A - I never said profit. I said revenue. More money = more revenue
B - In many companies they say "by X quarter" or Last year. That is an average. There is going to be high quarters and low quarters. However if they doubled revenue from last year, They doubled revenue last year, who cares when it was done. It could have all been done in January for all the books care. As long as the final is "doubled" it is doubled.
If I double the amount of times I eat a cheeseburger from last year, but eat them all in January, does it invalidate the number of cheeseburgers I ate across the year?
C - If subs matter, and revenue doesn't.... well that still sounds strange. That is also an obvious LIE. (see prior Aion quote, GW 2 also falls in this category)
D - DLC is the new expansion packs. You can thank console games for this. However it is becoming more and more of a standard in the world of "content updates"
So lets recap.
Increased revenue = GOOD. It does not mean profitable, it simply means good
Sub =/= accurate measurement of revenue
f2p games (like LOTRO) will die a horrible flaming death quickly... oh wait LOTRO is still around?, it has had several expansions? gee whoda thunkit
Expect to see more games going the route of DLC as it is less stress on development. The company makes more money in the long run (any old 2nd ed TSR D&D players should already understand this overall concept). And they can hype up lesser things to keep interest at a "comfortable level" (Games Workshop players will understand "staggered relases")
A - profit matters. Revenue - not much.
B - They said "monthly average revenue has doubled". From what? From when? If they took worst quarter (quarter before F2P) it was not really hard to double it, because they prolly had 250k subs or so then
C - SWTOR is still sub game. Witch cash shop. And paid content updates. They even compare themselves to other sub games (and lie about it too). It just has extended free trial. And requirement for subscribers to spend >15$/month
D - No it isnt. Well, it is for failed games that triple dip their customers. Thats why i wont spend another penny on SWTOR (i dont spend on EA anyway)
So lets reacap:
revenue=up means nothing without a base point, and in the end, its profit that matters
Sub = most of their revenue
LOTRO didnt need to go F2P to survive opposed to SWTOR
Expect failed games that want to rip you off doing just that, instead fixing the game they will expact you to pay way more for way less.
I guess 'winning' the 'worst company' online poll didn't have much of an impact; remember they won last year too!
Its best time to speculate with EA stocks. Get back to us in a month. See if youll be so eager then.
And too bad you didnt actually read what you linked, otherwise you wouldnt really link it rofl. High 5 for shallowness
"Compared to where it was a year ago today, the stock is now trading at a higher level, regardless of the company's weak earnings results. Looking ahead, the stock's rise over the last year has already helped drive it to a level which is relatively expensive compared to the rest of its industry. We feel, however, that the other strengths this company displays justify these higher price levels"
Basically saying that in conclusion they feel EA is good investment at the moment ands is worth the high share price compared to others in the Industry.
Did you read the report?
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I guess 'winning' the 'worst company' online poll didn't have much of an impact; remember they won last year too!
Its best time to speculate with EA stocks. Get back to us in a month. See if youll be so eager then.
And too bad you didnt actually read what you linked, otherwise you wouldnt really link it rofl. High 5 for shallowness
"Compared to where it was a year ago today, the stock is now trading at a higher level, regardless of the company's weak earnings results. Looking ahead, the stock's rise over the last year has already helped drive it to a level which is relatively expensive compared to the rest of its industry. We feel, however, that the other strengths this company displays justify these higher price levels"
Basically saying that in conclusion they feel EA is good investment at the moment ands is worth the high share price compared to others in the Industry.
Editor's Note: TheStreet ratings do not represent the views of TheStreet's staff or its contributors. Ratings are established by computer based on metrics for performance (which includes growth, stock performance, efficiency and valuation) and risk (volatility and solvency). Companies with poor cash flow or high debt levels tend to earn lower ratings in our model.
Thats all i need to know.
But:
"ELECTRONIC ARTS INC's earnings per share declined by 12.5% in the most recent quarter compared to the same quarter a year ago."
