Lars Wingefors efter rapportslakten

I tried to be honest about how we see this year quite concretely. Financially but also game releases. Wise from experience, we said that we probably see a shift of a very large game that we previously expected to come this financial year ending in March 2026. Now we say that game likely needs another quarter or two, and that game, which is internally developed, has a financial profile similar to 'Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2', which was very successful, as we reported this morning. That reduces expectations for this year, cash flows correspondingly a few quarters ahead. At the same time, we also talk a bit about the coming two years where we have many more AAA games than before. But I can't speculate – the market might see it more short-term, as has maybe been the case historically, and doesn't look that much at the coming years.

Yes, that's perhaps a good summary. We earned, pro forma, 2.3 billion last year, and we say we will earn something similar this year – 2.4. And if we look at the year before, we showed pro forma this morning – 23/24. There we had two AAA titles, or two and a half. We had 'Dead Island', 'Remnant', and 'Payday'. 'Payday' didn't make any profit, but it came out then. That year we earned three and a half billion. And now we say that the two years after this year we will have nine titles. Okay, maybe some will be delayed, but it's more than one game as last year, or two smaller AAA games as we have this year. And that is probably what the market finds disappointing.

Yes. No, I don't think so. It's just that we are wise from experience and don't want to rush anything out. We have such a good return on... When you think the game is ready, you add another quarter or two. The return we get from that extra polishing is very good for shareholders. We saw that with 'Kingdom Come', which we moved from November to February. It went great. We did the same with 'Dead Island 2'. 'Dead Island 2' was a game that the entire gaming industry had written off. We delayed it the last time three months. It went great, one of our most profitable games ever. It's a bit the same feeling we have with this new big game. I can't say what it is, but if we get it really, really good, it could be great, and then I just feel... Instead of building up an expectation and then the question comes every quarterly report: 'Is it coming? Is it not?' Then it's better to push it into the future. Technically, the studio might still be aiming for this year, but wise from experience we will need to polish a bit more, so it's a difficult balancing act.

Our first principle is that communication goes first to gamers regarding our game titles, and that is done by our publishers and our companies. We have millions of consumers waiting for many of these games. All news should first go directly to those consumers, and they should be excited and we should tell more details about a game. We as a listed company here in Sweden should not stand and talk about these new games. That's not good communication to the consumer. That's the first rule. That sets the balancing act.

No. There can never be too much of a good thing.

We are a small stream in a big industry, so if we have several games in one quarter, that's not a problem. When you launch a big game on the market, you want to be alone for a week. Preferably several weeks. We moved 'Kingdom Come' forward by a week and were alone in the industry. That was X million more in revenue, so that's the strategy. But then the game must be ready, you have to be flexible with the release week and push into the right time period. We have done the same maneuver with some other previous releases – moved them forward a week and it worked very well. But then everything must be ready.

Very happy to report a great success after the best quarters ever in PC/Console. 'Kingdom Come 2' came through all the way down. We own the studio, we own the brand, have sold a lot, good cash flow. It will continue to be a very good catalog title for many years. It just adds to the long-term value for shareholders – very nice!

Yes, it's part of the Swedish gaming miracle. And the gaming miracle that started in Skövde. They started in Skövde in 2010. Today they have grown into a group that generates more than a billion in revenue and earns over half a billion, so it's a fantastic success. The first success was 'Goat Simulator'. After we bought them, they had success with 'Satisfactory'. Then they brought in the Danish gaming miracle with Ghost Ship Games – 'Deep Rock Galactic'. Then they had another game from Skövde – 'Valheim'. So they have built a portfolio of very successful games that they continue to build on. They have a bright future ahead.

Exactly, I am the CEO of Embracer Group AB and will be CEO until the day I am no longer CEO. So I am, as I told someone, lashed to the mast in these companies, so I spend most of my waking time doing business within these companies in various ways. I will continue with that and also announce a long-term ownership in all three companies – Asmodee, Coffee Stain, and Fellowship Entertainment – in the future.

Yes, you can only be CEO... Or you can be in several actually. I have no plans to be CEO in more companies, so I am lashed to the mast in Fellowship.

No, changing names doesn't matter; it's about changing operational strategy. A year ago, we announced a breakup of Embracer Group, which was a holding company with a broad philosophy of adding entrepreneurs and creators and having an ecosystem of assets, brands, distribution, publishing, development, transmedia, into operational units. Asmodee has proven to have fantastic management. I see them growing as individuals, as a company; they have a bright future ahead. Convinced that Coffee Stain will do the same. Then we have the last piece left with Fellowship. Then you think of 'Fellowship of the Ring', and there are 'Lord of the Rings' and other big titles of course.

The first priority is an organic development of the companies, and it doesn't always have to be increasing the number of employees. It can be increasing quality or efficiency. Many of the companies have grown organically a lot. Some we started from scratch, but above all, the acquisitions have grown much larger. Coffee Stain is a living example. That's the first priority. I do believe that acquisitions can create value. We have a... The jury is still out on our journey in recent years. We made good acquisitions and some less good; we'll see what long-term value they create. But I believe in the bolt-on acquisition strategy that Asmodee has, where you take part of your cash flow for ongoing acquisitions, and part can be returned to shareholders if the balance sheet allows. That's a good strategy.

I have a good relationship with Anton and several other key people within Coffee Stain, Søren at Ghost Ship. I feel that we have respect for each other. Anton is a very skilled CEO, a new character. He has a very strong own opinion about what he wants to do and not do, which he has shown with success, what games he makes, how he communicates. He is one of the people who say no to me the most, which I appreciate. He is very clear about what he wants to do and not do, so it will be excellent.

I think that regardless of company, you earn money to have stability and reinvest, but also give back. A company exists for its shareholders, and over time they should return capital to shareholders. That's number 1A in the corporate book, and I believe in that even in my companies. Give back capital to shareholders. Then we'll see if it happens via dividends or share buybacks. We have an annual general meeting planned for Embracer or Fellowship in September, so we will communicate something to the market during the summer.

Very nice. You are very welcome to Karlstad, Gabriel. There is usually a bit more in-depth information about the business, you get to see things from the archive and talk to other long-term shareholders, so it's usually a pleasant event.

Thank you very much, good luck, and ignore the stupid stock market, talk to you later. Bye!