Dragon Age: Inquisition

[anubite]

Maybe my last post was poor and conjumbled, and certainly, I respect Alan for defending his company - I really don't expect anything less from him. It is his place of work - he's gotta pay the bills, or maybe he likes it over there. Things can be easily far removed from one another. I doubt he has any significant say in what goes on. BioWare might be a great place to work with great people - at least, in the vaccuum of the day to day living kind of thing, where you finish Mass Effect 3 and everyone on the team goes, "Huh? Why is everyone upset?" A kind of situation where you just don't notice things because they've been building for such a long time.

 

I don't think I'm "blind", I'm pretty self-conscious about what I say and how I think. in my previous post I admitted that I don't really know how BioWare is structured internally. But I think my inability to trust Alan, or anyone from BioWare, stems from previous controversy with EA and BioWare. Gaming journos aren't wont to get private access into the dealings of EA or BioWare (for some mysterious reason, despite it being such a popular controversial topic), so there's no third party account we even have to make judgments on.

 

All I can follow is a simple logic.

 

Nobody at EA is hands-off. They've been losing money for how many years now? People have jobs and they do their jobs. EA wants BioWare to make maximum profit. Alan isn't a boss figure, so why would he be involved with EA's influence? How would he see EA's influence? As far as he's concerned, it's all coming from those above him, ideas generated in vaccuums contained in Canadian officespaces. If BioWare decides DA3 will have actiony Dark Soulsy combat, it's because the lead game designer thought it was a good idea - not because he went to that one meeting where those strangers in suits slapped down some big black folders on his desk and started talking about those focus group reports...

 

EA has invested millions of dollars in BioWare. That's the easiest way to put it - Alan, you really can't believe money doesn't talk? That EA is a hands-off publisher? There's a uniformity to games published by EA, a kind of structure that just 'doesn't happen' without direct involvement by suits. EA doesn't believe in the 'invisible hand' of game development. This perception of mine is grounded in a simple reality that can be seen in most other spheres, right now, you're sounding like the people who defend the NSA with such lines as, "What, you don't trust the government to use their powers responsibly?" No, of course I don't! It's the bloody government! It's power. EA has power. Why wouldn't they exercise it? That's human nature, not the psuedo-science they call psychology.

Edited September 21, 2013 by anubite

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

anubite, you really need an avi. I keep confusing you and volo.

[Orogun01]

anubite, you really need an avi. I keep confusing you and volo.

Just start reading the post if you brain goes WTF then its Volo

[BruceVC]

Maybe my last post was poor and conjumbled, and certainly, I respect Alan for defending his company - I really don't expect anything less from him. It is his place of work - he's gotta pay the bills, or maybe he likes it over there. Things can be easily far removed from one another. I doubt he has any significant say in what goes on. BioWare might be a great place to work with great people - at least, in the vaccuum of the day to day living kind of thing, where you finish Mass Effect 3 and everyone on the team goes, "Huh? Why is everyone upset?" A kind of situation where you just don't notice things because they've been building for such a long time.

 

I don't think I'm "blind", I'm pretty self-conscious about what I say and how I think. in my previous post I admitted that I don't really know how BioWare is structured internally. But I think my inability to trust Alan, or anyone from BioWare, stems from previous controversy with EA and BioWare. Gaming journos aren't wont to get private access into the dealings of EA or BioWare (for some mysterious reason, despite it being such a popular controversial topic), so there's no third party account we even have to make judgments on.

 

All I can follow is a simple logic.

 

Nobody at EA is hands-off. They've been losing money for how many years now? People have jobs and they do their jobs. EA wants BioWare to make maximum profit. Alan isn't a boss figure, so why would he be involved with EA's influence? How would he see EA's influence? As far as he's concerned, it's all coming from those above him, ideas generated in vaccuums contained in Canadian officespaces. If BioWare decides DA3 will have actiony Dark Soulsy combat, it's because the lead game designer thought it was a good idea - not because he went to that one meeting where those strangers in suits slapped down some big black folders on his desk and started talking about those focus group reports...

