PS3 Outperforms 360 For EA

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/35278/PS3-outperforms-Xbox-360-for-EA

For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. bronxxbombers

For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. bronxxbombers

heh, tough to keep tabs on which company the ps3 guys hate on a day by day basis...

"we hate _____ they said something bad about the ps3...no no we love ________ they said something good about the ps3"

just plug in valve, EA, gabe N., ex-sony executives, whatever...

heh, tough to keep tabs on which company the ps3 guys hate on a day by day basis...

"we hate _____ they said something bad about the ps3...no no we love ________ they said something good about the ps3"

Riverwolf007

heh, tough to keep tabs on which company the ps3 guys hate on a day by day basis...

"we hate _____ they said something bad about the ps3...no no we love ________ they said something good about the ps3"

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="bronxxbombers"]For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. Slashkice

If you ever feel like coming out of denial, you can look at EA's fiscal first quarter results and see that the article is right.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

heh, tough to keep tabs on which company the ps3 guys hate on a day by day basis...

"we hate _____ they said something bad about the ps3...no no we love ________ they said something good about the ps3"

bronxxbombers

For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. bronxxbombers

Maybe PSN is proving to be highly profitable for them?

That's a little out of left field. Wonder what made the difference? (Also wonders why the PC and Wii which destroy the PS3/360 at this sales game are ignored :question:)

That's a little out of left field. Wonder what made the difference? (Also wonders why the PC and Wii which destroy the PS3/360 at this sales game are ignored :question:)

ActicEdge

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

That's a little out of left field. Wonder what made the difference? (Also wonders why the PC and Wii which destroy the PS3/360 at this sales game are ignored :question: )

Giancar

That's cause you rock :P

[QUOTE="Giancar"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

That's a little out of left field. Wonder what made the difference? (Also wonders why the PC and Wii which destroy the PS3/360 at this sales game are ignored :question: )

ActicEdge

That's cause you rock :P

[QUOTE="bronxxbombers"]For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. -GeordiLaForge-

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="bronxxbombers"]For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. UnnDunn

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="bronxxbombers"]For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. Slashkice

If you ever feel like coming out of denial, you can look at EA's fiscal first quarter results and see that the article is right.

Yeah, that makes sense. I work in a gaming department of a store...sports games are more popular on the ps3, where FPS like COD are more popular on the 360.

Yeah, that makes sense. I work in a gaming department of a store...sports games are more popular on the ps3, where FPS like COD are more popular on the 360.

xfcanadian

[QUOTE="xfcanadian"]

Yeah, that makes sense. I work in a gaming department of a store...sports games are more popular on the ps3, where FPS like COD are more popular on the 360.

bronxxbombers

Yah, sort of.

EA released 5 things on both the PS3 and 360 in the quarter. No other games were released on only one platform or the other. Of course there is hold over revenue from sales of other earlier released games, but most of the revenue is going to come from these five.

They were: Tiger Woods, Harry Potter, FNR4, Godfather 2, and Rockband DLC

There is also one problem with this thread and the other thread like it and the original source articles. They all refer to or imply profit, which is wrong since the numbers reported are Revenue, not profit.

That is very misleading. The article speaks about profits. Anyway, it's a BS article regardless...-GeordiLaForge-

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]That is very misleading. The article speaks about profits. Anyway, it's a BS article regardless...Rza_rectah

[QUOTE="Rza_rectah"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]That is very misleading. The article speaks about profits. Anyway, it's a BS article regardless...-GeordiLaForge-

edit: Actually, yeah - the 360 is pretty much on the dot with GAAP vs. non-GAAP revenue between the platforms. The PS3 non-GAAP is generally far lower than the GAAP. Wonder what's being counted under GAAP that isn't otherwise for the PS3 - sounds like there's some other form of income for EA besides just raw game sales.

