Hello everyone! I just wanted to stop in here to clarify somethings about the panel:
1. Those who attend will absolutely be able to share what they learn after the panel is over.
2. There are two portions for this panel. The first is hosted by myself and is about what goes into deciding what influencers we work with / how content creators can start building relationships with us. The second is hosted by Lyndsay and Rachel and will be giving some insight into how far we've come with The Sims 4 since launch, explaining the addition of Game Packs and what they have to offer, and what exactly goes into development for content on The Sims 4. 3. The Q&A will be focusing solely on the above items that we discuss. We are not talking about future content, we are not making any announcements about content, and we aren't giving hints to anything.
4. We are taking this opportunity to grow stronger relationships with our international community who sometimes feel left out of things since our North American community tends to get more opportunities for things since our studio is based here.
I hope that helps clear things up
In reply to the bolded statement:
@SimGuruDrake don't worry we will not ask about future content, because we don't think there will be any, at least an interesting one.
We will just wait for your announcement of shutting down the sims 4 and the sims franchise as a whole. That is the only news me and at least some other players think we are going to hear from EA officially.
Oh gawd I hope not. .......... I really, really want a Sims (2+3=) 5.
2. There are two portions for this panel. The first is hosted by myself and is about what goes into deciding what influencers we work with / how content creators can start building relationships with us.
The second is hosted by Lyndsay and Rachel and will be giving some insight into how far we've come with The Sims 4 since launch, explaining the addition of Game Packs and what they have to offer, and what exactly goes into development for content on The Sims.
4. The Q&A will be focusing solely on the above items that we discuss. We are not talking about future content, we are not making any announcements about content, and we aren't giving hints to anything.
Quelle Surprise! So sad and not consumer friendly. This is why Sims 4 is headed for the abyss.
6. We are taking this opportunity to grow stronger relationships with our international community who sometimes feel left out of things since our North American community tends to get more opportunities for things since our studio is based here.
Believe me, the North American community feels very ignored and left out at this current time.
Don't blame USA. THIS: " law in America that says free content can only be announced in the quarter it's going to be released" on America. Believe me I have researched this high and low and find no such law. I honestly have no idea where they got that to be a thing as it was not the case previously in earlier The Sims series games and also do not appear to be the case in other USA made games either at other companies. I would love to see this law in the books.... Maybe it is an inhouse Maxis "rule" as I certainly cannot find it - Here is the question I used in my research -
Legal Notices. PC and video game Is there any present disclosure law in North America that restricts free content (DLC) from only being announced outside of the fiscal quarter that its going to be released?
Apparently our nations best research programs cannot find an answer applicable to my question in any law books in the USA - so must be an EA rule of some kind as is not apparently on the law books.
I've linked this on twitter before for others who were curious, perhaps you'll find it elucidating. While it's from 2009, it should give a user-friendly guide to accounting practices and laws related to software revenue recognition.
I've linked this on twitter before for others who were curious, perhaps you'll find it elucidating. While it's from 2009, it should give a user-friendly guide to accounting practices and laws related to software revenue recognition.
Thank you, this looks to be exactly what many of us have been inquiring about for some time now.
Just from glancing at the home page of the site, I noticed this tidbit:
Companies that generate revenue and apply US GAAP or IFRS are currently adapting to a new five-step model to recognize revenue from customer contracts. The change resulted from newly converged standards released by the FASB and IASB in 2014, which replace nearly all existing US GAAP and IFRS guidance. Significant management judgment on accounting for revenue recognition will now be required, and the changes will have pervasive impacts on people, policies, processes and systems.
The new revenue recognition standard takes effect for most companies in 2018, but the time to act is now. For companies choosing the retrospective option for adopting the new standard, the transition period has already begun. Companies are finding that circumstances such as tiered pricing, marketing offers (including volume discounts), contract modifications and a host of other potential contract terms are creating issues that require careful consideration under the new standards.
Let me see if I'm getting this right. These new standards were adopted by the FASB and ISAB two years ago, but the standards don't really take effect until 2018. EA, and by extension Maxis have already transitioned into the adoption of these standards two years ahead of the deadline. And the reason why some of us might not notice these changes within other games we play is because their respective companies have not adopted the new standards yet. Am I along the right track?