"EA, with its decline in revenue, underperformed when compared the industry average of 1.4%. Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues fell by 11.6%"
"Compared to where it was a year ago today, the stock is now trading at a higher level, regardless of the company's weak earnings results"
AND THEN:
We feel, however, that the other strengths this company displays justify these higher price levels
Hmmmm, yes, lot of prospect....for a week to two You could earn a quick buck...if you hurry...
If you believe EA's numbers, you haven't learned anything from what happened with SWTOR.
They were still claiming 1.3 million subs when subs were below 500k.
Check my sig.
I have had that sig since I claimed on this forum that SWTOR was in massive decline and EA's 1.3 million subs number was fake. It was.
This was way before the firings, before F2P. I claimed that the real sub numbers was below 500k. I was right.
SWTOR fanboys were still claiming 1.3 million subs when I was telling everyone it was below 500k. Even EA has since admitted that I was right all along.
EA are claiming "under" 500k subs now when subs are obviously below 300k.
EA's F2P numbers are based on every F2P account ever created, even the ones never played. It has no bearing on actual player numbers. Anyone with an email address is a potential F2P player.
There are around 300k total players playing SWTOR right now. Max.
Really people, learn from the past, especially with EA. Don't keep falling for the same fiddled numbers.
Legally they will have had to have had "just under" 500k subs at the time of the quartly conference call - but this number will have included everyone who subbed or re-subbed in order to buy Makeb at a discount. Like last year's 1.7M subs which included about 850k people who were on their free month.
Legally the number of new F2P accounts have to be 1.7M as well. Which is why I suspect that the number who took out a sub to purchase Makeb is 300k. And why next month subs may be "just under 200k".
But fear not, even though EA is forecasting that it will make a loss next year if it carries on buying back its shares (funded by issuing bonds i.e. borrowings) then the share price may rise further.
Legally the number of new F2P accounts have to be 1.7M as well. Which is why I suspect that the number who took out a sub to purchase Makeb is 300k. And why next month subs may be "just under 200k".
But fear not, even though EA is forecasting that it will make a loss next year if it carries on buying back its shares (funded by issuing bonds i.e. borrowings) then the share price may rise further.
we've added more than 1.7 million new players on the free model to the service
doeesnt say new free to play accounts, it says new 1,7 million added to F2P service, which may or may not include former subscribers from before F2P, since all of them are "newly added to F2P service" if they dont resub.
And buying back shares is one of the most stupid things they can do, replacing fictive "loss" with real one. They would be much better off to invest that same money in increasing the quality of company (in general and working on NOT being voted worst company 3rd time in a row) and raise price that way. Of course it would take longer and require real effort and goodwill, but its obvious who this one is aimed for.
This kind of things tend to burst sooner or later (consider it a bubble) because its fictive raise, aimed short term. This one is quite important:
"Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues fell by 11.6%"
And buying back shares is one of the most stupid things they can do, replacing fictive "loss" with real one. They would be much better off to invest that same money in increasing the quality of company (in general and working on NOT being voted worst company 3rd time in a row) and raise price that way. Of course it would take longer and require real effort and goodwill, but its obvious who this one is aimed for.
This kind of things tend to burst sooner or later (consider it a bubble) because its fictive raise, aimed short term.
So essentially, I've produced facts that 'hey the share market apparently like this company cause it made money last year' which was countered by some bizzaro 'why share buy back is bad for EA'.
So tell me 'oh financial wizard that controls millions', how this is awful. /Sarcasm
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
And buying back shares is one of the most stupid things they can do, replacing fictive "loss" with real one. They would be much better off to invest that same money in increasing the quality of company (in general and working on NOT being voted worst company 3rd time in a row) and raise price that way. Of course it would take longer and require real effort and goodwill, but its obvious who this one is aimed for.
This kind of things tend to burst sooner or later (consider it a bubble) because its fictive raise, aimed short term.
So essentially, I've produced facts that 'hey the share market apparently like this company cause it made money last year' which was countered by some bizzaro 'why share buy back is bad for EA'.
