Okay, I think it's 2:00 P.M. Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining Remedy Entertainment webinar. My name is Elina Petäjäjärvi, and I am a member of the Remedy Investor Relations team. Today, we will go through Remedy's half-year report for the first half of 2022. With me are Tero Virtala, Remedy CEO, and Terhi Kauppi, Remedy CFO. We will have a Q&A session after the presentation. All right. Thank you, Elina. Good afternoon also on my behalf. As said, my name is Tero Virtala. I'm the CEO of Remedy. Let's have a look at the highlights of the second quarter of 2022. Our revenue in the second quarter was at previous year's level, EUR 9.4 million. EBITDA decreased to EUR -1.8 million, operating profit being EUR -2.4 million. Terhi, our CFO, will soon talk more on the financial side. As big events in the second quarter, we announced that we will remake the iconic Max Payne one and two with Rockstar Games. Max Payne, it's the game created by Remedy and the game that originally defined who we are. It goes without saying that working again on Max Payne is highly motivating to our team, and the game also fits very well with many of our strengths in world building, characters, stories, and action gameplay. Also, the business parameters in the deal are in order. We have a highly respected and well-known partner to work with us, Rockstar, and the game has good commercial potential with well-managed risks. Additionally, this project allows us to both utilize our existing production and technology competencies and to continue building them further. There are clear synergies between Max Payne 1 and 2 remake and our other projects in development. We also, in second quarter on May, transferred from First North Growth Market to the official list of Nasdaq Helsinki. When we look at our project portfolio, it's important to bear in mind the background. Building a well-functioning multi-project model has been one of the key strategic guidelines that we have followed during the past five years' time. This multi-project model is typically hard for any AAA game studio to build. At Remedy, we have taken our time to build it the right way, patiently, step by step, as we see the benefits clear for our people, games, and also the growth opportunities that lie ahead. This will also always be improved. This type of model is never fully ready. At the moment, we have many of the key elements of our multi-project model in place, and we see it already working at Remedy also by looking at our current project portfolio. We have now five big games in development, all with strong partners. Partners who are the right ones for these exact games and that we have chosen for these games and teams. Control with 505 Games, Alan Wake with Epic Games, Vanguard with Tencent, Max Payne with Rockstar. Max Payne, out of these games, is a partner-owned brand. Three other brands are owned by Remedy. These games, all of them, they build on our strengths of world building, characters, stories, and action in a way that is right for the game in question and theme. Alan Wake and Max Payne have the biggest potential as single player experiences. At the same time, we are taking planned steps with Condor and Vanguard to expand to long engaging multiplayer service-based games. We have definitely come a long way, are in a strong position for the future. At the moment, it's no longer about building this operational model, crafting new game ideas, securing financing for those, seeking who are the right partners. Our focus is now on executing the existing game road map with the partners we have and with partners who trust in us and in the games we have in development. We are now creating the high-quality games to have steady flow of successful game launches starting from next year, 2023. What's highly important is that our capability to develop these games is stronger than ever. What I mean when I say that we are stronger than ever, the creative and development capabilities are in question. I already said that our five games, we have strong partners for all of them. These are the right partners for these exact games. These partners, we had options for all these games, who would be the best partners, we chose these ones with the business model that is good for the game, good for us, and good for our partners. In addition, with the capital raise we did last year, our cash position is really strong and supports us in making this road map happen. Now, what has developed a lot is that at the center of our production model are, of course, the game development teams led by experienced and strong game leadership teams, executive producer, game director, art director, technical director, development director, product director. Having one, this type of strong leadership team is often a challenge for many studios. Having it now built for four game plans that we have has taken time, but it's now done. We have also grown to 350 world-class talents, and the bar has been kept high all the time. Approximately 1%-2% of the game industry professionals who apply to Remedy gets accepted. Our recruitment works well and keeps on improving all the time. That's clearly paying off. Just as an example, in the first half of this year, we onboarded more people than during the whole year of 2021. Overall, in addition, our team's abilities to understand earlier and in right detail what game they are exactly aiming to make, how they plan their work in complex projects, on what part of the game to focus