Don't blame USA. THIS: " law in America that says free content can only be announced in the quarter it's going to be released" on America. Believe me I have researched this high and low and find no such law. I honestly have no idea where they got that to be a thing as it was not the case previously in earlier The Sims series games and also do not appear to be the case in other USA made games either at other companies. I would love to see this law in the books.... Maybe it is an inhouse Maxis "rule" as I certainly cannot find it - Here is the question I used in my research -
Legal Notices. PC and video game Is there any present disclosure law in North America that restricts free content (DLC) from only being announced outside of the fiscal quarter that its going to be released?
Apparently our nations best research programs cannot find an answer applicable to my question in any law books in the USA - so must be an EA rule of some kind as is not apparently on the law books.
I've linked this on twitter before for others who were curious, perhaps you'll find it elucidating. While it's from 2009, it should give a user-friendly guide to accounting practices and laws related to software revenue recognition.
Honestly though I truly believe given the rough start of releasing when you 'ran out of time' the onus was on your company to communicate that you were under these rules before we bought. In those blogs. Because if I'd known that the communication would be shut down for 'base' content and we would spend literally years waiting for 'potential' to turn into reality under a cloud of silence and uncertainty I know I wouldn't have bought until I saw your implementation in game. I feel that doing so would have avoided a lot of damage to trust. In addition I do find it sad that you waited until quite a long time post release to even mention it. We've been discussing EA/Maxis silence since barely months after release. It would've been useful for you to have briefed us all then.
Oh I went back to check. Yep we were discussing it in September 2014 and @SimGuruLyndsay participated there too. So it would've been a perfect time to brief the customers feeling that way almost two years ago.
Oh I went back to check. Yep we were discussing it in September 2014 and @SimGuruLyndsay participated there too. So it would've been a perfect time to brief the customers feeling that way almost two years ago.
Yep, this is another one of those major things that impacts consumers that were not communicated well, if at all. Between this, culling, toddlers, relationship decay, etc., it's hard to see Maxis as being "transparent" when there are several cases that show otherwise.
For this Q&A to have any credibility at all, the toddlers question must be asked and responded to. This is the #! question players have asked for 2 years and MUST be asked at the very least. If there isn't a question dealing with toddlers, we'll all know this Q&A was set up by EA and is of no interest to any of us.
But why ask a question that you already know the answer to ? They won't talk about it as it's future content so the answer is: We can't talk about that.
BUT if we keep asking, they WILL know we won't give up nor forget. Eventually, they will be "forced" to come out with a response.
Seriously you are crossing the ocean to strengthen relationships with fans from other communities, especially given that the Gamescom is an event that you are present almost every year? And to talk with fans about "how far you went with The Sims 4?" My god.
So essentially what they will be discussing is of no particular interest to me. I have no real interest in what simgurudrake will be discussing, and even a lesser interest in how far the game has come since the content that has been added is obvious and does not really need to be further discussed.
Couldn't have said it better. You took the words right out of my mouth
Sorry but none the documents I've read including the one posted by SimGuru Graham prohibit EA/Maxis from talking about their planned future content beyond the current quarter.
Communication of product roadmap to customer
Fact Set:
Vendor A enters into a contract with Customer B to provide software product X. The transaction does not
include the right to receive future when-and-if available updates/upgrades. As part of its sales and
marketing efforts, Vendor A also communicates its product development roadmap to Customer B. Note
that at the time of sale to Customer B, neither Vendor A nor Customer B anticipates any
updates/upgrades related to the software product purchased by Customer B in the near future.
Question:
Does the discussion of the product development roadmap create a specified upgrade right?
Answer:
No. Although the discussion of the product development roadmap may have influenced Customer B's
decision to purchase Vendor A's software, since it did not purchase the right to receive future when-and-if
available updates/upgrades, the sharing of the product development roadmap would not give Customer B
an expectation of a deliverable. In other words, in the event Vendor A releases any updates/upgrades to
software X, Customer B would make an independent buying decision whether to purchase the updated
product.
Observation:
On the other hand, if the customer had purchased the right to receive when-and-if available
updates/upgrades, the inclusion of the product roadmap may result in the creation of a deliverable
because Customer B would be entitled to receive all future updates/upgrades. The product roadmap may
create a specified upgrade right. Determining whether a specified upgrade right has been created is a
matter of judgment. Consider the following indicators:
• Was the product roadmap customized for the customer? Customization is an indicator that the
vendor has committed to deliver a specified upgrade.
• Does the product roadmap contain a high degree of specificity, including features, functionality
and the timing of the release, such that it is reasonably likely to have created an expectation by
the customer that the customer will receive a specific upgrade/enhancement? Judgment is
required to determine to what extent specificity may indicate existence of a deliverable.
