John Riccitiello - "Realistically, TOR's a solid success."

[Kthx]

Set scale to go all the way from December to now. It is a LOT more than 25% - actually more like 40%-60%. Only AP is better because game is still only three months there and on only three servers.

 

Torstatus.net shows server loads using a non-linear, relative scale (1 = light, 2 = standard, 3= heavy, 4 = very heavy, 5 = full). You can use torstatus.net to show trends over time and you can use it to compare servers. You cannot use the numbers on torstatus.net to estimate the drop in population. For example, if the average score changes from 2 to 1 (a numerical drop of 50%), you have no idea if this represent a population loss of 10%, 25%, 50%, or some other number.

[Kthx]

Try doubling 400k and your closer to the real loses, there been deceptions happening and it good that people noticing the spins now, wait till free months run out and active 6month subs, you will then see the real number is below 400k.

 

Can you show us your math please, because try as I might, I cannot reproduce your calculations.

[banecolton]

Torstatus.net shows server loads using a non-linear, relative scale (1 = light, 2 = standard, 3= heavy, 4 = very heavy, 5 = full). You can use torstatus.net to show trends over time and you can use it to compare servers. You cannot use the numbers on torstatus.net to estimate the drop in population. For example, if the average score changes from 2 to 1 (a numerical drop of 50%), you have no idea if this represent a population loss of 10%, 25%, 50%, or some other number.

 

Actually you can. Use the information about how much of the time a given server spends at a given population. Next take the value and apply the difference according to the trend. The difference positive or negative can then be measured over time. I agree whole hardly that this will not produce actual hard numbers (X number of subs), but you can extrapolate a percentage.

 

So I disagree with your statement that “You cannot use the numbers on torstatus.net to estimate the drop in population”. But I would also point out that I don’t think it is possible to assign any “hard” numbers, given that the loads measured (1 = light, 2 = standard, 3= heavy, 4 = very heavy, 5 = full) represent a range of numbers each…so you can only get “ballpark” figures.

Edited May 24, 2012 by banecolton

[unseenmaji]

Can you show us your math please, because try as I might, I cannot reproduce your calculations.

 

I prefer you keep denying then get shock of your life soon enough that it much less than you thought, now dont think big companys wont lie if can get away with it.

[Drakkip]

The common quoted figures (from various news sources) for SWTOR is $100 million to develop.

 

The numbrers said sub declined from 1.7 million to 1.4 million, so we'll assume there are 1.7 million box sales at $50, and each subscriber paid for one month at $15/month.

 

65 * 1.7 million = $110.5 millon. Yes not all box sale is pure profit (though digital sales are pure profit) and so on, but if someone asks you to invest $100 million and you'll *only* get an extra $10 million from your base investment back after one month I'd consider this a very good deal. It might not be an impressive ROI (the game took 6 years to develop) but then I'm calculating assuming the game is basically going to die after one month too.

 

 

Now of course in Wall Street a game is judged on expectations. The figures say EA lost like $600 million/year so maybe they thought SWTOR is going to be a cash cow kind of like how WoW's $1 billion/year revenue covers for other game's development costs + flops. Well SWTOR probably isn't going to be the cash cow and no SWTOR developer will be swimming in money anytime soon. So yes SWTOR might be far below expectations in this respect. But if you assume SWTOR eventually turns a revenue of $200 million by the end of the year, and the game took 6 years in development, that's a return of 12% per year which is a pretty darn good investment.

 

To use an analogy, SWTOR would be a guy in the family making a decent income, but his brother took all the money he made and waste it on gambling, and overall the family is in bad shape, and people are saying, 'well if the productive guy in the family made ten times more money they'd be able to afford to waste 90% of it on gambling and still have a money bin to swim in."

 

You need to be more encompassing on your ROI for your example. I'll accept the 100 million cost and your other premises, although some are debatable. The ROI needs to be considered over the 6 years it took to complete the project. Depending on the type of project, there can be a large cash infusion to get started then a sharp drop in capital that ramps up as the project approaches completion.

 

So if you broke it out evenly between the 6 years that's 18 million a year. Let's say it was 20 million to get started, and then 5 in the second, 10 in the third, 15 in the fourth, 20 in the fifth and 30 in the sixth. You also have to consider your opportunity loss on that money (What the money could be doing if you had it available).

 

Over 6 years of not having various amounts of money available, when it finally pays off you make the same as if you had invested that same quantity of money at each interval at around 3.25%. Hardly something that is stellar given that there is a moderate risk involved.

