Nippon Ichi ¥ - 65,000,000 100.52378 $ - 646,613
Yikes. No wonder they're pumping so many games out. And this is just for the quarter?
Nippon Ichi ¥ - 65,000,000 100.52378 $ - 646,613
Captain Smoker said:Overview (FY3 2009)
SCE: Operating IncomeCode:Company Original Revenue Average Ex. Rate Income in US $ Ubisoft € 68,800,000 0.70740 $ 48,669,120
All Other: Net Income
You're completely right.thy_ said:Should'nt 68m be about $ 90m ?
Or am I missing something?
Ubisoft 68,800,000 1.42447 $ 98,003,536
Did EA lose 1 billion dollars? If so, that is alot of money :\ How do they lose that much money by the way? Did that many EA released/published games sell poorly?Captain Smoker said:
test_account said:How do they lose that much money by the way?
donny2112 said:They bet on the wrong horse
nyong said:That's the industry in a nutshell.
test_account said:Did EA lose 1 billion dollars? If so, that is alot of money :\ How do they lose that much money by the way? Did that many EA released/published games sell poorly?
Are Wii thirdparty sales really that bad???donny2112 said:They bet on the wrong horse, and their new IPs from last Fall didn't take off.
donny2112 said:They bet on the wrong horse, and their new IPs from last Fall didn't take off.
gtj1092 said:And what happened to marvelous or sega or THQ?
LuCkymoON said:Are Wii thirdparty sales really that bad???
Wow you could pick out worse examples to further your agenda?gtj1092 said:And what happened to marvelous or sega or THQ?
SEGA doesn't know how to make money, when you give SEGA $5 to buy a burger and a milkshake, they come back with a $1000 debt and a coke.gtj1092 said:And what happened to marvelous or sega or THQ?
Captain Smoker said:You're completely right.
fixed.
Code:Company Original Revenue Average Ex. Rate Income in US $ Ubisoft 68,800,000 1.42447 $ 98,003,536
[Nintex] said:SEGA doesn't know how to make money, when you give SEGA $5 to buy a burger and a milkshake, they come back with a $1000 debt and a coke.
Eteric Rice said:I laughed out loud at this for some reason. :lol
Bet on the wrong horse in what way, by not making more Wii games or by making new IPs that wasnt really that successful? But still, i think that 1 billion dollars is alot of money to lose. And did EA's new IP really sell that bad?donny2112 said:They bet on the wrong horse, and their new IPs from last Fall didn't take off.
About games being based of licensed properties, in what way does this affect the money income? I guess that they make less money, since the license owner are also getting their share of the money as well?Johann said:EA has a lot of problems with growing their company.
- Several of their big games are based off licensed properties rather than in-house IPs. Warner Brother has gained control of the Lord of the Rings license. Pandemic's Lord of the Rings: Conquest was one of their few bright spot earlier this year.
- The profit from their successful EA partners program is diluted.
- Their new IPs failed to be huge hits. It's incredibly difficult to make successful sequels if the original didn't catch on.
- Need for Speed: Undercover underperformed last year. There is probably a fear at EA that their once reliable franchises are at risk of stagnating.
- Their big in-house shooter, Medal of Honor, has failed to grow into a mega-hit like Call of Duty and it's approaching obscurity through a lack of recent releases.
- Shooters such as Army of Two and Battlefield: Bad Company will have difficulty growing in the face of the sheer dominance of Gears and CoD. These 'flavor of the month' shooters have failed to have the successful multiplayer community and leggy sales of a shooter like Call of Duty: World at War.
- After a lengthy development cycle, Spore didn't end up being a mega-franchise through which EA could make easy money through six month expansions.
- Despite a good subscriber honeymoon, Warhammer Online has been struggling ever since. It's about 200K users below the target subscriber base.
- Rock Band (and the rhythm genre in general) has experienced decline after peaking in 2007. It's getting more and more expensive to manufacture and ship peripherals due to the increasing costs of plastics and fuel. As a result, it's getting more difficult to grow the Rock Band userbase and pool of instruments in households. EA cites this as one of their biggest sources of revenue but it's also one of the most costly products to make in the entire industry, so much that it's probably causing EA and MTV Games to lose money in order to produce it.
Acti-Blizzard has also been affected by this but has managed it better through Guitar Hero's popularity and higher allocation of disc-only copies of games. Another advantage for Guitar Hero is that it's managed to capture the Wii audience, which grown into a very significant userbase for rhythm games. Rock Band has failed to establish itself on the Wii.
