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

[Lt_Latency]

ok I just logged on to Fatman

 

Remember 250 USED to be Full before the server transfers

 

Fatman Empire side is sitting at 265 and is Standard.

I don't have a republic character so I can't tell you what that is at but odds are it's close

 

I'm just saying that is what it was before.

 

What was a full server after??? Doesn't have to fatman. if it was 500, That sounds like maybe the were 2 times as big now.

[Kourage]

Unknown newbie blogger is just looking for attention. Thanks OP for giving it to him.

[Dantalist]

Forbes thinks this games is a complete financial disaster. With loss in subs, the threat of Free-2-play on the horizon, are you sticking with game past the six month mark? what are your thoughts?

With current layoffs can TOR developers now produce content at a pace to keep players happy?

(I know they say they can, Because they will never say they can't)

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/07/19/five-reasons-ea-is-in-decline/

 

Note: how this game performs financially has a trickle down effect on EA's overall stock

 

Edit: New links showing reputable business site stating the link between TOR success and electronic arts stock

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-07/industries/31606454_1_ea-sales-active-subscribers-colin-sebastian

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17989756

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/332913/ea-shares-drop-after-analyst-expresses-old-republic-concerns/

http://www.videogamer.com/pc/star_wars_the_old_republic/news/ea_stock_drops_3_after_star_wars_the_old_republic_doubts.html

 

You realize the forbes website is stuffed full of average joe blows who can publish articles on there, right? I mean, you're basically citing a blog.

 

When you say "forbes" thinks it's a disaster that is 100% inaccurate and misleading. Grow some sense.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Dantalist

[ObiJuanShenobi]

Hello, I'm another demoralizing thread that beats a dead horse and invites trolls, nice to meet you.

 

You know, this game wouldn't be a financial disaster if people actually spent more time playing as opposed to blowing up the forums all day every day about how "awful it is" and "how much of a disaster it is". People have done the same exact thing on the WoW forums from day 1 til now and it still hit a point in its existence where it was massively successful. The game isn't dying, all MMO's were borerline F2P in their infancy stage of existence. This game will be a success, wait and see.

[jarjarloves]

I'm just saying that is what it was before.

 

What was a full server after??? Doesn't have to fatman. if it was 500, That sounds like maybe the were 2 times as big now.

 

that's just it. Back before the transfer you would have 250 people on fleet with maybe 20 people max on each planet (if even) Which is why one of the reasons that torstatus was actually accurate at one time. This was considered full

 

NOW we have 400-500 people on fleet and 100+ people on planets. Now Torstatus can't get accurate numbers because it /who will only return a maximum of 50 people. Plus now there are a LOT more people running ops, flashpoints and Warzones. Just last night there were 6 other groups running EC on my server thats 48 people not counted in fleet.

 

So yes servers are 5 times larger then before.... easily.

[GalacticKegger]

If the Forbes writer thinks EA spent over $250 million on marketing this game and this game only, he needs to be fired.

He's a freelance hired gun with a track record of less than-unbiased commentary. I stopped reading the moment he started comparing Battlefield to COD in an article supposedly illustrating (per the summary) how SWTOR is why EA's stock was dropping. He appears to lack insight in both matters of finance and MMO gaming. Oh well. Edited July 28, 2012 by GalacticKegger

[Lt_Latency]

that's just it. Back before the transfer you would have 250 people on fleet with maybe 20 people max on each planet (if even) Which is why one of the reasons that torstatus was actually accurate at one time. This was considered full

 

NOW we have 400-500 people on fleet and 100+ people on planets. Now Torstatus can't get accurate numbers because it /who will only return a maximum of 50 people. Plus now there are a LOT more people running ops, flashpoints and Warzones. Just last night there were 6 other groups running EC on my server thats 48 people not counted in fleet.

 

So yes servers are 5 times larger then before.... easily.

 

 

We are talking about capacity. What the planned the server to be running at before they lost those players to need a merge.

 

Not what they were running at to cause the merges

[Pompeia]

Not all people left the game because they didnt like it.

Many did because their servers were dead, and that has been fixed.

 

There several threads about people that are returning, and more will in time when new content is implemented.

The game is very good - there are things I would like to see that arent there yet, but they are on the to do list so even if it takes some time its very likely they will be implemented too.

 

Like all things, it takes time, but I still believe this game will regain their old customers and with the new ones coming with trial, grow at a steady pace. Turning it to a F2P - if its ever done - might be shooting at its own foot though.

[Blattan]

He's a freelance hired gun with a track record of less than-unbiased commentary. I stopped reading the moment he started comparing Battlefield to COD in an article supposedly illustrating (per the summary) how SWTOR is why EA's stock was dropping. He appears to lack insight in both matters of finance and MMO gaming. Oh well.