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]That is very misleading. The article speaks about profits. Anyway, it's a BS article regardless...Rza_rectah

Activision is whining about profitability and return on investment. This thread, this article, and EA's quarterly report does not address or compare profitability across the platforms. The only info EA discloses is Revenue by platform.

Furthermore, a single quarter or two does not mean anything. A single game can skew a quarter's results, whether it is released on only one platform, or simply performs better on one. Last year the PS3 outsold the 360 in 2 of the 4 quarters, but for the year was still last because the 360 obliterated it in the the other two quarters. Perhaps this year the PS3 will obliterate the 360 in EA sales, but we really can't know based upon 5 games released in the quarter.

[QUOTE="Rza_rectah"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]That is very misleading. The article speaks about profits. Anyway, it's a BS article regardless...SUD123456

Activision is whining about profitability and return on investment. This thread, this article, and EA's quarterly report does not address or compare profitability across the platforms. The only info EA discloses is Revenue by platform.

Furthermore, a single quarter or two does not mean anything. A single game can skew a quarter's results, whether it is released on only one platform, or simply performs better on one. Last year the PS3 outsold the 360 in 2 of the 4 quarters, but for the year was still last because the 360 obliterated it in the the other two quarters. Perhaps this year the PS3 will obliterate the 360 in EA sales, but we really can't know based upon 5 games released in the quarter.

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Rza_rectah"] Just a bit not really though it still outperformed but not in the way everyone else was thinking. I wonder what Activision is whining about if this is true.Makari

edit: Actually, yeah - the 360 is pretty much on the dot with GAAP vs. non-GAAP revenue between the platforms. The PS3 non-GAAP is generally far lower than the GAAP. Wonder what's being counted under GAAP that isn't otherwise for the PS3 - sounds like there's some other form of income for EA besides just raw game sales.

[QUOTE="Makari"]

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]Yeah, the article turned out to be correct. I edited my post accordingly.Makari

edit: Actually, yeah - the 360 is pretty much on the dot with GAAP vs. non-GAAP revenue between the platforms. The PS3 non-GAAP is generally far lower than the GAAP. Wonder what's being counted under GAAP that isn't otherwise for the PS3 - sounds like there's some other form of income for EA besides just raw game sales.

That is absolutely not true. I presume you simply copied this false infpormation from the other thread on this very topic. This has absolutely nothing to do with development costs and lead platforms.

[QUOTE="bronxxbombers"]For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. -GeordiLaForge-

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="Makari"] oddly though, EA also tosses in the non-GAAP results which pretty much flips it between the two platforms.

edit: Actually, yeah - the 360 is pretty much on the dot with GAAP vs. non-GAAP revenue between the platforms. The PS3 non-GAAP is generally far lower than the GAAP. Wonder what's being counted under GAAP that isn't otherwise for the PS3 - sounds like there's some other form of income for EA besides just raw game sales.

SUD123456

That is absolutely not true. I presume you simply copied this false infpormation from the other thread on this very topic. This has absolutely nothing to do with development costs and lead platforms.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Makari"] Ah, tracked it down. Under GAAP, they don't evenly split the cost of development. Most of the multiplatform games are treated as 360 lead platform, so nearly all of the development costs are laid at the 360's feet. The 360 versions still sell much more as evidenced in the non-GAAP figures, they just count the development costs against the 360 way more than they do against the PS3.Makari

That is absolutely not true. I presume you simply copied this false infpormation from the other thread on this very topic. This has absolutely nothing to do with development costs and lead platforms.

Xbox 360 134 291 448 132 73(46%)

Xbox 360 134 291 448 135 1361%

PLAYSTATION 3 162 120 297 197 121(25%)

PLAYSTATION 3 84 188 355 84 9918%

Wow for some reason I don't believe it :?