exactly and when, how to develop the game at that point of time, all this is in better shape than it has ever been at Remedy. Of course, with ambitious and complex game projects, the requirement to improve never ends, but the state to which we have already gotten is good, and we keep on improving. We have also invested systematically into having the right capabilities to work with external partners, outsource some work in our game project, conduct wider external development in some other areas, do co-development in selected projects. All this gives us access to additional specialized development skills and also scalability to have more developers faster in our projects when we need them. This is where we have all the time aimed for. Now we have these capabilities to do it. In the first half of this year, we were able to do more external development than ever before in a well-planned and very managed manner. Also, the Northlight technology and tools, it's currently supporting four of our five projects, and the Northlight team, the underlying technology modules, the development tools, they continue to advance all the time. We have production support function in operation that every day help our game teams, be it IT, talent allocation, production planning support, or specialized craft support. Overall, we have systematically developed in many ways on how to plan, lead, support, and develop our games. We have learned, and we have kept on improving. One of these learnings that I would like to highlight and developments that we have taken relates to how we as management in the company guide and also support our game projects. We have already for a longer time had our internal project phases that help our game development teams to define what the key focus in their project should be at which state of the project, and what are the main goals the project should then reach before advancing to next phases when they will then have bigger development teams and also increased budget. This goes from mandate phase to concept, proof of concept, production readiness, production, all the way towards the launch and live phase of the game. Alan Wake 2, out of our games, is now already in production. All the other games are in the earlier phases of concept and proof of play or proof of concept. However, it's always easy to show a model on paper, but to have it well working in practice requires a lot of organizational developments and abilities as every game and team is a bit different. Some uncertainty and risk also has to be accepted. Few projects meet every detail of the requirements before moving to next phases. The teams and we at management have to evaluate what are the priorities, what is acceptable level of uncertainty and risk for that game and that team at each point in time. We have had a lot of learnings during the past years when we have been developing our past projects from Control, from two operations at CrossfireX, Alan Wake Remastered, Alan Wake 2. We have been able to improve both our model and how we apply that model in our game project. This improved capability and also the improved abilities of our project teams, the higher number of projects and our strong cash position support us in focusing exactly on what is best for every game at each point of time. One of these considerations is that the further the project advances in the project life cycle, the more it has personnel, the higher the costs are. Also the bigger the team, it is always slower to make any more design changes, and any change or delay is slow and costly. In a way, we now have been able to define with each game in much more detail what are the high priorities for each project phase for their game. We can now keep projects longer, especially in these early phases when needed. As an example, the recent decision to keep Vanguard in the proof of concept phase is an excellent example of that. It's not due to game development not progressing. No. Team and game have been progressing all the time. What has changed in a very positive manner is our ability as a company and as a development team to understand in much more detail what is exactly the Vanguard we are aiming to make, what it requires, and therefore, what do we want to do and pull in the game right now. With our games like Vanguard, we will never be satisfied with okay quality. We want quality to be excellent, but we also want to have always something new in our games that can make the game truly stand out in the market the day it launches. Nailing these key elements of the game and having the unique selling points in order and also proven takes talent. It takes effort. It takes time. What we have learned from our past project is that these early phases, they deserve enough time for the game to be iterated, tested, and proven. Now we estimated that Vanguard team clearly knows what they are aiming at, what they need and deserve more time to iterate, develop, and test that the key pieces of the game are in order. 