How do EA Partners titles perform relative to the larger EA catalogue?

DD: The average Metacritic for the EAP titles was higher than EA's overall average Metacritic last year. Obviously, [that's] buoyed by great titles like Rock Band, The Orange Box, and Crytek's Crysis -- those three titles were all 90+ rated titles. We had a huge string of good fortune with some of the best partners in the industry.

With regards to sales, we were delighted by how all the EAP properties did. The notable exceptions would probably be Ninja Reflex and Hellgate: London.

One thing I would add -- we don't really distinguish between EA Partners titles or EA internal titles. Through the sales, distribution, and publishing organizations, it's an EA title. The quality titles get the attention.

What we look for from an independent developer is exactly what we're looking for from an internal team. The hot properties get all the heat. Fortunately, we had a lot of EAP titles being a lot of the hot properties, and we certainly hope that to continue in the future based on the lineup of partners we have.

Analyst Todd Greenwald of Signal Hill criticized EA Partners this week by saying it harms the perception of EA by implying that EA has to go elsewhere to get top-shelf development; also, it causes concern for shareholders because external development has lower profit margins than internal development. How do you respond to that?

DD: Yeah, that's crazy talk! That's crazy talk. It's very interesting. When we do a deal with an independent developer, we are held to the same level of accountability on our deals that internal teams are held to.

Obviously, if it's owned IP, we have an opportunity to have higher margins, but on the stuff that's not owned IP, we still have responsibility [for] profits we need to deliver to the company. Distribution deals are an entirely different animal, but I believe they are still helpful to delivering the earnings that our shareholders come to expect.

You know, with regards to not being able to develop enough of our own hit IP, which is why we need to go outside, I just think it's an acknowledgement that there's a huge gaming community of developers who can create quality IP. Some of it comes from EA's internal teams, some comes from external teams.

EA Redwood Shores' Dead Space

We're going to look everywhere for the best gaming ideas, and the best game developers in the world. If they happen to be from EA, great, and we've got plenty of those -- Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, and a lot of the new IP we're creating internally -- but likewise we haven't cornered the market on the brightest people in the industry.

We try to, but there are a lot of other really smart people who have a lot of great game design ideas. Sometimes, they think differently than we do at EA, and why should we not give them the same benefit our internal teams get by being able to publish and distribute through the best publisher and distributor in the industry?

That's all we're acknowledging. It's a recognition that it all doesn't have to be created here. It can be created here, and it can be created there.

You're admitting the reality that there are other developers out there making games that aren't EA.

DD: Well, the thing is, for id and Epic and all these companies -- when EA wasn't publishing those companies, somebody else was. You all recognized them as great games. If they're making great games and they'd like to work with the best publisher in the world, we are more than happy to work out a deal.

We're fortunate that some of the best in the industry have seen that change, and acknowledged it by wanting to work with us. We're incredibly proud to be mentioned with those companies.