Its Simple For 360 (lead platform) Revenue - Dev costs = Net Revenue For PS3 Revenue - PORT costs = Net Revenue As you would imagine, the PORT costs are way less than the DEVELOPMENT costs. That explains the difference.navyguy21

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Makari"] Ah, tracked it down. Under GAAP, they don't evenly split the cost of development. Most of the multiplatform games are treated as 360 lead platform, so nearly all of the development costs are laid at the 360's feet. The 360 versions still sell much more as evidenced in the non-GAAP figures, they just count the development costs against the 360 way more than they do against the PS3.Makari

That is absolutely not true. I presume you simply copied this false infpormation from the other thread on this very topic. This has absolutely nothing to do with development costs and lead platforms.

That explanation makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because it is based upon cost.....specifically allocating cost. These numbers are not about cost. They are about Revenue. Which platform was the lead, how much each cost to develop and the like are completely irrelevant to how many units sold at what price which is the basis of Revenue.

Moreover, I don't need to guess at all since EA discloses exactly what they mean. The difference between GAAP and Non-GAAP Revenue numbers is the measure Change in Deferred Net Revenue (Packaged Goods and Digital Content).

They aren't always able to determine the fair market value of online services at the time of sale. And sometimes they are obligated to provide additional DLC and the like for which they do not expect to receive any extra revenue. In both cases, they recognize the Revenue over the life of the game, not just at the outset.

In English, you buy a game for $60. They would normally get there share, say $45. They sell 10 games. Normally you would expect them to record 10 X $45 = $450 Revenue.

But say they are expected to provide one episode of cheap or free DLC (say a free map pack) in the next year. In that case, they will Defer Revenue. They might recognize $35 this year and $10 next year per game sold, or $350 this year + $100 next year.

If you could charge the customer $50 this year and $10 next year for buying the game this wouldn't be a problem. But they can't. They can only charge once. And that charge has to cover all the costs up to game release, plus future costs...two different time periods. Ergo, split the Revenue into two buckets....you get all the cash now, but you recognize the revenue on your income statement in two parts....part now and part in the future.

This is because there is an obligation to spend future money, and so in accounting it is normal to match expenses and revenues in time. Hence, Change in Deferred Net Revenue. None of which has anything to do with lead platforms and allocating cost across platforms.

Its Simple For 360 (lead platform) Revenue - Dev costs = Net Revenue For PS3 Revenue - PORT costs = Net Revenue As you would imagine, the PORT costs are way less than the DEVELOPMENT costs. That explains the difference.navyguy21

Its Simple For 360 (lead platform) Revenue - Dev costs = Net Revenue For PS3 Revenue - PORT costs = Net Revenue As you would imagine, the PORT costs are way less than the DEVELOPMENT costs. That explains the difference.navyguy21

No it doesn't. Period. End of story. Rev - Dev costs = Net Margin or Net Operating Profit.

Net Revenue is always BEFORE costs.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]Its Simple For 360 (lead platform) Revenue - Dev costs = Net Revenue For PS3 Revenue - PORT costs = Net Revenue As you would imagine, the PORT costs are way less than the DEVELOPMENT costs. That explains the difference.SUD123456

No it doesn't. Period. End of story. Rev - Dev costs = Net Margin or Net Operating Profit.

Net Revenue is always BEFORE costs.

Are you an accountant out of curiousity? I'm normally use to calling it Gross profit (I tink its gross profit anyway) so I was like what when I read your explanation :P

For some reason that doesnt make any sense to me. Theres more 360s out there, and I think the 360 has a higher game per console rating. bronxxbombers

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]Its Simple For 360 (lead platform) Revenue - Dev costs = Net Revenue For PS3 Revenue - PORT costs = Net Revenue As you would imagine, the PORT costs are way less than the DEVELOPMENT costs. That explains the difference.ActicEdge

No it doesn't. Period. End of story. Rev - Dev costs = Net Margin or Net Operating Profit.

Net Revenue is always BEFORE costs.

Are you an accountant out of curiousity? I'm normally use to calling it Gross profit (I tink its gross profit anyway) so I was like what when I read your explanation :P

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

No it doesn't. Period. End of story. Rev - Dev costs = Net Margin or Net Operating Profit.

