Which raises alarm bells for some (sustainability, diversity and volatility much?) but on the whole is good news. From Edge Online:
Arvind Bhatia with Stern Agee said in a Wednesday research note that he expects WoW subscriptions amounted to earnings per share of about 30 cents out of a total 60 cents, or around $400 million total, in the fiscal year ended in December.
In December, Blizzard announced that WoW currently boasts 11.5 million subscribers worldwide.
With World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Guitar Hero and other franchises, Activision Blizzard is perhaps an investor’s best bet in videogames in a poor economy. But Bhatia said he’s still concerned about the publisher’s financial guidance.
The analyst lowered his fiscal 2009 Activision estimates to $4.9 billion in revenues and earnings per share of 60 cents, down from $5.2 billion and 65 cents, respectively.
Stern Agee had previously lowered its estimates less than one month ago.
Bhatia said he believes consensus estimates for Activision Blizzard are too high at $5.2 billion in revenue and earnings per share of 69 cents. In December, Activision Blizzard reaffirmed its full year non-GAAP outlook of $4.9 billion in revenues and $1.2 billion in operating income. Stern Agee rates Activision Blizzard shares as “buy.” Shares in the publisher were up 1 cent to $9.42 in late afternoon trading.
Now, personally, I’m wary of Activision Blizzard. With lowered estimates, and a financially underperforming portfolio of strong IP (in relative terms to WoW, not in absolute terms), the long term outlook is a little too risky for me. For short term investors, however, it’s probably a pretty solid buy.
Microsoft cuts 5000 jobs in R&D, marketing, sales, finance, legal, HR, and IT. The cuts will be structured with 1,400 losses today and another 3,600 over the next 18 months. This follows today’s announcement of a 11 percent drop in fiscal second-quarter net income. Microsoft expects to chop its annual operating expenses by about $1.5 billion and slash fiscal year 2009 capital expenditures by $700 million. Hint to graduating 3L’s: Don’t look in-house at Microsoft. No future. No jobs. Die alone.
Sony will accelerate cost cutting measures. Sony’s plan: Structurally reform the company’s core electronics operations to better compete with its best in class peers in terms of speed to market and profitability. Continue margin improvement activities to lessen the impact of the weak economic profile of key markets. Accelerate the integration between products and network services by leveraging the combined strengths of Sony’s electronics and computer entertainment operations. One would hope that the final step means that SCEA and SCEE should remain somewhat unscathed. Right?
Nope! “Sony intends to accelerate these actions, and in addition, implement further initiatives which are being announced today. Through these measures, together with anticipated restructuring to be achieved within the game, music and pictures businesses, and significant cost reductions in advertising expenditures, general expenses, logistics and other expenses, Sony now anticipates that it will achieve group-wide cost reductions of 250 billion yen (compared to the current fiscal year ending March 31, 2009) in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.”
How harsh is this restructuring going to be? “In the Game segment, operating income (loss) is expected to be lower by approximately ¥30 billion. Of this, approximately ¥15 billion is due to the impact of the appreciation of the yen and approximately ¥15 billion is due to lower-than-expected sales.” Kotaku has a good graphic on Sony’s financial woes.
This is from an allegedly “recession proof” industry. Right. Tell that to the Skate 2 team.
It’s going to be difficult to write this post without mentioning Jack Thompson (twice), but according to a paper recently published by the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling entitled The school shooting/violent video game link: causal relationship or moral panic, Professor Christopher Ferguson suggests that previous studies linking video games to school shootings are inherently flawed.
From the abstract:
In the last 10 years, following the incidence of serious acts of school violence – particularly multiple homicides on school campuses – much attention has focused on the potential causal role of violent video game exposure. Some scholars have attempted to draw links between laboratory and correlational research on video game playing and school shooting incidents. This paper argues that such claims are faulty and fail to acknowledge the significant methodological and constructional divides between existing video game research and acts of serious aggression and violence. It is concluded that no significant relationship between violent video game exposure and school shooting incidents has been demonstrated in the existing scientific literature, and that data from real world violence call such a link into question.
The paper talks a fair bit about the concept of “moral panic” dating all the way back to Dungeons & Dragons and explores several reasons why the general public may be concerned with regulating video games. One argument revolves around a “straw man” argument whereby politicians and the like can take a constructive stand against moral turpitude. A concept that none of us are familiar with, I’m sure.
The conclusion according to Prof. Ferguson:
A recent editorial in the medical journal The Lancet (2008) suggested that the time may have come to move beyond research focusing on media violence, generally, as a cause of serious aggression. As presented here, the wealth of evidence, from social science research on video games, to governmental reports and legal cases, to real world data on crime, fails to establish a link between violent video games and violent crimes, including school shootings. The link has not merely been unproven; I argue that the wealth of available data simply weighs against any causal relationship.
Our conclusion: no matter how many studies back up Prof. Ferguson’s research, we’ll be hearing this argument for a while yet.
In thinking about subjects for this month’s column, we were struck with two subjects that seem obvious choices, resolutions, because of the New Year, and change, in reference to today’s historic swearing in of our next president. In reality, these are one in the same thing and are as important for us collectively as they are for us individually.
