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?
I’m confused by this wording. Are they saying it cost $200m to produce or earned 200m less than they forecast?
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