 

EA has invested millions of dollars in BioWare. That's the easiest way to put it - Alan, you really can't believe money doesn't talk? That EA is a hands-off publisher? There's a uniformity to games published by EA, a kind of structure that just 'doesn't happen' without direct involvement by suits. EA doesn't believe in the 'invisible hand' of game development. This perception of mine is grounded in a simple reality that can be seen in most other spheres, right now, you're sounding like the people who defend the NSA with such lines as, "What, you don't trust the government to use their powers responsibly?" No, of course I don't! It's the bloody government! It's power. EA has power. Why wouldn't they exercise it? That's human nature, not the psuedo-science they call psychology.

 

I may not agree with what you are saying but I can appreciate the fact you have taken the time to explain what you feel in a way that is not hysterical and is reasonable, so good post

[Monte Carlo]

Cognitive dissonance is a two-way street, I'm sure at Bioware it played it's part when they signed off DA2 as being fit for release.

[alanschu]

Nobody at EA is hands-off. They've been losing money for how many years now?

 

I think it's -1.  Maybe -2?

 

 

 

I don't think I'm "blind"

 

Who does?

 

 

 

 

All I can follow is a simple logic.

 

And there's the innate bias you have in your own deductive reasoning.  Of course you believe it's correct... because otherwise you would have deduced something else.  Why on Earth would you conclude the wrong answer, after all.

Edited September 21, 2013 by alanschu

[anubite]

Two?

 

http://ycharts.com/companies/EA/retained_earnings

 

EA has been taking on water since 2009.

[Hurlshort]

Two?

 

http://ycharts.com/companies/EA/retained_earnings

 

EA has been taking on water since 2009.

 

What that really shows is that EA has been remarkably consistent over the last few years, not posting any huge gains but also keeping the losses at a minimum.

 

EA is not in any financial trouble, they have plenty of profit coming in.  They key is controlling the overhead, which is why you see them restructuring developers so regularly.

 

I have no idea how you read that and came to the conclusion EA is taking on water.

 

edit: From an investment standpoint, they aren't good, because they seem to have hit a point where their profits are matching their costs.  But as a business they seem as stable as you can get in the video game industry.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Hurlshot

[BruceVC]

 

Two?

 

http://ycharts.com/companies/EA/retained_earnings

 

EA has been taking on water since 2009.

 

 

 

edit: From an investment standpoint, they aren't good, because they seem to have hit a point where their profits are matching their costs.  But as a business they seem as stable as you can get in the video game industry.

 

 

I hate to disagree with you Hurlshot but no company will stay in business if the profits only cover the costs. So if that's true EA will need to make some serious structural changes if they intend to have any future

[Sarex]

Any company that by the end of the fiscal year has a minus on their end report is in trouble (unless they are doing some accounting gymnastic in other cut their tax) and from what I read these last couple of months, EA is certainly not where it wants to be.

[Halaster]

All I can follow is a simple logic.

 

And there's the innate bias you have in your own deductive reasoning.  Of course you believe it's correct... because otherwise you would have deduced something else.  Why on Earth would you conclude the wrong answer, after all.

 

Thanks for that insightful wisdom Alan. So you're implying that Anubite is biased because ... he thinks he's right? That's beautifully circular logic, I must remember to use it myself in some other forums (unless you claim copyright?). I can see that this comes from the same source that gave the world a story along the lines of 'we created killbots to slaughter you in order to save you from the killbots that you would have developed yourselves'.

 

Forgive me, but I personally don't think it's "bias" to work off an assumption that when someone invests the better part of $1 billion in a company (as EA did with BioWare), they might want to have a tiny little bit of say in what that company does, strategy- wise. At the very least you get influence from the "tone at the top" that comes with even a change of mid-manager, let alone majority shareholder. And that's before we even take on board the "bias" from reading stuff BioWare employees themselves say about EA influence on their employer from places like glassdoor.com.

