The Future of Gaming: Why EA and Take Two Have It Wrong 5 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
You want to know why Take-Two Entertainment (TTWO) and Electronic Arts (ERTS) are going to have a harder time making money? Because smaller, more nimble companies like Zynga are moving on their turf. Linked is an old TechCrunch post of Zynga--note that Bing Gordon, EA's former CEO, is involved in Zynga: Zynga Profile.
Zynga is the creator of the new hit, YoVille, which is attracting fans not only worldwide, but also from more diverse groups, like college-age women. With its YoVille game attracting over 2.5 million active users on Facebook, Zynga is perfectly positioned to capture the growth in gaming, which is shifting away from major franchise hits to social networking and games that are able to get to the market faster, like Ultizen-style games (Interview with Ultizen CEO Lan Haiwen).
Unfortunately, EA's and TTWO's major problem lies within their business model. More specifically, their revenue projections rely on having hit franchises, like Madden Football--meaning that revenue is dependent on very few sources--or on franchises that require large licensing fees. When you factor in the licensing fees a company like EA has to pay Hollywood studios (e.g. for EA's Harry Potter and Batman games), the NFL and the NBA, you begin to see that EA is almost working to make money for other companies, while bearing most of the risk and the costs of failure.
I realize my assessment may be overly pessimistic; after all, most companies would kill to have exclusive rights to the only official Batman game, which will be a guaranteed hit. At the same time, relying on one-time hits has its own problems. For instance, the EA/TTWO business model must assume a major dropoff in sales after an initial release, because almost no game creates a major source of consistent revenue three years after its release. History has shown that a new franchise, like Spore, will do very well in an initial release, but sales will dramatically decrease afterwards, absent unusual circumstances.
Thus, the larger gaming companies, despite creating blockbuster gaming hits once every few years, know they cannot rely on those hits for very long. Of course, certain games like Grand Theft Auto may be exceptions to this rule, but there is no guarantee of consistent success, and like most retailers, Take-Two probably isn't looking forward to the 2008 holiday season.
Now, compare gaming software with Microsoft's Office software, which most analysts assume will attract new users and have old users upgrading for another ten years or more (despite arguably better products on the market, like Corel's Wordperfect Suite). A skeptic might look at the difficulty in creating gaming software that will attract users five to ten years from an initial release and say that even if a gaming company establishes a major hit, "So what?" The competition and costs in continuing to establish blockbuster hits will continue to be fierce and never-ending, while also being based in part on luck and consumer fickleness.
It's now more apparent why the XBox, even with Microsoft's (MSFT) money behind it and an in-house gaming development team, has had such difficulty making a net profit. Indeed, Microsoft recently lowered the price of its console to take market share from rivals--showing that it recognizes consumers have become more cost-conscious, exposing the gaming market's reliance on discretionary consumer income (X-Box Price Cut).
If social networking games and mobile gaming are the future, then smaller, more nimble companies will be more competitive because of their limited size, which leads to lower overhead, and their focus on bringing less complex games to market, which allows games to be introduced to the public faster and with less potentially devastating financial consequences. In contrast, if EA spends two years perfecting its new Batman game and sales are flat, it will lose millions of dollars.
When I began analyzing the gaming market in light of the aforementioned issues, I came to the conclusion that the best way for EA and TTWO to continue growing would be to use their substantial cash reserves to acquire smaller companies. In other words, they should choose the route Larry Ellison took Oracle (ORCL) (Oracle's Acquisitions). Despite Oracle's proven software business model of smaller acquisitions and generating (not paying) licensing fees, most large gaming companies are trying to merge or buy out other major companies, which reveals a much different business strategy--one that may be completely out of touch with the future of gaming.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 5 comments:
I didn't like ERTS shares at 50x earnings, but the risk/reward is promising at $24....
In addition, San Andreas is now available for download via Xbox Live. Good games always sell...ask Nintendo about its back catalogue of games. Super Mario Bros. still sells...and they're many SMB type catologue games that always will sell.
While I understand the bloggers point, I would say the blogger doesn't understand "CORE" gaming. Yes, this segment of the gaming world is probably stagnant to slow growing, it is still the highest money maker per title. I love gaming, including social gaming...but my money mostly goes towards the traditional games, whether on the 360 or the Wii.
I have a Wii and 360...and I've looked a super casual net gaming and quite frankly it holds no appeal to me what-so-ever. However, I can recognize it will hold some appeal to others who would never play GTAIV. But I would argue I spend much more than those people would, even if they outnumber me 100-1...over a year, I'll outspend them.
I cannot imagine ever being sastisfied simply playing a free game on the net...that's for the non hard core crowd, which is fine and perhaps can be profitable down the road, but that doesn't take away from traditional game makers profitability. They are two separate pies...a hard core gamer used to Xbox Live, the Wii or PS3 isn't suddenly going to dumb down his entertainment choices due to a new group rediscovering simple gaming and lets not forget gaming was already larger than movies before the Wii and mass gaming...so again, two different pies.
IE- the core crowd which is large and quite ample with their money is not going to suddenly give up Madden or GTA. At the same time, someone like ERTS or TTWO should also not sit on their laurels and just depend on old fashion game sales either.
To me, the succesfull company in the future will do both, in the same way Toyota sells the Yaris as well as a huge Lexus....different customers want the same product, but tailored to different tastes. Forward looking companies will do both, as you need the revenue stream from both to truly be succesfull.
But don't get ERTS long and well documented struggles fool you...that's them.
As long as you are innovative, you can keep coming out with the same games, but innovation is the key...EA does not innovate, NTDOY does...and sure enough, what a difference in performance.