Jump to content

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


Ensquire

Recommended Posts

EA should make an operating system just for gaming that runs on less resources and increases performances and can even allow games to run in multiplayer mode with split screens.

 

If they do this, they can make a lot of money.

 

BW also needs to realize that their development has to be prioritized with new content/mechanics, and if VO takes a lot of the resources then that prevents new content from coming along... and that is a problem, since new content/mechanics is needed more than questing.

 

Many complaints seem to be on the limiting content at end game, or the lack of life in the world and with NPCs standing still in cities or waiting to be attacked. That should be the focus, and with new content they should also work on increasing the dynamic feel to the worlds. The story is good especially for an MMO story, but MMOs are more about the online experience than a personal story... and it seems that is how the demographics will invest their time in an MMO that is more about story than end game, and not becoming an 'alt' game for them.

Edited by VegaPhone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 901
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1st. yes he does cite it but thanks for not being able to listen. He says "It has been rumoured that SWTOR cost around $200 million" Which is referring to the LA times article. He then says his anecdotal evidence to show how it could where he hears the developers talk about juggling 600 people.

 

Good try on that one.

 

1st, I think you do not understand what cite means.

 

Second, he does mention the rumor. Maybe it refers to the LA Times article. You do not have the authority to claim it does.

 

And his anecdotal evidence is what I was pointing out. But you would know that if you were able to read.

 

The numbers he throws around are not based on the LA Times article. Therefor, he does not cite the LA Times article for the values.

 

 

The last Earnings call in May

 

http://investor.ea.com/eventdetail.cfm?eventid=112729

 

suck on that.

 

Registration required. I can't* read it.

 

Suck on that.

 

*I am not going to register for a site I have little interest in, just to empower your mental ************.

 

EDIT to add::

 

it is amazing how much travel that article has gotten. Reminds me of the old saying the best lie is one hidden between two truths.

 

Is that the realm you tend to operate in? :-P

Edited by Blattan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whats comical, is how you think this game didn't cost a thing

 

Strange, I don't see anyone saying it didn't cost a thing, just people saying that it's ridiculous to claim it cost 200 million to make without any solid proof from the people that made the claim, instead it's a list of blogs full of speculation and rumoring

Edited by SNCommand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EA should make an operating system just for gaming that runs on less resources and increases performances and can even allow games to run in multiplayer mode with split screens.

 

If they do this, they can make a lot of money.

 

That would be a bigger disaster then the race into social gaming on mobile devices that they are currently focused on. There is no room in consumer products for more operating systems. It's one of the fundamental elements of Nokias rapid demise in the smart phone market (and RIM as well).

 

The only room in consumer products today for a new OS is a proprietary piece of hardware called a "game console". And that market is pretty well closed as well, being owned by just a handful of mega players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now you're saying EA is outsourcing American jobs to China.

One more reason not to support this game. :cool:

 

Not taking part in this argument, but just letting you know that outsourcing is done by every AAA developer to some extent.

 

But I guess it's "cool" to hate EA even when other companies are doing the "bad" things they are accused of on a much larger scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is amazing how much travel that article has gotten. Reminds me of the old saying the best lie is one hidden between two truths.

 

It used to be: "if you say it enough times, it becomes true even when it is unsubstantiated"

 

But that old technology.

 

Today it is: "if you link it enough times in a game forum it becomes true, even when it is unsubstantiated"

 

New technology is wonderful.... it allows the rumor mongers to monger bigger and louder via electronic and social media. It also brings them an audience without out them having to wipe the cheetos off their lap and walk outside the confines of their home.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not taking part in this argument, but just letting you know that outsourcing is done by every AAA developer to some extent.

 

But I guess it's "cool" to hate EA even when other companies are doing the "bad" things they are accused of on a much larger scale.

 

Oh, so Stalin gets a pardon because Hitler was much worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so Stalin gets a pardon because Hitler was much worse?

 

He kinda does, I have been trying to tell people I know for years that Stalin and Mao was just as evil if not worse than Hitler, but no, they both get a pass for some apparently self evident reason, probably because they fought with the Allies instead of against

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so Stalin gets a pardon because Hitler was much worse?

 

I phrased my post incorrectly then.

 

Outsourcing isn't "evil", it's simply a necessity of the industry. Many industries in fact. You don't see many people boycotting clothing because it was made in a factory in India or China or refusing to eat rice because *gasp* rice comes from China. At least those are causes that you can legimitately get upset about, if sweatshops or child labor is involved.

 

Yet a game developer outsources some programming or artistic work to trained professional contractors in another country and suddenly they are being compared to Hitler. The reason it's done is because sometimes you need additional work to be done but can't feasibly hire more full-time employees.

 

That's video game forums for you. I suppose you'll never be buying any game from THQ, Ubisoft, Valve, EA, ArenaNet, Blizzard, or Activision again. Enjoy your Indie games.

Edited by Jenzali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll cite
(around 1:30).

 

It doesn't used the LA times article, it used first hand (second hand by the time the viewer hears it) information to estimate out the development costs based on knowledge of the industry.

 

But again, you are presenting your opinion as refutation against opinion pieces being inaccurate.

 

Problem is..... this fellow used the same methodology as the LA Times. It assumes a flat headcount of 600 @ 100K per year for three years. Anyone who has worked on projects of this scale know that assumption is wrong and results in a seriously wrong answer.

 

You don't run a 3 year project of this type with a static headcount for the duration of the project. For high tech projects, the peak headcount usually equals 3-4x the average headcount for a multiyear project. So the youtube video over estimates the labor run rate cost for the life of the project by at least a factor of 3. I do agree with their assumption on 100K per head as they did not just use Austin assets (Austin assets would be closer to 140K).

