Hey cahill,

GAAP is for accountants due to rules that mere mortals like us aren't meant to understand (I own a business and I let the accountants deal with this all the time). When you recognize revenue plays a big role in how your quarters look .

If you want to understand what really sold you have to look deeper at the numbers. The Neogaf post makes a ton of sense. When Sony and Microsoft reconcile EA's portion of the revenue makes a big difference. They are likely to have different structures and that will have a direct impact on how they show up on EA's books.

To give you another example, for some of our clients we get paid within 30 days which regardless of how you do your books, it will generally stay within the quarter. But we have clients that like to do this 90 days out. That means, again depending on how you run your books, it can mean the revenue can appear in the books a full quarter or so beyond when we billed.

Update to cahill: Not sure why you are getting so upset. I'm familiar with GAAP and what it means. I'm also familiar enough to know how it generally works in real business. I'm not saying you don't...but if you want to really understand when consumers spent the dough, you need to understand how Sony/MS report/pay EA.

But it also shows, that EA makes a sh!t load more money with micro transaction on the PS3 then with Live on the 360.

Not necessarily. If the revenues for this quarter are recognizing money consumers spend in previous quarters you need to go back to those previous quarters and compare how MS/Sony are working with EA.

according to that Neogaf posting...EA nearly doubled the PS3 based revenue due to microtransactions?...and they are projected for the quarter?...that sounds even more ridiculous than this entire article...

that posting is very poorly written...

It also mentions that only the DS lacks microtransactions...but why not the PS2?...I am assuming microtransactions refer to online content that is paid for through the various outlets available to each console...but the PS2, like the DS, has no such service available (at least not anymore)...

EA must be up to something....

Another poster from eurogamer posted the same findings and it's not from neogaf, for those that seem to think they are biased....

here's what he posted and it all makes sense

These figures are wrong, read the financials. PS3 did $68m not $139m.

Bizzarely EA have decided because they don't know enough about PS3 DLC royalties they have decided to estimate what to expect and have taken all expected ESTIMATED royalties for games released in the past and in the present quarter in one hit now! (so the bulk is probably Rockband)

Its a huge fudge to make their loss for the quarter not look so bad, they did not do this for 360 as MS can give them reliable data so the revenue for DLC for MS comes in as when it is paid by gamers.

At the bottom of the quarters accounts it shows the 360 on $81m and the PS3 on $68m so they basically improved their figures by $61m by taking future revenue and only on PS3!!

http://investor.ea.com/phoe...
Edited 1 times. Most recently by GamerG at 12:54 on 30/07/2008

and that's form EA's page, such bull get's posted on here sometimes. didn't even research the article, you can tell they just liked the title....

Meresin, we'll have more than that on the PS3. EA controls Bioware now...do the math. I am sure EA has. MS can forget about anything else from Bioware being a 360 exclusive. Start with Mass Effect.

On the other hand, since the PS3 supports KB/M in game if anyone is going to get a Blizzard game (owned by EA) it will be the PS3. Blizzard stated it was a stipulation they wanted equal controls and cross platform. The PS3 is the only console that can do that so hello Starcraft II.

EA does not own blizzard.

But it wouls sure rock to get some of their games on the ps3. ;D

Also, now that you said it, I wish more games would allow the use of mouse and KB on the PS3. ):

This comment was meant for here:

Whoops, too late at night. Meant to say Activision. The point I have been making is these other publishers are going to look at the EA numbers and follow suit in backing the PS3. They are going to go where the money is and smaller yet prominent businesses that used to refuse such ventures for one reason or another - the way Blizzard did in the past - will no longer stand on the console side of the street and wave at the money floats.

some jack@sses from MS PR saying ps3 will never do better in software sales than 360!!! what a lies, just like always!!

kotaku said they didnt know why this much huge sales for ps3, and i have he answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
its because the 360 is hacked and ps3 is not!!!!! many people here in europe r buying the 360 only because its a DVD games and its hacked(modded) so every person who buys one its for the cracked games from torrents so MS does get any money except from the initial hardware sales(360) but they get only very few from software!!!

devs will and are seeing that there is much more money made in ps3 and much more power and advantages than 360!!

the bots should prepare for excuses from now when most of EA games and other third party games looks better on ps3 and have extra's

EDIT

i will bookmark this page for a reminder when ever a bot open his mouth about software sales

I'm still having trouble finding the logic in this. There's no single EA Game that has sold better on PS3 than on Xbox 360 for what I can recall (FIFA maybe? but it sold great on Xbox 360 as well) Even the Kotaku guys are confused.