'Cause the rest of the game that we will then build with the bigger team will be built on these key pillars. Vanguard team still has just about 40 people. Keeping a project at this size in the early phase is the right call. It's faster and more efficient to develop and test the core elements with the smaller team, and this will support both the quality of the game, efficiency of the bigger production than when we one day move into the production. We could always scale up the teams earlier, trust that the remaining key elements will be solved and proven later, secure higher shorter-term development fees, but that would not serve the much bigger opportunity of developing great games efficiently. To keep Vanguard still in this proof of concept phase was definitely the right call when we aim for the big opportunity that the game has. In a way, just a reminder, it's obvious this is a creative industry. At the heart of our type of game developer are world-class talents, our people. We have continued successfully the recruitments, keeping the bar high. We now have approximately 350 people. We systematically keep on developing not just the recruitment, but also how we onboard, support, develop, and build high-performing game teams with these people. As I said in the previous slide, we now have many projects still in the early development phases. At some point when we move on, they will move on, and we'll have, in a way, the next phases in their development. With five projects moving towards the production at some point in the future, we need more talent. Therefore, it's all the time been highly important that the recruitment works as well as other HR functions, and we have kept on advancing on the recruitment front. We have also now the second development, studio in Stockholm in operation. We have now at the moment approximately 20 people there. While our own talents focus on the most crucial parts of game, we complement this with the external development partners that bring their special expertise and also allow us to scale up the production. In a way, expanding the external development capabilities has been our strategy all the time. We seek for good partners who bring us valuable competencies and help us execute our game projects in the intended scale, time, and quality. Really to do it in a planned manner, in a well-managed manner that in the right way helps the projects efficiently, that has required us also to improve our capabilities to plan and lead this type of collaboration. We also raised capital last year to be able to invest into our games in which we see major future potential. The increase in the external development fees combined with our increased abilities to lead that are part of the well-planned investments that we all the time have had. All these recruitment, our own personnel, our second studio in Stockholm, our external development capabilities, we continue to focus on these, expand these capabilities in a managed way that best supports our growth objectives. This is the summary of what has happened in the second quarter and some background also on our thinking. Now to the financial part. Terhi, please. Thank you, Tero, and good afternoon to everyone also on my behalf. Yes, in quarter two, our revenue remained at the same level, 9.4 million euros as in comparison period. We had growth in development fees. They increased by 22% to 7.4 million euros, whereas royalties were on 41% lower level at EUR 2 million. The key positive contributors for the growth of the development fees were the development fees from Alan Wake 2 and Max Payne one and two remake. At the same time, development fees from Codename Condor and Alan Wake Remastered, as well as game royalties from Control decreased from the comparison period. Also, it's good to note that in the comparison period, Condor was compensated for historical work performed, and this is a normal pattern for milestone-based invoicing for basically all projects. Alan Wake Remastered project, on the other hand, then finished already in November. Our royalties in this timeline has been mostly from one game only, and there has been fluctuation over the quarters. From total sales, royalties have fluctuated from 8% to well above 50%, and in quarter two, we had 21% of sales royalties. We did not receive any royalties from CrossfireX nor from Alan Wake Remastered, and of course are not 100% happy with this. As a reminder, there is a recouping of total development fees for both of these before the royalties are paid. For quarter two, the EBIT was -EUR 2.4 million, and that's -26% of revenue. Whereas in comparison period, we had 16% positive EBIT level. The increase in external development costs impacted the profitability level. This was expected and an important strategic investment for us. In first half 2022, overall, our revenue increased year-on-year 26% to EUR 22.1 million. We had growth due to increase in development fees, and they increased by 56% to EUR 19.1 million. Royalties also for the full first half were on lower level, 43% lower level at EUR 3 million. We had three positive contributors for the growth of development fees in the first half. The development fees from Alan Wake two, Max Payne project, Condor. At the same time, the development fees from Alan Wake Remastered and from CrossfireX decreased. Also impacting the first full half year, the game royalties from Control decreased from the comparison period. In first half, the EBIT was EUR 0.4 million, and that's 1.6% of revenue. Whereas in comparison period, we have had 7.3% EBIT level. Again, the increase in external development expenses caused the profitability decrease. Running a multi-project model to generate top-quality games, as Tero described, requires world-class talent, and we have invested in that to drive sustainable growth. Our cost base is increasing in a steady, controlled manner as we continue to expand our project and start new initiatives. This increase in resourcing is visible both in personnel expenses