Essentially, EA attempted to increase output (heavy R&D, a large, diverse and risky portfolio, Bioware-Pandemic acquisition, the [failed] Take 2 attempt) but they haven't experienced the sales growth needed to sustain such behavior.
[Nintex] said:SEGA doesn't know how to make money, when you give SEGA $5 to buy a burger and a milkshake, they come back with a $1000 debt and a coke.
test_account said:About games being based of licensed properties, in what way does this affect the money income? I guess that they make less money, since the license owner are also getting their share of the money as well?
test_account said:Ye, some of EA's new IPs havnt become huge hits as you say, but didnt several of them sell at least ok? For example, Army of Two, Battlefield Bad Company and Mirrors Edge are all getting sequels, doesnt this mean that these 3 games sold at least ok?
test_account said:About R&D, what does this cover? And did EA buy Bioware-Pandemic? If so, maybe this is where alot of money were spent, and how much was spent? How did the Take 2 attempt go by the way, did EA lose any money on that?
test_account said:Bet on the wrong horse in what way,
Ye, i see what you mean When those licenced franchices (like Harry Potter for example) doesnt have a book or a movie comming out, releasing a game within this franchice might not sell as well compared to if the game comes out at about the same time as a new book or a movie.Johann said:The advantages of a license property is that it usually increases the appeal of your game and provides a sales safety net for it. If you land on something like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, your game is set.
The big problem is that the license holder is usually the dominate party in the relationship. There are the typical problems of the license holder putting creative constraints on the game or the pressure to release the game by a hard deadline (i.e. a movie's release). We've seen how games such as Wanted and Riddick perform when there isn't any movie marketing behind the licensed game. The license holder also could demand a significant portion of the royalties, they could charge a fortune for an exclusive contract, and they control the direction of the IP.
If you had the Harry Potter license, what would you do after the book and the movie adaptations end? Even though Lord of the Rings: Conquest sold over a million, it still well short of the sales of the trilogy-based games. What if you get the Matrix license but the movies lose popularity? If you have the Pixar license, what would you do if you got an unorthodox setting like Up instead a ready for gaming setting like Cars? The license holder has great influence over the success and growth of the games.
A publisher can't continuously rely on a licensed IP as the breadwinner. There is not much control they have over the IP's popularity and growth. Some IP holders are beginning to realize the popularity of their IPs in gaming and forming internal studios for them, most notably Disney and Warner Brothers.
Ye, that is true. I was mostly wondering where EA had their losses in their fiscal year of 2008Johann said:One of the difficult parts of running a business is that you are going to make a mistake sooner or later. Even a well-oiled business is eventually going to slip up. The key is to minimize your losses and make your success so overwhelming that it makes up for the losses.
Ye, that is true as you say, but when a sequel to a game is comming, doesnt this indicate that the first game in the franchice sold good enough? The games doesnt necessarily have to sell like Assassin's Creed or Gears of War to make money, although i am sure that every company wants their game to sell like Assassin's Creed and Gears of War didJohann said:A lot of games don't make a profit or even make it past development, such as EA's Tiberium. It's isn't enough for a game to break even or make a small profit these days, they have to be such an overwhelming success to make up for the company's other failures. With the average cost of creating a game increasing, it's that much more important that losses are minimized. That's not getting into opportunity costs in which it would be better use of company resources if a developer made several small games with a low break even points rather slog away years on a game that ends up merely selling decently. There is always that temptation that leads a company into believing that they just need to make the next GTA or Halo and they are set.
These days, a lot of developers invest heavily in the first game in a new franchise. If the game is a huge success, subsequent games are less of a risk because of lower developed due to shared technology and the franchise gaining popularity. EA's games have failed to be that Assassin's Creed or Gears of War level hit. While Mirror's Edge 2 could reinvent the franchise, I can't see Army of Two or Bad Company suddenly under going growth or even coming close to the success of the leaders in each game's genre. The typical sales direction for a sequel is typically downward.
Ah ok, that is quite some money used on R&D indeed. But does this money counts for the last year's losses for EA? Or does these half a billion dollars count for losses from previous years? The Xbox 360 and the PS3 are now about 3 years old.Johann said:As mention before, EA had prepared for the 360 and PS3 becoming the dominate console in the industry. Their R&D was in the neighborhood of over half a billion dollars. They have failed to establish their next-gen new IPs and previously strong series, such as Medal of Honor, has failed to stand up to the competition. A lot of the money they invested hasn't translated to significant or consistent success or growth in the HD front.
