EA to Release Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2012 Results on May 7, 2012

[Ensquire]

I'd typically says yes however ME 3 has exceeded expectations in terms of sales

 

This would actually support an argument for layoffs no? EA's profitability partially depends on its revenue sources from console games...

[HeavensAgent]

Said evidence is used to establish a behavior. Here's a hypothetical, and my last attempt at helping you to understand this before I go to bed:

 

One player has 29 days left on her account; she recently joined the game, but has decided to wait it out before deciding to sign up for a recurring subscription plan (she "cancelled" right after signing up). She's currently playing on free time, and despite having her card information on file will not make a decision about subscribing until there's 2 days left on the account.

 

A different player has 29 days left on his account; he just finished cancelling his subscription and has no desire or intent to return either in the 29 days remaining or afterward. He won't be back, even when BioWare hands him 30 days for free (see Stephen Reid's comments about who qualifies).

 

Another player has 29 days left on his account; he's currently signed up for a recurring monthly subscription. He's gung-ho and plans to be here for a while.

 

What's the difference between these three players for BioWare? I'll give you a hint: there is no difference. They're all "subscribers" simply because they have time left on their accounts.

The first is, and should be, included in the total number of active subscriptions. Also, the third should clearly be included as well.

 

What you have failed to demonstrate, however, is that the second individual is counted in the total number of active subscriptions. There is no evidence supporting this.

 

The act of establishing a behavior in this way is, by definition, supposition. You are not basing you statements in facts or cited sources. Instead you are making assumptions based on multiple instances of unrelated evidence. The threads you're using to tie them together are questionable at best, and there is no support for the idea that they are interrelated at all. Additionally, one of the three points you utilize for establishing this behavior has no evidence to support its validity. It is, in fact, the very statement that I am challenging; you have still failed to provide evidence in support of this claim.

[Seregul]

This doesn't affect me.

 

*goes back to my own life*

 

Yar. BW doesn't pay me, I pay them.

[Drakkip]

People like to think that it all revolves around SWTOR and it doesn't. EA as a whole has issues, poor economy, some consistently unsuccessful franchises ie... Need for Speed, Madden next to Sims one of their primo moneymakers wasn't as good as it's been other years. BioWare is still BioWare and one subsidiary can't really dramatically change the parent company's shortcomings and ME3 as successful as it is only bumped EA stock up like 50cents. .

 

I'm not sure where you got SWTOR out of anything I posted. I linked the EA stock price, and have referenced the trend of the stock price over the last 6 months as well as over the last 10 years. Then given a counter comparison based on a company someone else referenced. I compared the two stock prices and how you would do with investments in both companies. My original reply was in specific reference to the posting of this quarters earnings / stock prices and has nothing in specific to do with SWTOR.

 

EA has had poorer stock prices since November in comparison to other companies and over the last 10 years prices are down overall. The same isn't true for other companies (like activision) who are only down 12ish% instead of 40% or who have seen a net growth over the last 10 years instead of a 50% decline.

 

I can't imagine the 10 year 50% decline has anything to do with SWTOR since it wasn't even on the radar then. What it does tell me though is overall there has been some level of mismanagement in the company, as although the overall market is depressed in terms of stock prices, other companies are fairing far better than AE, that's a fact.

[ConradLionhart]

I'm interested to see how SW:TOR and WoW subscriptions fare.

[ConradLionhart]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you cite some examples of other companies doing this?

 

Blizzard.

[ConradLionhart]

What? That they do indeed include accounts which are "cancelled" but have time remaining in their subscription numbers? I posted such evidence earlier in the thread, but I'll repost it here for you:

 

 

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ea-beats-targets-on-sales-gain-forecast-off-2012-02-01?link=MW_story_featstor

 

A cancelled account that has time remaining, is still an active account.

 

How is that a trick employed by EA? For all purposes it is still considered an active account.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by pointing out the obvious.

[iheartnyc]

I compared the two stock prices and how you would do with investments in both companies. My original reply was in specific reference to the posting of this quarters earnings / stock prices and has nothing in specific to do with SWTOR.

 

EA has had poorer stock prices since November in comparison to other companies and over the last 10 years prices are down overall. The same isn't true for other companies (like activision) who are only down 12ish% instead of 40% or who have seen a net growth over the last 10 years instead of a 50% decline.

 

I can't imagine the 10 year 50% decline has anything to do with SWTOR since it wasn't even on the radar then. What it does tell me though is overall there has been some level of mismanagement in the company, as although the overall market is depressed in terms of stock prices, other companies are fairing far better than AE, that's a fact.

 

No offense, but you don't speak the vernacular and you clearly do not work in the finance industry, so I have no choice but to heavily discount your attempt at research and analysis.

 

Seriously, a stock price comparison of 2 companies and a 6mo/10yr period? That's ludicrous that you would even waste your time doing that. And then you take this analysis to conclude that there was been mismanagement in the company? Tell me champ, what is the current capitalization of the company? P/E ratio? D/E ratio? Margin? Book value? Expected capex for 2012? Any useful multipliers? These are the sort of things you should be looking at...

