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

[sensiblepoast]

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.

 

Sure you can. First of all they are estimates, and by definition inaccurate. Second, if you know the upper and lower bounds of server population you easily calculate a minimum and a maximum population loss. And no, I can't be bothered to do it myself, I'm not gonna play this thing anymore and I'm not a fan of doublespeaking damage control.

 

I used to like star wars comics. Until I played this game.

Edited May 25, 2012 by sensiblepoast

[sensiblepoast]

SWTOR is a financial success. They will have made all their money back by the end of the year. Bioware is doing what the community wants albeit at a slower pace then desired. Right now the top 3 gripes are

 

Server pop

cant find a group

cant find an op

cant get into a WZ

etc.

 

thats about to basically be fixed, with 1.4 coming with lots of content. People don't hate the core game, those people left and SWTOR still had 1.7 million. No reason to think that people wont come back and the game can't have a million by the end of the year. It's still a new MMO. And yeah, ppl will have their gripes with guild wars 2 as well.

 

That's because the 25% of the subscribers have left and aren't complaining anymore. Much like you don't see anything rergarding world pvp all over the place like bofer.

[vekkth]

Come on, how could you not trust this guy

 

 

wooow. My intuition scares me. I was 100 percent sure that EA management and attitude killed everything Bioware was once known for, and, dear God, I am not disappointed. RIP Bioware, you were once the Legend. But dark side is tempting, no one is safe.

[WLpride]

Best advice for EA to succeed with MMO's. Take what they think they need to run the game and implement regular patches, and double it. I'm talking only about engineers and coders who can develop/implement for the engine and game.

 

The marketing is done, all is left is to produce content and features, and the more epic patches they can produce WILL influence the amount of player who consider to return and play.

 

If they think they are going to continue this slow-and-steady pace of patches they are done.

 

They already taking huge critical losses now for 2-3 months. It's realistic for core-features to take time to happen, but server transfer is astonishing.

[JeramieCrowe]

Sure you can. First of all they are estimates, and by definition inaccurate.

 

Careful. Last time in this thread that I pointed out that the site was inaccurate (something that even the site owner acknowledges), I got accused of calling the site owner a "liar".

Edited May 25, 2012 by JeramieCrowe

[Callmeboba]

You guys need to realize that to EA, you're not a customer.

 

You're a number.

 

A dollar.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Callmeboba

[JeramieCrowe]

You guys need to realize that to EA, you're not a customer.

 

You're a number.

 

A dollar.

 

I feel like a number.

 

But true. EA doesn't have anything to do with the community, that's on BioWare.

[Blackardin]

Sorry if this has been posted already, didn't see it. Search brought up nothing.

 

 

 

Source

 

Basically, TOR never was to be a "bellwether" for the company. Which actually makes sense.

 

What do you think?

 

I think I'm having fun playing a video game that I play for the sole purpose of distraction from my busy and complicated day. I don't really care to play arm chair developer, economist, or analysis.

 

I may go so far as to read some of the assertions here, and do so with a modicum of interest if they were written by people with more qualifications in the genre, or business then playing a video game. Amazes me that so many feel that they have even clue one as to anything that goes on behind the scenes.

[Blackardin]

You guys need to realize that to EA, you're not a customer.

 

You're a number.

 

A dollar.

 

I'm fifteen of them.....the cost of drinks and lunch for a single day.

 

I'm good with that. ;p

[ComeAndSee]

My servers growing. I know that for a fact.

 

I do /who through 1 through 49 and it's over 700 players leveling on my faction during prime time on my server.

 

People who stopped playing for D3 and dwindling back slowly.

Edited May 25, 2012 by ComeAndSee

[BlueFromMoon]

Always fun to see EA doing good.

[Sanxxx]

Careful. Last time in this thread that I pointed out that the site was inaccurate (something that even the site owner acknowledges), I got accused of calling the site owner a "liar".