and especially now in external development costs. Our capitalizations, EUR 2 million, were at about the same level as in the comparison quarter, and we expect them to remain at about similar level over the coming quarters. It is good to note that now the official profit and loss formula in IFRS nets the capital effect with the expenses. Personal expenses were 6.9 million in quarter two, 0.3 million higher than in comparison period. Out of these expenses, EUR 0.6 million were capitalized. Our external development costs were EUR 4.9 million. That's EUR 3.5 million or 241% more than one year ago. EUR 1.4 million of these costs were capitalized. It's especially important for us to be able to utilize external development because we need to ensure scalability for our operative model. We will be also in future investing into our resourcing. Our operative cash flow in quarter two was -EUR 8.3 million. Operating cash flow was impacted by a lesser amount of incoming payments from partners and higher outsourcing. Personnel and other operating costs also impacted the outgoing payments. This is all purely timing related and also as seen in quarter one, we had a very positive operating cash flow. Our cash position is still very strong, over EUR 60 million. As said, our current profitability level is impacted by increased investments in product development and by composition of revenue, i.e., lower level of royalties. The profitability is somewhat impacted by IFRS conversion from the year 2020 onwards. Overall, we see possibilities for our top line growth in the long run, and with that in mind, we make operationally wise decisions, such as keeping the Vanguard team small for a longer period. Although in short term, this impacts our numbers. With our strong cash position, we build up the basis for long-term success. Yes, we have a balanced portfolio of projects. We have a new subcontracting type agreement with Rockstar Games for Max Payne remake, offsetting the discontinued operations project. We are working with 505 Games and Epic in a model where Remedy owns the IP, publishing partner funds the development fully or partly, and we share the game sales profits. We are taking steps toward self-publishing in a risk-controlled manner by starting co-publishing, like with Project Condor and Vanguard with IPs owned by Remedy. We do not yet have any projects where Remedy would act as sole publisher, but this is a future opportunity. Now back to Tero for outlook. Thank you, Terhi. All right, on the outlook, as you noticed, after the end of the review period on the first day of August, we lowered our revenue and operating result outlook for this year. The lowering of the outlook, it resulted from lower than expected game royalties in 2022, as well as our decision to take extra time for Vanguard. This will postpone some of the income from 2022 to subsequent financial years. However, good to remind everyone, this will not affect the total amount of development fees generated by Vanguard, only their timing. With all this, according to our updated outlook, we expect our revenue to remain at the previous year's level and operating result to decline significantly compared to the year 2021. In 2021, our revenue was EUR 44.7 million and operating profit EUR 11.4 million. As I said earlier, we are currently working on five world-class game titles, and our capability to develop these games is stronger than ever. Our focus is now on executing our game roadmap. We aim to have a steady flow of successful game launches starting from next year, 2023. Also a reminder, despite of lowering our outlook short term for this year, our long-term objectives remain the same. The objective is that by the year 2025, we have created several successful games and at least one major hit game, a game that reaches the global top-selling charts and can keep on succeeding. We will have unique creative skills, and we have developed further our unique creative skills and can create worlds, characters, stories that build powerful brands. We own at least three expanding game brands, all with long-term hit potential for highly successful games. We have strengthened our commercial capabilities so that we can freely select the right commercial model for each game we have. Be it in some games, self-financing and self-publishing, or work with publishing partners in some others. Great people continue to be a key focus for us. We aim to be the most attractive gaming industry employer in Europe. To reach these objectives, we are having a profitable, growing business in the long term in a way that we manage also our risks well. This was all from our part. Now it's time for Q&A. You see the instructions. You can type in your questions into the chat, and let's jump right into the question. Let's see. We had some questions coming before the event. The first one is that, can you elaborate on Alan Wake Remastered? It has not yet recouped, although the game has had good scores by critics, which seems to have been your expectation at this point. Are you worried about the strength of the IP looking at the coming Alan Wake 2 with this in mind? Do you see potential for royalties on this game given Alan Wake's huge budget? Well, many questions, but, if I start opening up, first on the Alan Wake Remastered, what's of course always good to bear in mind that Alan Wake Remastered has never been kind of like an individual isolated product. It relates very strongly to our franchise, Alan Wake, and we signed a deal with