• Are the items on the product roadmap essential to the functionality of other deliverables in the
arrangement? Interdependence may indicate a specified upgrade, or may affect the vendor's
assessment of the delivery criterion in SOP 97-2.
• Does the arrangement contain explicit language stating that the items on the product roadmap
are truly when-and-if available, and the customer will have to purchase the items separately in the
future? Consideration should be given to whether the vendor's verbal communications are
consistent with the written limitations.
• Is the product roadmap generally made available to new and existing customers via the website,
or other marketing material? A roadmap that is generally available to non-customers and
customers alike would not be a deliverable specific to the arrangement with the customer, and
therefore should not affect the allocation of revenues.
The answers to all the questions of the second set is NO. Therefore EA does not have to change its allocation of revenues for sharing their roadmap for Sims 4.
I've discussed this before, but the only time discussing future content would matter is if EA decided to have preorders on its new DLC and discussed the content of the DLC. That revenue from the pre-orders cannot be booked until the DLC is actually released. Since there are no pre-orders of any new SP, GP, or EP, there is no revenue that has to be delayed.
Furthermore, as Writin_Reg said, no other gaming company seems to follow EA's own self-imposed rules. Bethesda announced the roadmap for their DLCs more than a half-year before the final one, Nuka-World, which hasn't even been released yet. But we knew about Nuka-World months ago. Zenimax also shared their roadmap for Elder Scrolls Online that included more than a year's worth of new content, some of which is just finally being released as I type. As a final example, Microsoft announced Windows 10 far before the quarter Windows 10 was actually released. No other company seems to do what EA does.
Oh I went back to check. Yep we were discussing it in September 2014 and @SimGuruLyndsay participated there too. So it would've been a perfect time to brief the customers feeling that way almost two years ago.
Yep, this is another one of those major things that impacts consumers that were not communicated well, if at all. Between this, culling, toddlers, relationship decay, etc., it's hard to see Maxis as being "transparent" when there are several cases that show otherwise.
Perhaps this will explain a little bit to @SimGuruDrake why some customers feel Maxis and EA have been less than transparent. She keeps saying she wishes to understand where it all comes from.
I believe a lot of it comes from instances such as this.
Don't blame USA. THIS: " law in America that says free content can only be announced in the quarter it's going to be released" on America. Believe me I have researched this high and low and find no such law. I honestly have no idea where they got that to be a thing as it was not the case previously in earlier The Sims series games and also do not appear to be the case in other USA made games either at other companies. I would love to see this law in the books.... Maybe it is an inhouse Maxis "rule" as I certainly cannot find it - Here is the question I used in my research -
Legal Notices. PC and video game Is there any present disclosure law in North America that restricts free content (DLC) from only being announced outside of the fiscal quarter that its going to be released?
Apparently our nations best research programs cannot find an answer applicable to my question in any law books in the USA - so must be an EA rule of some kind as is not apparently on the law books.
I've linked this on twitter before for others who were curious, perhaps you'll find it elucidating. While it's from 2009, it should give a user-friendly guide to accounting practices and laws related to software revenue recognition.
Honestly though I truly believe given the rough start of releasing when you 'ran out of time' the onus was on your company to communicate that you were under these rules before we bought. In those blogs. Because if I'd known that the communication would be shut down for 'base' content and we would spend literally years waiting for 'potential' to turn into reality under a cloud of silence and uncertainty I know I wouldn't have bought until I saw your implementation in game. I feel that doing so would have avoided a lot of damage to trust. In addition I do find it sad that you waited until quite a long time post release to even mention it. We've been discussing EA/Maxis silence since barely months after release. It would've been useful for you to have briefed us all then.
Exactly!
The same can be said for this live service model. This studio knew from the beginning that this live service was their intent for the game, yet it wasn't until recently that @simgurugraham explained what it actually is and what it means to us as customers.
Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate graham and find him the most pleasing out of the gurus, but this just goes to show how badly this team as managed this game from almost all aspects. Especially customer relations. At this point, try as they may, that relationship has been severely tarnished, if not entirely destroyed for some. It may take a very long to time to regain trust, and still for some it may be irreparable. And in the end they only have themselves to blame because this isn't their first rodeo. They've been at this for many, many years. They should of known better, and they definitely should have done better.
The law doesn't say a company *cannot* reveal stuff before the quarter it's out in, it says you can't do your *accounting* in a particular way if you do. So there is a choice about reveal and it is based on how the company's accountants have advised.
So, what came out of the Gamescon panel? Anything of interest? Let's lay bets that the T word was not mentioned!
