Analysts say EA Won't Be Affected By Spore's Delay

Just as news on Spore's launch date being delayed (again) burst out, people started asking questions on whether Electronic Arts faces a big loss. It is one of the company's most popular and anticipated games after all. Up on Gamasutra, Wedbush's Michael Pachter and Lazard's Colin Sebastian are on the topic, contradicting such happenings. They see EA's numbers just fine, as Crysis, Rock Band, Hellgate and Mercenaries will make up for the loss.

"The company's guidance for FY:08 is actually quite remarkable," said Pachter, "insofar as it incorporates a shift of the highly anticipated Spore out of the year. This is significant, as we had expected Spore to contribute as much as $200 million in revenues at an 80% gross margin."

He continues: "Over the next two years, we expect to see dramatic earnings growth for EA...while many investors may remain skeptical about the company's resolve, and question whether it has the discipline to align its cost structure with revenues, we think that the company's Q4 results and FY:08 revenue guidance demonstrate the company is well positioned to grow."

OK, all the stuff about other games seems reasonable thinking (no need for an analyst's approach here), but they still didn't answer the question. Is EA going to lose? They're trying to make it sound like nothing has even happened and that EA won't suffer at all. OK, maybe the company won't exactly go bankrupt because of Spore's delay, but what happens to the money Spore would have made, had it launched earlier? That's right: lost!