Epic Games on two games, Alan Wake 2 and Alan Wake Remastered. In a way, that has been related. Now, of course, when we start developing a game, the idea is first of all, that it needs to be a high quality game, it needs to help us to grow the brand further, and we are aiming at commercially successful games as well. Now, the first Alan Wake launched already over 10 years ago, and it has still been relevant in a way the game kept on selling almost to the point when we launched the Alan Wake Remastered. With Alan Wake Remastered, the idea was to update the game to a level that it can continue selling for a number of years going into the future. When we now look at the shorter early phase, in a way we knew that the game had some uncertainty sales wise. I'll soon get into those. Definitely our early expectations for the early phase sales were slightly higher than what we now have seen. What we believe has affected and why I said uncertainty, is that traditionally when from high quality games a remaster or remake is being made, that's 10-20 years after the launch of the original game. Many of these games have already been partly forgotten, so haven't been selling for the past 5-10 years' time. Now with Alan Wake, we had a bit different position. Alan Wake, still a couple of years before the launch, was selling. We were having really deep discount sales. We were having business to business deals in which game was being delivered for free for gamers. We were able to grow the player base for Alan Wake by millions of players. Now looking back, when we then in a way very shortly after that launched Alan Wake Remastered, definitely it has affected on these early phase sales. At the same time, this is a game published by Epic Games and of course, in a way, bigger game in development, Alan Wake 2. It's obvious that we shouldn't in a way use big marketing power at this point for Alan Wake Remastered, because we know that the marketing campaign of Alan Wake 2 is coming. It is a consideration, of course, that how to utilize Alan Wake Remastered in the best possible manner to also support that. We also know that the marketing of Alan Wake 2 will bring the remastered, the original game also into the minds of the gamers. Definitely see that Alan Wake Remastered continues to have, in a way, good sales potential going into the future. Maybe to Terhi there is that, can you elaborate on the EUR 4 million higher cost in the quarter versus last year? Yes, sure. Like I said, this was not unexpected. Our aim has been all the time to both increase our internal teams, so the persons working for us directly as employees or as consultants, but also then we are looking at partners and we talk about external development, and it's not actually very easy to find those partners and start the cooperation and so forth. We are very happy that we have this very important strategic step going forward. Of course then in numbers it shows as a higher cost. This is according to our own expectations as well. Yeah. Okay. There was one more question sent beforehand. Is Max Payne deal more like a work-for-hire or like a regular own IP deal when it comes to royalty possibility? Max Payne 1 and 2 remake is a work-for-hire project, but in a way, as a company, we never, you know, in a way, we are always interested and our partners are interested to incentivize us in a way that yes, we will be compensated by the work we do, but it is in everyone's best interest to make a high quality game that also sells well. So normally in our games there is a, you know, a royalty opportunity as well. In the questions that have come, many related to Vanguard, if we start, what are the key elements of the game that still need more development time in proof of concept phase? Well, that goes so deeply into the design of the game that I can't open it completely. We are not disclosing in a way the exact game designs, but if I stay on a bit of a higher level, in a way, with every game, Vanguard included, we have a clear game vision. What's the game we intend to make? What are the unique selling points that really make the game stand out? That's then transformed into core game pillars, in a way, selected key elements of the game that then make this vision true. Typically in a game, you normally have three to five this type of core pillars that relate to the heart of the game that really makes this game stand out, makes it unique, but also certain elements to the type of game that need to be in order for the game to have possibilities to succeed, which may relate to technology in a way, online service-based infrastructure that needs to be built. Now, in a way, we have teams that are working in these areas, and all of them have defined that what are the core elements within these pillars that need to be put in order, that need to be defined, need to be tested, proven, iterated. One of the learnings, as I said before in my presentation, is that we have seen that it we really need to nail these things down, because the whole rest of the game is being built around these core elements, the high-priority parts of the game pillars. Some of these we already have in place. Some of these, we still think that we need to prove them further, develop them further, because then when we one day move to next phases, if these things have been locked, in a way, scaling up the team, in a way, developing the missing parts of the game, it is much more about execution than still wondering if some changes should be made. Does