If you made 100 dollars a week from cutting lawns at a buck a lawn, would you piss away 9 dollars a week just because one of your neighborhoods doesn't kiss your ass and give you more lemonaid than they give other kids who mow lawns in the neighborhood? If yes, then you're being a baby. EA isn't the only game in town for sports (pun coincidental) and yet they act like they are. You weren't in on the meeting (not that I was either, but I've heard a first hand account of it), so you don't know. MS needs to loosen up their policies to draw in the key developers and EA needs to stop being babies. Perhaps another important question could be - what percent of MS Xbox related sales does EA account for? I imagine less than 9%.

Well, the XBox and the GCN are still selling just as well as the PS2 when you look at the numbers of units.

PS2 51.2
XBox 13
GCN 9.4

Worldwide as of 3/31/03 according to EGM.




And in terms of bargains, the XBox has just as many cheap games as the GCN and the PS2 has much more bargains than do either of the two and the GBA has about twice as much as that (no i don't have numbers just look around). So you really can't tell the success of the platform by how many bargains are out there.

The shelflife of Video games are not what they used to be. Console games are almost catching up to the PC in terms of shelf life.

I honestly don't think EA's refusal to use Live will affect their sales that much. They will still sell a ton of PS2 titles, maybe even more since multi-console owners with internet will probably want the PS2 one.

Madden absolutely destroyed 2K last year, and the games were very similar. The name recognition is what appeals to the average gamer. And, like it or not, even on the Xbox online gamers are the minority. If Live compatibility would've cost too much money or even delayed the game, they made a good decision. Also, if they're game sells just as well, it'll give them leverage for next season's games... as Madden on Live will surely sell a lot of subscriptions.

Madden Online is 1 of 2 reasons im thinking about picking up a ps2(so i can kick my old roommates ass again!) other is metal gear solid 3..

Im pissed as hell that its not on xbox live, part of me wants to wait til next year but i already did that with 2003 and its still not on live

Why is everyone so down on PS2 online? I understand that XB Live is pretty cool, but from what I've read, the new EA games will pretty much do everything that XB Live does: Voice chat, leagues, matching, stat keeping etc. On top of that it's all free!
I guess I understand if you only have an XBOX then not having online support sucks, but PS2 online is still pretty fun and efficient.

Also I feel bad for Sega if they think first person mode and including the ESPN monkier will sell more games. Heck, even ESPN uses Madden for it's football commentary sometimes.

True, but probably not many will boycott EA an not buy the games at all. Not too many people out there only own an X-box or GC (compared to those that only own a PS2).

So those with a PS2 will buy the PS2 version, and most of those with an X-box and PS2 will buy the PS2 version for the online play.

So they're not really losing many sales in the end in all likelihood, whereas in your example I'd be losing the $9.

They have monks on ESPN

All I was trying to illustrate was that 9% isn't just something to turn your nose up at... hell, even 1% is a big deal. If I'm following what you're suggesting here now, you're saying that people will still go buy the EA games for another system and that 9% will just shift from Xbox to PS2. I don't buy that. I never said anything about a boycott, but if xbox owners don't have the opportunity to buy EA games, they'll just buy something else.

Your theory about single console owners vs multiple console owners is flawed - you have no way of knowing whether Xbox owners own a PS2 or GC or vice versa - all you have to go on are polls and the fact that there are more PS2s in the world than Xboxes. Plus, it's not taking into account that there are tons of PS2s in Japan and EA isn't a big seller in Japan, so you have to just look at the US basically... I don't know - I just don't think EA should be pissing away their Xbox sales just because MS won't "sweeten the deal". I agree that MS should be more flexible.

I was just going by installed base.

If there are 50 million PS2s, and around 5 million X-boxes, there are going to be a lot more that own only a PS2 or a PS2 or an X-box, rather than those that just own and X-box. It's simple logic.

Thus EA is giving most gamers a chance to play madden online, as most gamers own at least a PS2 (due to the higher number).

9% isn't a huge chunk, and EA would have to spend money to develop live support, rather than just porting over the same online system they have in place for the PS2. Thus MS should pay them extra to go to the effort as they probably wouldn't make much profit off of having live support after you subtract out the R&D costs.

I think MS should do whatever it takes to get EA making online games. I might end up buying Fever this time around to try out the new tournament thing MS is doing, but having EA titles have live compatibility should have been a priority.

I'm surprised so many posters used terms such as childish or babies when describing EA's decision. Their motive is stay profitable, if meeting MS's demands was a requirement to reach their goal- they would do it.

But there hasn't been any evidence to imply that this is the case. The number of owners who own the PS2 doubles that of the X-Box and GC combined. The X-Box is a great machine, but it isn't the market leader. This gives EA, the leader in sports games, a great deal of leverage that they shouldn't simply piss away so they can keep a few fan boys happy.

12 Month Stock Chart

Add in the fact that their stock price has been steadily climbing for a few months, and is right around their 52 week high, I would be pretty happy with their decision making as a stock holder.

EA is going very strong in a industry that has seen many former giants (Sega, Atari, Data East, etc.) either regress or die. And they do it by making good games and decisions, not by having a winning personality.

In our lifetime EA will, at some point, be the most powerful media company on the planet. Once games overtake movies (they're close if they haven't already) as the biggest entertainment money makers EA will be the proverbial godfather. I bought them at $50 and have made a sweet profit but they have a lot of upside left in them (a little NBA humor).

Long story short: it's good to have EA on your side.

I think their price target was at 80 per share, which they are at now. If you can short them it might be a good idea, and then pick them back up in a couple months to catch the holiday rush.

I bought EA last summer at 62, and Activision at 26. EA is at 76 today, down from near 80, and Activision has been stuck at 13 for months. I sold ATVI months ago at 15 and took a loss, because I didn't want my money stuck in that lagger while the rest of the market was moving up. I've since made up for that loss and then some.

