Subs down 25%

[JeramieCrowe]

Agreed. I think no matter how they slice it, SWTOR has been hemorrhaging subs and is still doing so, badly and 1.3 is not going to stem this flow. I think their focus has to be on long term, like 5 year long term. Because with the hit SWTOR is about to take in 4 days, if they focused on the here and now, they may as well pack up shop. Sadly even though it pains me to admit it, its going to be 12 months before this game is at a satisfactory level (for me as a PvPer) and starts to see a moderate upward trend of subs. I really wish this wasn't the case, I was really hyped about this game when it finally released, and now we have all played through the amazing story and cut scenes we are left wanting.

 

Speaking of which, I really hope my question of what they're new open-world PvP they're currently working on entails gets answered today...

[Altinar]

Subscriptions aren't necessary but enough people think that they are that developers can still slap them on games and make money with them. Why would they follow GW's business model when they can claim subscriptions are necessary and dupe people?

 

GW only follows the business model that they do because Mike O'Brien is philosophically opposed to subscriptions (he is not philosophically opposed to cash shops though because he believes then people can still play the game and choose whether or not they spend extra money on it).. it's a personal choice of theirs.

 

Let's just hope that cash shops prove the lesser of two evils; if it ends up being pay-to-win, GW2 will find no shortage of controversy itself. If forced to choose between the two, I'd rather pay an arbitrary fee to play on the same, level ground as others (relatively speaking of course) than to have a system where those with money to squander can cheapen the efforts of those who put in time and effort for their accomplishments and gear.

[JeramieCrowe]

Subscriptions aren't necessary but enough people think that they are that developers can still slap them on games and make money with them. Why would they follow GW's business model when they can claim subscriptions are necessary and dupe people?

 

GW only follows the business model that they do because Mike O'Brien is philosophically opposed to subscriptions (he is not philosophically opposed to cash shops though because he believes then people can still play the game and choose whether or not they spend extra money on it).. it's a personal choice of theirs.

 

Eh, personal experience dictates that I'd much rather pay $15/month for all content available than more for all content. The average F2Per pays $28/month, and my wife playing a F2P almost broke us...

[BJWyler]

Subscriptions aren't necessary but enough people think that they are that developers can still slap them on games and make money with them. Why would they follow GW's business model when they can claim subscriptions are necessary and dupe people?

 

GW only follows the business model that they do because Mike O'Brien is philosophically opposed to subscriptions (he is not philosophically opposed to cash shops though because he believes then people can still play the game and choose whether or not they spend extra money on it).. it's a personal choice of theirs.

 

No argument there. We can only hope that more people like Mike get into the business and turn the old philosophy around.

 

Let's just hope that cash shops prove the lesser of two evils; if it ends up being pay-to-win, GW2 will find no shortage of controversy itself. If forced to choose between the two, I'd rather pay an arbitrary fee to play on the same, level ground as others (relatively speaking of course) than to have a system where those with money to squander can cheapen the efforts of those who put in time and effort for their accomplishments and gear.

Well, that's the whole thing. As soon as someone says F2P, you get all sorts of Trolls who come screaming it's Pay2Win, when that is not necessarily the case. Like the industry and subs that Vindy mentions, gamers have this mindset about F2P that just doesn't hold true any more. Certainly, there are games out there that are based on the P2W model, but most (if not all) never make it to the West. The only issue I have with them is when they limit content based on whether you are a "free" player or a "premium" player (i.e. have a sub). That's why I liked GW, and one of the reasons I bought the game - I got the full game for the purchase price and only have to pay anything more if I want the eye candy. I'm not getting GW2 because the the changes they made don't appeal to me, but I hope that at some point, their business model takes a firmer hold of the industry.

 

In that way, the GW model would have benefited SWTOR immensely - we wouldn't even be having a discussion of sub numbers as the only numbers that would matter would have been the initial sales, which were very good.

 

BJ

Edited May 11, 2012 by BJWyler

[RedWolfs]

/facepalm Really?! Really??!

 

Seriously, do you work for Blizzard?

 

Yup their QA and PR has been the breaking point of much of the subscription loss.

 

QA has let some easy to catch 100% instant bugs through their QA process. Look at the matrix shard datacron bug this week, epic QA failure batman. QA cannot fully test a patch and miss that bug, and be called professional.