Vanguard delay affect your other project schedules? No, it doesn't. Vanguard is its own team that's working on one game and doesn't relate to our other games. Let me see if there are others related to Vanguard. How should we read your decision to take more time for developing Vanguard from an execution perspective? Are you happy with the execution of Vanguard so far and with the execution of your multi-project model overall? Well, as I said in my presentation, in a way, we are making exactly the right call to keep Vanguard in its current phase for a longer time. The project overall has had visible concrete progress throughout the year, which is really good. The team is stronger than it has ever been, but also our capability and patience also to understand what are the highly important things that we should be able to nail down in each project. These capabilities have improved both with the project team and Remedy overall. In that sense, in a way, the decision to keep Vanguard in this phase very much reflects the increased ability that we have. It does have, in a way, some negative effect, of course, on the financial side, in the short term, because we are not scaling up the team that fast. In a way, our development costs are not for that project growing that fast. Therefore, our development fees from our partners are not as high as they could have been. For the longer term success, because our intention with our partners is to really be able to develop high-quality, standout games that launch in the markets and succeed in those markets for a number of years and make the big upside for the company and our partners from the game sales, from the royalty part. That's where we are aiming at. Now, development-wise, in a way, some of the development fees are then moved to next years. Definitely, it's in a way more like a result of our competencies being stronger to understand how we need, plan, and develop the projects we are developing. Then if we move to other games, when Condor moves to production readiness, production phase, will it take time as long as with your typical AAA games? I won't comment in detail what are the planned schedules, but in general, one could say that service-based, in a way, all these service-based games especially, in a way, service-based games which are also new to us, I think it makes sense to keep them in the earlier phases bit longer to make sure that all the key parts in order. Then, of course, in a way, the games have to be high quality before we first time launch them, but they are still service-based games, so the development doesn't end with the first launch, but continues. In that sense, in a way, the service-based games normally don't require as much time in the production phase as the big AAA games, but that of course, in a way, always depends on the game in question. Okay. It was also a question to Condor. It was announced that Project Condor was moved to pre-production phase. Has this happened during second quarter or during time between end of Q2 and this date? Actually, it was said that the Project Condor is moving, so it's currently moving towards the pre-production phase. It's at the end of the proof of concept phase. There are certain elements when it's a service-based game where we already are working on pre-production related stuff, but the team is now in a way busy still proving the last bits and pieces. But as we said, when it's moving there, we are very close to the pre-production phase. Okay, we already discussed the Alan Wake Remastered sales performance. External development expenses increased significantly from quarter 1. How will this cost develop in the future? Is the second quarter level fair assumption for the coming quarters? It's not a direct line, so to say. It depends on the portfolio, project portfolio, and the phases of the projects. For some projects we use more external development than for others, and should those projects be in production phase, for example, on a certain quarter, then the expenses are higher and so forth. It's not that direct, but overall, I would repeat that it's clearly our intention and target to utilize as much as possible and wise and sensible for the project, the external development. Okay. There is a question on the, yeah, Control royalties were quite high in second quarter. Was there some B2B deals during the quarter? Well, we haven't opened up to our partner 505 Games. Overall, of course, when thinking about the game sales, and Control is not that young anymore, so to say, within certain period of time, the sales are affected by sales campaigns and do also to some extent the B2B deals overall. In relation to personnel, do you plan to open up your talent pool to countries other than Finland and Sweden? Now in a way, naturally, when we look at past two years, the pandemic times, we also in a way developed our remote working capabilities a lot, and we have been hiring selected talents also that are based in different countries. It's been a learning process as well. We are mainly focused on European countries, having developers approximately in the same time zones as we, as we are in Finland and Sweden, in a way less, from U.S., Canada, from Asian markets. Selected ones there as well, but they are exceptions. In a way, the well-working teams and teamwork is so crucial for developing efficiently high-quality games. We have, in a way, tens of people already who work outside of Finland and Sweden, but definitely, in a way, one of the focuses is to