But I agree, this stock will probably go for a split soon to bring back investors, and take off from there.

Jeremy

i must be a freak, I have a xbox and gc but no ps2. lol! in any event, I see what you're saying about the development costs that adding XBL support would cost EA... at the same time, if Sega can afford it, its a drop in the bucket for EA. Additionally, if EA is already making PC versions of certain sports games that have internet or LAN capability, porting it over to the xbox wouldnt cost too much in R&D... would it? doesn't seem like it. Im not a programmer or software engineer, so i dunno. <shrug>

if the above IS true, I think EA is just being babies. They know Sony is willing to get down on its knees for them, and MS won't, so they take their ball and go home. pretty weak.

j

my first stock buy ever was Sega at $2/share... sold it at a shade over $5 a share. Not bad profit in less than a year. Of course, if Sega had gone bankrupt or something I woulda been screwed. lol!

j

First of all - how did Xbox go from over a 10 million install base over 6 months ago to 5 million?? Maybe you were thinking of gamecube install base. Secondly - you may think it's logical, but it's incorrect. You can't just assume that because there are more PS2 owners than Xbox owners that most Xbox owners also have a PS2. That's not logic at all.

You missed my whole point... 9% is a large chunk. MS's Live is easier to develop for, and it's alot less costly to maintain for EA since MS is paying for it... Why should MS pay extra to have EA produce a competitor to their first party Live enabled sports line-up? It's sounding to me like the conclusions you're drawing are being affected by your loathing of the Xbox (and I can't even understand why you hate a game console so much anyway).

Here's the direct quote from the 10-K:

"In May 2003, we announced that we have no plans to support the online service for Xbox. It is unclear whether the absence of online functionality in our Xbox products will be important enough to consumers to affect sales of our Xbox products."

Jeremy

Sure - that's what they tell the public.

Last figures I saw showed that there were more Xbox Live users than Playstation Online users going just by sales of Live kits vs. sales of PS2 modems. Maybe that's changed... I dunno. Their reason for doing this was solely based on the fact that MS wouldn't make special concessions for them and cut EAs costs over other developers... the kind of arse kissing they're used to from Sony.

Where the hell did you get that I hate the X-box?

I said nothing of the sort. I just don't think EA is being unreasonable not supporting live, that's all. I've said in a couple of other threads (see the SW- KoTR thread) that I plan on buying an X-box when it drops to $99 in a year or two to pick up Halo, PDO, KoTR etc.

I think you just love the console so much you perceive any criticism as hate.

I love Nintendo, but there's tons of things I criticize them for. I don't blindly love any company.

Lastly, I don't consider 9% to be a "huge chunk." Especially when you consider that a lot of X-box owners are going to buy the EA games anyway. If you're numbers are right, there are 10 million X-box owners (I said five million because I haven't seen any sales numbers since pre x-mas as I really don't give a crap). But how many have live. The last numbers I saw were 150,000, I'm sure it's more than that now, maybe 250,000 or so tops.

So EA isn't alienating all X-box owners by not including live support, but rather the relatively small number that have live. In other words, no big loss for them.

relax, guy.



okie dokie.

Would you miss 9% of your body if I cut it off?

Assume it costs the same to make their games online for Sony as it does for Xbox... assume there are more Xbox Live users than Playstation Online users. It doesn't make sense to just poop away those sales.

I dunno... it doesn't really matter. MS's sports games looked great to me, maybe nobody's gonna miss EA anyway. I don't play sports games, so I care even less.


I don't wanna fight with ya... peace.

I don't want to fight either. But the point is, they will still get a lot of X-box sells because the vast majority of the 10 million X-box owners don't have Live and thus aren't effected by the lack of Live support. Thus they aren't cutting off 9%. EA is only ignoring Live users. Lets say they're are 250,000 of them. That represents only .025 percent of X-box owners. So they will probably still get most of the 9% that bought Madden etc. on the box last year.

It gets even more insignificant if you look at the big picutre. Lets say they're are 50 million PS2s, 10 million x-boxes and 5 million gamecubes. So they're are 65 million systems, and 250,000 X-box live users, making up .0038% of the total console users.

Taking that into consideration, I see no reason that EA is being babies for wanting some extra incentive to research and develop a feature in their games that can only be used by .0038% of the gaming population.

I think I read somewhere there are over a half million Xbox Live users, but its still a drop in the gaming bucket. Online gaming is still at least a generation of consoles away from being a factor.

So I agree that EA is losing next to nothing by not supporting Xbox live.

Just like Nintendo is losing next to nothing and saving a lot of money by not supporting online gaming.

Too much math.

I'd still like to know if you would miss 9% of your body if I cut it off.

They are not losing 9% though. The still sell their games on the Xbox and the 2003 games sold pretty well even without Live support.

As far as the original question. It would depend on the 9%. Could I liposuction out the 9%.

I think that EA's decision had far more to do with thier preferring Sony's approach to letting them run their online server over MS' centralized approach than with the comparible number of online users or potential buyers. Remember, last year EA announced that they would only support Maddem 2003 online until 2004 came out. They may have given lots of reasons for this, but the simple fact is it forces online players into buying a new version of the game every year. If MS refuses to support that position, what was EA to do? This way, they can make their own decisions about online support (such as potentially charging a subscription fee, ect) and they don't have to answer to anyone. It's perhaps a cold-blooded decision, but one that makes some sense from a business POV.

BTW, don't forget that the PS2 is now being sold online-ready. That means that anyone buying a new PS2 with ANY internet connection can be online today at no additional charge. Yes, Xbox live is a better, more efficient, more supported program, but when you talk about potential consumers of online video games, clearly PS2 has a huge edge now.