You can rest assured MSFT taking a closer look at SEGA after EA pulled this move or maybe EA pulled the move becaue MSFT was buying SEGA. EA has a lot of nerve. They blew their online strategy and now they want MSFT to bend over for them. MSFT should try and screw em.
I think the answer is much simpler than that. In my opinion the market is waiting to see what the 1st Q of FY2004 looks like. If it looks good and backs up the projection that EA made of FY2004 income up 43-50% over FY2003 then I think we'll see the move up. Until then i'd peg ERTS in the $59.50-$65.00 range. That's my explaination anywa ;)
Look i wasn't negative on EA potential to appreciate when it was in the fifties. But now that it is 61, u longs need to explain why this stock has gone nowhere since your "blowout" quarter. Apparently there are some people out there that A) don't feel EA can produce the 2nd half sales to match last year or B) Don't like the strategy concerning it's online model,that's EA.com included. Here they are taking charges related to EA.com where they had total control, and now they are continuing this war with MSFT when it's obvious Xlive is growing in popularity. Longs explain to me what's the point??? EA's entire strategy is predicated on Sony never adopting MSFT online model. If sony offers SONY LIVE for PS3, then what will EA do? U guys underestimating MSFT is a big mistake and alienating the xbox audience is an even bigger mistake. Msft is the clear number 2 with very WEAK support from EA and the Japanese publishers. What does that tell u? EA is the only publisher predicting 20% industry growth and they better hope PS2 price cuts happen in May. Which again is the folly of making PS2 too powerful. Longs please explain what u see in EA's lineup and strategy to explain why u feel it's going to 75. What percentage are u looking for? Even atvi went 30% since April 15th? How are u guys making any money here?
there is a building negative sentiment towards ea by xbox players. people are swearing off ea for their refusal to put their games on live. im not saying they're right but wouldnt you be? if you had live, and you had all these ea games and you couldnt play any of them on live; would that p*ss you off? wouldnt you just buy sega sports games or microsoft's games becuase you want to utilize the xbox live service you just bought? i kinda think ea's position is correct but i dont think you want to mess with msft. they'll mess you up one way or another.
How so? Don't just say i'm wrong, show me why you think so. However, this is the percentage of revenue for each platform. PC was like 25% and other odds and ends make up th rest. You can read reports too, go try it.
not having the games on live really does introduce the other sports games to players. i would never have played nfl 2k3 if it wasnt on live. however, i think msft should give something but if they give to ea then they have to give to everyone and then what's the point of running your own server. i think people buy live for the sake of playing ALL the online games without any online fee. having ea there would be nicer but there are still alot of other online games to play. i think it will hurt ea more in the long run but there really isnt any competitive sports publisher that will make ea put their games online.
EA is on the ship, to the benefit of EA and MS. This has helped MS more than EA as evidenced by the percentage of revenue EA derives from Xbox. It's time for MS to compromise in order to get EA on LIVE. MS is the one who needs EA on LIVE, not the other way around.
You're absolutely correct kkwon. I've said it before, MS's muscle in the PC O.S. market doesn't translate to muscle in the console business, and it never will *unless* they become a big player in the console market. They can't leverage any cash or software here in a meaningfull way, just wish some folks would wake up to this fact.
Whatever happens you can't blame EA for not trying this. It all comes down to the one quote from the article:
"They collect all the money; they keep all the money."
Smaller publishers are willing to go with this because for them the added game sales is a worthwhile tradeoff for letting M$ leach profits from their games.
EA already has the sales locked up. They don't need to let M$ piggyback their games and leach profits from them. Especially seeing how M$ is positioning itself as a competitor. EA would be insane to create games and let another game developer generate profits from them.