EA Reports PS3 Performance Matched Xbox 360 at End of 2010
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Yeah. They do have some decent games, but they're a huge company. EA puts out a TON of games. Spends a TON of cash developing them, and then a large chunk of them suck ass and they lose over 300 million bucks. They need to cut the crap out, and focus on making less titles but very good ones. And maybe a new IP or two.Marq said:
Edit: I need to pay more attention, haha.
This is a good example of the media spinning news in a way. I am not gonna feel sorry for EA. On the other hand, it's too bad they didn't make what they thought they would. That is what happens when you fail to meet the needs of your target audience/ spend too much on frivolous projects.
Edit2: As an example to how ridiculous the market can be, EA's stock is up 2.46 from closing yesterday. They will do just fine, don't worry about that.
No, I would have to say that any positive news is just that. Do they wish they made as much as they projected, yes they do. Did they still make out like a bandit this year? Yes they did. Revenues are down, but that doesn't mean they didn't make money, just less money.Logan Westbrook said:
This is a good example of the media spinning news in a way. I am not gonna feel sorry for EA. On the other hand, it's too bad they didn't make what they thought they would. That is what happens when you fail to meet the needs of your target audience/ spend too much on frivolous projects.
Edit2: As an example to how ridiculous the market can be, EA's stock is up 2.46 from closing yesterday. They will do just fine, don't worry about that.
I think you answered your own question around the word "milk"...Straying Bullet said:
OT, I will never understand fanboys. You prefer 360 over PS3 (or the other way around)? Good for you. It doesn't mean the other console is a piece of sh*t or that everyone who likes it is retarded. Enjoying something doesn't mean you have to take it personally when someone says they don't. It just shows insecurity.
Just to put fanboyism in perspective by exaggerating it, wouldn't it be stupid if I said I like to eat ice cream with strawberry syrup and then called everyone who prefers chocolate syrup an idiot? It's the same principle...
How would Mass Effect 2 count? It came out this month. I'm pretty sure that would count as a 1st quarter 2011 game. Otherwise they'd have to throw Dead SPace 2 in there.danpascooch said:
They would take such a loss on not charging online though. They should do that for their next console but not this one. The sales of the 360 are slowing down so not charging online would cause a loss for MS anyways. You geta free year of LIVE when you buy a 360, after that MS would be hit with a massive loss.GonzoGamer said:
I don't know about that. How can we be sure?AzrealMaximillion said:
I know a lot of people who would have a 360 right now if they didn't charge for online. Myself included.
I think people underestimate how much of a deterrent that is.
I don't care, I still prefer my Xbox over my PS3. Granted I did buy mine last weekend, I will still probably just use it for exclusives that come out. I think the increase of sales for the PS3 comes from the fact that the last couple years the price of a new console was buttfuckingly high, so most parents and grandparents bought the Wii and Xbox for their kids/grandkids because they were cheaper. Now that most people have an Xbox, they are getting PS3s now since the price is more reasonable and to many people is their only real option for a new console. I know my main deterrent for buying a PS3 was it's $600 price compared to the $300 Xbox. Now that they're both $300 for the best model and I already have an Xbox, it makes sense to get it as a late holiday gift.
The thing is MS makes $60 a year from millions of people who want to play online. factor in that they don't make that much of a profit from the sale of the console itself and you can pretty much guess that MS would show a substantial loss from just knocking off online charges. Even if they stopped charging for online now, it's 5 year too late. It's not like them announcing that they will stop charging for online would instantly generate millions of 360s sold. Yes there is a lot of people, (myself included) who won't buy a 360 because they charge for online. There are even more people though, who have the mentality that because they are paying for online they are getting better service. They're not, but there are a lot of people who think like that. Main reason I don't have a 360 is because I just find the PS3s exclusives to have more variety as opposed to being mostly shooters and online based games.GonzoGamer said:
Really, you mean XBL is just as bad as PSN? I would have a serious problem then: if I had to pay for online AND have a bunch of temperamental online games and even a couple that don't work at all online.AzrealMaximillion said:
If they aren't making any profit off console sales at this point then, you're right, it wouldn't make sense. But I do think they would move a lot of units if they dropped the charge. They could still have a "plus" thing like psn and I'm sure they would have plenty of subscribers to that... even if it didn't offer much.
Even with the online charge, the rrod is the top reason I didn't get a 360 when I was shopping around. I don't really like the "exclusives" for either platform very much but the 360 firmware seems to get much better support.
The ps3 was trying to do everything (and it probably could if they didn't sandbag it for fear of hackers) but it does it all very poorly and half-assed.
But it doesn't melt itself so I guess I'm happy.
Oh, you're one of those guys that believes that the LIVE is better than PSN. That's a misconception. It's not Sony who runs servers for the online games that come on their console. It's the developers. This is shown by Treyarch talking about how they could pull the plug on their PSN server a month ago. It's the developers that work the online servers.GonzoGamer said:
But yeah, the RROD was a big reason was that I didn't get a 360 as well. That and firsthand seeing almost all of my friends who bought a 360 go through at least 2 of them due to hardware problems. Plus I don't like the concept of paying to use a whole bunch of feature the PS3 offers for free.
More like hoping. I would hope that if your paying for something others get for free, it would be at least a little better. What I do think is better is that when MS implements something on the 360, it works. Sony does things all half assed. For example one feature that I really like on the 360 is the custom soundtrack option that works with every title. Sony has this feature too but the dev has to write it into the game rather than it just being a feature of the machine so there?s only a few games with the feature and there are some games that really need it. And while sony has some features the 360 doesn?t, they tend to be pretty half assed too. The web browser is on and off too. While the ?optimized? youtube viewer doesn?t really bother me that much some videos still wont play. The 360 just seems more consistent even if that includes consistently breaking it includes being consistent with features too.AzrealMaximillion said:
I just wish that some company this generation could?ve come out with a machine that doesn?t melt AND gets decent support for all its features. Considering how much we paid for our ps3s/360s, I don?t think it should be out of the question.