 

PR failure to make the customer believe they care, such as Georg Zoeller and 1.2. You can't go from "underlying changes mitigating the healing class changes so the release notes don't tell the whole story" to three days later "our metrics (but you don't need to know anything about the metrics we are using) show that healing was out performing the levels we want them at" to silence on the subject in face of a reasonable number of players being angry. This is how that sounded to players I know who quit over it, You don't know > we are not going to tell you and we may even lie to you > Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. That string leaves the upset player thinking that Bioware does not care what I think of their product. Every MMO that has done that has lost subscribers; you never see a game grow in the face of that sort of chain of communication.

 

Love or hate the changes that were not handled well at all. It is not the customer feeling that the company does not care about their opinions of the product; it doesn't work in any industry.

 

I love SWTOR, I want to see it succeed, I love what is unique about it. I am upset that Bioware seems to not care if it fails.

[Altinar]

Well, that's the whole thing. As soon as someone says F2P, you get all sorts of Trolls who come screaming it's Pay2Win, when that is not necessarily the case. Like the industry and subs that Vindy mentions, gamers have this mindset about F2P that just doesn't hold true any more. Certainly, there are games out there that are based on the P2W model, but most (if not all) never make it to the West. The only issue I have with them is when they limit content based on whether you are a "free" player or a "premium" player (i.e. have a sub). That's why I liked GW, and one of the reasons I bought the game - I got the full game for the purchase price and only have to pay anything more if I want the eye candy. I'm not getting GW2 because the the changes they made don't appeal to me, but I hope that at some point, their business model takes a firmer hold of the industry.

 

In that way, the GW model would have benefited SWTOR immensely - we wouldn't even be having a discussion of sub numbers as the only numbers that would matter would have been the initial sales, which were very good.

 

BJ

 

I agree entirely, and I certainly hope that GW2 will keep its status quo from GW1 and keep the purchased content to nothing more than cosmetics and aesthetics. As for SWTOR following that model, I only agree up to the point that we would then be focusing on a different question, that being the business ethics of Bioware's initial sales, which were so high due to a deceptive, ambiguous, and slightly misleading marketing and advertising campaign. So I don't leave that statement bereft of evidence, just look at the class videos they released, as well as the alpha Black Talon videos: the former show zero real gameplay, instead using "cool animations" and "heroic encounters" to impress the viewer and divert their attention from how the game actually works. The Black Talon commentator embellished almost all aspects of the gameplay, focusing chiefly on the "consequential conversations" and otherwise making false claims about the level of intricacy of the instance and the gameplay as a whole, which, to any experienced MMO player, was clearly no better than your standard keyboard masher dungeon.

[Valkirus]

well no need to fear The Secret World its sub par for an mmo so far

 

I agree about TSW. However we cannot say the same thing about D3 and GW2. We think the servers are low now..wait until next week.

[BJWyler]

I agree entirely, and I certainly hope that GW2 will keep its status quo from GW1 and keep the purchased content to nothing more than cosmetics and aesthetics. As for SWTOR following that model, I only agree up to the point that we would then be focusing on a different question, that being the business ethics of Bioware's initial sales, which were so high due to a deceptive, ambiguous, and slightly misleading marketing and advertising campaign. So I don't leave that statement bereft of evidence, just look at the class videos they released, as well as the alpha Black Talon videos: the former show zero real gameplay, instead using "cool animations" and "heroic encounters" to impress the viewer and divert their attention from how the game actually works. The Black Talon commentator embellished almost all aspects of the gameplay, focusing chiefly on the "consequential conversations" and otherwise making false claims about the level of intricacy of the instance and the gameplay as a whole, which, to any experienced MMO player, was clearly no better than your standard keyboard masher dungeon.

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of advertising. This is nothing that any other company (and we don't even have to limit ourselves to the gaming industry here) hasn't done and continues to do. I could probably go home tonight and pick out a dozen or more car commercials that are just as bad - and probably worse. All the promotional clap trap has to be taken with a grain of salt - to take your example of BT, for instance - it was an Alpha, there is no way it wouldn't have changed between that time and release. If it comes to the point where it can qualify as false advertising, then I think it's up to us to file the complaint. No one has at this point, and I don't think it does.

 

All that hyperbole from EA back in 2008 - any one who didn't laugh at it was completely delusional. Of course EA wanted a game that could take on WoW - who doesn't with the money that Blizzard raked in? But that's OK to have high ambitions like that, I'm glad they were shooting for the moon - that's what you need to do with any idea in any business - shoot for the moon, then see what you can actually accomplish and how close you can come.

