide in-game items (skins, weapons, etc.) On the other hand, certainly does cost companies to provide compute.
by benabbott 1y ago
Because it does not cost them to provide in-game items (skins, weapons, etc.)
On the other hand, certainly does cost companies to provide compute.
- Tade0 1y agoHow does Starbucks avoid the same with their vouchers?
- xeromal 1y agoThey hold 2 billion dollars worth of gift cards on the books.
- foxglacier 1y agoThey probably have a good model for what percentage of those will never be redeemed so they wouldn't have to count the whole $2 billion as a liability. The OP's one big customer would be harder to predict the future behavior of.
- otterley 1y agoThat’s not how accounting works. There’s no such thing as a probabilistic liability.
- jacquesm 1y agoLet me introduce you to actuarial science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_science
- otterley 1y agoI’m aware of actuarial science, but what does that have to do with accounting? (We've been talking about liabilities as an accounting and contractual term, not as a remedy for injuries.)
- foxglacier 1y agoYes there is. See provisions and contingent liabilities.
- otterley 1y agoNeither of these show up either on a balance sheet or cash flow statement. If a contingent liability is probable, you have to record it as a liability per GAAP.
- foxglacier 1y agoOh. Then what's the effect of the growing pile of unredeemed non-expiring gift vouchers that companies issue? Is there a little asterisk next to liabilities saying "but don't worry, we're sure we'll never have to pay this"?
- ManlyBread 1y agoWhat? They have to run the servers all the same.