 

It is much more likely their total budget actuals for development and deployment (not including marketing costs which are a cost of sales) penciled out at ~$90 million (assumes they follow a fairly normal software development curve, or if you prefer, use a movie production development curve because they are actually quite similar). What is not known is their capital costs for the server farms, but I'm going to go with the very valid assumption that they lease the server farms from a major farm provider, in which case their capital costs are almost zero.

Edited by Andryah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cost to develop

 

 

Grand Theft Auto 4 100 million

 

Mass Effect 2 80 million

 

Halo 3 55 million

 

JarJarlove thinking TOR cost less then 200million for six year of development (TOR is a licensed IP)

 

 

Priceless

Edited by Ensquire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cost to develop

 

 

Grand Theft Auto 4 100 million

 

Mass Effect 2 80 million

 

Halo 3 55 million

 

JarJarlove thinking TOR cost less then 200million for six year of development

 

 

Priceless

Rift 60 millions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rofl what do you mean turn? I've gotten my money's worth out of the game. If I ever get bored or they do something that ruins the game for me. I just stop playing. I did it to WoW and I'm fine with that. I don't hate WoW i had fun with it and it's fun to hear how different the game is now. It's like high school in a way. I graduated and moved on I don't sit outside the school telling everyone that comes out it was better when I went there or they're stupid for having fun.

 

I mean it's a video game that's all just pointless entertainment.

 

Now I wouldn't say I defend it because I am the first to admit the game is far from perfect. Its good but not great. What really gets me is people who make up information. I also love a good arguement and something like this is really easy to prove right.

 

It's like the people who say "SWTOR is the biggest failure of gaming history it's worst then the titanic" Which of course is 100% wrong. As I said many pages back

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=4935347#post4935347

 

the biggest disaster would be E.T. Tablua Rasa, or come to think of it Kingdoms of Alumar ( A MMO that failed before it was even launched and what's worse was paid for by tax payers.)

 

SWTOR sold 2.2 million copies and is considered profitable by EA. That kind of proves that it's not the biggest failure in Gaming history.

 

If you don't like it that's fine no one is going to fault you for it. I don't like Transformers but I don't wish Micheal Bay fininacal ruin for making it.

 

This sort of sums up my feelings about this topic

 

 

btw i'm a Physics Teacher who has way to much free time right now.

 

good post I'm glad I chimed in :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good post I'm glad I chimed in :)

 

Could you Imagine If a Micheal Bay Movie had day one dlc?

 

Got to pay more to see the ending of transformers or see that scene with bumblebee turning into a camero for the first time

 

Now turn around and aim that at EA and think of them as movie makers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you Imagine If a Micheal Bay Movie had day one dlc?

 

Got to pay more to see the ending of transformers or see that scene with bumblebee turning into a camero for the first time

 

Now turn around and aim that at EA and think of them as movie makers

 

watch to learn about DLC

 

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

 

no really it's extremely informative.

 

oh and Avatar basically did that when they relased the special edition in theaters with 10 mins of bonus footage. Hell George Lucas does that.

 

 

 

Cost to develop

 

 

Grand Theft Auto 4 100 million

 

Mass Effect 2 80 million

 

Halo 3 55 million

 

JarJarlove thinking TOR cost less then 200million for six year of development (TOR is a licensed IP)

 

 

Priceless

 

yes and? WAR took 6 years and was a licensed property and cost less then 100 million dollars.

 

AoC also cost less then $100 million and took around 6 years, also a licensed IP.

 

In fact I really doubt Bioware had to pay a dime until the game was released especially since Sony was still running SWG. But again I guarntee the SW IP for a MMO is based off of percentage of profits not by anual fees.

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-08-665-people-worked-on-star-wars-the-old-republic

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/122/1220280p1.html

Again 200 million

 

Here it is:

30 Production

75 Designers

80 Engineers

40 Platform

10 Localization

10 Audio

140 Artists (Both internal and outsourced)

280 QA (Both internal and outsourced)

 

Using your numbers (with the exception of QA because those guys DO get paid penuts) and giving them ALL 80k a year for 6 years the total is only

 

184 million

 

So STILL under 200 million and that is way overboard seeing as

 

1. all those people didn't work for all 6 years

2. a lot of those artists where outsourced

3. No way in hell everyone got paid 80,000 year. More likely the bulk of them got paid 40k or less. Despite what you might think game developers don't get paid much. Especially by EA who pays it's employees the least and especially during tough economic times.

 

So even by your numbers not even 200 million

 

/endthread.

 

Excuse me it's time for me to go out for my run.

Edited by jarjarloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is..... this fellow used the same methodology as the LA Times. It assumes a flat headcount of 600 @ 100K per year for three years. Anyone who has worked on projects of this scale know that assumption is wrong and results in a seriously wrong answer.

 

You don't run a 3 year project of this type with a static headcount for the duration of the project. For high tech projects, the peak headcount usually equals 3-4x the average headcount for a multiyear project. So the youtube video over estimates the labor run rate cost for the life of the project by at least a factor of 3. I do agree with their assumption on 100K per head as they did not just use Austin assets (Austin assets would be closer to 140K).

 

This could all very well be true.

 

But you need to take into account a couple of things.

  • Ed Park (the guy in the video), did undercut the numbers some. He only used 600 people - the minimum in the range spoken about, and he only used 3 years to multiply out. I think we can all agree that the development time was longer than 3 years. Maybe even double that.
  • Ed Park has some serious chops when it comes to talking about games. I dare say more than anyone else on this forum. (Under the heading "Who is Taugrim")

 

Does that make his info irrefutable?

 

Not in the least. But it does carry more weight than some random poster on these forums.

 

So, while I do not say "SW:ToR definitively cost $200+ million to develop," I do find it hard to swallow when some random forum poster claims it cost (much) less than that.

Edited by Blattan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...