Net Revenue is always BEFORE costs.

themyth01

Are you an accountant out of curiousity? I'm normally use to calling it Gross profit (I tink its gross profit anyway) so I was like what when I read your explanation :P

I wasn't referring to gross profit as revenue. I was reffering to it as revenue minus cost of goods sold. I need to refresh my mind though, haven't looked at my accounting books in a few months.

[QUOTE="themyth01"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Are you an accountant out of curiousity? I'm normally use to calling it Gross profit (I tink its gross profit anyway) so I was like what when I read your explanation :P

ActicEdge

I wasn't referring to gross profit as revenue. I was reffering to it as revenue minus cost of goods sold. I need to refresh my mind though, haven't looked at my accounting books in a few months.

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

That is absolutely not true. I presume you simply copied this false infpormation from the other thread on this very topic. This has absolutely nothing to do with development costs and lead platforms.

SUD123456

That explanation makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because it is based upon cost.....specifically allocating cost. These numbers are not about cost. They are about Revenue. Which platform was the lead, how much each cost to develop and the like are completely irrelevant to how many units sold at what price which is the basis of Revenue.

Moreover, I don't need to guess at all since EA discloses exactly what they mean. The difference between GAAP and Non-GAAP Revenue numbers is the measure Change in Deferred Net Revenue (Packaged Goods and Digital Content).

They aren't always able to determine the fair market value of online services at the time of sale. And sometimes they are obligated to provide additional DLC and the like for which they do not expect to receive any extra revenue. In both cases, they recognize the Revenue over the life of the game, not just at the outset.

In English, you buy a game for $60. They would normally get there share, say $45. They sell 10 games. Normally you would expect them to record 10 X $45 = $450 Revenue.

But say they are expected to provide one episode of cheap or free DLC (say a free map pack) in the next year. In that case, they will Defer Revenue. They might recognize $35 this year and $10 next year per game sold, or $350 this year + $100 next year.

If you could charge the customer $50 this year and $10 next year for buying the game this wouldn't be a problem. But they can't. They can only charge once. And that charge has to cover all the costs up to game release, plus future costs...two different time periods. Ergo, split the Revenue into two buckets....you get all the cash now, but you recognize the revenue on your income statement in two parts....part now and part in the future.

This is because there is an obligation to spend future money, and so in accounting it is normal to match expenses and revenues in time. Hence, Change in Deferred Net Revenue. None of which has anything to do with lead platforms and allocating cost across platforms.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="themyth01"] Gross Profit is not revenue. Gross profit consist of revenues less cost of goods sold. themyth01

I wasn't referring to gross profit as revenue. I was reffering to it as revenue minus cost of goods sold. I need to refresh my mind though, haven't looked at my accounting books in a few months.

No probs. I was rathher confusing in the way I worded my statement.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]Its Simple For 360 (lead platform) Revenue - Dev costs = Net Revenue For PS3 Revenue - PORT costs = Net Revenue As you would imagine, the PORT costs are way less than the DEVELOPMENT costs. That explains the difference.ActicEdge

No it doesn't. Period. End of story. Rev - Dev costs = Net Margin or Net Operating Profit.

Net Revenue is always BEFORE costs.

Are you an accountant out of curiousity? I'm normally use to calling it Gross profit (I tink its gross profit anyway) so I was like what when I read your explanation :P

Sure, you can call it gross profit too. In any case, you have Revenue - Direct Costs (or COGS)= (Margin, Operating Profit, Gross Profit....they all are variations on the same thing). Then you deduct indirect costs/overhead etc. Then depreciation, interest and taxes. And you end up with net income or net profit.

No I am not an accountant.

But I am probably your Dad's age. Over 20 years business experience, Senior corporate executive type. MBA. Many years of management consulting.

But none of that matters. I can read an income statement and I know how and where to look for these details. It is right there in black and white on EA's income statement.