I wonder if this was about telling them how to setup their own websites and get promoted by EA/Maxis? That would be so lame to just have promotion meeting instead of listening to what players are really saying and wanting. I don't where I got that idea, but something in this thread SGDrake said. I read between the lines.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
The law doesn't say a company *cannot* reveal stuff before the quarter it's out in, it says you can't do your *accounting* in a particular way if you do. So there is a choice about reveal and it is based on how the company's accountants have advised.
Curious question is this 'law' because some of this game is outsourced? Just curious.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
I've had some time to read some of this packet, and the only information I'm getting so far is that companies can only recognize revenue for the product once it's sold. Isn't that just a standard accounting process? Regardless of whether Backyard Stuff was announced back in June or July, the revenue still couldn't be collected until Backyard Stuff was released.
Furthermore, I don't see at all how this applies to company like EA that sells games. Although customers might purchase a game from EA on the basis that the game may receive updates, neither the customer nor EA signed a written contract agreeing to those terms. The customer is free to stop purchasing at any time. This document reads like some thing that would apply to private software companies providing contracted services/products to a corporation compared to a corporation providing a one-time service/product to an individual.
I've had some time to read some of this packet, and the only information I'm getting so far is that companies can only recognize revenue for the product once it's sold. Isn't that just a standard accounting process? Regardless of whether Backyard Stuff was announced back in June or July, the revenue still couldn't be collected until Backyard Stuff was released.
Furthermore, I don't see at all how this applies to company like EA that sells games. Although customers might purchase a game from EA on the basis that the game may receive updates, neither the customer nor EA signed a written contract agreeing to those terms. The customer is free to stop purchasing at any time. This document reads like some thing that would apply to private software companies providing contracted services/products to a corporation compared to a corporation providing a one-time service/product to an individual.
Exactly. And if this is because the game is outsourced or I mean some of it.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
I've had some time to read some of this packet, and the only information I'm getting so far is that companies can only recognize revenue for the product once it's sold. Isn't that just a standard accounting process? Regardless of whether Backyard Stuff was announced back in June or July, the revenue still couldn't be collected until Backyard Stuff was released.
Furthermore, I don't see at all how this applies to company like EA that sells games. Although customers might purchase a game from EA on the basis that the game may receive updates, neither the customer nor EA signed a written contract agreeing to those terms. The customer is free to stop purchasing at any time. This document reads like some thing that would apply to private software companies providing contracted services/products to a corporation compared to a corporation providing a one-time service/product to an individual.
The issue isn't with changes to already purchased and installed software: that revenue is already recognized. The issue is with recognizing revenue on new basegame sales when an update to them has been announced. That update has to be delivered in the same quarter for those sales (the ones in that quarter) to be considered "delivered", with full utility available, and the revenue recognized:
A product or an element of an arrangement is considered to have not been delivered if there has not been
a delivery of products or elements that are essential to the functionality of the delivered element(s).
Accordingly one may conclude that absent the essential element which has not been delivered, the
customer lacks the full utility of the delivered element(s). The license revenue allocated to a product or an
element of a software arrangement that has been delivered but that will not meet the customer's
functionality requirements until one or more additional product(s) or element(s) are delivered should not
be recognized until all of the elements that provide the customer with full use of the delivered elements
has occurred. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of delivery issues related to arrangements involving
undelivered elements.
The idea, then, is that individuals who have purchased the base game after those updates have been announced have not had it delivered until those updates are in place. (But it all gets lumped into fiscal quarters, as do a host of other cashflow recording things.) (I have such sophisticated accounting vocab!)
Regular delays of promised updates also impact collectibility: it establishes a history. I believe an example on pp. 45-46 relates to this. Here, I presume, is part of the issue: doing this repeatedly could, if I'm reading this right, mean that revenue regularly has to be deferred.
I stopped at about p. 48. Back to my own business
I'm not sure where you're getting the applying to outsourcing thing, though. This is about software companies selling products, whether to consumers or through intermediaries. There's nothing here about software companies outsourcing part of the development.
EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
Don't blame USA. THIS: " law in America that says free content can only be announced in the quarter it's going to be released" on America. Believe me I have researched this high and low and find no such law. I honestly have no idea where they got that to be a thing as it was not the case previously in earlier The Sims series games and also do not appear to be the case in other USA made games either at other companies. I would love to see this law in the books.... Maybe it is an inhouse Maxis "rule" as I certainly cannot find it - Here is the question I used in my research -
Legal Notices. PC and video game Is there any present disclosure law in North America that restricts free content (DLC) from only being announced outside of the fiscal quarter that its going to be released?