Ah ok, here it seems that EA had alot of expenices, especially with the 860 million dollars buy of Pandemic and Bioware. I guess that this could be one of the main reasons why EA had a loss of 1 billion dollars in total?Johann said:EA's acquisition of Pandemic and Bioware cost the company over $800 million ($860 million IIRC). Most of that was in cash. The Bioware had deals with Microsoft and Sega at the time and were at the tail-end of development for them. In face of talk of overpaying, EA said the acquisition was a long term project for diversifying the company portfolio. It remains to be seen if Saboteur and Dragon Age will be successful.
The whole Take-2 bid was just humiliating. EA obviously wanted control over the GTA franchise. They continued to delay the deadline when Take Two didn't budge. Take-Two had good news in the form of GTA4 over-performing (both Take 2 and EA's expectations) and other bits of positive news, such as the Bioshock movie deal.
The whole event cost the company about $21 million in various legal fees, which is a significant amount of the overall $300 million loss they company would later reveal in its reports. EA's stock (and Take 2's stock as well) declined following the incident.
Ah ok, i cant recall that i have heard that EA said that, so i must have missed that reference. Or now that you mention it, maybe i can vaguely remember something about it. I hope that EA will have a good success when they increse their Wii outputdonny2112 said:In case you missed the reference, those are EA's own words to describe their performance this generation. They recognized that not putting more push behind the market leader had limited their audience and directly led to their reduced profitability this generation. It was part of what led them to increase their Wii output this fiscal year.
test_account said:Ah ok, i cant recall that i have heard that EA said that, so i must have missed that reference. Or now that you mention it, maybe i can vaguely remember something about it.
Stormbringer said:Marvelous Entertainment (results and forecasts from their investors meeting, broken down by platform) ->
But beforehand, a few precisions :
-1st column : number of titles/SKUs
-2nd column : share of titles (%)
-3rd column : shipments numbers
-4th column : share of shipments (%)
- the right half of the spreadsheet makes the comparison between the fiscal year in question and the previous one.
- 国内 : Japan, RSG : Rising Star Games, MEU : Marvelous USA.
FY 09 results :
Domestic forecasts for FY 10 :
Overseas forecasts for FY 10 :
Thanks for the link I think it should be interesting to see what games that EA will make for the Wii I hope that their games sells good, so that they will contunie to support the Wiidonny2112 said:
Kenka said:WTH, nobody's interested in those figures ?
LuCkymoON said:Are Wii thirdparty sales really that bad???
Saiyar said:Micorsoft's first quarter report is out.
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/fy10/earn_rel_q1_10.mspx
E&D has an income of $312 million.
2.1 million xbox 360s shipped. 33.5 million ltd.
EA is getting killed. Perhaps they screwed up big time by not developing sports games for Wii & PC right away IMO (and don't tell me they've been doing that because the last 3-4 years of their PC/Wii titles have been ports from the PS2 version and not the 360/PS3 version).Captain Smoker said:source: http://investor.ea.com/results.cfm
Overview (FY3 2009)
SCE: Operating IncomeCode:Company Original Profit/Loss Average Ex. Rate Profit/Loss in US $ Nintendo ¥ 279,089,000,000 100.52378 $ 2,776,348,044 Bandai Namco ¥ 11,830,000,000 100.52378 $ 117,683,597 Konami ¥ 10,874,000,000 100.52378 $ 108,173,409 Ubisoft 68,800,000 1.42447 $ 98,003,536 Take 2 $ 84,600,000 1 $ 84,600,000 Capcom ¥ 8,063,000,000 100.52378 $ 80,209,877 Activision Bliz. $ 68,015,000 1 $ 68,015,000 Square Enix ¥ 6,333,000,000 100.52378 $ 63,000,019 Hudson ¥ 1,742,000,000 100.52378 $ 17,329,233 Takara Tomy ¥ 1,377,000,000 100.52378 $ 13,698,251 Eizo Nanao ¥ 682,000,000 100.52378 $ 6,784,464 Koei ¥ 25,000,000 100.52378 $ 248,697 Nippon Ichi ¥ - 65,000,000 100.52378 $ - 646,613 AQ Interactive ¥ - 468,000,000 100.52378 $ - 4,655,615 Marvelous ¥ - 1,221,000,000 100.52378 $ - 12,146,380 D3 ¥ - 2,304,000,000 100.52378 $ - 22,919,950 Sega Sammy ¥ - 22,882,000,000 100.52378 $ - 227,627,732 THQ $ - 431,112,000 1 $ - 431,112,000 SCE ¥ - 58,500,000,000 100.52378 $ - 581,951,853 Electronic Arts $ - 1,088,000,000 1 $ - 1,088,000,000
All Other: Net Income