I’ve commented in the media a bunch of times recently about what the new administration’s impact on games may be, so if you’re interested in that you can find one such example here. With regard to effecting change ourselves however, this is something that we have much more control over. We must be willing to be the vehicle for the change that we want to see happen. Scratch that. Instead, I’ll defer to Mahatma Gandhi: “You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result.”
The point is: we are empowered by our ability to act. We are enabled by tools that we have readily available. And we are a passionate, vocal and opinionated people. The age of change isn’t upon us because of the start of a new year, or because we have a new president. It is because the time has come for us to step up and use our respective and collective voices.
Let us make that – getting personally…individually…involved – be our New Year’s resolution, honoring of today, or whatever else helps rationalize doing the right thing. And unlike losing weight, quitting smoking or any other standard, this is one that we can and should commit to not because it’s easy, but because it’s right and because it’s behooves us all.
Courtesy of the ECA via MTV Multiplayer. Should not be considered complete, but is a good start.
(Federal) H.R. 231 — “The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009? Sponsor(s): Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA), Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) Synopsis: Any video game rated T or above by the ESRB would also feature a label reading “WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior,” in addition to standard ESRB descriptors. Get Involved:http://action.theeca.com/t/2858/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2508
(New York) A01474 Sponsor(s): Keith Wright (D) Synopsis: A bill proposing a restriction on the sales of “certain rated video games containing a rating that reflects content of various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes or derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons” to those under the age of 18. Get Involved:http://action.theeca.com/t/2858/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2509
(Massachusetts) HB1423 Sponsor(s): Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry (D), Rep. Christine Canavan (D), Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (D) Synopsis: Seeks to restrict sales to younger consumers by classifying violent video games as harmful to minors, similar to how pornography is treated. Get Involved:http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2utilities&L=1&sid=massgov2&U=utility_contactus
The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 (HR 231), will require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to enforce mandatory warning labels on all games rated T for Teen or M for Mature by the ESRB, stating: “WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”
“The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families, and to consumers – to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products,” said Baca, who boasted in a press release that he is “a lead advocate in Congress” on media content issues. “They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility. Meanwhile research continues to show a proven link between playing violent games and increased aggression in young people. American families deserve to know the truth about these potentially dangerous products.”
Baca cites studies from the Pediatrics Journal, the University of Indiana, the University of Missouri, and Michigan State University, claiming “a neurological link between playing violent video games and aggressive behavior.”
The claim made by Baca and his proposed label has long been a subject of public contention, frequently leading to game-related legislation, most of which fails to pass or is eventually struck down.
It will be interesting to potentially see a federal law (if the bill passes) come under the scrutiny of the judiciary. I’m sure we’ll have some followups on the constitutionality of this bill and its relative chances of passage.
As per GamePolitics, a bipartisan effort to label games like cigarettes has surfaced in Washington, D.C. California Rep. Joe Baca (D) and Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf (R) have introduced a bill styled “The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009″ that would require the following warning to be prominently displayed on game packages:
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”
As both the science and the political backing on this one are shaky, it will probably go nowhere but on these politicians’ future campaign posters, but it will be interesting to watch any debate that the bill foments.
JAABlog, the blog for JAABlaw.com which is a southern Florida attorney news site that Jack Thompson likes to frequent sent him an open letter today.
Dear Jack,
We hope this letter finds you well. We do, however, have some bad news for you.
Your blogging rights are being curtailed.
Our friends, supporters, and even sworn enemies have had enough of your incessant, narcissistic diatribes.
While we are firm believers in unfettered, open source comments, everyone is sick to death of you infecting each and every post with your thoughts and legal briefs. From this point forward, you will not be allowed to hijack and frustrate the commentary.
That being said, we still believe in the First Amendment, and we believe it applies to everyone, regardless of race, creed, class, or mental stability. We also feel bad for you, since we know you have nowhere else left to post, and no blog of your own that anyone would care to read.
Accordingly, pursuant to our two (2) disclaimers, you are hereby expressly forbidden to comment anywhere on JAABLOG but on this post, and this post only (”AN OPEN LETTER TO JACK THOMPSON”). If you feel your comments are getting too numerous for your fan club to follow, simply let us know you wish to start over, and we will have the comments section cleared. In time, if you behave,
we might even let you name the post any way you wish.
If, however, you violate this rule, you will be blocked and permanently banned from publishing on JAABLOG for all eternity. Any comments that do appear will be summarily deleted.
Dear, dear Jack, we have been more than patient. Frankly, you could cause Buddah or Jesus himself to ditch you in a restaurant after the order has been placed. Still, we have faith in you. Don’t let us down.
With love and affection,
JAABLOG
Not that this will necessarily stop him. He’s been banned before at other sites, such as GamePolitics.com. I thought about it, (preemptively expecting the question,) but as of now I’m not prepared to ban Jack from this site. For one, he’s not that frequent of a visitor here, and for another, I believe in transparency and openness of forum as much as possible. I want to be clear, I’m not critical of JAABlog’s decision, because they’ve had significantly more exposure to him than we have. Comparing us to them is like comparing apples to oranges. If Jack ever gets to the point here that he was at JAABlog, I’d probably take measures to ban him too, but for the meantime, he isn’t.