Apparently our nations best research programs cannot find an answer applicable to my question in any law books in the USA - so must be an EA rule of some kind as is not apparently on the law books.
I've linked this on twitter before for others who were curious, perhaps you'll find it elucidating. While it's from 2009, it should give a user-friendly guide to accounting practices and laws related to software revenue recognition.
Honestly though I truly believe given the rough start of releasing when you 'ran out of time' the onus was on your company to communicate that you were under these rules before we bought. In those blogs. Because if I'd known that the communication would be shut down for 'base' content and we would spend literally years waiting for 'potential' to turn into reality under a cloud of silence and uncertainty I know I wouldn't have bought until I saw your implementation in game. I feel that doing so would have avoided a lot of damage to trust. In addition I do find it sad that you waited until quite a long time post release to even mention it. We've been discussing EA/Maxis silence since barely months after release. It would've been useful for you to have briefed us all then.
Exactly!
The same can be said for this live service model. This studio knew from the beginning that this live service was their intent for the game, yet it wasn't until recently that @simgurugraham explained what it actually is and what it means to us as customers.
Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate graham and find him the most pleasing out of the gurus, but this just goes to show how badly this team as managed this game from almost all aspects. Especially customer relations. At this point, try as they may, that relationship has been severely tarnished, if not entirely destroyed for some. It may take a very long to time to regain trust, and still for some it may be irreparable. And in the end they only have themselves to blame because this isn't their first rodeo. They've been at this for many, many years. They should of known better, and they definitely should have done better.
Absolutely and in @SimGuruGraham stickied post from last month or so I said exactly the same thing. In both cases they kept quiet about these completely new ways to handle the sims. Why wait until almost 2 years after release? Then you still get @SimGuruDrake saying they believe they've been completely transparent and asking why we feel like that's far from the truth. Instances like this have a huge impact on trust as a customer-especially when you feel your experience has suffered as a result of it.
And yes I don't trust them any longer. After buying preorders sight unseen, without question of supporting the team, for the entire sims history until the base. That doesn't say a lot for the damage done to my trust in the team and the company. To go from total trust and support to feeling taken in is a horrible feeling as a customer and what's worse is when these instances are highlighted they are never dealt with.
The answer is always, so far, 'but we considered we were transparent'. But when a significant amount of customers communicate that they feel differently then obviously there *is* an issue and it's not with those customers. They may have aimed to be transparent and something went wrong and it didn't translate well-but when a customer tells you when they say they had a bad experience and why then your reply is that your company felt they had done nothing to cause that issue because they *believe* they were transparent then the implication is that the customer is in the wrong. And that makes it much, much worse. It's like pouring salt in a wound.
The reaction to complaints and issues has absolutely, in my opinion and experience of being active in the community, made the situation much, much worse for those with the issues. And that's very short term thinking. Every single customer who feels their complaint and experience isn't taken seriously is far less likely to bother buying further later on, even if content they like eventually turns up. That's really sad.
EA know simmers are loyal. I'd like to see EA show customers that they are appreciated and be grateful that people gave them a chance despite TS4's obvious issues. A lot of us paid a great deal more because we adopted early-this game has spent a great deal of its life on sale. To buy and pay those early prices despite the issues shows how much people trusted the team and the company. So far I don't see that was valued. Instead I see a lot of excuses that don't apply in the gaming press about why it wasn't received well. The worst being that people don't know what a base game means. When this was our fourth go at starting with a brand new base.
I've had some time to read some of this packet, and the only information I'm getting so far is that companies can only recognize revenue for the product once it's sold. Isn't that just a standard accounting process? Regardless of whether Backyard Stuff was announced back in June or July, the revenue still couldn't be collected until Backyard Stuff was released.
Furthermore, I don't see at all how this applies to company like EA that sells games. Although customers might purchase a game from EA on the basis that the game may receive updates, neither the customer nor EA signed a written contract agreeing to those terms. The customer is free to stop purchasing at any time. This document reads like some thing that would apply to private software companies providing contracted services/products to a corporation compared to a corporation providing a one-time service/product to an individual.
The issue isn't with changes to already purchased and installed software: that revenue is already recognized. The issue is with recognizing revenue on new basegame sales when an update to them has been announced. That update has to be delivered in the same quarter for those sales (the ones in that quarter) to be considered "delivered", with full utility available, and the revenue recognized:
A product or an element of an arrangement is considered to have not been delivered if there has not been
a delivery of products or elements that are essential to the functionality of the delivered element(s).
Accordingly one may conclude that absent the essential element which has not been delivered, the
customer lacks the full utility of the delivered element(s). The license revenue allocated to a product or an
element of a software arrangement that has been delivered but that will not meet the customer's
functionality requirements until one or more additional product(s) or element(s) are delivered should not
be recognized until all of the elements that provide the customer with full use of the delivered elements
has occurred. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of delivery issues related to arrangements involving
undelivered elements.
The idea, then, is that individuals who have purchased the base game after those updates have been announced have not had it delivered until those updates are in place. (But it all gets lumped into fiscal quarters, as do a host of other cashflow recording things.) (I have such sophisticated accounting vocab!)
Regular delays of promised updates also impact collectibility: it establishes a history. I believe an example on pp. 45-46 relates to this. Here, I presume, is part of the issue: doing this repeatedly could, if I'm reading this right, mean that revenue regularly has to be deferred.
I stopped at about p. 48. Back to my own business
I'm not sure where you're getting the applying to outsourcing thing, though. This is about software companies selling products, whether to consumers or through intermediaries. There's nothing here about software companies outsourcing part of the development.
Sometimes, in some circles it's called cooking the books. Making one quarter look better than expected, nothing illegal about the explanation but the average person sees it as cooking the books. And some of the game is outsourced so I'm sure they have a stake in when they can collect.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
I've had some time to read some of this packet, and the only information I'm getting so far is that companies can only recognize revenue for the product once it's sold. Isn't that just a standard accounting process? Regardless of whether Backyard Stuff was announced back in June or July, the revenue still couldn't be collected until Backyard Stuff was released.
Furthermore, I don't see at all how this applies to company like EA that sells games. Although customers might purchase a game from EA on the basis that the game may receive updates, neither the customer nor EA signed a written contract agreeing to those terms. The customer is free to stop purchasing at any time. This document reads like some thing that would apply to private software companies providing contracted services/products to a corporation compared to a corporation providing a one-time service/product to an individual.
The issue isn't with changes to already purchased and installed software: that revenue is already recognized. The issue is with recognizing revenue on new basegame sales when an update to them has been announced. That update has to be delivered in the same quarter for those sales (the ones in that quarter) to be considered "delivered", with full utility available, and the revenue recognized:
A product or an element of an arrangement is considered to have not been delivered if there has not been
a delivery of products or elements that are essential to the functionality of the delivered element(s).
Accordingly one may conclude that absent the essential element which has not been delivered, the
customer lacks the full utility of the delivered element(s). The license revenue allocated to a product or an
element of a software arrangement that has been delivered but that will not meet the customer's
functionality requirements until one or more additional product(s) or element(s) are delivered should not
be recognized until all of the elements that provide the customer with full use of the delivered elements
has occurred. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of delivery issues related to arrangements involving
undelivered elements.
The idea, then, is that individuals who have purchased the base game after those updates have been announced have not had it delivered until those updates are in place. (But it all gets lumped into fiscal quarters, as do a host of other cashflow recording things.) (I have such sophisticated accounting vocab!)
Regular delays of promised updates also impact collectibility: it establishes a history. I believe an example on pp. 45-46 relates to this. Here, I presume, is part of the issue: doing this repeatedly could, if I'm reading this right, mean that revenue regularly has to be deferred.
I stopped at about p. 48. Back to my own business
I'm not sure where you're getting the applying to outsourcing thing, though. This is about software companies selling products, whether to consumers or through intermediaries. There's nothing here about software companies outsourcing part of the development.
Sometimes, in some circles it's called cooking the books. Making one quarter look better than expected, nothing illegal about the explanation but the average person sees it as cooking the books. And some of the game is outsourced so I'm sure they have a stake in when they can collect.
Regulations like this are designed to stop books-cooking. They're so that a company can't claim it delivered when it didn't.
As for outsourcing, my interest as a person who does outsourced work for companies is that they remain financially stable, so that I'll actually get paid. If they cook the books and get caught and fail, I'd better hope I've already cashed my check. If they lose investor confidence, I'd better hope I've already cashed my check and I'll start looking for new clients, because I'm not going to assume my next one will arrive (for the record, most of my clients are not public companies, but I do keep an eye on the ones that are). If they lose consumer confidence from repeated failures to deliver, I'll start looking for new clients - that next check might not show up. Regulations that reduce the incentive for companies to fail to deliver and that ensure that their books show when they don't are in my interest as a contractor who does outsourced work. My bigger stake is in my clients being able to pay me in the long term; clients manipulating books to make it look like they delivered when they didn't is not in my financial interest.