[iheartnyc]

I'm stating that they can--and do--include "non-paying" accounts in their subscription totals. This means they can count people (like those who posted above) who have decided to quit the game, but have time remaining on their account, in their subscriber totals.

 

Their 1.7 million subscribers isn't actually 1.7 million subscribers. It'd more accurately be stated as 1.7 million people who have time on their accounts--playing or not.

 

The link and quote I posted provides a clear example of them doing this.

 

Except that uhm...you didn't. You posted a link. How helpful. Did you bother to actually analyze anything in that link? Or offer any kind of insight? No, you did not. You make wild conclusions based on a really lazy standard of research.

[iheartnyc]

What? That they do indeed include accounts which are "cancelled" but have time remaining in their subscription numbers? I posted such evidence earlier in the thread, but I'll repost it here for you:

 

 

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ea-beats-targets-on-sales-gain-forecast-off-2012-02-01?link=MW_story_featstor

 

Your quote doesn't even support you. AT ALL.

 

You said "accounts which are cancelled but have time remaining are included."

 

Brown said "accounts for which credit card information has been provided, but not yet been charged, are included."

 

You are equivocating. Brown did not say what you said. He said something entirely different. Notice how he used different words? Different words in the English dictionary? Take a look chanp. In the dictionary.

[unseenmaji]

What? That they do indeed include accounts which are "cancelled" but have time remaining in their subscription numbers? I posted such evidence earlier in the thread, but I'll repost it here for you:

 

 

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ea-beats-targets-on-sales-gain-forecast-off-2012-02-01?link=MW_story_featstor

 

They are so deceptive I agree the entire 30 days free nonsense was to up the subs figures for the reports, I do not believe this has 1.7million subs playing one bit.

[Space_Gimp]

in fact I'm betting that GW2 doesn't break half a million sales in it's first two months.

 

I'm willing to take that bet. My epeen against yours. 500k sales within 62 days world wide. World wide because you didn't specify in your post that I quoted.

[Drakkip]

No offense, but you don't speak the vernacular and you clearly do not work in the finance industry, so I have no choice but to heavily discount your attempt at research and analysis.

 

Seriously, a stock price comparison of 2 companies and a 6mo/10yr period? That's ludicrous that you would even waste your time doing that. And then you take this analysis to conclude that there was been mismanagement in the company? Tell me champ, what is the current capitalization of the company? P/E ratio? D/E ratio? Margin? Book value? Expected capex for 2012? Any useful multipliers? These are the sort of things you should be looking at...

 

Settle down, go back through all of my posts in this thread. The question was in relation to 4th quarter, my response was "they would have some explaining to do." Nothing more, nothing less. When asked why I would think that, I referenced overall down stock prices. It was then suggested that another company with lower stock prices was the benchmark by which this could also be measured. All I did was use the relative stock prices from the 2 last two quarters of both companies as well as a compare stock prices from 10 years ago.

 

I am sure you're right a detailed analysis several pages long would tell a much better story /shrug, the data I referenced still supports my original statement "They have some explaining to do" Since I bet lots of people who hold stock don't also hold a degree in finance it's not unreasonable to conclude that some of them may want an explanation about why their stock is down significantly more than other stocks. This isn't much of a stretch as you are already "explaining" why it may or may not be a bad thing, however, its' not unreasonable to suggest some sort of an explanation is warranted.

 

However that being said if a $10,000 investment in that company in 2001 was now worth $5600 whereas in other companies it would be worth $38,000 (income not counted) then it's reasonable to suggest there has been some sort of mismanagement.

[DieAlteHexe]

Go on record!

 

Post your predictions and why!

 

I have no clue but I am interested in seeing the numbers. Hopefully it will enable us to move on from this particular argument and move on to another. Then again, the way some folks have decided that EA/BW are lying, scheming, cheating bastiges, those numbers could be certified up one side and down the other and they still wouldn't believe.

 

So...at a guess? I'm gonna say sitting at around a million. I freely state that is a number pulled out of my backside based on what I think I see on the servers. I in no way assert that this is correct or incorrect.

 

It is, simply, a WAG.

[Monoth]

Go on record!

 

Post your predictions and why!

 

Who cares..... Stocks go up and down for all sorts of reasons.....

[Space_Gimp]

Who cares..... Stocks go up and down for all sorts of reasons.....

 

That's kinda the point....

[Aloro]

That's not what I said. More ad hominem?

 

You've twice falsely accused him of committing the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem means "to the man" and is the Latin term for the logical error of attacking the person doing the arguing instead of replying to the argument. He didn't say or imply anything about you either time, and in fact his statements were topical, whether you agreed with them or not. The first time, he made a comparison to WoW, and the second time he made a joking speculation about how many people unsubscribed. Neither of these were personal attacks against you in any sense.

 

***

 

To the OP: that would be magical indeed! I think you meant to say they'll release the FIRST quarter of 2012 though, not the FOURTH.

