Syylara Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 no it does not. • Most successful subscription MMO launched • Recently launched in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore • End of February • More than 1.7M active subscribers Asia Launch was Feb 29th and March 1st source:http://investor.ea.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=ERTS&fileid=551496&filekey=6162f638-c8c9-45f2-ab77-463e59f00455&filename=ERTS_Wedbush.pdf Well, to be fair, launchED is past tense, is it not? :9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XOrionX Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 no it does not. • most successful subscription mmo launched • recently launched in australia, new zealand, hong kong and singapore • end of february • more than 1.7m active subscribers asia launch was feb 29th and march 1st source:http://investor.ea.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=erts&fileid=551496&filekey=6162f638-c8c9-45f2-ab77-463e59f00455&filename=erts_wedbush.pdf qft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossos Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 no it does not. • Most successful subscription MMO launched • Recently launched in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore • End of February • More than 1.7M active subscribers Asia Launch was Feb 29th and March 1st source:http://investor.ea.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=ERTS&fileid=551496&filekey=6162f638-c8c9-45f2-ab77-463e59f00455&filename=ERTS_Wedbush.pdf Oh WoW! The earnings report! How about the numbers in this article, quoted yesterday by the head of EA?! http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/08/electronic-arts-reveals-new-mass-effect-3-and-star-wars-mmo-numbers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trenter Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Please keep in mind that this number INCLUDES THE NEW ASIAN SERVERS. This indicates a significant loss in North American and European Subscription numbers. Do this quickly now, and you might just be able to save face: - Re-read the articles - Tone down your font Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blotter Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I think he was saying that they can raise/lower the population cap without having to change the threshold. They're independent of each other, but they don't have to be exclusively so. I've yet to see them come out and say they've changed the population thresholds (light, standard, heavy), but I haven't read everything... They had to change the population threshholds and yes, they are linked. They may not be "hard" linked in terms of whatever softweare is running the servers etc, but they are certainly "soft" linked in the sense that they are conceptually correlated. When EA/BW was getting complaints about queue times at the very begining, they did two things: (a)raised the server cap for concurrent logins so that people didn't get stuck in a queue as often and (b) changed the definition of "Full" to match...then readjusted the other labels accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 What's hard for you to grasp about EA/BW being able to runa script that tells them the average number of hours per day lpayed or logged in is 4-5 huors per day? You simply don't want to believe that there are 1.7M subs is what it comes down to, so you start from that as your premise and then cook up a rationalization for why either the subs number isn't true or why the number of huors per day isn't true. As for some playing more and some playing less...duh...that's what "average" means. It's not mathematically possible given what we know about the server populations. There maybe 1.7 million subs OR the "average" player is playing 4 hours a day. But not both, all the servers would need to be consistently fuller. It would have to be like just after release (after the capacity increase) with most servers full for much of the day (they quite possible had 1.7 million subs averaging 4 hours a day then, maybe even a bit more). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthx Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) I see actions where a corporation sues a corporate board member. I see actions where a corporation is given a slap on the wrist (usually the fines are less than the ill-gotten profit made, similar to auto company "issue recall or settle out-of-court" behavior). I see lots of action prosecuting individuals who made a personal profit from bilking corporate investors. And you ignore all the actions where the SEC sue or prosecute Corporate officers, resulting in fines, debarment, and/or imprisonment. These are really easy to find since they are marked "SEC Complaint" and are underlined in red. Were you living under a rock in 2008 or something? In 2008 I was teaching economics and business management in an MBA program. One of the things I discussed was the impact of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. This doesn't mean that the SEC is perfect or that corporations cannot break the law and get away with it. But it does mean that if a corporate officer lies in order to mislead investors, he or she is at risk of severe penalties including imprisonment. Edited March 9, 2012 by Kthx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XOrionX Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Well, to be fair, launchED is past tense, is it not? :9 Sure.. But when they launched on the 29th and on March 1st, any sub numbers recieved from Asia would NOT be indicative of subscription numbers right now. 1.7 Million subs would NOT include at the very minimum the March 1st numbers, possibly even the 29th purchases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syylara Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Seriously. These guys will come up with anything to convince themselves that their dooom doom dooom dire predictions and ranting are not being throoughly disproven as time goes on with this game. Here's another fun link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Here's another one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization I actually haven't really taken a position one way or the other on it, perhaps you shouldn't lump everyone into an over-broad "them" category. I was poking at the specific point about believing the SEC really "cares about you, the investor" considering the reality of the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormnut Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Oh WoW! The earnings report! How about the numbers in this article, quoted yesterday by the head of EA?! http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/08/electronic-arts-reveals-new-mass-effect-3-and-star-wars-mmo-numbers/ This is were they got the information for that above link. I am link their sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossos Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 End of Feb there are 1.7 Million subs... ...gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dezzi Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Are you kidding? Changing the cap would obviously change the server capacity levels. Expand the capacity of ther server and now you have increased the window for the server to show as standard vs heavy. It's not event hat hard to figure out. Answer me this: Do you work for BW? Answer me this: Do you? There's nothing to indicate that population caps (total players) and population thresholds (indicators like light and heavy) are exclusively dependent on each other... We know the team has changed the caps because they've said so, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't recall them saying anything about having changed the thresholds indicators we see. It's certainly possible they haven't changed them. So for an example: Let's say the original caps were 500. Light could have been < 100, Standard > 100 < 400, and Heavy could have been > 400. Let's then say they changed the caps (as they've admitted to doing) to 1000. There's nothing that says they changed the thresholds and they wouldn't have to. Light could still mean < 100, Standard could still mean > 100 < 400, and Heavy could still mean > 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akirator Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Oh WoW! The earnings report! How about the numbers in this article, quoted yesterday by the head of EA?! http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/08/electronic-arts-reveals-new-mass-effect-3-and-star-wars-mmo-numbers/ Those numbers WERE from the article.