This is just an interesting read on the publisher sales revenues recently announced and how publishers defer sales revenue in their calculations.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2008/08/04/pachter-on-apparent-ps3-dominance-among-third-parties.aspx

Excerpt:

In recent earnings reports like EA's and Ubisoft's, a breakdown of revenue by platform shows that PS3 is outstripping 360 and Wii. How do you explain the discrepancy between the installed base advantage that Xbox 360 and Wii have over PS3 and the revenue superiority that the PS3 is demonstrating for EA and Ubisoft?

Two things are at work. First, the way deferred revenue works: EA recognizes revenue on Xbox 360 over six months following the sale, but does NOT do so for PS3. So sales of Xbox 360 games during the last two quarters (Battlefield: Bad Company and Army of Two) are rolling through till December, while sales of PS3 games are booked when sold. Second, some of EA's sales are skewed in Europe, where UEFA Euro 2008 and Battlefield probably sold a little better on PS3, and with Rock Band launching in Europe this year (also skewed PS3). Ubisoft was because of Haze, which was a PS3 exclusive.
 
I don't think a single quarter represents a trend. EA won't be that way when Madden shows up and when the deferral starts to lap itself.

Thats very interesting.

It was something I was wondering about. I figured it was because the Xbox 360 had more high quality games from first party and third party publishers outside of the huge ones.

Maybe a combination of both?

God I knew starcraft was going to mess this one up. I was just going to let this thread float off of the front page and die.

There are so many stupid comments above like "Second, some of EA's sales are skewed in Europe, where UEFA Euro 2008 and Battlefield probably sold a little better on PS3, and with Rock Band launching in Europe this year (also skewed PS3). Ubisoft was because of Haze, which was a PS3 exclusive."

So what... It isn't suppose to count because it sold better on the Ps3? Okay guys, the wii is in last place because their sales don't count because it's sold better than Ps3 and 360.

Also isn't rockband out just for the 360 right now in Europe? And didn't it sell better on the 360 in the states?

Also HAZE? Are you serious? HAZE? That's an excuse for higher revenue? A game that sold less than Lair...

Ignoring what is largely drivel, I'll just point out that according to VGC Haze has sold more than Lair, and Haze is still selling more than Lair...........

Lair doesn't have European numbers in.

Also I didn't respond to his first point because I don't know but that just sounds weird to me. Why would the same business report their same product differently?

As part of the PAL region, I like to think we are smart enough to have avoided purchasing a single copy of that horrible game.  In any case, you're original point seemed to be that Haze's revenue sales were irrelevant.

Over $25 million in revenue (based on a $70 per copy approximation accounting for Europe's higher prices) that is made on one console whilst a game is unavailable on another console is nothing to sniff at.

Pachter may have a reputation for making some less than stellar predictions, but he works for a very presitgious analyst group and I have no reason to doubt that he would properly interpret financial reports.

 Didn't say he didn't know how to read financial reports I just said why the fuck would a company not include sales for six months for some of their product and record it immediatly for the same product/

 Sorry, but now that you say Pachter made this I just can't bring myself to believe it.