[Monoth]

That's kinda the point....

 

What does EA financial records have anything to do with SWTOR?

 

I'm really get tired of the Trolls trying to say ever time EA's stock goes down that SWTOR is doomed and is going to fail.... It's getting old..... And as I mentioned EA's stock has nothing to do with SWTOR, it's completely off topic, This whole thread should be locked / deleted....

 

If I want to discuss a Companies Stock i'll join a Financial Forum to discuss it....

Edited April 24, 2012 by Monoth

[Space_Gimp]

What does EA financial records have anything to do with SWTOR?

 

I'm really get tired of the Trolls trying to say ever time EA's stock goes down that SWTOR is doomed and is going to fail.... It's getting old..... And as I mentioned EA's stock has nothing to do with SWTOR, it's completely off topic, This whole thread should be locked / deleted....

 

If I want to discuss a Companies Stock i'll join a Financial Forum to discuss it....

 

I have no idea what you are ranting about. I'm interested in EA as a whole. As for the second part of your break down... Trolls are not going anywhere. Including me. Maybe it is you that needs to leave.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Space_Gimp

[PaxCorpii]

I remember when gamers weren't pretend financial businessmen and stockbrokers. Edited April 24, 2012 by PaxCorpii

[Space_Gimp]

I remember when gamers weren't pretend financial businessmen and stockbrokers.

 

You must be ANCIENT. Like almost dust... How are you still alive? You have some sort of cybernetic life support in your body?

[unseenmaji]

It's absilutely stunnin how little game analysts actually know about the industry they're advising on.

 

Bioware never have 1.75 million paying subscribers.

 

It had, in its own weasel words, 1.75 'active accounts'.

 

Those 'active accounts' included anyone who had given EA their credit card details BUT anyone who wanted to play the game, even just for the first free month, had to hand over their credit card details.

 

When EA was pressed about how many of these 'active accounts' actually had 'paid subscriptions', they finally fessed up and admitted; 'Over half'.

 

OK, 'over half' of 1.75 million is 875,000 plus.

 

Now... that figure came at the end of December. That was the launch month and, incidentally, the biggest game buying monht of the year (Christmas, ffs).

 

What are the figiures now? Who knows? EA is doing its best to obfuscate, conceal and inflate the true figures so that it can protext its share price which is, basically, tanking (it was $60 a few years ago, it's now $16).

 

So, here we have an analyst who is telling us that he predicts the subscriber figures will be 1.25 million. THAT MEANS AN ACTUAL RISE IN SUBSCRIBER FIGURES OF OVER 30%.

 

This is obviously ********.. Either this so called analyst report is a plant put out by EA's incredibly dishonesy marketing department or the analyst thmeselves are morons.

 

Which is it?

 

Check that out guy posted it so true.

[PaxCorpii]

You must be ANCIENT. Like almost dust... How are you still alive? You have some sort of cybernetic life support in your body?

 

Lemme guess, you're one of those xbox-babies who think Halo was the beginning of FPS gaming.

[Drakkip]

What are the figiures now? Who knows? EA is doing its best to obfuscate, conceal and inflate the true figures so that it can protext its share price which is, basically, tanking (it was $60 a few years ago, it's now $16).

.

 

Shhh dude, you can't talk about stock prices or even reference stock prices unless you have a degree in finance or you'll get trolled.

[SinisterSniper]

Said evidence is used to establish a behavior. Here's a hypothetical, and my last attempt at helping you to understand this before I go to bed:

 

One player has 29 days left on her account; she recently joined the game, but has decided to wait it out before deciding to sign up for a recurring subscription plan (she "cancelled" right after signing up). She's currently playing on free time, and despite having her card information on file, she will not make a decision about subscribing until there's 2 days left on the account.

 

A different player has 29 days left on his account; he just finished cancelling his subscription and has no desire or intent to return either in the 29 days remaining or afterward. He won't be back, even when BioWare hands him 30 days for free (see Stephen Reid's comments about who qualifies).

 

Another player has 29 days left on his account; he's currently signed up for a recurring monthly subscription. He's gung-ho and plans to be here for a while.

 

What's the difference between these three players for BioWare? I'll give you a hint: there is no difference. They're all "subscribers" simply because they have time left on their accounts.

 

Issue with this is that Bioware doesn't know what YOU ARE DOING/GOING TO DO, they don't know if you're making a decision to sub or not BUT you have paid for the time YOU ARE a sub for them. Those people who just got the game and cancel right away, have in essence paid for their subscription by purchasing the box.

 

Bioware doesn't know if you are leaving the game forever/thinking about leaving/changing payment methods/etc etc.

 

What about all the people who decide to cancel their credit card payments but change to game cards? You forgot about them.

 

Either way as an investor I would be much more pissed at giving away 30 days of free time to 1.6-1.7 people, than trying to bloat your numbers a little bit(which would just prolong it till the next investor call). This goes to show me that they are truly are giving this to show appreciation for their customers.