 

Actually, the article was about 5 reasons why EA is failing.

 

It was never about SW:ToR (alone) causing EAs problems.

[Taorus]

Actually, the article was about 5 reasons why EA is failing.

 

It was never about SW:ToR (alone) causing EAs problems.

 

Still doesn't change the FACT, He is a blogger....Not a writer for Forbes

[Blattan]

Still doesn't change the FACT, He is a blogger....Not a writer for Forbes

 

Not that that has any bearing on what I was responding too...

 

But since you brought it up: "What makes a blogger's piece less important/accurate/useful than a writer actually on Forbes staff? (As opposed to just being on their payroll.)"

Edited July 28, 2012 by Blattan

[GalacticKegger]

Actually, the article was about 5 reasons why EA is failing.

 

It was never about SW:ToR (alone) causing EAs problems.

"1. The Old Republic is Likely a Bigger Disaster Than Anyone’s Saying."

 

"They really needed the monthly fee model to work, and the fact that it hasn’t makes the game a failure, no matter how many players a free-to-play switch may bring back."

 

He left out the part where he based his opinion on guesswork. Forbes might consider reevaluating their freelance contributor screening process.

Edited July 28, 2012 by GalacticKegger

[Fornix]

I must say, this article on forbes is probably one of the most uneducated pieces of garbage I ever read. Filled with assumptions, such as the following:

 

Though EA never officially released budgetary figures, estimates are the game took between $200 and $300 million to develop, with marketing costs inflating that figure to possibly as much as $500M. Even if the numbers are off by half, it would be one of the most expensive games ever made.

 

EA hasn't disclosed the development costs, the 200 million is an assumption. And even just before release, one of the CS people claimed the initially claimed 100 million commonly named was too high of a figure being thrown about. Throwing in another 300 million for marketing costs, like where do they keep pulling it from. I'd be surprised if the money spent on the game would be much more than 80 +- 20 million, with an additional 50 +- 10 million on marketing costs.

 

And considering as to how the article is written by an editor in chief of some movie/tv/gaming site, rather than a financial analyst, my analysis (also pulled out of thin air based on assumptions) holds as much value as his.

 

Not to mention the use of images such as this:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/insertcoin/files/2012/07/ea-brand.jpg

 

Forbes has sunk to a new low?

 

 

Additionally, the entire response of the market right now to reported player drops of 25%.... months ago.... just shows as to how well these investors are paying attention and why the stock market is so influencable by hype. 3 months, the investors do very little. Then someone wakes up, makes a claim, and suddenly hundreds flock in on it and panic.

[liammozz]

just another critic what the hell do they know come on people never listen to the they said pearl harbour was a good film

[jarjarloves]

We are talking about capacity. What the planned the server to be running at before they lost those players to need a merge.

 

Not what they were running at to cause the merges

 

facepalm. At Launch 100+ people on fleet was full. At Launch servers were very very very small.

[Lt_Latency]

facepalm. At Launch 100+ people on fleet was full. At Launch servers were very very very small.

 

What ever, don't cry to me when you get the next numbers, They are going to be alot lower then the -700k

 

 

Hint <at launch most people at not max level>

Edited July 28, 2012 by Lt_Latency

[Andryah]

Forbes thinks this games is a complete financial disaster. With loss in subs, the threat of Free-2-play on the horizon, are you sticking with game past the six month mark? what are your thoughts?

With current layoffs can TOR developers now produce content at a pace to keep players happy?

(I know they say they can, Because they will never say they can't)

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/07/19/five-reasons-ea-is-in-decline/

 

Note: how this game performs financially has a trickle down effect on EA's overall stock

 

Edit: New links showing reputable business site stating the link between TOR success and electronic arts stock

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-07/industries/31606454_1_ea-sales-active-subscribers-colin-sebastian

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17989756

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/332913/ea-shares-drop-after-analyst-expresses-old-republic-concerns/

http://www.videogamer.com/pc/star_wars_the_old_republic/news/ea_stock_drops_3_after_star_wars_the_old_republic_doubts.html

 

You are editorializing, using Forbes as your platform.

 

What do I mean by this? Simple. You are trying to conflate the impact of SWTOR on EAs total business portfolio. As we have seen numerous times in these kinds of threads, SWTOR is not even in the top 10 of their product portfolio and it contributed (at it's peak) less then 5% of EAs portfolio. Now, if you want to talk about SWTOR stand alone, that's fine, but you need to use standalone data and honestly you would be wasting everyones time because it's already been done to death in these forums. So maybe try to be a little more original.

 

Now, If you want to get on the hate bandwagon for EA proper and use financial data and publications as your premise for legitimacy, then you really should be focusing on items 4 & 5 in the Forbes article, because they are a much bigger contribution component in the context of investor sentiment.