 

That's were we have to become smarter as gamers. Many people here mention how fickle the gaming community is nowadays with all that we can pick and choose from. But is that really in fact the case? If we are going to be this fickle, don't you think it is then incumbent upon us to actually use a bit of common sense and legwork to dig past the typical hyperbole of PR and get to the heart of what the developers are actually doing? That's why my expectations of the game were met, and I go in enjoying the game play, because it is nothing more nor less than I expected. The bonus is that everything is in the Star Wars skin.

 

Am I happy about the various bugs and issues? Of course not, it would be great if the game could have been released without them - but again, expectations must be tempered with the reality of the situation. Perhaps I am a little biased from my experience in the tech industry, but for me, bugs and broken elements are just par for the course in this field, so I tend to be more tolerant of them. Did BW make an error in judgement with the number of servers and server cap? No, I think they made the right decision at the time. Where they did make the mistake was in not preparing to have the Transfer tool ready for the time it would be needed. But again, though I play on a "dead" server, it is in my nature to understand that people make mistakes, and as long as they attempt to fix said mistakes, then I will be tolerant and patient.

 

Am I happy that we lost 400,000 players and counting? No, when I find a game I really enjoy, I want everyone to enjoy it - that's why I encourage my friends and family to try it out for themselves as well (I just need to get them some modern equipment - 6-7 year old PCs just ain't gonna cut it). But again, I am a realist - it's going to happen, just like the playerbase will eventually level off. Hopefully when it does, it will be at a number that EA perceives to be enough to continue supporting the game. I plan to be here, playing, and discussing on the forums regardless.

 

BJ

Edited May 11, 2012 by BJWyler

[Eillack]

BW aimed for 1.2mil, we have at least 13.mil = goal reached + economic profit.

[Stalkobot]

Eh, personal experience dictates that I'd much rather pay $15/month for all content available than more for all content. The average F2Per pays $28/month, and my wife playing a F2P almost broke us...

 

"I can resist anything but temptation"

 

I too prefer a straight up subscription with no microtransactions. I know the accessability of cosmetic items on GW2 will invariably have me purchasing them.

[Valkirus]

BW aimed for 1.2mil, we have at least 13.mil = goal reached + economic profit.

 

And what will you say when the next quarter shows them down less than 1 million? Or the third quarter when it is down to less then 600k subs? That is my prediction unless some important additions and changes are made.

[Frostvein]

And what will you say when the next quarter shows them down less than 1 million? Or the third quarter when it is down to less then 600k subs? That is my prediction unless some important additions and changes are made.

 

I don't think it will get that low.

 

I fully believe game will hover between 750K (on the low end) and 1.5 million. Not bad by a long shot. Some people will love this game to death.

 

It just isn't the game many of us hoped/thought/wanted/wished it to be.

[FlyinSpaghetti]

That's not a gain, that's a stabilization. Meaning it has stopped decreasing...

 

It's still a gain as there has been equal subs for WoW as the unsubs unlike the year before which it was losing more subs than it was gaining, so it's a gain compared to the previous year which makes my "terminology" valid and even if it wasn't it's definitely not a loss like the guy I was quoting was making up.

[Altinar]

Welcome to the wonderful world of advertising. This is nothing that any other company (and we don't even have to limit ourselves to the gaming industry here) hasn't done and continues to do. I could probably go home tonight and pick out a dozen or more car commercials that are just as bad - and probably worse. All the promotional clap trap has to be taken with a grain of salt - to take your example of BT, for instance - it was an Alpha, there is no way it wouldn't have changed between that time and release. If it comes to the point where it can qualify as false advertising, then I think it's up to us to file the complaint. No one has at this point, and I don't think it does.

 

All that hyperbole from EA back in 2008 - any one who didn't laugh at it was completely delusional. Of course EA wanted a game that could take on WoW - who doesn't with the money that Blizzard raked in? But that's OK to have high ambitions like that, I'm glad they were shooting for the moon - that's what you need to do with any idea in any business - shoot for the moon, then see what you can actually accomplish and how close you can come.

