Yeah, this game sure is losing people...

[Blackardin]

Let`s see...

 

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/31584/star-wars-the-old-republic/ - 2.41m total units sold

http://www.mmodata.net/ - peak at 1.7 mil subs

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/31/the-old-republic-subscriptions-dip-below-1-million - EA confirms subs below 1 million and well above 500k - best estimate is 750k to 850k. Or dead on 900k, if we are to hasty generalise and assume 400k subs lost each 3 months.

 

Cherry picked random numbers, eh?

 

I contested his assertion that there was no data to support the 1.7 million number. Your links proved me to be correct. I contested his statement that subs were now at or below 500k. Your links proved me to be correct. I'm not sure that was your intent.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Blackardin

[LordArtemis]

The numbers between the sold copies and actual subs are not as much of a concern IMO. This is very common in MMOs at launch. 2/3 to 3/4, a very rough average mind you, tend to convert to actual subs, even if the game is bad.

 

The concern is how quickly those that actually subscribed to the game left the game. Anywhere from 700k all the way up to 1 mil 200k (likely somewhere in between, around 800k left or so) in just 9 months. 9 months...not one year, not two years...just three fiscal periods.

 

That is troubling. Its a huge drop, for whatever reason, by any account.

 

I really believe the state of the game at launch up to now can not be excused or ignored as a symptom, and I really feel doing so is no more than wishful thinking. The game has serious flaws. Those flaws MUST be addressed if there is any hope to regain those subs in the future.

 

Raven Night said it best "...SWToR is one of the best single player games ever made pretending to be an MMO." I tend to agree with that assessment.

 

This game needs repeatable casual content, not end game content that players can burn through in one month. Focusing on end game content, IMO, will not be a successful formula and will continue the sub loss over time.

[Blackardin]

The concern is how quickly those that actually subscribed to the game left the game. Anywhere from 700k all the way up to 1 mil 200k (likely somewhere in between, around 800k left or so) in just 9 months. 9 months...not one year, not two years...just three fiscal periods.

 

Wow lost 2 million in about the same time frame, closer to 6 months. Diablo crashed and burned. The opening numbers for SWG are not all that impressive either.

 

I would contend that the entire industry is suffering. I believe this is more a player driven issue then it is a game issue. This game released and played no different then any of the 8 to 10 MMORPGs that I' v either beta'd or launched in the last 15+ years. The player reaction was, however, vastly different.

[LordArtemis]

Wow lost 2 million in about the same time frame, closer to 6 months. Diablo crashed and burned. The opening numbers for SWG are not all that impressive either.

 

I would contend that the entire industry is suffering. I believe this is more a player driven issue then it is a game issue. This game released and played no different then any of the 8 to 10 MMORPGs that I' v either beta'd or launched in the last 15+ years. The player reaction was, however, vastly different.

 

WoW lost 1/5 or less of its playerbase overall. The losses in NA were substantial certainly. But to be fair it's no comparison. I wouldn't compare Diablo and consider it fair either. Yes, SWG paled in comparison, as have most games...since this game sold record copies AND had massive subs at launch.

 

Your second point is also fair IN PART IMO. Industry conditions could have contributed, certainly. But not likely for all of the losses, in fact not likely for the majority. It's more likely, looking at market trends overall that the game itself caused the losses...they were, after all, one of the largest percentages of loss in the shortest amount of time for any MMOs ever made, period. I believe they made the top 5.

 

I think this game played very different as it lacked features that are considered standard by todays standards for MMOs and STILL lack those features today.

[Vandicus]

I think this game played very different as it lacked features that are considered standard by todays standards for MMOs and STILL lack those features today.

 

What features are you referring to btw? For a lot of people these seem to mean different things. I've heard groupfinder(which SWTOR is one of a very small group to have now), Ranked Warzones(more common in games, but SWTOR does have this now), and lack of significant amounts of end game content(which too be fair a lot of games start without much of, and the SWTOR release rate hasn't been abnormally fast or abnormally slow).