 

The owner does not acknowledge any inaccuracy, it merely meaures what it measures, and currently what it measures is at an all time low.

[JeramieCrowe]

The owner does not acknowledge any inaccuracy, it merely meaures what it measures, and currently what it measures is at an all time low.

 

Indeed it is.

 

Perhaps "inaccurate" isn't the right word. Ballpark? Approximate? "Not to be used to determine sub numbers"? Either one will work.

[Tiaa]

My servers growing. I know that for a fact.

 

I do /who through 1 through 49 and it's over 700 players leveling on my faction during prime time on my server.

 

People who stopped playing for D3 and dwindling back slowly.

 

Over 700 players eh?

 

What server was that you played on again?

 

Don't mind if I check for myself right?

[JeramieCrowe]

Over 700 players eh?

 

What server was that you played on again?

 

Don't mind if I check for myself right?

 

A large portion of those are probably alt-rollers, though, rather than new players. I'm sure there are some, but not as many of that 700 as he probably thinks.

Edited May 25, 2012 by JeramieCrowe

[Dezzi]

You know what's funny? All these people trying to discredit TORStatus, but they're forgetting the analyst who used that site as a reference for his predictions about population decline. He turned out to be correct. Don't discount the numbers because they're not perfectly accurate--that's not the purpose of that site. Use it to see trends. The trend is down, which is corroborated by players' experiences. Edited May 25, 2012 by Dezzi

[JeramieCrowe]

You know what's funny? All these people trying to discredit TORStatus, but they're forgetting the analyst who used that site as a reference for his predictions about population decline. He turned out to be correct. Don't discount the numbers because they're not perfectly accurate--that's not the purpose of that site. Use it to see trends. The trend is down, which is corroborated by players' experiences.

 

Definitely don't discount it! I don't, either. It's a good approximation.

[banecolton]

Careful. Last time in this thread that I pointed out that the site was inaccurate (something that even the site owner acknowledges), I got accused of calling the site owner a "liar".

 

Nice try Mr Crow, but again the forum history does not support your false assertion.

 

When Wayshuba said this:

Again, if there were three average at say 170 three months ago that is 510 live. Now even if you have two shards at 130 you are talking a total of 260 live. That is almost a 50% drop. Big difference.

 

Again, I was fortunate to land on Jedi Covenant, which is one of the most populated PvE. Three shards were extremely common in fleet back in January. However, now it is always only on one shard. Population in one shard is still okay, but to go from three shards to one and 175 average a shard to 130 average on one shard is a much bigger drop than 24%. Still playable on one shard, yes, but also a much bigger population decline that 24%.

 

Also, as far as not looking past my own server... I am on one of the most populated servers... the sheer volume of threads of people asking for server transfers is enough to say my server is the GOOD example. If I'm on the good example, don't need to look further than that as it's clear most of the other servers are in much worse shape than Jedi Covenant.

 

You replied with this:

Guess I'm just not as quick to call anyone a liar without some pretty solid empirical evidence.

 

To which Wayshuba replied with this:

Since you insist.... here is population tracking across all servers across all shards.

 

US: http://www.torstatus.net/shards/us

 

EU: http://www.torstatus.net/shards/eu

 

AP: http://www.torstatus.net/shards/apac

 

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.

 

Funny how instead of ever addressing why you would use the line “Guess I'm just not as quick to call anyone a liar without some pretty solid empirical evidence” or why you refute the empirical evidence he provided you to support his argument you just keep spinning untruths about it.

 

Like I said before up until the point you used that “cheap shot” of a reply I thought you were doing a good job of debating the subject and making your argument. But all you seem to have done since then is try to spin your way out of the subject. Too bad really, you seem like a smart guy, but all of this tortured spin and distraction you have been engaged in has pretty much destroyed any credibility you might have had.

 

So if you need to tell stories go ahead, but a simple check of the post history in this thread will show the truth of the matter.

 

Edited May 25, 2012 by banecolton

[JeramieCrowe]

*bunch of stuff from someone who has no idea what "empirical" means*

 

TORstatus.net? Empirical?! LOL!!

 

Whatever you say, man. Bang on!

[banecolton]

TORstatus.net? Empirical?! LOL!!

 

Whatever you say, man. Bang on!

 

Well a simple check of “the google” gives the following

 

em•pir•i•cal (m-pîr-kl)

adj.

1.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

em•piri•cal•ly adv.

 

Now given that TORStatus measures and records the server loads and has recorded data spanning months I’d say it fits the definition pretty well.

 

But then since you seem to have given up any debate of the subject and have digressed into simple ad hominem attacks I will take it that you simply have ceded the point.

 

One question , are you sure you aren’t the person who “ has no idea what empirical means”?

 

Must be hard to try and keep coming up with distractions and misdirection when something as simple as reading the thread history will derail the narrative you are trying to create.

Edited May 25, 2012 by banecolton

[JeramieCrowe]

Well a simple check of “the google” gives the following

 

em•pir•i•cal (m-pîr-kl)

adj.

1.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

em•piri•cal•ly adv.

 

Now given that TORStatus measures and records the server loads and has recorded data spanning months I’d say it fits the definition pretty well.

 

But then since you seem to have given up any debate of the subject and have digressed into simple ad hominem attacks I will take it that you simply have ceded the point.

 

One question , are you sure you aren’t the person who “ has no idea what empirical means”?

 

Must be hard to try and keep coming up with distractions and misdirection when something as simple as reading the thread history will derail the narrative you are trying to create.

 

Very good! Now, follow me to the next step: TORstatus does NOT have empirical data for SUBSCRIPTION NUMBERS!!

 

*phew* That took a bit of work!

[banecolton]

Very good! Now, follow me to the next step: TORstatus does NOT have empirical data for SUBSCRIPTION NUMBERS!!

 

*phew* That took a bit of work!

 

And again you either try to misdirect, or you truly cannot read and comprehend what has been said.

 

The data is server load; at no time did Wayshuba or I ever say TORStatus tracked subscription numbers. Not once in the thread. You seem to have a problem with processing that key detail. You should go back and read what both Wayshuba and I have said.

 

Server load can be used to extrapolate active subscription numbers by examining the past data and looking at the changes (I have posed on how a couple of time already in this thread, please go back and read them).

 

See. That is what we have been saying.

 

You know I had thought that you were trying to spin your way out of a conversation because you wanted to avoid talking about the subject, but perhaps instead of desperately trying to avoid facts that can easily be verified by looking at the thread history and seeing what has been said you really just don’t get it.

 

I am sorry if I overestimated your level of intellect. It seems instead of an attempt to create a narrative you really are just struggling to understand the basic concepts being discussed. Sorry if we confused you.

 

You can try and reread what we have said if you want to understand, and if you need to you can take it slow, it’s OK, we’ll wait.

 

[JeramieCrowe]

And again you either try to misdirect, or you truly cannot read and comprehend what has been said.

 

The data is server load; at no time did Wayshuba or I ever say TORStatus tracked subscription numbers. Not once in the thread. You seem to have a problem with processing that key detail. You should go back and read what both Wayshuba and I have said.

 

Server load can be used to extrapolate active subscription numbers by examining the past data and looking at the changes (I have posed on how a couple of time already in this thread, please go back and read them).

 

See. That is what we have been saying.

 

You know I had thought that you were trying to spin your way out of a conversation because you wanted to avoid talking about the subject, but perhaps instead of desperately trying to avoid facts that can easily be verified by looking at the thread history and seeing what has been said you really just don’t get it.

 

I am sorry if I overestimated your level of intellect. It seems instead of an attempt to create a narrative you really are just struggling to understand the basic concepts being discussed. Sorry if we confused you.

 

You can try and reread what we have said if you want to understand, and if you need to you can take it slow, it’s OK, we’ll wait.

 

 

I'm going to try to summarize the actual conversation that you completely misunderstood for you, and then I'm giving up on you:

 

He stated that during April, subs were NOT at 1.3 million like EA claimed. Then he tried to use TORstatus to back up that claim. I pointed out that one cannot use TORstatus to determine sub numbers.

 

That's all there was to it. But you'll probably try to read between these lines, too, when there is nothing there.

 

If you cannot wrap your skull around that, I cannot help you.

[banecolton]

I'm going to try to summarize the actual conversation that you completely misunderstood for you, and then I'm giving up on you:

 

He stated that during April, subs were NOT at 1.3 million like EA claimed. Then he tried to use TORstatus to back up that claim. I pointed out that one cannot use TORstatus to determine sub numbers.

 

That's all there was to it. But you'll probably try to read between these lines, too, when there is nothing there.

 

If you cannot wrap your skull around that, I cannot help you.

 

Sadly the post history does not correlate with your assertions. It’s all there in black and white (or brown and white if you go by the forum colors).

 

I understand that you want to dodge your post history and for being called out for what you have said, and understand that you seem to want to create a narrative about what was said, but the sad fact is that looking at the posts derails your claim about what was said.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I am not now or at any point have been mad at you or anything. I am just one of those people that likes to talk about things in a rational manner, and I tend to call out people who use spin or hyperbole.

 

I am not upset that you can’t deal with the facts that in this case can be confirmed by simply going back and reading the posts in the thread.

 

Actually I feel really sad for you. If your sense of ego and self-worth is so fragile that you need to keep trying to spin and deny what was said then you must be quiet unhappy. I hope that one day you will be able to handle something as easy as a mature discussion on an internet forum (this is of course provided that such a thing is possible!) without having to resort to all of the conversational contortions you have gone through here in order to avoid some uncomfortable facts.

 

So maybe next time you have the urge to say something like:

Careful. Last time in this thread that I pointed out that the site was inaccurate (something that even the site owner acknowledges), I got accused of calling the site owner a "liar".

when it was in fact you who accused another person of calling someone a liar:

Guess I'm just not as quick to call anyone a liar without some pretty solid empirical evidence.

you might have a reason to pause and consider the consequences of that action.

 

Then again when faced with someone who calls out the facts you could just decide that “you are giving up on them” and run away.

 

Good luck to you Mr. Crow.

[Onyx]

Right, but even selling 10 million games, those games are so simple to update these days that I bet you and I could do it (not BF, that's probably slightly more more intensive). Think about the current ROI for Madden and FIFA alone - it has to be mind blowing. A few tweaks to the engine, updated rosters, maybe a new stadium every year.

 

So while those may be "investor" and "profit" priorities, that doesn't mean they would willfully neglect SWTOR because of them. I can only assume that there's no chance in hell that Madden or FIFA needs a staff of 600 employees to develop/update (600 was the last # of employees at Bioware Austin I saw), even when they completely re-do the game engines. Those titles are MASSIVE $ cows.

 

SWTOR may not have the current ability to compete with the cross platform console games, but...even a game like SWG was making money 8 years after development, with a skeleton crew.

 

Bottom line, I don't think the statement was made to dis SWTOR as much as it was to say to investors "guys, SWTOR is a drop in the bucket for us, don't freak out, we'll still make $".

 

Well-said and I fully agree.

 

The only thing I'll really add is that is shocks me a bit that folks think this game would take on/surpass industry-leading giants like The Sims franchise. Put it in perspective. They surpassed 100 million copies sold clear back in 2008--The Sims 3 hadn't even been released (nor the last couple Sims 2 packs). It was up to 125 million at the 10th anniversary in Feb. 2010 and by May 2011, it was in excess of 156 million copies. Sales numbers keep increasing, not decreasing. And that's just in copies sold not dollar volume. In dollars, they passed the $2.5 billion mark back at the end of 2009.