 

Number 5 in the Forbes article is particularly significant because it is a main focus of EA strategic growth plans and given the earnings reports form Zynga again this week, this strategic direction by EA could very well put them on the ropes if they don't reset and head another direction.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Andryah

[AllanGand]

despite them making a slight profit on the game, maybe even if you count all the marketing costs and not just the development cost is still a disaster. When investors look at it, they don't look at the investment in cash only, but they also look at the opportunity cost. Considering this game spent such a long time in development the opportunity cost is immense.

[dalekjs]

Didn't read all 22 pages, but the reason investors say that swtor is a failure is because the profit simply didn't match the risk. They took on a massive risk, with the game costing at least 200M to produce, and with that risk, a good profit is expected. Right now we're not even sure they made back the initial investment, and if they did the profits would be marginal, so the risk was nowhere worth the investment.

[Blattan]

GalacticKegger, you said:

 

<snip>... in an article supposedly illustrating (per the summary) how SWTOR is why EA's stock was dropping. <snip>

 

And I pointed out how the title of the article is "Five Reasons EA is in Decline," and that the article was never meant to be taken as "SW:ToR is EAs' anchor, dragging down the whole ship by itself.

 

Dismissing the whole article, just because it veers off from how SW:ToR is bringing down EA isn't fair to the article.

[jarjarloves]

What ever, don't cry to me when you get the next numbers, They are going to be alot lower then the -700k

 

 

Hint <at launch most people at not max level>

 

700k would still be amazing. It would still be the second largest western MMO and more then they need to be profitable.

 

What does not being at max level have anything to do with it? The planets where still barren. There is a reason why people had threads saying "worlds feel empty"

 

I really don't care what the numbers are as long as the servers I play on are full and they keep working on content.

 

 

Seeing as both of those things are happening i'm happy as can be.

 

Sorry that I had to use evidence and logic to defeat you but it's ok Apology accepted.

[GalacticKegger]

GalacticKegger, you said:

 

 

 

And I pointed out how the title of the article is "Five Reasons EA is in Decline," and that the article was never meant to be taken as "SW:ToR is EAs' anchor, dragging down the whole ship by itself.

 

Dismissing the whole article, just because it veers off from how SW:ToR is bringing down EA isn't fair to the article.

True that ... my goof. Edited July 28, 2012 by GalacticKegger

[Andryah]

Didn't read all 22 pages, but the reason investors say that swtor is a failure is because the profit simply didn't match the risk. They took on a massive risk, with the game costing at least 200M to produce, and with that risk, a good profit is expected. Right now we're not even sure they made back the initial investment, and if they did the profits would be marginal, so the risk was nowhere worth the investment.

 

Investors have made no comment on SWTOR. Investors don't comment on their investments, analysts, pundits, and armchair critics do.

 

So your premise is false right out the gate. As for how a company (and the investment community looks are ROI and profits, as I have shared in other threads, capital investment to develop a product is a sunk investment cost that is depreciated over a period of years. Whereas profit from a product investment is realized over a period of years, not months. It's simply too early in the life cycle of SWTOR to meaninfully comment on it's ROI to EA, and it's total profit stream to the bottom line of the company.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Andryah

[Lt_Latency]

700k would still be amazing. It would still be the second largest western MMO and more then they need to be profitable.

 

What does not being at max level have anything to do with it? The planets where still barren. There is a reason why people had threads saying "worlds feel empty"

 

I really don't care what the numbers are as long as the servers I play on are full and they keep working on content.

 

 

Seeing as both of those things are happening i'm happy as can be.

 

Sorry that I had to use evidence and logic to defeat you but it's ok Apology accepted.

 

 

Wow, because.

 

Fleet numbers would be lower at launch because you don't start haning out there wait for queues as much until 50.

 

You spend much more time off fleet leveling up. You have to wait until the server matures to look there.

 

When fatman was full before the merge it was 250 in fleet not 100,

 

http://www.xfire.com/genre/mmo/massively_multiplayer_online/

 

SW:TOR, used to be over 16 percent here.

[GalacticKegger]

Didn't read all 22 pages, but the reason investors say that swtor is a failure is because the profit simply didn't match the risk. They took on a massive risk, with the game costing at least 200M to produce, and with that risk, a good profit is expected. Right now we're not even sure they made back the initial investment, and if they did the profits would be marginal, so the risk was nowhere worth the investment.

Just guessing that their plan did not include recouping everything within 12 months let alone 6 months. EA's FY2012 Q4 net GAAP revenues were $1.368 BILLION. Any cash flow contribution SWTOR has (good or bad) is but a twinkle in the night sky for EA. Edited July 28, 2012 by GalacticKegger