On the other hand, keep in mind this should be for the period between April-June 2008. See how the Xbox 360 reached 218-196 million sales in the following months due to big American releases.

I'd love to see the breakdown of these numbers.

They are claiming it will bomb hard as it is the only tactic left. Too bad it is already a media darling and far too many have sampled it's remarkable innovation. Now it just makes them look like sad asses for attacking it.

MGS4 is the best game I have ever played. That was too big for them to do anything about. They tried with the NDA and load time bit. There is a good article by Rob Smith in the new PTOM that arrived yesterday in the mail where he talks about that entire matter.

Last year they successfully buried the second best game I have ever played and the best shooter I have seen - Uncharted. Uncharted is a game that doesn't require the addition of trophies to make me play it again and again and again. Want to see how AI should be done? Play Uncharted. Same thing with a game that shames the ridiculous camera in Ninja Gaiden - Heavenly Sword. Want to see a thousand AI in a massive battle? Want a true cinematic gaming experience?

The jackassery of the bots was some of the toughest and most diversive negative campaigning I have ever seen. All to damn a game. They can say what they want but they are just a bunch of bitter and pathetic people whose influence is not only a farce but is now becoming ineffective. They couldn't build their console on what it was so they had to resort to attacking the other guy. Well you went and pissed in the wrong yard and the big dog on the block just came off the porch and his tag says Sony.

There is a big difference between Playstation fans and 360 fans. Playstation owners are gamers first and fans second. With 360 bots it is the exact opposite. Well they had better get used to bringing up the rear. And make us all a sandwich while you are cleaning up back there.

They had also better brace themselves because their own company is going to drop kick them. As MS continues to lose the race they are going to move up their timetable for the next console. That means you get dropped like the first Xbox and you get new hardware that isn't tested for the market and isn't sufficiently developed to insure long term cutting edge applicability.

@2.4 : amen, morganfell, bubbles for you. I completely agree with you. I'm just fed up with these bitter people and their permanent spin.

Rock on morgan, rock on.

That was well said.

Madden 2008 sold vastly more on Xbox 360. Check the numbers, when it was released, the Xbox 360 accounted for 13 times the sales of the PS3 (Yes, the PS3 EA software sales multiplied by 13)

What is surprising is that the PS3 has sold so good in such an irrelevant period. Probably due to Euro 2008, but this even takes place only every 4 years.

"Be afraid Botsss... Be very afraid."

we need to make a Stephen Colbert Gif image of this statement LOLZ

These figures are wrong, read the financials. PS3 did $68m not $139m.

Bizzarely EA have decided because they don't know enough about PS3 DLC royalties they have decided to estimate what to expect and have taken all expected ESTIMATED royalties for games released in the past and in the present quarter in one hit now! (so the bulk is probably Rockband)

Its a huge fudge to make their loss for the quarter not look so bad, they did not do this for 360 as MS can give them reliable data so the revenue for DLC for MS comes in as when it is paid by gamers.

At the bottom of the quarters accounts it shows the 360 on $81m and the PS3 on $68m so they basically improved their figures by $61m by taking future revenue and only on PS3!!

http://investor.ea.com/phoe...
Edited 1 times. Most recently by GamerG at 12:54 on 30/07/2008

all you are doing is showering people with projections from sony's end. That's it. i'll paste it again with a link to ea's financials....

These figures are wrong, read the financials. PS3 did $68m not $139m.

