3 ms·

This is truly delusional. Your model assumes that the current model, (buy once own forever), isn't making them enough money to keep the lights on. The issue he

This is truly delusional. Your model assumes that the current model, (buy once own forever), isn't making them enough money to keep the lights on. The issue here isn't that EA is not making enough to keep the lights on. It's that EA wants to make more, and more, and more and more, and more... And is too lazy to figure out a true solution to piracy. Nobody will pay $60 to "rent" something for 2 years. You already pay $60 to own for life. If it were some insane price like $10, then yes. That makes a whole bunch of sense. It's the model that Netflix, Spotify, and the iTunes Store subscribes to. Saas will only work if it provides value at an extremely minimal price. What happened with Sim City is not a failure of the Netflix, Spotify, iTunes store model. It's just that EA, as a company, is just simply blinded with so much greed to understand the way the world works today.

jblow 14y ago
Have you looked at EA's financials? They have been losing money for years.
- davidp 14y ago
  I was curious so I went and looked: Mostly true, according to their SEC filings[1]. On page 28 of their 2012 10-K[2] we see their net earnings: 2012: $76M 2011: ($276M) 2010: ($677M) 2009: ($1088M) 2008: ($454M) So they juuuust squeaked back into profitability last year; probably mainly due to the slowly improving economy (games are luxury items and folks are only now cringing less when they spend on them). It's hard to know yet whether this ugly launch was actually a bad move for them; dollars don't lie and they appear to be paying enough to get some heavyweight execs. [1]: http://investor.ea.com/sec.cfm http://investor.ea.com/sec.cfm [2]: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/2357335259x0x590179/108820DF-CD66-41CA-9DBD-0D18119A4CD5/2012_Proxy_Statement_Annual_Report.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/2357335259x0x590...
  - harlanlewis 14y ago
    > So they juuuust squeaked back into profitability last year; probably mainly due to the slowly improving economy (games are luxury items ... The jury is still out on how the economy affects video games. It's often argued that video games perform similarly in recessions to the 'sin industries' - alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, etc. Some quick googling found plenty of articles about whether the video game industry is 'recession proof', but nothing I found unequivocal enough to cite.

jblow 14y ago

Have you looked at EA's financials? They have been losing money for years.

davidp 14y ago
I was curious so I went and looked: Mostly true, according to their SEC filings[1]. On page 28 of their 2012 10-K[2] we see their net earnings: 2012: $76M 2011: ($276M) 2010: ($677M) 2009: ($1088M) 2008: ($454M) So they juuuust squeaked back into profitability last year; probably mainly due to the slowly improving economy (games are luxury items and folks are only now cringing less when they spend on them). It's hard to know yet whether this ugly launch was actually a bad move for them; dollars don't lie and they appear to be paying enough to get some heavyweight execs. [1]: http://investor.ea.com/sec.cfm http://investor.ea.com/sec.cfm [2]: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/2357335259x0x590179/108820DF-CD66-41CA-9DBD-0D18119A4CD5/2012_Proxy_Statement_Annual_Report.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/2357335259x0x590...
- harlanlewis 14y ago
  > So they juuuust squeaked back into profitability last year; probably mainly due to the slowly improving economy (games are luxury items ... The jury is still out on how the economy affects video games. It's often argued that video games perform similarly in recessions to the 'sin industries' - alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, etc. Some quick googling found plenty of articles about whether the video game industry is 'recession proof', but nothing I found unequivocal enough to cite.