 

On the overall issue I think we're at or near stable population numbers. We're no longer seeing rapid drop offs in population. In the long run I believe the game's subscriber population will slowly grow as more content is released and new features are added, unless Bioware/EA completely screws over the game when they go f2p. One of my favorite MMOs, DDO(maybe I'm just super partial to the whole D&D 3.e gameplay) has a somewhat similar f2p model and is doing pretty alright for itself.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Vandicus

[Soluss]

I contested his assertion that there was no data to support the 1.7 million number. Your links proved me to be correct. I contested his statement that subs were now at or below 500k. Your links proved me to be correct. I'm not sure that was your intent.

 

The 1.7 million number came directly from the conference call. They lost 400k subs and it went to 1.3

 

Here is a quick google link : http://kotaku.com/5908338/star-wars-the-old-republic-loses-400000-subscribers

 

If you dont want to believe that link then google the conference call yourself. This is all common knowledge and not contestable. As for the 500k number. That is contestable. However.... when you are trying to sound good to your shareholders you dont say above 500k. If it had, say, 750k ... you would say above 700k. I could be right or wrong but I will stick with some common sense. I would put the subs around 550 to 600k max. That was at the conference call point and 6 month subs ran out since then. So, I will stand by my 500k numbers and thats being generous.

[kyleemily]

By the gods my time on this forum wasn't a waste. I hadn't heard about RTW2 yet. I absolutely love the Total War series, especially the original RTW. I too was disappointed when Blizzard was taken over by Activision, though I have some hope that Bioware retains its quality. ME3 was by far the best game they've ever released, with the exception of its ending which was a result of rushing the game by EA. So far besides rushing games EA hasn't been too overbearing(current handling of SWTOR aside). People often forget that EA owned Bioware for DA:O, DA2, and ME2. I personally think most of the people who disliked DA2 disliked it because it was misadvertised. Bioware/EA did the same thing for DA:O, advertising it as dark fantasy. When we're promised epic fantasy in DA2 we get a nihilistic dark fantasy perspective(something I personally liked and was expecting in DA:O). Oh Bioware and your silly marketing team.

 

Have to agree man I love the Total War series..I stopped playing this for 3 months to go back and play Shogun II

[Styxx]

I contested his assertion that there was no data to support the 1.7 million number. Your links proved me to be correct. I contested his statement that subs were now at or below 500k. Your links proved me to be correct. I'm not sure that was your intent.

 

My only intent was to provide the known numbers, for any intent or purpose. Lacking their actual numbers, those are the "known" ones. Claiming those are false is.. peculiar at best.

 

The only thing that is up for debate is how many subs we have left now. I would approximate around 650-750k mark. I hardly think 100k more or less would make any difference at this point, anyway, considering the scope this game originally had.

 

I like this game and want it to get better just as about everyone still around, but I refuse to lie to myself

Edited September 2, 2012 by Styxx

[Vandicus]

My only intent was to provide the known numbers, for any intent or purpose. Lacking their actual numbers, those are the "known" ones. Claiming those are false is.. peculiar at best.

 

The only thing that is up for debate is how many subs we have left now. I would approximate around 650-750k mark. I hardly think 100k more or less would make any difference at this point, anyway, considering the scope this game originally had.

 

I like this game and want it to get better just as about everyone still around, but I refuse to lie to myself

 

 

My guess is around 700k as well. Considering that 500k was their break even mark with their original dev staff, I'm not super concerned at this point. F2P has the potential to make or break the game depending on whether they do it right or not. So far it seems they're using a solid model.

[Metalmac]

My guess is around 700k as well. Considering that 500k was their break even mark with their original dev staff, I'm not super concerned at this point. F2P has the potential to make or break the game depending on whether they do it right or not. So far it seems they're using a solid model.

 

If SERVER LAG INCREASES I will be first to quit game after F2P gets here.

I will not pay to get worse service and also have to put with thousands of trolls.

 

And I have zero interest in being F2P for myself.

[Karquile]

It is beyond question at this point that fewer and fewer people are playing the game. People can argue all they want about subscription numbers, but you cannot PvP a subscription... only a player. And we're continuing to lose players.

 

I know that the destination servers will see a modest uptick when (if?) they finally turn off the origin servers, because there are still thousands of people logging into them for node gathering, premade groups and solo leveling. When F2P goes live, there will be a further exodus of players who don't like F2P (most games have reported this), followed by an influx of returnees and new players trying F2P out.

 

When the dust settles, let's hope it's enough to keep some fun development in the pipeline. I'm sure it'll stay open, but I'd hate to have two updates per year.