try to have people in places where there would be more Remedians, where there is the social aspect, in a way the team building aspect as well, possibility to see face-to-face your colleagues and also face-to-face the colleagues with whom you are working in the same project. We have already opened up the talent pool, but are aiming to focus it more and more so that, in a way, there are certain hubs or spots where we would have more people. You have now stated that you have learned that it's better to keep our game projects in the early development phase for a longer period of time than in the past. Does this mean that the other projects in your pipeline will also need more development time than originally expected? At the moment, the projects are proceeding according to the plans that the game development teams currently have. If in the future there comes in a way a justified need that some projects should stay a bit longer in the concept or in the proof of concept phase, sure, that may happen, but at the moment when we look at our roadmap, in a way what are the plans of the teams, how teams have been staffed, what they are focusing on, it's in a way pretty good progress. They are proceeding according to the agreed plans and the visibility for the future is better than it has ever been. At the moment, in a way, we are progressing according to the plans. If one day in the future, in a way, a similar situation like in Vanguard would come that it's justified for everyone's opinion and we see it in a way helping our long-term opportunities, then this type of decisions would be made. At the moment, in a way, none of these things are. There is no need for this type of speculation at the moment. The year 2022 so far has seen a long list of delayed games in the video games industry, partly explained by studios adapting to new ways of working during and in the aftermath of the pandemic. How do you view your team's ability to execute at the moment? Have you made any strategic decisions on bringing teams back to the office or letting them work remotely? Have you observed slower iteration progress with remote work? That's actually a very interesting and good question, and definitely not just related to Remedy. I think it's a valid observation that we're now looking at the news from gaming industry. In a way, last year, throughout this year, it's really rare not to read about delays with big game projects. Of course, there are always team-related, studio-related, game-related reasons for that. But it's clear that the remote working during the past two years has been one. In a way, the two, in a way, widely spread remote working that had to be done is in many cases one of the factors that has affected. In a way, big AAA games, they are huge project, in a way, intending always to do something new that hasn't been done before, complex projects with different disciplines, different technologies, in a way often consisting of existing experienced team members, new team members, so in a way the team building requires work. I think remote work is here to stay also at Remedy. How we are intending to do that, we are giving, in a way, quite a lot of freedom to our individual teams. We have five game teams at the moment. We have technology teams. We have individual support teams. They all work a bit differently. They have, in a way, freedom to decide what's the right model for them, but we have set them one rule: everyone has to increase face-to-face time. There has to be enough physical presence with the team how they are working. Some teams have decided that they are three days a week in the office, two days, in a way, remotely. Some have a bit different phases. They may be, in a way, a bit more remotely, but still seeing each other two days a week. We have, in a way, some a bit more remotely built teams who are then spending, in a way, 1 week per month in the office all seeing together. I think in AAA game development, in a way, nothing beats, in a way, physical presence and spending time together. It doesn't have to be every day, every week, all the month. In a way, the full remote is going to be challenging for any studio. In a way, the common saying of hybrid work definitely is the future for games industry, I believe. Personal expenses in the were up 11% in second quarter. Are you witnessing acceleration in salary inflation? It hasn't been radical with us, but definitely within industry and also with us. In a way, the rising inflation and combined with the continued competition for talent has had an effect. There's been, in a way, a slight push upwards, but it's not, in a way, that radical, as has been read maybe with some other industries or countries. What's In the income statement, product capitalization is not declared. Is the capitalization instead included in the revenue of EUR 9.4 million? Yes. It's correct that in the income statement currently with the IFRS formula, the product capitalization is not visible directly, but it's netted against the expenses, and like I explained in the presentation, the EUR 2 million capitalizations are netted by EUR 600,000 with personal expenses and EUR 1.4 million of the external development costs. It's not affecting our revenue number in any way. Yeah. Yeah This seems to be all the questions. Thank you everyone for participating. Thank you for good questions, and have a good rest of the day. Yes, we will. We'll be back with the next earnings webinar on October 28th, so see you then. Have a great weekend.