 

I must say Alan, I am puzzled by your eagerness to 'correct' people who are trying desperately hard to give BioWare a get out of jail free card. I hate to be captain obvious here, but those blaming EA are the naive remnants (of your formerly rabidly loyal fanbase) that would have bought DA:I on the slender hope that maybe - just maybe - it was all evil EA that led to the (at best) mediocre schlock that was DA2 and ME3, and that good old 'real' BioWare was fighting a silent rearguard action in the defence of the genre/quality/IP integrity. Extinguishing those notions closes an awful lot of doors...

Edited September 21, 2013 by Halaster

[alanschu]

I am on my phone so I cannot easily look this up. What is the net income for Ea for the last, say, 5 fiscal years? I am pretty certain it is awful for like 2009 though the trend has been improving with the last two years posting a profit.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Two?

 

http://ycharts.com/companies/EA/retained_earnings

 

EA has been taking on water since 2009.

 

 

 

edit: From an investment standpoint, they aren't good, because they seem to have hit a point where their profits are matching their costs.  But as a business they seem as stable as you can get in the video game industry.

 

 

I hate to disagree with you Hurlshot but no company will stay in business if the profits only cover the costs. So if that's true EA will need to make some serious structural changes if they intend to have any future

 

 

I agree they need to restructure, pretty much every game publisher is trying to adapt to the changing market and get back to a growth phase.  But if they are covering costs they are still stable.  EA still makes a ton of money every year and the numbers show that they are operating within that budget, rather than taking major losses every quarter.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Two?

 

http://ycharts.com/companies/EA/retained_earnings

 

EA has been taking on water since 2009.

 

 

 

edit: From an investment standpoint, they aren't good, because they seem to have hit a point where their profits are matching their costs.  But as a business they seem as stable as you can get in the video game industry.

 

 

I hate to disagree with you Hurlshot but no company will stay in business if the profits only cover the costs. So if that's true EA will need to make some serious structural changes if they intend to have any future

 

 

I agree they need to restructure, pretty much every game publisher is trying to adapt to the changing market and get back to a growth phase.  But if they are covering costs they are still stable.  EA still makes a ton of money every year and the numbers show that they are operating within that budget, rather than taking major losses every quarter.

 

 

Okay but we need to keep this simple, end of the day if the Net Profit of EA is zero that's almost as bad as running at a loss. They can't be making a ton of money and yet only covering costs? Because by its nature that comment is contradictory from a financial perspective.  I find this hard to believe so I would like a more professional assessment of  EA P&L statement

Edited September 22, 2013 by BruceVC

[licketysplit]

My concern about EA is whether or not they can create an RPG with soul, as opposed to churning one out on a conveyor belt. This is why the indie scene is gaining ground. Indie games have unique concepts, they take risks, they have soul. Most AAA releases don't. It seems EA wanted to try the annual release thing with DA2...didn't work out to well.

Edited September 22, 2013 by licketysplit

[BruceVC]

My concern about EA is whether or not they can create an RPG with soul, as opposed to churning one out on a conveyor belt. This is why the indie scene is gaining ground. Indie games have unique concepts, they take risks, they have soul. Most AAA releases don't. It seems EA wanted to try the annual release thing with DA2...didn't work out to well.

 

What do you mean when you say an RPG with a soul? Can you elaborate a little around this requirement

[alanschu]

So I'm doing some digging regarding another post, but just for reference sake, here's the situation for EA the past few years regarding net income.

 

Net income is defined as here.

TL;DR:

Operating Income + Other Income – Other Expenses = Pretax Income – Income Tax = Net Income

 

with Operation income being:

Sales – Cost of Sales = Gross Profit – Operating Expenses = Operating Income

 

 

Note, that the end of a FY is March 31, of that year.  So FY09 is March 31, 2009.  Note that these are GAAP numbers.  There's some level of debate over whether or not GAAP or non-GAAP is truly the best indicator of performance blahblahblah.  I won't claim to fully understand the difference, but I believe for the time being GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principles) is seen as the preferred measure.