 

That's were we have to become smarter as gamers. Many people here mention how fickle the gaming community is nowadays with all that we can pick and choose from. But is that really in fact the case? If we are going to be this fickle, don't you think it is then incumbent upon us to actually use a bit of common sense and legwork to dig past the typical hyperbole of PR and get to the heart of what the developers are actually doing? That's why my expectations of the game were met, and I go in enjoying the game play, because it is nothing more nor less than I expected. The bonus is that everything is in the Star Wars skin.

 

Am I happy about the various bugs and issues? Of course not, it would be great if the game could have been released without them - but again, expectations must be tempered with the reality of the situation. Perhaps I am a little biased from my experience in the tech industry, but for me, bugs and broken elements are just par for the course in this field, so I tend to be more tolerant of them. Did BW make an error in judgement with the number of servers and server cap? No, I think they made the right decision at the time. Where they did make the mistake was in not preparing to have the Transfer tool ready for the time it would be needed. But again, though I play on a "dead" server, it is in my nature to understand that people make mistakes, and as long as they attempt to fix said mistakes, then I will be tolerant and patient.

 

Am I happy that we lost 400,000 players and counting? No, when I find a game I really enjoy, I want everyone to enjoy it - that's why I encourage my friends and family to try it out for themselves as well (I just need to get them some modern equipment - 6-7 year old PCs just ain't gonna cut it). But again, I am a realist - it's going to happen, just like the playerbase will eventually level off. Hopefully when it does, it will be at a number that EA perceives to be enough to continue supporting the game. I plan to be here, playing, and discussing on the forums regardless.

 

BJ

 

My comment may have suggested otherwise, but I understand that Bioware isn't the first and certainly won't be the last company to falsely advertise, I understand this well. The only reason I had to include those examples is because I know that I would have gotten an endless sea of trolls hounding me had I not. Regardless, the point stands in that we, as in you and me, are gamers; this means that we tend to be informed, knowledgeable, and intelligent when examining the potential of a game and whether or not it's worth our buy. The average person, however, cannot make these deductions like we can, and it is exactly that kind of person Bioware aimed for with its marketing.

 

As much as we as gamers are getting more intelligent in our buying habits and our criticisms of game developers and publishers, it means jack all in the scheme of things, because we will likely be the minority long past now. The fact of the matter is that there are millions of people who have never played a game in their life, or who just don't give a crap about anything beyond exactly the game they're buying, and it is those people that developers and publishers are targeting, because they know that this crowd is easy, easy money. I have a sneaking suspicion that those people compose a good chunk of the initial buyers, as well as composing most of the 200k or so that never subscribed after the free month. All losses beyond that were likely people on the fence or those who couldn't stand this game's faults (and rightfully so). Just as an addendum, I think that the PR sham would be discussed in place of the lost subs because people only tend to complain about ethical or moral issues when it involves something they're passionate about, and just because false advertising really is more or less the status quo does not mean that is the way it should be.

 

Regarding expectations, mine were not anywhere close to met. Though I didn't expect the "epic adventure" the PR tried to sell to us, I did expect an MMO that would be enjoyable, relatively bug-free (within reason, I understand that launches are almost always bugged to high hell), and most of all that would keep my attention and give me reason to keep playing. Sadly, I found the first and third in small doses, and the second overflowing (after 3 months of so many issues and idiocy from the QA department, I stopped giving leniency). Frankly, while I love the Star Wars universe, think they did a good job overall with integrating the stories and developing the OR universe, and that some of the armors and equipment are good looking, I just can't get past the utter lack of interesting and engaging content, the horrendous pvp, the promises for content in patches broken or delayed, and the general lack of polish to the game's mechanics. I love my Sith Marauder, but it's sad when the best I get to do with him is stand around and do nothing for more than 60% of my playtime.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Altinar

[JeramieCrowe]

It's still a gain as there has been equal subs for WoW as the unsubs unlike the year before which it was losing more subs than it was gaining, so it's a gain compared to the previous year which makes my "terminology" valid and even if it wasn't it's definitely not a loss like the guy I was quoting was making up.

 

Ok, it's not a net gain, then.

[Codek]

It's still a gain as there has been equal subs for WoW as the unsubs unlike the year before which it was losing more subs than it was gaining, so it's a gain compared to the previous year which makes my "terminology" valid and even if it wasn't it's definitely not a loss like the guy I was quoting was making up.