[Andryah]

The concern is how quickly those that actually subscribed to the game left the game. Anywhere from 700k all the way up to 1 mil 200k (likely somewhere in between, around 800k left or so) in just 9 months. 9 months...not one year, not two years...just three fiscal periods.

 

That is troubling. Its a huge drop, for whatever reason, by any account.

 

Same thing happened in Rift. Their total subs were smaller (peaked at ~600K) but the % decline in players over 9 months was ~65%. And most people tout Rift as the way an MMO should be in the modern era (great launch, fast bug fixes, frequent patch and content updates, etc. etc.) and it still bled out 2 out of 3 subscribers within 9 months before stabilizing.

 

It's the new normal for MMOs I'm afraid. The player base is much more transient, and hops from MMO to MMO.

[JediElf]

So much doom, and gloom.

 

So much...and it's all just so depressing.

 

What happened to the joy of playing a game? Where did it go?

 

Is anyone having fun anymore?

Edited September 3, 2012 by JediElf

[Hambunctious]

So much doom, and gloom.

 

So much...and it's all just so depressing.

 

What happened to the joy of playing a game? Where did it go?

 

Where did it go? It went when those who make games decided that linear, and highly limited is the only way to make a mmo. It kinda died for me when SWG was brought down to make way for SWTOR. Else I would be there right now having fun, and not standing around on a fleet station for hours.

[Liquidacid]

Where did it go? It went when those who make games decided that linear, and highly limited is the only way to make a mmo. It kinda died for me when SWG was brought down to make way for SWTOR. Else I would be there right now having fun, and not standing around on a fleet station for hours.

 

can't really blame it on the game designers when they only decided that after the market showed them that linear, and highly limited MMOs sell better...

[DorkTrooper]

What happened to the joy of playing a game? Where did it go?

 

There are ever-increasing entertainment options (many of them free or marginally priced), and people are becoming accustomed to getting exactly what they want on-demand. The joy isn't in playing a game, but in playing the next new game.

[Scritchy]

Same thing happened in Rift. Their total subs were smaller (peaked at ~600K) but the % decline in players over 9 months was ~65%. And most people tout Rift as the way an MMO should be in the modern era (great launch, fast bug fixes, frequent patch and content updates, etc. etc.) and it still bled out 2 out of 3 subscribers within 9 months before stabilizing.

 

It's the new normal for MMOs I'm afraid. The player base is much more transient, and hops from MMO to MMO.

It is the way for games that copy other games and add nothing new to them. Games that are different and offer something not seen before actually grow subscriptions (see EVE). Rift was a complete WoW copy with a leadership team that completely destroyed games they worked on previously, of course people weren't going to give it much chance.

 

As long as companies are complete imbeciles and doing the same thing that people are trying to get away from, of course they are going to bleed subscriptions. It isn't rocket surgery, but since most of us don't have MBAs, we still have common sense and can see that.

[Blackardin]

The 1.7 million number came directly from the conference call. They lost 400k subs and it went to 1.3

 

Here is a quick google link : http://kotaku.com/5908338/star-wars-the-old-republic-loses-400000-subscribers

 

My contention is that the 1.7 million is an accurate number. The post that I answered suggested it to be unconfirmed.

 

If you don't want to believe that link then google the conference call yourself. This is all common knowledge and not contestable. As for the 500k number. That is contestable. However.... when you are trying to sound good to your shareholders you don't say above 500k. If it had, say, 750k ... you would say above 700k. I could be right or wrong but I will stick with some common sense. I would put the subs around 550 to 600k max. That was at the conference call point and 6 month subs ran out since then. So, I will stand by my 500k numbers and that's being generous.

 

My contention was also that the 500k number is highly contestable and not very probable. The authority being quoted for the player of opposing opinion agreed with that finding. In short, his evidence supported my argument.

 

My contention is and will continue to be that there are a few people drawing numbers that can be considered accurate enough for postulation, but that there are random numbers being mixed in, pass around as if affirmed. Speculation is speculation. It simply has too great a margin of error to be considered anything more.

 

....and I did not address any post of yours that I'm aware of.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Blackardin

[Hambunctious]

can't really blame it on the game designers when they only decided that after the market showed them that linear, and highly limited MMOs sell better...