For the record, I've seen two clients go under. I lost money the first time. You pay attention after that to indicators or rumors that a company isn't playing nice with how it records revenue.
EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
Comments
Oh gawd I hope not.
Barely interesting.
More propaganda and we know most of this already.
Quelle Surprise! So sad and not consumer friendly. This is why Sims 4 is headed for the abyss.
Believe me, the North American community feels very ignored and left out at this current time.
Not really but this is par for the course regarding Sims 4. Thanks for trying. FAIL.
INFJ -A/-T
I've linked this on twitter before for others who were curious, perhaps you'll find it elucidating. While it's from 2009, it should give a user-friendly guide to accounting practices and laws related to software revenue recognition.
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cfodirect/assets/pdf/accounting-guides/pwc-revenue-recognition-march-2009.pdf
Thank you, this looks to be exactly what many of us have been inquiring about for some time now.
Just from glancing at the home page of the site, I noticed this tidbit:
Let me see if I'm getting this right. These new standards were adopted by the FASB and ISAB two years ago, but the standards don't really take effect until 2018. EA, and by extension Maxis have already transitioned into the adoption of these standards two years ahead of the deadline. And the reason why some of us might not notice these changes within other games we play is because their respective companies have not adopted the new standards yet. Am I along the right track?
Thank you @SimGuruGraham
Honestly though I truly believe given the rough start of releasing when you 'ran out of time' the onus was on your company to communicate that you were under these rules before we bought. In those blogs. Because if I'd known that the communication would be shut down for 'base' content and we would spend literally years waiting for 'potential' to turn into reality under a cloud of silence and uncertainty I know I wouldn't have bought until I saw your implementation in game. I feel that doing so would have avoided a lot of damage to trust. In addition I do find it sad that you waited until quite a long time post release to even mention it. We've been discussing EA/Maxis silence since barely months after release. It would've been useful for you to have briefed us all then.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/790584/ea-maxis-silence/p1
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
Yep, this is another one of those major things that impacts consumers that were not communicated well, if at all. Between this, culling, toddlers, relationship decay, etc., it's hard to see Maxis as being "transparent" when there are several cases that show otherwise.
BUT if we keep asking, they WILL know we won't give up nor forget. Eventually, they will be "forced" to come out with a response.
WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?
Couldn't have said it better. You took the words right out of my mouth
WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?
The answers to all the questions of the second set is NO. Therefore EA does not have to change its allocation of revenues for sharing their roadmap for Sims 4.
I've discussed this before, but the only time discussing future content would matter is if EA decided to have preorders on its new DLC and discussed the content of the DLC. That revenue from the pre-orders cannot be booked until the DLC is actually released. Since there are no pre-orders of any new SP, GP, or EP, there is no revenue that has to be delayed.
Furthermore, as Writin_Reg said, no other gaming company seems to follow EA's own self-imposed rules. Bethesda announced the roadmap for their DLCs more than a half-year before the final one, Nuka-World, which hasn't even been released yet. But we knew about Nuka-World months ago. Zenimax also shared their roadmap for Elder Scrolls Online that included more than a year's worth of new content, some of which is just finally being released as I type. As a final example, Microsoft announced Windows 10 far before the quarter Windows 10 was actually released. No other company seems to do what EA does.
Perhaps this will explain a little bit to @SimGuruDrake why some customers feel Maxis and EA have been less than transparent. She keeps saying she wishes to understand where it all comes from.
I believe a lot of it comes from instances such as this.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
Exactly!
The same can be said for this live service model. This studio knew from the beginning that this live service was their intent for the game, yet it wasn't until recently that @simgurugraham explained what it actually is and what it means to us as customers.
Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate graham and find him the most pleasing out of the gurus, but this just goes to show how badly this team as managed this game from almost all aspects. Especially customer relations. At this point, try as they may, that relationship has been severely tarnished, if not entirely destroyed for some. It may take a very long to time to regain trust, and still for some it may be irreparable. And in the end they only have themselves to blame because this isn't their first rodeo. They've been at this for many, many years. They should of known better, and they definitely should have done better.
I wonder if this was about telling them how to setup their own websites and get promoted by EA/Maxis? That would be so lame to just have promotion meeting instead of listening to what players are really saying and wanting. I don't where I got that idea, but something in this thread SGDrake said. I read between the lines.
Curious question is this 'law' because some of this game is outsourced? Just curious.