 

I get that this is not a great comparison as this is not a fixed value sale when the project completes but rather an initial fixed value sale followed by a revenue stream, so it helps the overall profitability of the project. I am just following your example and the need to consider that it's not really as straight up as you make a 10% profit on your investment.

[DarkerMatter]

He's the CEO of the worst company in the world. That said I don't believe a thing that comes out off this guys mouth, hell didn't believe anything he said before they got that well deserved title.

[arcdaemon]

Every serious MMORPG plans to take on WoW. The guys who go out and say, "We come in peace WoW, please don't hurt us" are pretty much already dead. WoW only has around 5 million guys paying $15/month (Asian guys pay way less), so if your game pulls 1 million+ subscribers at $15/month you're definitely going to get WoW"s attention whether you want it or not so you better get ready to fight WoW. Whether you'll be successful or not, who knows, but nobody should start a major MMORPG planning for failure.

 

And honestly WoW's hurting too if you look at their numbers. It seems like all the new MMORPGs do is mutually wipe each other out. People are leaving SWTOR but people are leaving WOW too.

 

Wownhas over 10 million subscribers try again and they currently aren't losing any this game has 1.3 million and is bleeding subs wow destroys swtor.

[JeramieCrowe]

Sorry MR Crow but again you are trying to change the subject. If you do not believe that continual drop in server load indicates that the active subscriptions are less than the quoted 1.3 million then please provide your argument as to why.

 

All else is an increasingly desperate attempted to distract from the discussion. What’s wrong, don’t you have any logical argument to back your opinion that Wayshuba’s observation that the dropping server load that is backed by the data he posted might bring the quoted sub numbers into doubt?

 

 

Again, please understand, I'm trying the hell to communicate here: The conversation I was having with the other guy was not about what the population is NOW. He was contesting that it was 1.3 million at the time of the report. I KNOW it's less than 1.3 millin NOW. But we're not talking about NOW. We were talking about at the time of the report, which is NOT NOW.

 

Am I getting through yet?

[DiabloDoom]

This game is not dying, it is dead.

It has the 3rd largest playerbase, how is it dead?

 

Let's not forget that there is 22m MMORPG players, and only 10% of them play Sci-Fi MMORPG's. This is my first Sci-Fi one after 12 years of playing Fantasy.

[WLpride]

I really hope it gets better. EA is at a very all time low value, they really have to make a comeback, even if it takes a full year to make significant progress. Although, pretty soon we'll have most of the general features we've asked for, later who knows.

 

Really though, we've know idea what will happen in the long term, it's a huge question mark, will EA/BW make a game that is good? Right now they don't really seem to think they know what will be good in the mainstream concept. PvP is lost for the moment, but we all knew that already. If you think Warzone will hold the game together your looking at <500,000 subscribers in months.

 

The fact that there was no transfers is completely staggering, it's really killing the breadth of audience I think. Pay or Quit, that is what the average gamer has to choose after finish levelling a character in this game, plus the fact that most of the game is pretty small in MMO standards.

 

It still stands that there is lots of potential to turn it around, but I don't really think it's a success at this present time, 6 months in, with these huge errors occuring and 100,000 leaving because of the exact population and lack of open PvP issues. Perhaps there is some stable servers though, but you can't deny the amount of desolate servers around.

 

If they think they can win over a large audience by creating these live events, they are greatly mistaken, and small-minded. It's pretty obvious that, after the bread and butter features are finsihing and live, players need massive content update and enhancement. Endgame et al.

[ISTrick]

That's not how you spell bellwether.

 

Well spotted.

[Wayshuba]

yes there been deceptions to stop stock drops, but it been done in way it was legal, free months and trials arnt illegal to offer and it can be counted as subs, rememebr they didnt say paying subscribers or active players.

 

I've never, not once, used the words deception or illegal. I have worked in large public corporations for over 20 years, I understand spin. It is not illegal (though some might argue it can be deceptive, but I am not saying that).

[Wayshuba]

Torstatus.net shows server loads using a non-linear, relative scale (1 = light, 2 = standard, 3= heavy, 4 = very heavy, 5 = full). You can use torstatus.net to show trends over time and you can use it to compare servers. You cannot use the numbers on torstatus.net to estimate the drop in population. For example, if the average score changes from 2 to 1 (a numerical drop of 50%), you have no idea if this represent a population loss of 10%, 25%, 50%, or some other number.

 

Torstatus recently added population tracking, which is what those links pointed too. Also, the scale is based on population (so many are light, so many standard, etc.) from the SWTOR side - so while TORstatus scale may be linear, it is based on population bands established by SWTOR on their servers so it can be indicative of population loss.