 

Considering all the gimmicks they pulled out to try to earn back subscriptions (Free Diablo 3 with year sub! Come back to us and get a free lvl 80!) breaking even is not a good sign. They are running out of cards to play with each announcement of losses. Sure, they maintained the subs, but at what cost....Desperation can rattle the player base with fear that the end is near.

[noobzor]

And what will you say when the next quarter shows them down less than 1 million? Or the third quarter when it is down to less then 600k subs? That is my prediction unless some important additions and changes are made.

 

Your prediction, like so many others, means absolutely jack squat.

[Altinar]

Considering all the gimmicks they pulled out to try to earn back subscriptions (Free Diablo 3 with year sub! Come back to us and get a free lvl 80!) breaking even is not a good sign. They are running out of cards to play with each announcement of losses. Sure, they maintained the subs, but at what cost....Desperation can rattle the player base with fear that the end is near.

 

Not so much desperation as just resolving to turn WoW into a cash cow. WoW more or less died with Cata, and Blizzard knows it; therefore, they're just pulling out every incentive they can to keep the subs going for as long as possible so that they ensure WoW makes them money to its last metaphorical breath. This is purely conjecture, but if WoW takes another significant hit in subs, it may give Bioware a moderate incentive to actually put some effort into improving this game so that they can snatch up Blizzard's lost subs. As I said though, that's conjecture and very unlikely, as I have no doubts that GW2 and Diablo 3 will grab far more subs away from WoW than SWTOR could ever hope to (Diablo 3 being the more likely I'd say, since enfranchisement is a powerful force).

[Moofanchu]

In related news, AT&T is reporting a 25% reduction in dropped calls on thier cellular network...Coincidence?

 

 

Reference:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/09/technology/att_network_gets_better/index.htm

[wifeaggro]

Your prediction, like so many others, means absolutely jack squat.

 

Well contrary to your belief it means quite alot. It means funding for Tor will be signifcantly reduced. The fact they gave a free 30 days to all 50 lvl accounts is very very bad news.it was a direct attempt to mitigate subscription losses to their investors call. The burn off was far greater then what any anticpated in the first 90 days. I am pretty sure there is 500 k of those 50,s not resubbing . By daniel ericksons own addmission he stated the concorent players. Has significantly dropped as well as the number of hours people actully play. He even stated in an interview they were very shocked how easily people completed the content and how quickly the players finished end game activites.if that negative trend continues to grow the tor game will not get funding fpr.content or features. It doss mean quite alot contrary to your opinion.

[terminova]

As I said though, that's conjecture and very unlikely, as I have no doubts that GW2 and Diablo 3 will grab far more subs away from WoW than SWTOR could ever hope to (Diablo 3 being the more likely I'd say, since enfranchisement is a powerful force).

 

If either were sub-based games. I honestly don't expect to see either TOR or WoW take hits on their playerbase because a couple non-sub based games come out. Any hits TOR takes will be due to issues it has.

[JeramieCrowe]

I agree about TSW. However we cannot say the same thing about D3 and GW2. We think the servers are low now..wait until next week.

 

Eh, D3 won't hardly affect subs. Most of the time, the only thing that makes people unsub is another competing sub. Otherwise, people get games like D3, or ME3, or Skyrim, and because they don't take a sub, there's no reason to unsub from an MMO.

 

GW2 would almost fit into the 3PS category, having no sub....

[TheMunny]

Eh, D3 won't hardly affect subs. Most of the time, the only thing that makes people unsub is another competing sub. Otherwise, people get games like D3, or ME3, or Skyrim, and because they don't take a sub, there's no reason to unsub from an MMO.

 

GW2 would almost fit into the 3PS category, having no sub....

 

Keep telling yourself that.........

 

Many people cancel their subs when they become involved in another game. Why pay a sub when you don't play? I am going to GW2 and I canceled my sub, am I a minority for doing so? I highly doubt it.

[Angedechu]

Desperation ? You think Blizzard Activision are desperate after losing 10% of subs after seven years vs losing 25% of subs after five months ?

[Altinar]

If either were sub-based games. I honestly don't expect to see either TOR or WoW take hits on their playerbase because a couple non-sub based games come out. Any hits TOR takes will be due to issues it has.

 

I never said TOR was going to lose any subs, I said it wouldn't gain hardly any, if any at all. And when I say that Diablo 3 and GW2 will steal subs from WoW, I'm not saying they're sub-based games; I'm saying that people who unsub will move on to play these games actively, sub or not.