 

 

FY09 -$1,088M
FY10   -$677M
FY11   -$276M
FY12     $76M

FY13     $98M

 

 

Note that JR's dismissal/stepping down comes on the heels of the company's most successful year in the last 5 years.  The important reason for this is because the expectations were higher.  Now you can (fairly) critique that EA made poor decisions on what they did with their games and so forth, but I do get the impression that the ship at least appears to be righting itself, somewhat.  I'm curious how FY14 goes.  It's certainly no longer being curbstomped like it was 5 years ago, however.  But yes, as a growth stock (as opposed to a dividend stock) the impetus will be to continue growing the equity in the company (of which profits is one of the measures of).

 

 

EDIT: Net Income from the site that anubite linked to earlier: http://ycharts.com/companies/EA/net_income_ttm

(Trailing 12 months - TTM - Meaning that the profit will be the profit made over the last 12 months for each quarter)

Edited September 22, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

So this will probably be somewhat of a wall of text.  I may break it up.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that insightful wisdom Alan. So you're implying that Anubite is biased because ... he thinks he's right? That's beautifully circular logic, I must remember to use it myself in some other forums (unless you claim copyright?). I can see that this comes from the same source that gave the world a story along the lines of 'we created killbots to slaughter you in order to save you from the killbots that you would have developed yourselves'.

 

No, I'm saying that his bias leads him to believe that he is right despite commentary otherwise.  I've actually brought this topic up on this forum in the past.  The ideas such as confirmation bias, defense mechanisms, subconscious reasoning to avoid cognitive dissonance.  And if your first thought is "well wouldn't this also apply to you?"  Yes, it indeed does.  Although I do try to make a more concerted effort to be open (and at times even embrace) cognitive dissonance (since, in retrospect, I find that's often when I'm learning something in my personal experience).  I also try to be more willing to admit that I am actually wrong when I am (I definitely was much worse in the past).

 

I think it's a very important distinction between "Allan thinks anubite is biased because anubite thinks he's right" compared to "Allan thinks that anubite is overconfident in how right he is because of his bias."  The point was never "is anubite biased?"  He's openly admitted it himself.

 

 

Our brain is great at filling in blanks.  And easy test can be done with the visual blind spot test here.  Note that when the dot is in your blind spot, your brain interpolates what must be in that field of view based on its surroundings.  So you'll incorrectly perceive it as white.  Bringing this back to cognitive deduction, the brain is great at automatically resisting feelings like cognitive dissonance.  It's part of the reasoning behind the idea that "Facts do not change a person's mind."

 

Go to the final point here for a (humorous) description and some additional links.

A quick search also propped up this article which has some ideas on why it's challenging for people, including ourselves, to change our minds.

 

Some quick summary is the idea that upon hearing facts, it tends to cause more brain activity in the emotional parts of our brain rather than our logical parts.  Perhaps we're less discerning over considering the facts of the article in terms of their merit, and more on how those facts are making us feel.  Combine this with rationalization and our brains ability to help avoid cognitive dissonance.

 

 

Note that this isn't a bad thing for humans.  As mentioned in this very thread, it's a large part of the foundation of trust.  anubite says he doesn't trust me, nor BioWare, nor EA.  That's fair.  It will also predispose his attitudes and perceptions on everything that I say regarding the company (if not elsewhere), as well as BioWare/EA's actions.  Take his most anticipated unreleased game at the moment, and change nothing about it from now until release, but put the BioWare or EA logo on the box.  Do you think this will affect his anticipation for the game?  Do you think this would actually affect his actual experience while playing the game?

 

For example, take a game.  Say, for example, the third part of a SciFi trilogy.  Take people that liked the first two games a lot.  Have them give constant updates on the game for how they feel the gameplot proceeds.  Now, lets say that that third game had an ending that those players really hated.  Ask them to examine the earlier parts of the game.  Ideally if you can avoid experimenter bias (imagine we could just delve straight into their minds while they play).  Do you think it's possible for those people to look back on earlier parts of the game and think less of them now?

 

And yes, the trust applies to me as well.  Anubite is correct that the messaging provided to me from senior leads like Laidlaw, Flynn, and Darrah could simply be polished up executive orders.  Although I would actually consider Laidlaw and Flynn actual friends, and have had plenty of "off the cuff" conversations in pubs or restaurants or what have you.  I consider Aaryn Flynn to be an exceptionally candid general manager, which I really appreciate and respect.  With that comes trust, so yes I have the same bias in that I believe that my perception of what gets communicated to me has merit, and it's certainly validated by how much I trust those guys.  If I didn't trust them, I'd probably be disinclined to believe them.  I may even be inclined to believe the opposite of what they say.

 

 

 

 

Forgive me, but I personally don't think it's "bias" to work off an assumption that when someone invests the better part of $1 billion in a company (as EA did with BioWare), they might want to have a tiny little bit of say in what that company does, strategy- wise. At the very least you get influence from the "tone at the top" that comes with even a change of mid-manager, let alone majority shareholder. And that's before we even take on board the "bias" from reading stuff BioWare employees themselves say about EA influence on their employer from places like glassdoor.com.

 

Did I actually suggest that EA was completely hands off?  If so then I definitely did speak in error.  I don't think that I did.  I did say that I dislike it when people blame EA for BioWare's schedule for DA2.  I definitely do feel that people overstate EA's influence.

 

Yes, EA makes sure that we aren't burning through money irresponsibly.  We have various gates for progression to see how the story is done, and have to validate the scope and vision for the game and deliver on milestones.  Note, however, that this still would happen even if BioWare were fully independent.  When Microsoft is funding Mass Effect, they don't just toss over a bag of money and say "see you at the release date."  There was a lot of controversy, actually, with respect to how Bethesda treated Arkane Studios in this regard and conspiracy theory that it was done to devalue the studio so that Bethesda could acquire it at a lower cost.

 

Yes, EA does have an influence on the content of the games (particularly on a high level vision).  Things like the online component (multiplayer or otherwise).  EA is why Mass Effect came out for the PC.  EA is why Dragon Age came out for the consoles.  They do this in large part through means that are not unlike a more traditional publisher-developer model: they can justify things like increased money (through marketing or for allocation for development).  There's this idea that had ME3 not included a multiplayer component, the same level of funding would have still been allocated and could have been put entirely towards the single player.  There's also this idea that BioWare did not want to put in a multiplayer component, when pretty much all of their games have had consideration for multiplayer (Baldur's Gate almost shipped with a deathmatch multiplayer mode, and Dragon Age originally planned to have a completely unique co-op multiplayer story).  I can't speak for the Mass Effect games, however.

 

 

Though despite EA technically controlling all the purse strings, it's subsidiaries are still their own business units within the structure.  EA Madrid is EA's localization center where the localization (translating among other things) gets done.  They don't ship any product, and only offer their services to EA.  EA Madrid charges BioWare (and presumably other studios) at a competitive rates.  100% of their revenue is by charging out to other EA studios, and they still need to ensure that they are running their location efficiently and effectively.  Internally, they are still expected to turn a profit, and are accountable to that.  The same goes for all of the studios.

 

 

EA had some large layoffs earlier this year.  BioWare wasn't touched by these layoffs, while the studios that struggled financially were the ones hit the hardest (things like Army of 2 and whatnot).  BioWare did have some layoffs, though that's related to the fact that we were ramping up for a 2013 release date, but then pushed the date for DAI to 2014 and keeping that level of staff ramped up for an extra year wasn't in the cards, unfortunately.  Again, this comes down to trust, however.  You can tell me that you don't believe me when I say that, just like I am putting trust in my leads when they tell me that that is the case.