[Wayshuba]

The conversation I was having with the other guy was not about what the population is NOW. He was contesting that it was 1.3 million at the time of the report. I KNOW it's less than 1.3 millin NOW. But we're not talking about NOW. We were talking about at the time of the report, which is NOT NOW.

 

Small correction, I am NOT contesting that subs were 1.3M at time of report based on free month added. What I am contesting is that the number of active subs (people actually playing and not a sub on the books) WAS a lot less than 1.3M.

 

If we wanted to add reported time (end of April) to now (end of May) you'd see in the links provided earlier there has been a further regular declining trend through May as well. In other words, at the end of April the number of real players was more like 600k-800k and when the six month subs bleed out we'll be at somewhere around 400k-500k.

 

Lastly, bear in mind that this is happening as SWTOR is the newest AAA MMO on the block with little competition from newer titles (only older ones). With some of the newer ones coming this year (TSW and GW2) this WILL have a further effect on some sub loss if EA/BW doesn't get on the ball. Which, while I am enjoying SWTOR, I don't think is going to happen given how long it is taking something as critical to population loss as server merges to happen.

[Vlacke]

He's the CEO of the worst company in the world. That said I don't believe a thing that comes out off this guys mouth, hell didn't believe anything he said before they got that well deserved title.

 

Worst company, seriously?

They are good samaritans compared to Activision.

[corbanite]

He's the CEO of the worst company in the world. That said I don't believe a thing that comes out off this guys mouth, hell didn't believe anything he said before they got that well deserved title.

 

 

Be honest you just made that up about them being the worst company in the world. you lie

 

 

here's a link to the poll

 

http://consumerist.com/2012/04/worst-company-in-america-2012-final-death-match-bank-of-america-vs-ea.html

 

it's only in america and yer they beat the someone that put you in recession gg

Edited May 24, 2012 by corbanite

[Frostvein]

Be honest you just made that up about them being the worst company in the world. you lie

 

 

here's a link to the poll

 

http://consumerist.com/2012/04/worst-company-in-america-2012-final-death-match-bank-of-america-vs-ea.html

 

it's only in america and yer they beat the someone that put you in recession gg

 

We know BOA should have won. The fact that EA was even in the running is a disgrace.

[TheronFett]

I think Star Wars is an interesting one. So, when we originally started the franchise, our plan was to break a million subscribers. Our investment case was a million two, we told the Street yesterday we're at a million three. We happened to have an earnings call right into the launch period where we hit a million seven, and we had an obligation to tell them the facts. So, look, I think, realistically, it's a solid success.

 

One of the things I have a hard time understanding on this one, though, when we planned this business, it wasn't as important to us as Madden, Fifa, or Need for Speed, or The Sims or Sim City or Medal of Honor. It was in our top ten, but it wasn't in our top five. And, some of the folks are trading it like it's the only thing that matters, and for what it's worth, it's a solid success and profitable franchise. Um, but it's not a bellwether for the company.

 

Please allow me to translate:

 

LucasArts gave us the last chance at making a good Star Wars MMO before they start doing it themselves. We had big expectations, because even lunchboxes with a Star Wars sticker sell for big bucks. We fed our investors some old numbers so they would think the game was a big success.

 

Look, we ****ed up. EA makes sports games like Madden, we don't do MMOs. This is the second time we've failed hard in that department. We've learned our lesson this time, so please don't short sell all of your EA stock based on the poor performance of SWTOR. Madden 2013 will be out later this year, and uh, some more Sims expansion packs.

[Mordresh]

This isn't some new spin.

 

A pre-launch investor conference call mentioned that 500k subscribers was their break even point. Anywhere upward from a million sales at launch was very profitable.

 

They exceeded their "very profitable" mark by 75% and continue to exceed it by 30%.

 

Realistically, yes that is a solid success no matter how you look at it.

[Jebei]

Wownhas over 10 million subscribers try again and they currently aren't losing any this game has 1.3 million and is bleeding subs wow destroys swtor.

 

You missed his point. There are two parts to WOW playerbase - $15/ month subscription based game n the "West" (Europe/Americas/Australia) and time based in the "East" (Korea/China/etc) which makes significantly less on a per player basis. WoW's overall numbers are now a shade over 10 million. The last break out Blizzard released was at the end of 2010 that showed the West at 5.1 million and the East at 6.4 million. If the numbers dropped proportionally WoWs "West" numbers would have dropped to around 4.5 million but I'd bet it is even worse due to SWTORs NA/Europe focus.