Bizzarely EA have decided because they don't know enough about PS3 DLC royalties they have decided to estimate what to expect and have taken all expected ESTIMATED royalties for games released in the past and in the present quarter in one hit now! (so the bulk is probably Rockband)

Its a huge fudge to make their loss for the quarter not look so bad, they did not do this for 360 as MS can give them reliable data so the revenue for DLC for MS comes in as when it is paid by gamers.

At the bottom of the quarters accounts it shows the 360 on $81m and the PS3 on $68m so they basically improved their figures by $61m by taking future revenue and only on PS3!!

http://investor.ea.com/phoe...
Edited 1 times. Most recently by GamerG at 12:54 on 30/07/2008

most members in that forum are uneducated kids . They dont even know the difference between GAAP and NON-GAAP related earnings
so do u think one should even take them seriously

I did so. And still I have to assure my self that there is no XBOX mews in it. It's hard to find for me...but that wasn't your intension literarily, I assume.

None the less, I am impressed the PS3 has shiftet that ammount of sales according to EA and prior numbers of PS3 software sales.

I hope you are not including me in that comment. See my response on the previous page.

To reconcile this fairly so that it is understand when the customer paid you need to understand how MS and Sony pay EA for the microtransactions/Live-PSN game (or how they are able to estimate). When the customer pays and when EA gets the money are two very different things.

MS and Sony, based on what Neo-gaf said, do things differently ... which isnt' a surprise. Every company is different.

Also, let me be clear, I don't say this as a slight against the PS3. The PS3 has seen good growth for EA and that growth is better than the 360.

I'm familiar with what GAAP is ... I deal with it in my business.

Read my last update to the original message. The misleading part is that the PS3 is killing the 360 in sales. It did lead, by GAAP rules, for recognized revenue for the quarter.

But when the customer SPENT the money is very very different. Things will show up in different quarters depending on a variety of circumstances.

To get a more accurate picture you need to either know how Sony and MS deal with EA OR, if you cannot do that, take the last year in consideration since it tend to shore up differences in how EA works with MS/Sony. That of course isn't accurate. But as more quarters are reported you can at least start trending it.

Like I said, the part that is misleading is assuming that PS3 is killing the 360.

nice try talvish, thanks for acting like you know so much and I read your explanation and sound like you have no clue what are you talking about. Your spin making me dizzy.

Also if someone private message you, reply him back in private message, such simple task you still don't understand. There is no doubt u dunno what are you talking about.

What am I trying to spin? I personally don't care where EA gets its money from. It's good for the entire industry that more money is being spent and it is good for EA if they can see increased sales off the current-gen consoles, particularly the PS3/360, since those are the consoles I'm personally more interested in.

I'm not going to try to debate if I know more or less than other people, I don't know you or cahill, so I'm not going to make an assumption.

But I do know how numbers are reported and how numbers show up on books, I deal with every quarter myself (the accountants do the work, I sign the paperwork). And I know that you cannot look at these numbers and make assumptions that the PS3 folks are spending more on EA games than 360 customers are.

Only point that is important is understanding that when a company recognizes revenue and when customers spend the money are two different things. If you want to see if PS3 is really beating the 360, if that is important to you, simpy watch the next few quarters. The trends are much harder to debate.

Talvish...great post...I see what you are saying...

the only way to break it down though is that its simply irrelevant...in the 'generally accepted' way of reporting the earnings...EA made significantly more money from the PS3 this quarter than they did from MS...if you take it from accounting principles that are not 'generally accepted', EA made a lot of that money in a different quarter...which makes it moot imo...they made the money from the PS3...other businesses look at the GAAP circumstances more than anything (as the whole point of GAAP is to make earnings statements somewhat universal)...and that is what is significant about this news...

I only took 1 accounting class in college...so I am no expert...but whoever wrote the quote you submitted is making it sound like the PS3 number includes nearly 60 million dollars worth of 'projected income'...and if there was one thing I remembered from that class, you cannot include projections that inflate an income statement...at least not legally...

that was over 4 years ago though...maybe things have changed...