Furthermore, I don't see at all how this applies to company like EA that sells games. Although customers might purchase a game from EA on the basis that the game may receive updates, neither the customer nor EA signed a written contract agreeing to those terms. The customer is free to stop purchasing at any time. This document reads like some thing that would apply to private software companies providing contracted services/products to a corporation compared to a corporation providing a one-time service/product to an individual.
Exactly. And if this is because the game is outsourced or I mean some of it.
The issue isn't with changes to already purchased and installed software: that revenue is already recognized. The issue is with recognizing revenue on new basegame sales when an update to them has been announced. That update has to be delivered in the same quarter for those sales (the ones in that quarter) to be considered "delivered", with full utility available, and the revenue recognized:
The idea, then, is that individuals who have purchased the base game after those updates have been announced have not had it delivered until those updates are in place. (But it all gets lumped into fiscal quarters, as do a host of other cashflow recording things.) (I have such sophisticated accounting vocab!)
Regular delays of promised updates also impact collectibility: it establishes a history. I believe an example on pp. 45-46 relates to this. Here, I presume, is part of the issue: doing this repeatedly could, if I'm reading this right, mean that revenue regularly has to be deferred.
I stopped at about p. 48. Back to my own business
I'm not sure where you're getting the applying to outsourcing thing, though. This is about software companies selling products, whether to consumers or through intermediaries. There's nothing here about software companies outsourcing part of the development.
Absolutely and in @SimGuruGraham stickied post from last month or so I said exactly the same thing. In both cases they kept quiet about these completely new ways to handle the sims. Why wait until almost 2 years after release? Then you still get @SimGuruDrake saying they believe they've been completely transparent and asking why we feel like that's far from the truth. Instances like this have a huge impact on trust as a customer-especially when you feel your experience has suffered as a result of it.
And yes I don't trust them any longer. After buying preorders sight unseen, without question of supporting the team, for the entire sims history until the base. That doesn't say a lot for the damage done to my trust in the team and the company. To go from total trust and support to feeling taken in is a horrible feeling as a customer and what's worse is when these instances are highlighted they are never dealt with.
The answer is always, so far, 'but we considered we were transparent'. But when a significant amount of customers communicate that they feel differently then obviously there *is* an issue and it's not with those customers. They may have aimed to be transparent and something went wrong and it didn't translate well-but when a customer tells you when they say they had a bad experience and why then your reply is that your company felt they had done nothing to cause that issue because they *believe* they were transparent then the implication is that the customer is in the wrong. And that makes it much, much worse. It's like pouring salt in a wound.
The reaction to complaints and issues has absolutely, in my opinion and experience of being active in the community, made the situation much, much worse for those with the issues. And that's very short term thinking. Every single customer who feels their complaint and experience isn't taken seriously is far less likely to bother buying further later on, even if content they like eventually turns up. That's really sad.
EA know simmers are loyal. I'd like to see EA show customers that they are appreciated and be grateful that people gave them a chance despite TS4's obvious issues. A lot of us paid a great deal more because we adopted early-this game has spent a great deal of its life on sale. To buy and pay those early prices despite the issues shows how much people trusted the team and the company. So far I don't see that was valued. Instead I see a lot of excuses that don't apply in the gaming press about why it wasn't received well. The worst being that people don't know what a base game means. When this was our fourth go at starting with a brand new base.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
Sometimes, in some circles it's called cooking the books. Making one quarter look better than expected, nothing illegal about the explanation but the average person sees it as cooking the books. And some of the game is outsourced so I'm sure they have a stake in when they can collect.
Regulations like this are designed to stop books-cooking. They're so that a company can't claim it delivered when it didn't.
As for outsourcing, my interest as a person who does outsourced work for companies is that they remain financially stable, so that I'll actually get paid. If they cook the books and get caught and fail, I'd better hope I've already cashed my check. If they lose investor confidence, I'd better hope I've already cashed my check and I'll start looking for new clients, because I'm not going to assume my next one will arrive (for the record, most of my clients are not public companies, but I do keep an eye on the ones that are). If they lose consumer confidence from repeated failures to deliver, I'll start looking for new clients - that next check might not show up. Regulations that reduce the incentive for companies to fail to deliver and that ensure that their books show when they don't are in my interest as a contractor who does outsourced work. My bigger stake is in my clients being able to pay me in the long term; clients manipulating books to make it look like they delivered when they didn't is not in my financial interest.
For the record, I've seen two clients go under. I lost money the first time. You pay attention after that to indicators or rumors that a company isn't playing nice with how it records revenue.