 

I'm sure WOW's number will rebound when Pandaria is released but it will be interesting to see if they have trouble holding the additions beyond 6 months.

[Jebei]

This isn't some new spin.

 

A pre-launch investor conference call mentioned that 500k subscribers was their break even point. Anywhere upward from a million sales at launch was very profitable.

 

They exceeded their "very profitable" mark by 75% and continue to exceed it by 30%.

 

Realistically, yes that is a solid success no matter how you look at it.

 

You should go into PR.

 

You are ignoring the $100 million (to $300 million depending on who you believe) it cost to develop the game. Developments costs are only a part of the story. You are ignoring all the advertising they did to promote the game. You are ignoring server costs and the continuing costs for the employees that were on staff to support the game.

[Vankris]

let's do some simple math.

 

2.3 millions sales (acording to http://www.vgchartz.com/) at $60 = $138M

games sold 60€ in europe which more than $60 plus some people bought the collector edition

 

1.7M subs reported in january, 1.3M sub reported in april, let's take the middle ground

3 month (fev-mar-apr) january was free and let's count may as the 30 day offered by BW

1.5M * $15 * 3 = $67.5M

 

Total= $205M income already

 

How much the game cost, some say $100M, other $300M, let's take the middle ground as i have no tangible information leaning toward any. so cost of the game $200M

 

Looks like that already broke even, from now on, any income is pure profit. If they can keep 1M subs, that is a $15M income per month

 

now if the game cost $200M and took 5 years in the making, that give a 200 / 60 (months)= $3.3M per month investement to create the game.

 

So if BW invest 5M out of the 15 they make to maintain server and create feature/content, the game is sustainable. They even can do it with only 500k subs.

 

I guess, it's way too early to talk about failure.

[Mordresh]

You are ignoring the $100 million (to $300 million depending on who you believe) it cost to develop the game.

 

I'm pretty sure I mentioned the break even point. (500k)

 

( Also depending on who I believe? You mean between a person that's legally obliged to tell the truth to his investors and an anonymous disgruntled employee from a different company who has admitted he had nothing to do with SW:tOR and that his number was false in his later comments? )

 

Developments costs are only a part of the story. You are ignoring all the advertising they did to promote the game. You are ignoring server costs and the continuing costs for the employees that were on staff to support the game.

 

They exceeded their "very profitable"-mark (1 mil) by 75-30%. (Before they launched in additional territories.)

 

Accepting this, you're telling me that you think advertising, server and employee cost exceeds this to the point that they're below the break even point? Really?

 

What seems more likely is that you're angry about the number of servers compared to the playerbase, which is a legitimate concern. That doesn't mean however that their claim of making a profit so far is anything but true.

[DiabloDoom]

let's do some simple math.

 

2.3 millions sales (acording to http://www.vgchartz.com/) at $60 = $138M

games sold 60€ in europe which more than $60 plus some people bought the collector edition

 

1.7M subs reported in january, 1.3M sub reported in april, let's take the middle ground

3 month (fev-mar-apr) january was free and let's count may as the 30 day offered by BW

1.5M * $15 * 3 = $67.5M

 

Total= $205M income already

 

How much the game cost, some say $100M, other $300M, let's take the middle ground as i have no tangible information leaning toward any. so cost of the game $200M

 

Looks like that already broke even, from now on, any income is pure profit. If they can keep 1M subs, that is a $15M income per month

 

now if the game cost $200M and took 5 years in the making, that give a 200 / 60 (months)= $3.3M per month investement to create the game.

 

So if BW invest 5M out of the 15 they make to maintain server and create feature/content, the game is sustainable. They even can do it with only 500k subs.

 

I guess, it's way too early to talk about failure.

 

It isn't really that simple. So many variables you missed, the biggest one being income tax on dividends which will be around 40%, not sure about the US rates though, and not sure about their tax credit.

[Gungan]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned the break even point. (500k)

 

( Also depending on who I believe? You mean between a person that's legally obliged to tell the truth to his investors and an anonymous disgruntled employee from a different company who has admitted he had nothing to do with SW:tOR and that his number was false in his later comments? )

 

 

 

They exceeded their "very profitable"-mark (1 mil) by 75-30%. (Before they launched in additional territories.)

 

Accepting this, you're telling me that you think advertising, server and employee cost exceeds this to the point that they're below the break even point? Really?

 

What seems more likely is that you're angry about the number of servers compared to the playerbase, which is a legitimate concern. That doesn't mean however that their claim of making a profit so far is anything but true.

 

The break even point included the caveat that they need at least 500k for a full year.