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blotter Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Please keep in mind that this number INCLUDES THE NEW ASIAN SERVERS. This indicates a significant loss in North American and European Subscription numbers. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT NO, THEY QUITE CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY DON'T INCLUDE ASIA/AUSSIE SUBS. You've been proven wrong on this numerous times...links included. You're just lying in order to spread misconceptions in hopes it helps people who are pre-disposed to be upset and angry and negative continue to be that way. What is wrong with you that you need to resort to lying to try to prove yourself right? Edited March 9, 2012 by Blotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XOrionX Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 And you ignore all the actions where the SEC sue or prosecute Corporate officers, resulting in fines, debarment, and/or imprisonment. These are really easy to find since they are marked "SEC Complaint" and are underlined in red. In 2008 I was teaching economics and business management in an MBA program. One of the things I discussed was the impact of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. This doesn't mean that the SEC is perfect or that corporations cannot break the law and get away with it. But it does mean that if a corporate officer lies in order to mislead investors, he or she is at risk of severe penalties including imprisonment. OWNED - /highfive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dezzi Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) They had to change the population threshholds and yes, they are linked. They may not be "hard" linked in terms of whatever softweare is running the servers etc, but they are certainly "soft" linked in the sense that they are conceptually correlated. When EA/BW was getting complaints about queue times at the very begining, they did two things: (a)raised the server cap for concurrent logins so that people didn't get stuck in a queue as often and (b) changed the definition of "Full" to match...then readjusted the other labels accordingly. That may be the case. Could you point me to where they made the statement about changing the thresholds? I'd be interested in reading it because I haven't found it. Edited March 9, 2012 by Dezzi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormnut Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 End of Feb there are 1.7 Million subs... ...gotcha. No problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jett-Rinn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) It is to laugh TOR succeeds despite one of the most well organized and well funded smear campaigns ever and people are still crying doom. Umm where is this mass exodus exactly? I know I know: /stamps foot "You just wait when GW2 TSW Blah blah blah" Edited March 9, 2012 by Jett-Rinn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 That may be the case. Could you point me to where they made the statement about changing the thresholds? I'd be interested in reading it because I haven't found it. They apparently "doubled" server thresholds just after release. That's pretty much all they've stated on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zannis Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 amazing..just...amazing. PROOF that people like you just aren't right that in January "they will go down, believe me" february "they will go down, trust me" march "they will go down, they will!" just stop it ok? It's not gonna go down. It's not going to tank like YOU want it to. Just stop. It won't grow at an enormous pace..it will grow at a steady pace. Just like it has been doing these months. Stop with the doomsaying This. Tortanic....just like that movie that grossed over a billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blotter Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Here's another one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization I actually haven't really taken a position one way or the other on it, perhaps you shouldn't lump everyone into an over-broad "them" category. I was poking at the specific point about believing the SEC really "cares about you, the investor" considering the reality of the last few years. You do realize the irony of what yuo just posted, no? Criticizing me for making a generalization but then making one yourself? Highly publicized fraud cases that are very much the exception to the rule do not prove that the SEC is just letting ALL corporations run around willy-nilly lying to their sharehholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewser Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Again all it suggests is that a lot of people are subbing still, but not playing, which the torstatus trend suggested (the not playing bit anyway). As to the still subbing, well maybe SWTOR has broken the mould, I wouldn't bet on it though. But betting against your predictions is a good bet to make! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 But betting against your predictions is a good bet to make! We'll have to see. I'm betting on 500,000 to 1,000,000 long term western subs (no idea what they might get with the Chinese WoW model) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XOrionX Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Answer me this: Do you? There's nothing to indicate that population caps (total players) and population thresholds (indicators like light and heavy) are exclusively dependent on each other... We know the team has changed the caps because they've said so, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't recall them saying anything about having changed the thresholds indicators we see. It's certainly possible they haven't changed them. So for an example: Let's say the original caps were 500. Light could have been < 100, Standard > 100 < 400, and Heavy could have been > 400. Let's then say they changed the caps (as they've admitted to doing) to 1000. There's nothing that says they changed the thresholds and they wouldn't have to. Light could still mean < 100, Standard could still mean > 100 < 400, and Heavy could still mean > 400. This is a ridiculous assumption on your part. Why would they NOT change the thresholds? Why would they just increase the population caps of the servers only to leave the thresholds the same? After they increase the caps, WHICH of the thresholds is affected then? They have to add those numbers somewhere, so which of the thresholds do they add those numbers to? No they never said anything about increasing thresholds, probably because they shouldn't have to. RE-defining the thresholds is the most logical choice in the matter. Maybe they should have spelled it out more clearly for the slow kids so that people couldn't come up with such idiotic theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syylara Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 And you ignore all the actions where the SEC sue or prosecute Corporate officers, resulting in fines, debarment, and/or imprisonment. These are really easy to find since they are marked "SEC Complaint" and are underlined in red. Which is basically the same thing that I just said, they go after individuals who profit "unfairly" but generally do nothing if the corporation itself is the one that benefits. In 2008 I was teaching economics and business management in an MBA program. One of the things I discussed was the impact of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. This doesn't mean that the SEC is perfect or that corporations cannot break the law and get away with it. But it does mean that if a corporate officer lies in order to mislead investors, he or she is at risk of severe penalties including imprisonment. I don't see that taking place, I see if a private individual who holds a position as an officer in a corporation lies and benefits personally from it, they are punished, but if their misleading statements are a benefit to the company, then they start the "I cannot recall any details of...." stonewalling and then 5 administrative assistants fall on their swords saying they made an error in the paperwork and it isn't his fault, etc, etc and nothing every really happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts