Forbes thinks TOR is a financial disaster for EA. Your thoughts

[Arkerus]

So what?

 

I asked earlier in this thread, and did not receive an answer: "What makes a blogger any less accurate/important/factual than a writer actually on Forbes staff?"

 

Take your favorite, most trustworthy, most accurate, reporter (Tom Brokaw, and Larry King are some examples) - and imagine them getting their start in this day and age. Do you think they would have just started as a respected reporter?

 

Everyone has to start somewhere.

 

Trying to discredit the writer solely on perceived age ("random blogger kid"), experience - or lack thereof , and/or being a blogger is just ignorance.

 

Now, if you can point to a history of inaccuracies, and failings ("based on his game reporting the past three years, I find his opinions worthless") you would have something.

 

But then again, some of the best people in their fields had miserable failures early on...

 

Try focusing on the content of the article, rather than your perceived failings in the writer.

 

Because I read it.

 

Its all speculation. T he guy didn't even do his homework. Its just conjecture and "possibilities". I can't take it seriously. He just summarizes a bunch of things and then goes on to add his own opinion.

 

He's just a blogger. This is more or less an op ed piece and NOTHING more.

[jarjarloves]

Blizzard banked on 15 years of goodwill towards that game. Diablo 3 was a half assed product, and I'm amazed it isn't getting the 'tortanic' treatment.

 

It just strikes me as a situation where everyone, media includes, hates EA and takes every chance to bury them.

 

I thik BF3 was dollar for dollar the bigger failure, but that appears to be ignored. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm still trying to figure out how having 1 million subs is a failure, when they recouped all of their expenses on 2 million + box sales and 3 months of around 1.5 million paid subs.

 

As long as they are making a profit month by month going forward, they should be good. I suspect shutting down 75% of their servers is a good thing towards this end, despite the 50-100 subs per server that think otherwise.

 

the tortanic treatment is stupid to begin with. In no possible way is SWTOR the titanic of video games.

 

Neither is Diablo 3. Diablo 3 is a buy to play game and it is one of the highest selling pc games of all time. Already its sold more then Starcraft 2. Now you might not like the game and that is pefectly fine no one should fault you for that. But it doesn't mean the game was an epic fail to everyone because you don't like it.

[Temad]

Cutting all those servers is to make way for the mega servers they want to implement, which to my understanding (anyone please feel free to correct anything I get wrong) is basically going to be about 15-25 servers designed to support thousands of players, this way they can avoid the horribly low pop servers that were hurting the game and make it easier to form groups to do content.

 

 

You are grasping at straws. That "mega server" thing was a dream they would like to get to and would be several years off at the soonest. Consolidation was not done as preplanning for this it was done because they were hemorrhaging customers.

 

The consolidation was far harsher than anyone saw coming. The biggest in MMO history actually and worse considering it was required after only 5 months.

[SpazCats]

I'm sure this has been said a dozen times already, but this article is written by what is essentially a blogger at Forbes. I'm sick of people linking these articles every day saying 'OMG Forbes says...' when it's just a blogger who posts at Forbes. Any one of you schmucks could write for Forbes too, it takes like 30 minutes to register to be a blogger. Dumb asses.

 

Ok, you, or any of these other "schmucks", go ahead and register as a blogger with Forbes and show me an article you published on Forbes. I bet you don't even get past the registration phase before being weeded out.

 

I'm not saying this article is perfect, but Forbes does have a fairly high standard. One needs to be pretty dedicated and professional to not only have a blog there, but to let Forbes let you keep putting articles there.

[jarjarloves]

I have no doubt this game will be around for awhile, i have very serious doubts that this game will ever be a good game.

 

The two main reasons i have serious doubt about the game have nothing to do with the layoffs/firings, i actualy hope those are attempts to fix the horrible direction this game took.

 

Reason #1: Who ever was/is calling the shots have no idea what mmo players want, thinking things like an lfg tool, macros and a combat window just werent very important was a monumental blunder and who ever was/is responcible should have been immediately replaced.

 

Reason #2: The technical side of this game seems to be run by extremely incompetant people, people say the engine is to blame but even if the engine is crap a really good crew could fix it and make it usable in the 6+ years they had to work on it.

 

Things like the group finder not having a gear check and not being able to identify people specs (things that both wow and rifts gf's did at release) just scream incompetance. Then you add in all the little bugs that go untouched for months and months and you can look at how long it took them to implement server merges.

 

The list could go on and on for both of these reasons, and if they arent adressed very quickly this game will go on for years and years as a ghost town and an example of how money doesnt overcome stupidity, arrogance and incompetance.

 

1. LFG tool is new to MMOs believe it or not. Off hand I can only think of three games that have it like this. WoW, Aion and Rift. Aion and Rift got it pretty recently like in the past year. So it's not like having something like masterlooter ie something that has been in MMOs since Day one. Also it took WoW what 5+ years to come up with it.

 

2. On the technical side people don't know what they are talking about. They say it's the engine so they sound like they are intelligent.

[CygnusMX]

I have too many games and too many moods to worry about all this.

[jarjarloves]

So what?

 

I asked earlier in this thread, and did not receive an answer: "What makes a blogger any less accurate/important/factual than a writer actually on Forbes staff?"

 

Take your favorite, most trustworthy, most accurate, reporter (Tom Brokaw, and Larry King are some examples) - and imagine them getting their start in this day and age. Do you think they would have just started as a respected reporter?

.

 

one word

 

research

[leathfuil]

So what?

 

So he doesn't speak for Forbes. IT EVEN SAYS THAT RIGHT ON THE WEBPAGE.

 

Ergo, the subject line of this thread is an outright lie.

[Blattan]

one word

 

research

 

Oh? You have proof the writer didn't do research? You have proof the Forbes staff always do research?

Or are you just posting your opinion up as fact again?

 

So he doesn't speak for Forbes. IT EVEN SAYS THAT RIGHT ON THE WEBPAGE.

 

I don't see that. I see that Paul Tassi is listed as a contributor, but nothing about the article being separate from Forbes proper.

 

Ergo, the subject line of this thread is an outright lie.

 

I won't go so far as to claim the subject line is a lie, That is a bit harsh. I suspect the poster believed it to be true (and may still), so I can't call it a lie.

 

If people have issue with the subject line, address that. Attempting to discredit the author of the article for perceived failings isn't the way.

[Arkerus]

Oh? You have proof the writer didn't do research? You have proof the Forbes staff always do research?

Or are you just posting your opinion up as fact again?

 

 

 

I don't see that. I see that Paul Tassi is listed as a contributor, but nothing about the article being separate from Forbes proper.

 

 

 

I won't go so far as to claim the subject line is a lie, That is a bit harsh. I suspect the poster believed it to be true (and may still), so I can't call it a lie.

 

If people have issue with the subject line, address that. Attempting to discredit the author of the article for perceived failings isn't the way.

 

The "blogger" didn't even cite any sources. His 500M projection was silly at best. The rest of the article is all opinion. It even says that. Its an opinion piece. It was only posted ON forbes.

 

The OP was hoping to "prove" that TOR is failing because for some reason, an article on forbes means that TOR is a financial mess. Reality is quite the opposite. Its not even a forbes backed article.

[jarjarloves]

Oh? You have proof the writer didn't do research? You have proof the Forbes staff always do research?

Or are you just posting your opinion up as fact again?

 

 

.

 

yes I do have proof that he didn't do his research.

 

If you read the article you would know that.

 

For example he talks about having only 1 million subscribers is only decent. Of course he is thinking that it is compared to WoW's 11 million subscribers. But if he actually did resarch he would know that WoW only has 11 million because of China and that was during it's peak. In NA and EU it only had 4 million at it's peak and probably close to half of that now.

 

So 1 million in just US and EU is a HUGE deal it's double what Bioware said they needed to be profitiable.

 

The other one that shows he didn't do any research is this

 

SWTOR might end up going free-to-play

 

That is complete conjecture. He also goes on to say that a F2P model isn't profitable which couldn't be further from the truth.

Edited July 30, 2012 by jarjarloves

[Taorus]

Oh? You have proof the writer didn't do research? You have proof the Forbes staff always do research?

Or are you just posting your opinion up as fact again?

 

 

 

I don't see that. I see that Paul Tassi is listed as a contributor, but nothing about the article being separate from Forbes proper.

 

 

 

I won't go so far as to claim the subject line is a lie, That is a bit harsh. I suspect the poster believed it to be true (and may still), so I can't call it a lie.

 

If people have issue with the subject line, address that. Attempting to discredit the author of the article for perceived failings isn't the way.

3.1 The Website is a distributor of content supplied by other information content providers such as non-staff bloggers, commenters, the Associated Press, PR Newswire, etc. The Website is not responsible for the statements and opinions expressed by those content providers. Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of such content lies solely with those content providers and is not guaranteed by Forbes. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 230, Forbes is not the publisher of such information and is therefore not liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in such content. Given the volume of information posted by such providers, the Website cannot and does not monitor all of the information posted to the Website and assumes no duty to monitor the Website for inappropriate or inaccurate content. Neither Forbes nor its affiliates or employees shall be liable to any user or anyone else for claims of defamation, libel, slander, infringement, invasion of privacy and publicity rights, obscenity, ***********, fraud or misrepresentation arising from such content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Forbes reserves the right to remove information provided by other information content providers at any time in its sole discretion.

 

Check the highlighted segment.

[Blattan]

The "blogger" didn't even cite any sources. His 500M projection was silly at best. The rest of the article is all opinion. It even says that. Its an opinion piece.

 

There were sources listed. The gamespot article was listed as the source for the $200 million developing cost.

Admittedly, there was no source for the possible $500 million total including marketing... But then the writer never said "it did cost $500 million," only that it was possible. Other, more trustworthy, sources have claimed it might have cost $500 million.

 

Also, I do not see where the article is claimed to be an opinion piece.

 

And even if it is, so what?

 

That doesn't discredit the writer in any way shape or form.

[Mallorik]

1. LFG tool is new to MMOs believe it or not. Off hand I can only think of three games that have it like this. WoW, Aion and Rift. Aion and Rift got it pretty recently like in the past year. So it's not like having something like masterlooter ie something that has been in MMOs since Day one. Also it took WoW what 5+ years to come up with it.

 

2. On the technical side people don't know what they are talking about. They say it's the engine so they sound like they are intelligent.

 

Something that is 3+ years old is not "new" And who cares how long it took wow to come up with the idea? im not going to release a smart phone to compete with the iphone and think i have 5 years to come up with a touch screen, thats not how it works.

 

And yes Rift didnt have it at launch, but when it did launch it was fully functional and their techs were able to engineer the apparently extremely difficult funtions like gear and spec checks.

 

Somebody already came up with the idea, it works so well that it is considered a staple of the genre and someone at bw thought the game would do fine without it, that is idiotic and only one example from a long list of ignorant ideas bw had about the mmo community.

 

Argue all you want, but i guarantee until bioware fixes what allowed these things to happen this game will never be a succes.

[leathfuil]

You don't even have to dig that deeply, Taorus.

 

"The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. " [italics theirs].

 

It's right there on the page, beneath the biographical blurb. If somebody can't find it, they're not really looking for it.

 

Also, arguing that unknowingly reciting a lie makes it not a lie is... well, only bad things could ever come from it.

[jarjarloves]

There were sources listed. The gamespot article was listed as the source for the $200 million developing cost.

Admittedly, there was no source for the possible $500 million total including marketing... But then the writer never said "it did cost $500 million," only that it was possible. Other, more trustworthy, sources have claimed it might have cost $500 million.

 

Also, I do not see where the article is claimed to be an opinion piece.

 

And even if it is, so what?

 

That doesn't discredit the writer in any way shape or form.

 

This is the problem with blogs.

 

The Gamespot article was just talking about an article written in the LA times about it which is completely wrong.

 

They say it cost over $200 million and had over 800 employees.

 

The way they did this was pure guess work. They counted everything that Bioware outcoursed such as the opening CG movies to Blur studios and they counted each employee working at Blur as working for Bioware. They also calculated their salary and added it into the the total cost.

 

 

So lets say Blur studio has 100 employees and they average 60,000 a year. Well thats 100 employees workign for Bioware and another 6 million added to the budget.

 

Which of course is completely wrong as Bioware probably payed them less then 1 million dollars to make those movies. Of course these numbers i'm making up to show you how inaccurate the article is.

 

See the difference.

 

 

OH more proof that the LA times article has no clue as to what it's talking about there is this little gem.

 

Even the mighty World of Warcraft has lost nearly 2 million players over the last year as customers have embraced free online titles such as FarmVille and League of Legend

 

Now yes WoW has lost probably 2 million but it lost 2 million because of Farmville?? WTH??

Edited July 30, 2012 by jarjarloves

[Blattan]

For example he talks about having only 1 million subscribers is only decent. Of course he is thinking that it is compared to WoW's 11 million subscribers.

 

Wow. You know what the writer was thinking? Damn... You're good son.

 

And, for whatever reason, 1 million subscriptions is considered a "magical" number in the industry. I'm not sure why. But just because a writer uses that as any kind of baseline doesn't rule out research.

 

SWTOR might end up going free-to-play

 

That is complete conjecture.

 

Yes. That is what "might" implies. How is that proof the writer didn't do any research?

 

3.1 The Website is a distributor of content supplied by other information content providers such as non-staff bloggers, commenters, the Associated Press, PR Newswire, etc. The Website is not responsible for the statements and opinions expressed by those content providers. Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of such content lies solely with those content providers and is not guaranteed by Forbes. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 230, Forbes is not the publisher of such information and is therefore not liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in such content. Given the volume of information posted by such providers, the Website cannot and does not monitor all of the information posted to the Website and assumes no duty to monitor the Website for inappropriate or inaccurate content. Neither Forbes nor its affiliates or employees shall be liable to any user or anyone else for claims of defamation, libel, slander, infringement, invasion of privacy and publicity rights, obscenity, ***********, fraud or misrepresentation arising from such content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Forbes reserves the right to remove information provided by other information content providers at any time in its sole discretion.

 

Check the highlighted segment.

 

Sure. But it isn't on the webpage as you said. It isn't with the article, as was implied.

 

You don't even have to dig that deeply, Taorus.

 

"The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. " [italics theirs].

 

It's right there on the page, beneath the biographical blurb. If somebody can't find it, they're not really looking for it.

 

I did look for it. But couldn't see it. Now I do, and concede the point. (I was looking primarily around the by-line, the article opening, and the article closing. I even saw the bio section, but didn't look closely enough under it.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Blattan

[Blattan]

The Gamespot article was just talking about an article written in the LA times about it which is completely wrong.

 

Citation needed.

 

Or are we supposed to take the word of "some random forum poster kid?" :-P

[jarjarloves]

Wow. You know what the writer was thinking? Damn... You're good son.

 

And, for whatever reason, 1 million subscriptions is considered a "magical" number in the industry. I'm not sure why. But just because a writer uses that as any kind of baseline doesn't rule out research.

 

 

 

Yes. That is what "might" implies. How is that proof the writer didn't do any research?

 

 

 

Sure. But it isn't on the webpage as you said. It isn't with the article, as was implied.

 

 

 

I did look for it. But couldn't see it. Now I do, and concede the point. (I was looking primarily around the by-line, the article opening, and the article closing. I even saw the bio section, but didn't look closely enough under it.

read my previous post about how he uses a Gamespot article that talks about a LA times article as his "research"

[Malicer]

Its funny how Ohlen talked about F2P in an overall F2P gaming way, not really related to TOR but everyone quotes and assumes he is running with it. Emmanuelle Lusinchi said they were "looking" at it...Some gaming sites even call out the media and gamer's for running with it.

 

Since everyone is making assumptions on it though. My assumption is that George Lucas will force choke the entire dev team all at once before he lets something come close to tarnishing the SW image (more than it has) i.e. giving away star wars ANYTHING for free. It is probably in their contract lol. Just my opinion.

[jarjarloves]

Citation needed.

 

Or are we supposed to take the word of "some random forum poster kid?" :-P

 

if you read the LA times article you would be able to figure out the parts that are complete BS

[Ensquire]

This is the problem with blogs.

 

The Gamespot article was just talking about an article written in the LA times about it which is completely wrong.

 

They say it cost over $200 million and had over 800 employees.

 

The way they did this was pure guess work. They counted everything that Bioware outcoursed such as the opening CG movies to Blur studios and they counted each employee working at Blur as working for Bioware. They also calculated their salary and added it into the the total cost.

 

 

So lets say Blur studio has 100 employees and they average 60,000 a year. Well thats 100 employees workign for Bioware and another 6 million added to the budget.

 

Which of course is completely wrong as Bioware probably payed them less then 1 million dollars to make those movies. Of course these numbers i'm making up to show you how inaccurate the article is.

 

See the difference.

 

 

OH more proof that the LA times article has no clue as to what it's talking about there is this little gem.

 

 

 

Now yes WoW has lost probably 2 million but it lost 2 million because of Farmville?? WTH??

 

I found five or six articles that the success of the old republic has a direct connection on the drop of EA stock

This is the best one...

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-21-stock-ticker-why-eas-market-valuation-has-crashed/

 

here's a good quote from the article

 

 

-"Firstly, there's Star Wars: The Old Republic. EA's stock price went into decline after The Old Republic's launch, and hasn't recovered yet - and that timing is unlikely to be a coincidence. Expectations among investors for SWTOR were extremely high, given the game's much-publicised high development costs (which probably make it the most expensive game project ever), the strength of the Star Wars license, the track record of developer Bioware and, crucially, the tantalising possibility of building an ongoing MMO revenue stream for EA which would match the one enjoyed by rival Activision Blizzard from World of Warcraft. While it would be unfair to characterise SWTOR as a complete failure, it has certainly not been a success on the level which EA or its investors would have wanted. The game has lost 400,000 subscribers since February, and it seems inevitable that the company will be forced into an embarrassing (but probably commercially sensible) transition to a free-to-play model sooner rather than later."

 

I can't seem to find any articles outside of EA saying this game going to be a success or is looking to turn around and be successful anytime soon

Edited July 30, 2012 by Ensquire

[jarjarloves]

Wow. You know what the writer was thinking? Damn... You're good son.

 

And, for whatever reason, 1 million subscriptions is considered a "magical" number in the industry. I'm not sure why. But just because a writer uses that as any kind of baseline doesn't rule out research.

.

 

1 million is considered a magic number for a couple reasons

 

1. it's a big number that sounds impressive

2. ITS DOUBLE WHAT BIOWARE SAID THEY NEEDED TO BE PROFITABLE

 

The second one is a big deal and IF he did his research he would know what he is talking about

 

 

Here is a much more accurate story about Biowares budget.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/star-wars-the-old-republic-has-cost-ea-80-million-analyst-6312400

[jarjarloves]

I found five or six articles that the success of the old republic has a direct connection on the drop of EA stock

This is the best one...

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-21-stock-ticker-why-eas-market-valuation-has-crashed/

 

here's a good quote from the article

 

 

-"Firstly, there's Star Wars: The Old Republic. EA's stock price went into decline after The Old Republic's launch, and hasn't recovered yet - and that timing is unlikely to be a coincidence. Expectations among investors for SWTOR were extremely high, given the game's much-publicised high development costs (which probably make it the most expensive game project ever), the strength of the Star Wars license, the track record of developer Bioware and, crucially, the tantalising possibility of building an ongoing MMO revenue stream for EA which would match the one enjoyed by rival Activision Blizzard from World of Warcraft. While it would be unfair to characterise SWTOR as a complete failure, it has certainly not been a success on the level which EA or its investors would have wanted. The game has lost 400,000 subscribers since February, and it seems inevitable that the company will be forced into an embarrassing (but probably commercially sensible) transition to a free-to-play model sooner rather than later."

 

I can't seem to find any articles outside of EA saying this game going to be a success or is looking toturn around and be successful anytime soon

 

 

cool story bro? what does that have to do with the LA times article?

[Ensquire]

cool story bro? what does that have to do with the LA times article?

 

This is just one of many articles that support the LA times and what they are saying