EA Reports PS3 Performance Matched Xbox 360 at End of 2010

[Logan Westbrook]

EA Reports PS3 Performance Matched Xbox 360 at End of 2010

A rise in PS3 sales, mixed with a drop for the 360, put the two consoles at roughly the same level.

The final quarter of 2010 was something of a landmark for EA, at least in terms of revenue. It marked the first time ever that the PS3 made EA as much money as the Xbox 360. Both consoles contributed 27% of the publishers overall revenue, representing a dramatic year-on-year increase for the PS3.

The PS3 was one of the few platforms to experience any growth over the period. Net revenue for the console rose by 19% compared to the same period in 2009, reaching $282 million. By contrast, Xbox 360 revenues fell by almost the same percentage to $285 million, putting the two consoles on a roughly even footing. Unfortunately for EA, revenues for the Wii, DS, PSP and PS2 also fell, which when totalled up, resulted in a loss for the quarter of more than $300 million [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107468-EA-Lost-More-Money-In-Three-Months-Than-Youll-Ever-Make].

Obviously, this is mixed news for EA. Ordinarily, such an impressive level of growth for the PS3 would be cause for celebration, but the losses elsewhere must make the news somewhat bittersweet. Hopefully, EA will be able to make back some of this lost revenue in 2011.

Source: MCV [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/42822/PS3-now-on-parity-with-Xbox-360-for-EA]


Permalink

 

[vxicepickxv]

A publisher without money is a very bad thing. You can't hire anyone if you can't pay them. I'm not sure I like where this is heading.

 

[Toastngravy]

Random guess that it had to do with kinect being released at the time and well, hence the 360 losses on their end. Kinect > EA Games most likely. Although that doesn't entirely explain it I can't quite put it past that being a factor in any company losing a few bucks due to families spending on the Kinect during the final quarter.

Eh, I'm just crazy.

 

[Danpascooch]

Obviously the extra PS3 revenue for EA was mostly Mass Effect 2

Combine that with the fact they didn't release any heavy hitters at years end for 360 and it's hardly surprising.

 

[Woem]

I contributed to the rise, having bought a PS3 in December 2010

 

[Danpascooch]

Obviously the extra PS3 revenue for EA was mostly Mass Effect 2

Combine that with the fact they didn't release any heavy hitters at years end for 360 and it's hardly surprising.

You're forgetting Move & Kinect....Considering Kinect was more successful than Move, well hey, shows people may be getting tired of the 5 year old console.

This is not PS3 sales figures vs 360 sales figures globally, it's just for games made by EA.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think EA has released a major Move OR Kinect game yet, making that fact irrelevant.

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

more games made for ps3...more marketing for ps3 games by ea...hmmmm

 

[Soxafloppin]

Glad to hear. Well done Sony!

 

[Debatra]

Performance matched the 360?

...Does that include the 54.2% failure rate?

 

[Danpascooch]

Obviously the extra PS3 revenue for EA was mostly Mass Effect 2

Combine that with the fact they didn't release any heavy hitters at years end for 360 and it's hardly surprising.

You're forgetting Move & Kinect....Considering Kinect was more successful than Move, well hey, shows people may be getting tired of the 5 year old console.

This is not PS3 sales figures vs 360 sales figures globally, it's just for games made by EA.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think EA has released a major Move OR Kinect game yet, making that fact irrelevant.

But think about the fact that both products were meant to help sell the systems. Kinect sells -> 360 sells -> games sell regardless of motion control. Yes they should be biased but may not be exclusive motion control games.
Plus EA did have Harry Potter and EA Sports Active out for Kinect.

These are just final quarter sales, even if that indirect relationship you mentioned made a difference, think about this: Any game almost a year old is probably going to be bought used because new copies stopped being made.

It becomes a question of what heavily influenced EA profits for both consoles at year end, the obvious question then becomes, what did EA release for each console come year end?

As far as console exclusive major releases near the end of 2010 here are the major releases:

Xbox 360: Nothing

PS3: Mass Effect 2 (possibly EA's most successful franchise right now)

Is this any surprise? You can't use last quarter sales of one company's games to judge the health of consoles, especially when their year end major releases only covered one console.

Also, EA sports active and Harry Potter are hardly a "Mass Effect 2"

Keep in mind, this is JUST THE LAST FOURTH OF ONE YEAR

 

[UberNoodle]

EA announces that it loves to troll message boards.

 

[UberNoodle]

Performance matched the 360?

...Does that include the 54.2% failure rate?

My first two Xbox 360s failed, and that's why I no longer own one. But Sony failed to entice me to even purchase a Ps3. I'm without a 'hardcore' console now, but this generation has marked the end of my involvement with them. Too much DRM and anti-consumer garbage going on now. Publishers' tickets to play scheme should leave a bitter taste in every consumer's mouth, but for some reason, very few seem to care. Somehow, second hand buyers and future collectors, are being all but criminalised. Why? So they can re-sell those games to use again as 'classics' in the future. I've not bought a single classic on XBL or VC simply because I already own all the classics I desire, and I can still play them, in full and without limitation or dependence on servers.

 

[Moriarty70]

So let's see, I can go all Lennon and "Give Peace a Chance" or I can stand in one place and scream at the top of my lungs about how my console is the best and "nothing will ever beat the NES, shut up I don't care what you say you're wrong."

Nah, I'm gonna take the secret third option and realize I made an informed choice about what's best for me and quitely smile about the fact that I'm in Canada with one some of the greatest development houses currently.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Performance matched the 360?

...Does that include the 54.2% failure rate?

Did they fix that?
I got my bro-in-law a jasper360 and it hasn't bricked yet. I heard the slims are supposed to be rrod free, or is that BS?
I hope not, he loves that thing.

All MS needs to do to recoup (provided that they really did fix the rrod problem) is to not charge for on-line. If they did that, I would not only get a 360 but it would probably become my primary console. I'm starting to get sick of waiting for the ps3 to hit it's potential.

 

[LordSphinx]

Performance matched the 360?

...Does that include the 54.2% failure rate?

I think you missed the point. These numbers are based on sales of EA games on these platforms. Besides, we're not in 2007 anymore, these RRoD references are getting old. It's as if I was still screaming on every gaming boards that the PS3 has no games on it. Both systems were improved with time. PS3 got games, and Xbox 360 is more reliable. In fact, the Jasper processor that was out in 2006 or 2007 marked a huge improvement in reliability, and since the 60gb premium model, RRoD is almost unheard of in NEW consoles (refurbished are still a pile of crap though).

OT: I think that EA has been concentrating a lot of their efforts on the PS3 lately, and their marketing seems more oriented on the "uber hardcore" userbase of the PS3 compared to the more mixed userbase on X360. The "Mass Effect 2 will be better on PS3" move wasn't a nice move for Mass Effect fans, but it certainly bought them some loyalty from Sony fans. Besides, Activision's profit are much higher on the X360 than on the PS3, so maybe EA wants to get a bigger market share on the console where direct competition won't be as thorough.

This is only mere speculation though, and I guess that only the higher ups at EA really know what's going on.