 

That trust is interesting, however.  BioWare (from what I hear anyways... trust trust trust again.  Do you believe me when I say this?) has the trust of the EA executives.  So does a studio like DICE.  This trust comes from some of the decisions that we made in the past, the levels of success we have provided for the corporation as a whole; and there's a freedom that comes with trust.  In the words of former Origin employees, found here in an Escapist article, once the projects start going grossly over budget and behind schedule is when the meddling comes in.

 

There's two very interesting things I got out of that article.  First was that when EA bought Origin, it's because Origin was effectively bankrupt (The Garriott's were literally paying employees out of their own pockets).  So even if you think that every single thing that EA did with Origin after they bought it is the worst thing imaginable, there's actually no guarantee that Origin would have even continued existing.  The second is that, in the words of people no longer affiliated with the company (and including those that have been pretty jaded towards EA - i.e. Richard himself), was that EA only started paying closer attention once they noticed that Origin was burning through money.

Bringing this WAY back, no it isn't bias to feel that EA will have some influence.  What one's bias does is fill in the blanks with what level of influence they have and it will then serve to reinforce your assumptions as to what you feel must be reality, despite it being purely a logical deduction.

 

 

 

Anyways, this is a wall of text.  I still have more to say but I'll let this digest a bit.

Edited September 22, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

 

 

I must say Alan, I am puzzled by your eagerness to 'correct' people who are trying desperately hard to give BioWare a get out of jail free card. I hate to be captain obvious here, but those blaming EA are the naive remnants (of your formerly rabidly loyal fanbase) that would have bought DA:I on the slender hope that maybe - just maybe - it was all evil EA that led to the (at best) mediocre schlock that was DA2 and ME3, and that good old 'real' BioWare was fighting a silent rearguard action in the defence of the genre/quality/IP integrity. Extinguishing those notions closes an awful lot of doors...

 

Possibly for the same reason that Chris Avellone and Feargus Urquhart will accept responsibility for KOTOR 2.  On a personal level, I feel it's the right thing to do.  (Since the topic of bias has come up a lot, perhaps it's best for me to state that I respect both Chris and Feargus a lot, and as such will have an inclination to assume that they share similar traits with me that I consider positive, and as such I have made an assumption as to why they are willing to put themselves out there when so many of their fans are willing to blame Lucasarts for the game).

 

Unless you'd rather I lie because I think it might net me some extra sales.  Because honestly it seems like you would rather I do that.

 

If people are upset with the game, it's best for me to not allow myself an insulation from that criticism by simply deflecting said criticism to a different entity.  I think it's FAR worse for BioWare to delude themselves into thinking "it's simply corporate EA's fault" if the blame actually belongs to BioWare.

[Halaster]

Okay but we need to keep this simple, end of the day if the Net Profit of EA is zero that's almost as bad as running at a loss. They can't be making a ton of money and yet only covering costs? Because by its nature that comment is contradictory from a financial perspective.  I find this hard to believe so I would like a more professional assessment of  EA P&L statement

 

 

That's because someone was not very precise when saying "making a ton of money". It sounded like "making a ton of profit" whereas what was meant was that EA make a ton of cash in sales. It is of course, perfectly possible to have sales of eg $500 billion (thereby "making a ton of money") and still end up with a loss (eg if your costs are $501 billion).

[BruceVC]

 

 

FY09 -$1,088M

FY10   -$677M

FY11   -$276M

FY12     $76M

FY13     $98M

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Net Income from the site that anubite linked to earlier: http://ycharts.com/companies/EA/net_income_ttm

(Trailing 12 months - TTM - Meaning that the profit will be the profit made over the last 12 months for each quarter)

 

That's what I thought, I found it hard to be believe EA would be making no Net Profit

 

So guys this is what matters in respects to the balance sheet for EA. We can see from the information provided that EA is a profitable company. Any concern can now be put to rest...phewwww

 

You can argue it could make more profit but I think this should address the major concerns around "is Bioware going to be around in 3 years". It is as EA is still going to be around

[Halaster]

 

Unless you'd rather I lie because I think it might net me some extra sales.  Because honestly it seems like you would rather I do that.