So tell me 'oh financial wizard that controls millions', how this is awful. /Sarcasm
You obviously havent read what you linked.
Too bad.
Buying back shares =/= "share market likes the company"
buying back shares = fictively raising share price without any foundation (even worse because they increase their real debt because of it)
So, you think that company that has worse results that same time last year with not much indication of improving (AND getting in more debt to buy back its own shares) is something healthy to invest in long-term?
Go ahead tiger, buy hefty number of EA shares for long term prospects rofl
As an aside, share buybacks can be done for many reasons and aren't by themselves an indication of anything in particular.
It's all about the context of the buyback, and in this case EA is trying desperately to turn a corner after the CEO quitting and huge cost-cutting and downsizing, hoping that buying back cheap shares will turn market sentiment on the stock.
Unfortunately for them, ATVI released its own earnings with WoW looking shaky and other concerns going forward, so the whole sector took a hit and EA dropped heavily after its initial share price bounce, down nearly 4% yesterday.
As an aside, share buybacks can be done for many reasons and aren't by themselves an indication of anything in particular.
It's all about the context of the buyback, and in this case EA is trying desperately to turn a corner after the CEO quitting and huge cost-cutting and downsizing, hoping that buying back cheap shares will turn market sentiment on the stock.
Unfortunately for them, ATVI released its own earnings with WoW looking shaky and other concerns going forward, so the whole sector took a hit and EA dropped heavily after its initial share price bounce, down nearly 4% yesterday.
Of course its all in the context, but thats something majority of people ignore (like jpnz here).
And in EAs case context is....bad one.
As for WoW they said recently its dropped to 8,3m subs so it was expected.
But bottom line is EA has no real foundation for share price raise except speculation, it didnt perform extraodinray in last year, in fact it dropped by quite a lot. If someone thinks its a good investement, go ahead, by all means
So tell me 'oh financial wizard that controls millions', how this is awful. /Sarcasm
You obviously havent read what you linked.
Too bad.
Buying back shares =/= "share market likes the company"
buying back shares = fictively raising share price without any foundation (even worse because they increase their real debt because of it)
So, you think that company that has worse results that same time last year with not much indication of improving (AND getting in more debt to buy back its own shares) is something healthy to invest in long-term?
Go ahead tiger, buy hefty number of EA shares for long term prospects rofl
This post is factually false and its becoming really funny (and a bit sad).
Let me get this straight, you think EA produced 'worse results' this year than last year?
So tell me 'oh financial wizard that controls millions', how this is awful. /Sarcasm
You obviously havent read what you linked.
Too bad.
Buying back shares =/= "share market likes the company"
buying back shares = fictively raising share price without any foundation (even worse because they increase their real debt because of it)
So, you think that company that has worse results that same time last year with not much indication of improving (AND getting in more debt to buy back its own shares) is something healthy to invest in long-term?
Go ahead tiger, buy hefty number of EA shares for long term prospects rofl
This post is factually false and its becoming really funny (and a bit sad).
Let me get this straight, you think EA produced 'worse results' this year than last year?
Ill be 100% honest. I returned to the game as a preferred player and I was enjoying myself so much that I resubbed. Note, this is only for the story. Whether I get to 50 and do "endgame" is unlikely.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
So tell me 'oh financial wizard that controls millions', how this is awful. /Sarcasm
You obviously havent read what you linked.
Too bad.
Buying back shares =/= "share market likes the company"
buying back shares = fictively raising share price without any foundation (even worse because they increase their real debt because of it)
So, you think that company that has worse results that same time last year with not much indication of improving (AND getting in more debt to buy back its own shares) is something healthy to invest in long-term?
Go ahead tiger, buy hefty number of EA shares for long term prospects rofl
This post is factually false and its becoming really funny (and a bit sad).
Let me get this straight, you think EA produced 'worse results' this year than last year?
No, you cash in when you get most money for them, i guess its a bit much to expect you to understand that i guess.
Not exactly sure how many you'll convince on telling what these multimillionaires should do in an MMO forum but keep at it!
I'm still not sure why so many people are upset that SWTOR is a profitable MMO for EA. Since EA now has the exclusive license, I can see more EA Star Wars games, which I am looking forward to.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
No, you cash in when you get most money for them, i guess its a bit much to expect you to understand that i guess.
Not exactly sure how many you'll convince on telling what these multimillionaires should do in an MMO forum but keep at it!
I'm still not sure why so many people are upset that SWTOR is a profitable MMO for EA. Since EA now has the exclusive license, I can see more EA Star Wars games, which I am looking forward to.
Dont really care ;P
And i havent played good SW game except KOTORs, for SWTOR it was best when i stopped treating it like SW and started trating it like just another fantasy game
2nd is still 2nd... and we all know that WoW is a phenomena nothing can reproduce.
The same types of things were said about EQ until WoW came along. If some company with the talent, the money, and the foresight to stay on target came along again, then it would happen....again. The MMO market still has a lot of room to grow.
That's the thing most people don't seem to realize, EQ didn't "kill" UO, and WoW didn't "kill" EQ. Any "death" those games experienced was their own fault. Whenever a new king of MMOs came out they have only made the overall MMO market larger. They generally didn't steal away that many from the hardcore player base of already established games.
And, as I've said before, claiming second place in the MMO market is like placing second in a *contest where first place gets you $10,000, and second through tenth get you a $1 off coupon, for purchases of $20 or greater, at Panda Express. It's just pointless to be proud of winning a larger portion of the leftover scraps.
*Obviously this contest's prizes are an exaggeration for comedic effect, in actuality the numbers would be more like WoW $10, SWTOR $1, Eve $0.50. Which is still ridiculous, and why I went for comedy. Also you can't go wrong with a joke involving Panda Express.
Comments
A - profit matters. Revenue - not much.
B - They said "monthly average revenue has doubled". From what? From when? If they took worst quarter (quarter before F2P) it was not really hard to double it, because they prolly had 250k subs or so then
C - SWTOR is still sub game. Witch cash shop. And paid content updates. They even compare themselves to other sub games (and lie about it too). It just has extended free trial. And requirement for subscribers to spend >15$/month
D - No it isnt. Well, it is for failed games that triple dip their customers. Thats why i wont spend another penny on SWTOR (i dont spend on EA anyway)
So lets reacap:
revenue=up means nothing without a base point, and in the end, its profit that matters
Sub = most of their revenue
LOTRO didnt need to go F2P to survive opposed to SWTOR
Expect failed games that want to rip you off doing just that, instead fixing the game they will expact you to pay way more for way less.
Its best time to speculate with EA stocks. Get back to us in a month. See if youll be so eager then.
And too bad you didnt actually read what you linked, otherwise you wouldnt really link it rofl. High 5 for shallowness
yup..EAs sports director has chosen to cash in now too
but , for some reason, he didnt do it , when EA stocks was at a high
i smell another suit on his way to the door
and , just because he is selling his stocks, that doesnt mean that an ordinary investor
cant make a good $$ on them, right?
i mean,,its not like , he has knowledge of the Company, that we dont have
"Compared to where it was a year ago today, the stock is now trading at a higher level, regardless of the company's weak earnings results. Looking ahead, the stock's rise over the last year has already helped drive it to a level which is relatively expensive compared to the rest of its industry. We feel, however, that the other strengths this company displays justify these higher price levels"
Basically saying that in conclusion they feel EA is good investment at the moment ands is worth the high share price compared to others in the Industry.
Did you read the report?
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
TheStreet Wire
Electronic Arts Inc. Stock Upgraded (EA)
Find out if (EA) is in Cramer's Portfolio.
Editor's Note: TheStreet ratings do not represent the views of TheStreet's staff or its contributors. Ratings are established by computer based on metrics for performance (which includes growth, stock performance, efficiency and valuation) and risk (volatility and solvency). Companies with poor cash flow or high debt levels tend to earn lower ratings in our model.
Thats all i need to know.
But:
"ELECTRONIC ARTS INC's earnings per share declined by 12.5% in the most recent quarter compared to the same quarter a year ago."
"EA, with its decline in revenue, underperformed when compared the industry average of 1.4%. Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues fell by 11.6%"
"Compared to where it was a year ago today, the stock is now trading at a higher level, regardless of the company's weak earnings results"
AND THEN:
We feel, however, that the other strengths this company displays justify these higher price levels
Hmmmm, yes, lot of prospect....for a week to two
You could earn a quick buck...if you hurry...
Bottom line is:
If you believe EA's numbers, you haven't learned anything from what happened with SWTOR.
They were still claiming 1.3 million subs when subs were below 500k.
Check my sig.
I have had that sig since I claimed on this forum that SWTOR was in massive decline and EA's 1.3 million subs number was fake. It was.
This was way before the firings, before F2P. I claimed that the real sub numbers was below 500k. I was right.
SWTOR fanboys were still claiming 1.3 million subs when I was telling everyone it was below 500k. Even EA has since admitted that I was right all along.
EA are claiming "under" 500k subs now when subs are obviously below 300k.
EA's F2P numbers are based on every F2P account ever created, even the ones never played. It has no bearing on actual player numbers. Anyone with an email address is a potential F2P player.
There are around 300k total players playing SWTOR right now. Max.
Really people, learn from the past, especially with EA. Don't keep falling for the same fiddled numbers.
^^^^
Legally they will have had to have had "just under" 500k subs at the time of the quartly conference call - but this number will have included everyone who subbed or re-subbed in order to buy Makeb at a discount. Like last year's 1.7M subs which included about 850k people who were on their free month.
Legally the number of new F2P accounts have to be 1.7M as well. Which is why I suspect that the number who took out a sub to purchase Makeb is 300k. And why next month subs may be "just under 200k".
But fear not, even though EA is forecasting that it will make a loss next year if it carries on buying back its shares (funded by issuing bonds i.e. borrowings) then the share price may rise further.
we've added more than 1.7 million new players on the free model to the service
doeesnt say new free to play accounts, it says new 1,7 million added to F2P service, which may or may not include former subscribers from before F2P, since all of them are "newly added to F2P service" if they dont resub.
And buying back shares is one of the most stupid things they can do, replacing fictive "loss" with real one. They would be much better off to invest that same money in increasing the quality of company (in general and working on NOT being voted worst company 3rd time in a row) and raise price that way. Of course it would take longer and require real effort and goodwill, but its obvious who this one is aimed for.
This kind of things tend to burst sooner or later (consider it a bubble) because its fictive raise, aimed short term. This one is quite important:
"Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues fell by 11.6%"
So essentially, I've produced facts that 'hey the share market apparently like this company cause it made money last year' which was countered by some bizzaro 'why share buy back is bad for EA'.
So tell me 'oh financial wizard that controls millions', how this is awful. /Sarcasm
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You obviously havent read what you linked.
Too bad.
Buying back shares =/= "share market likes the company"
buying back shares = fictively raising share price without any foundation (even worse because they increase their real debt because of it)
So, you think that company that has worse results that same time last year with not much indication of improving (AND getting in more debt to buy back its own shares) is something healthy to invest in long-term?
Go ahead tiger, buy hefty number of EA shares for long term prospects rofl
As an aside, share buybacks can be done for many reasons and aren't by themselves an indication of anything in particular.
It's all about the context of the buyback, and in this case EA is trying desperately to turn a corner after the CEO quitting and huge cost-cutting and downsizing, hoping that buying back cheap shares will turn market sentiment on the stock.
Unfortunately for them, ATVI released its own earnings with WoW looking shaky and other concerns going forward, so the whole sector took a hit and EA dropped heavily after its initial share price bounce, down nearly 4% yesterday.
Of course its all in the context, but thats something majority of people ignore (like jpnz here).
And in EAs case context is....bad one.
As for WoW they said recently its dropped to 8,3m subs so it was expected.
But bottom line is EA has no real foundation for share price raise except speculation, it didnt perform extraodinray in last year, in fact it dropped by quite a lot. If someone thinks its a good investement, go ahead, by all means
This post is factually false and its becoming really funny (and a bit sad).
Let me get this straight, you think EA produced 'worse results' this year than last year?
Really?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=EA+Income+Statement&annual
Here's a little hint, if you see numbers in brackets like their 2011 results, it doesn't mean it is a positive number.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
RU serious? You know what date is it today?
You dont even read stuff YOU link and then when it backfires you start the nonsense. Go back and read things YOU linked here ROFL
The try to read and comprehend what you quote, it works wonders.
But we know by now you like to argue non exising/wrong/nothing you know about points.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
riccitello got booted
second golden pooh in a row
their sports director is cashing in on his stocks,,would he do that, if the future was looking good?
id believe those facts. over a stock value any day
stock values are like sub numbers,,the suits tweak them, as much as they can
Last I checked, Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) is cashing his stocks in Google.
Obviously, Google's future isn't looking good as well. ROFL!
What 'facts' do you believe now cause the 'you only cash in stock if the company isn't doing good' is just laughably wrong.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
No, you cash in when you get most money for them, i guess its a bit much to expect you to understand that i guess.
dont know about Google, ,,dont care
and youre right,,there can be other reasons for cashing in
but things definately smell fishy at EA
if you dont have the same feeling, just Invest some Money there, i wont stop you
but you cant convince me to do the same
Not exactly sure how many you'll convince on telling what these multimillionaires should do in an MMO forum but keep at it!
I'm still not sure why so many people are upset that SWTOR is a profitable MMO for EA. Since EA now has the exclusive license, I can see more EA Star Wars games, which I am looking forward to.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
milionaires dont waste time on this,,thats why , they ARE milionaires
now, EA have almost total control of the star wars IP
seeing their track record with warhammer, and the sports games, i think its bad
monopoly is a sure way to mediocrity, or even worse
most humans lose the edge, when theres no competition
and the famous KOTOR series? how many are actually playing it now?
its the same deal, as with max Payne,,people buy it, play it, and put it on the shelf,,forever
Dont really care ;P
And i havent played good SW game except KOTORs, for SWTOR it was best when i stopped treating it like SW and started trating it like just another fantasy game
The same types of things were said about EQ until WoW came along. If some company with the talent, the money, and the foresight to stay on target came along again, then it would happen....again. The MMO market still has a lot of room to grow.
That's the thing most people don't seem to realize, EQ didn't "kill" UO, and WoW didn't "kill" EQ. Any "death" those games experienced was their own fault. Whenever a new king of MMOs came out they have only made the overall MMO market larger. They generally didn't steal away that many from the hardcore player base of already established games.
And, as I've said before, claiming second place in the MMO market is like placing second in a *contest where first place gets you $10,000, and second through tenth get you a $1 off coupon, for purchases of $20 or greater, at Panda Express. It's just pointless to be proud of winning a larger portion of the leftover scraps.
*Obviously this contest's prizes are an exaggeration for comedic effect, in actuality the numbers would be more like WoW $10, SWTOR $1, Eve $0.50. Which is still ridiculous, and why I went for comedy. Also you can't go wrong with a joke involving Panda Express.
2nd place is pretty good too
even an mmo with 300k subs will have roughly 4,5 MIO $$ EVERY MONTH,,and thats "nothing"?
and a second wow is possible ,,this game actually had the potential to do the same
roughly 2.5 mio sold copies in the first month,,about 10 times wow numbers
but , of course, that would have required a game with wows qualities,,not just a fancy name
Kinda depends on what the net profit is each month. If they have a bill of 5M to pay then it's really bad.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"