 

The exception being that it's not true. No mmo outside WOW is a real winner. As sad as that is. People just haven't been given the chance to see something different, and it keeps perpetuating the myth.

[Soluss]

Same thing happened in Rift. Their total subs were smaller (peaked at ~600K) but the % decline in players over 9 months was ~65%. And most people tout Rift as the way an MMO should be in the modern era (great launch, fast bug fixes, frequent patch and content updates, etc. etc.) and it still bled out 2 out of 3 subscribers within 9 months before stabilizing.

 

It's the new normal for MMOs I'm afraid. The player base is much more transient, and hops from MMO to MMO.

 

Or Rift could have been just another Burned out fantasy MMOs, that people were using as a tide over to TOR.

[Scritchy]

The exception being that it's not true. No mmo outside WOW is a real winner. As sad as that is. People just haven't been given the chance to see something different, and it keeps perpetuating the myth.

Depends on your definition of 'winner'. Plenty of games, from as early as Meridian 59 on through recent games such as EVE have been winners if you consider winning as turning a profit.

 

It isn't until people want to dump hundreds of millions on a game or don't think a MMO is a winner unless it has more than 10M subscribers that you start to see a lot of losers in the genre.

[Soluss]

My contention is that the 1.7 million is an accurate number. The post that I answered suggested it to be unconfirmed.

 

 

 

My contention was also that the 500k number is highly contestable and not very probable. The authority being quoted for the player of opposing opinion agreed with that finding. In short, his evidence supported my argument.

 

My contention is and will continue to be that there are a few people drawing numbers that can be considered accurate enough for postulation, but that there are random numbers being mixed in, pass around as if affirmed. Speculation is speculation. It simply has too great a margin of error to be considered anything more.

 

....and I did not address any post of yours that I'm aware of.

 

My bad, thought you were contending the opposite.

[Vandicus]

Depends on your definition of 'winner'. Plenty of games, from as early as Meridian 59 on through recent games such as EVE have been winners if you consider winning as turning a profit.

 

It isn't until people want to dump hundreds of millions on a game or don't think a MMO is a winner unless it has more than 10M subscribers that you start to see a lot of losers in the genre.

 

Furthermore Activision/Blizzard doesn't always turn a profit. Imo the way we judge winners and losers in MMOs nowadays is sort've strange. A game doesn't need to have millions of subscribers to turn a profit, and in the case of Blizzard, even having millions of subscribers doesn't necessarily mean a profit. 200,000-300,000 is usually enough for an MMO to make money and continue a healthy amount of development. Blizzard on the other hand has millions of subscribers and is now pushing out content slower than most of its competitors.

[Blackardin]

WoW lost 1/5 or less of its playerbase overall. The losses in NA were substantial certainly. But to be fair it's no comparison. I wouldn't compare Diablo and consider it fair either. Yes, SWG paled in comparison, as have most games...since this game sold record copies AND had massive subs at launch..

 

if you choose to interpret the data in terms of percentages rather then numbers. For my purposes it was to demonstrate a notable migration away from the genre in general.

 

Your second point is also fair IN PART IMO. Industry conditions could have contributed, certainly. But not likely for all of the losses, in fact not likely for the majority. It's more likely, looking at market trends overall that the game itself caused the losses...they were, after all, one of the largest percentages of loss in the shortest amount of time for any MMOs ever made, period. I believe they made the top 5.

 

I'm not speaking in terms of market treds or demographics from the sellers point of view but the human condition that exists here. My contention is that this game launched at the time of wow would have achieved substantially more patronage. In short, the player base has changed dramatically, and in a very short time. If i were to blame the proprietor I would contend that they were looking at the wrong cause and therefor the incorrect solution. Programers and financiers tend to make that mistake quite a bit.

 

I think this game played very different as it lacked features that are considered standard by todays standards for MMOs and STILL lack those features today.

 

My experiences tell me that they launched with the standard set of features for an MMORPG They also added more very, very quickly, faster then any game to date. They were loading more up when people began to leave. The game went into a tailspin at that point and all focus and resources shifted to server mergers (a problem originated, in strong part, by the players). By that time the top end made a financial decision and here we are.

 

The game never really had a chance to get off the ground. Most unfortunate.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Blackardin

[Blackardin]

My bad, thought you were contending the opposite.

 

I was chuckling. Boards move fast, posts get crossed up.