 

If people are upset with the game, it's best for me to not allow myself an insulation from that criticism by simply deflecting said criticism to a different entity.  I think it's FAR worse for BioWare to delude themselves into thinking "it's simply corporate EA's fault" if the blame actually belongs to BioWare.

 

It's not that I'd rather you lied - quite the contrary. I have dealt with several hundred corporate acquisitions in my professional life and I'd say that in every one there has been some degree of influence by the purchaser on their target. In BioWare's case, I've seen Dan Tudge saying that EA told him to cut the manual down on DA:O. I've seen a BioWare Technical Animator on glassdoor.com say that "EA has taken over and everything is about the finances now unfortunately. Seems like much of the soul of the company as a whole has left". These suggest to me that EA is heavily present and very hands on in the development process.

 

That said, I don't personally care who was responsible for what in the last few games, as long as whoever calls the shots going forward decides to reverse the strategy seen in DA2 and ME3 in a way most on this forum would like. However too many people - eg Laidlaw to Gaider - have openly said that Origins was the last of its kind because someone (BioWare, if you say so) keeps assigning ever larger development budgets to them. And if you're going to cover a larger budget you need more sales. To get more sales you need to move out of any niches you may be in (eg tactical RPGs), and make less demands of the player from a thinking perspecitve and more demands on them from a reflexes perspecitve (aka migrate to "action"). If BioWare themselves are assigning mass-market size budgets to DA, then I hope they have a better mass market capturing strategy than they had with DA2.

[Zoraptor]

EA has a lot of cash reserves still in any case, they're in a lot more immediate threat of being bought out than failing.

 

The big problem that most other publishers have is Activision. Whereas just about everybody else is losing money they make lots of money consistently (averaging ~700m for the past four years) so everyone else looks poor in comparison. Though I don't particularly like Activision's long term prospects, personally, at the moment CoD and WoW are still making a lot of money and that is what markets like. I wouldn't be putting any investment money into gaming at the moment but if I were I'd reckon EA would be a decent bet.

[Halaster]

 

That's what I thought, I found it hard to be believe EA would be making no Net Profit

 

So guys this is what matters in respects to the balance sheet for EA. We can see from the information provided that EA is a profitable company. Any concern can now be put to rest...phewwww

 

You can argue it could make more profit but I think this should address the major concerns around "is Bioware going to be around in 3 years". It is as EA is still going to be around

 

Yeah, except that $98m on sales of $3.8 billion is a wafer thin margin and anything can happen yet given the volatile nature of the industry. And I don't think the "is BioWare going to be around in 3 years" question was about EA finances, but rather about BioWare's finances meeting EA expectations. EA has officially said they need each game to sell 5m to be profitable, and at the moment, DA:O probably (just) managed that out of all of BioWare's releases.

[BruceVC]

 

 

That's what I thought, I found it hard to be believe EA would be making no Net Profit

 

So guys this is what matters in respects to the balance sheet for EA. We can see from the information provided that EA is a profitable company. Any concern can now be put to rest...phewwww

 

You can argue it could make more profit but I think this should address the major concerns around "is Bioware going to be around in 3 years". It is as EA is still going to be around

 

Yeah, except that $98m on sales of $3.8 billion is a wafer thin margin and anything can happen yet given the volatile nature of the industry. And I don't think the "is BioWare going to be around in 3 years" question was about EA finances, but rather about BioWare's finances meeting EA expectations. EA has officially said they need each game to sell 5m to be profitable, and at the moment, DA:O probably (just) managed that out of all of BioWare's releases.

 

 

Okay that's a different and valid concern. I had no idea that was the financial expectation from EA to Bioware.  Can you provide any links that support what you are saying?