backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 15 comment(s) - last by toyotabedzrock.. on Feb 6 at 8:17 PM
Electronic Arts Continues to Struggle according to the latest figures.

Electronic Arts has reported a loss of $641 million for the quarter ended December according to GameSpot. EA stated they would be lowering their full fiscal-year estimates. For the year ending March 31, 2009, EA now expects to make between $4.2 billion and $4.25 billion in fiscal 2009, with a loss per share of between $3.29 and $3.56.

One of the causes was poor holiday season sales according to CEO John Riccitiello, who called the results a "a clear disappointment." He also stated, "Our holiday quarter came in below our expectations, and we have significantly reduced our financial outlook for fiscal 2009."

According to Riccitiello, the quality of games produced by Electronic Arts was not one of the causes for EA's troubles and is instead one of their strengths that will support them in to the future. He stated, "We delivered on game quality and innovation in calendar 2008, with 13 games rated 80 or above, more than any third-party publisher. We expect to build on this great-quality record in the year ahead while delivering more profitability."

In addition to the large losses, Electronic Arts announced they will increase planned layoffs to 11% of their workforce from 10%. Roughly 1100 individuals will lose their jobs and 12 facilities are scheduled to be closed down.

Three high profile games that had planned launches in the 2009 fiscal year will also be delayed. The Sims 3, which was expected on February 20, is now expected to arrive on June 2. BioWare's Dragon Age: Origins, which was expected to launch before the end of March has been delayed. Godfather II will also be delayed.

Rounding out the bad news EA Mythic's Warhammer Online subscriber base has fallen to 300,000 according to the latest figures. In October, the game had more than 750,000 registered users.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Regarding Warhammer
By FITCamaro on 2/6/2009 9:14:24 AM , Rating: 3
I think consumers are getting bored with WoW clones. Still trying to figure how they're not bored with WoW. Only took me 3 months.




RE: Regarding Warhammer
By Hieyeck on 2/6/2009 9:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
Undoubtedly, WoW is boring. Pity so is everything else - at least people already have a maxed out account in WoW with which to go pvp/pve/grief with.


RE: Regarding Warhammer
By mholler on 2/6/2009 10:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I don't understand why all of these companies are launching their MMOs on such a massive scale. I understand the desire to be the next WoW, however I believe a much more reasonable goal is success on the level of City of Heroes, LoTR online, or even DDO. In other words, launch with less servers which requires a smaller capital investment up front, results in more populated servers, and requires less maintenance. Then, if your subscriber base expands to the point that you need to add additional servers, do so.

Companies can achieve a very respectable stream of revenue from a subscriber base of 100k - 300k, especially at $15 a month. This stable revenue base will then allow you to fund more ambitious projects. I understand that it's always important to aim high, but at some point reason has to enter into the equation.


RE: Regarding Warhammer
By Sulphademus on 2/6/2009 10:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone wants to be the next WoW but you're not going to topple them by making a clone. You're going to need something bigger, better, and beyond. (Also, Blizzard's obsession with quality is tops in the business, unlike EA's.)


RE: Regarding Warhammer
By icanhascpu on 2/6/2009 2:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, Blizzard's obsession with quality is tops in the business


HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Darn
By Spivonious on 2/6/2009 10:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
You mean EA is only going to make $4.2 billion? I just cannot fathom how a company making billions of dollars (I'm assuming this is profit, not revenue) can have any excuse to layoff workers.




RE: Darn
By Spivonious on 2/6/2009 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
Also (would be nice to have an edit button for posts that haven't been replied to), even if it is revenue, what are they spending $4 billion on?


RE: Darn
By mholler on 2/6/2009 12:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently too many employees. :)


RE: Darn
By mholler on 2/6/2009 11:30:01 AM , Rating: 2
No, they expect $4.2 billion of net revenue. Overall, they are anticipating a GAAP diluted loss per share of between $3.29 and $3.56. The company estimated share count is 321 million so that puts expected loss north of $1 billion. I think a few layoffs are probably warranted.


RE: Darn
By Spivonious on 2/6/2009 12:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
That makes a bit more sense then. Still, I have to wonder if they could save $1 billion just by cutting some top exec salaries and canceling less successful projects.


no surprise
By Screwballl on 2/6/2009 10:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
EA has been a money hungry hog just spewing out cloned crap (invented by other companies that they have overtaken) for so long. Now when people actually want a "good" game, they see that EA games are crap and are finally waking up to the fact that their money can be better spent on worthwhile games (like my preferences of Sins of a Solar Empire and Supreme Commander).

I myself have had a personal grudge against EA when they took over Maxis (SimCity) and Westwood (Command and Conquer) and proceeded to create and release cash grab games. SimCity 3000 was pretty much an updated SC2000, SimCity4 was SC3000 with updated graphics. The Sims series was actually a brilliant release by Maxis (under the EA name) in that it allowed the brainless sheep to play a game that they did not realy have to think abaout. As for Westwood, Command and Conquer was best at Red Alert2 (pre-EA), after which the rest of the games carrying the CnC name were either useless clones or strayed so far from the name that it just became crap (like CnC Generals)... I have since refused to buy any EA games (or play them, at least legally), last one I bought was BF2 which was just a Counter-Strike clone. I have "tried" (ahem downloaded via torrent) Spore and CnC3, both of which may introduce new setups but get boring after 2-3 days, then promptly get uninstalled and never heard or seen again (and torrents+data deleted as I never share/seed anyways)...

These companies wonder why illegal sharing is at an all time high... it is because they have been producing crap for so long, like in EA's case, that people are starting to refuse to buy their games and only "try them" for a few days. Since most of the time the downloaded versions cannot use the online play, it is limited to non-online PC level gaming.




RE: no surprise
By acase on 2/6/2009 3:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I have hated EA since they bought out the NFL since they couldn't compete with the much cheaper, and better quality ESPN games.


By mattclary on 2/6/2009 11:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
But with it's online authentication system, it was a no-go for me. I can live with a simple disk check, SecurROM, whatever..., but authentication servers are a deal breaker for me.

Screw you EA, I hope your stock craters spectacularly.




CHALLENGE EVERYTHING!
By icanhascpu on 2/6/2009 2:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Even your customers will to buy your product.




DRM
By toyotabedzrock on 2/6/2009 8:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how sales of game systems increased, perhaps they should not infect our systems with spyware. I refuse to let anyone in my house buy any computer games that contain it.




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki