Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 A while back a high ranking corporate member made an interesting statement: Speaking in a conference call to investors, CEO John Riccitiello said 500,000 subscribers would make the game "substantially profitable, but it's not the sort of thing we would write home about". Now hearing the number of subs is in this area. So I guess the game isn't doing well enough for them to write home about? Link to story: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-02-500k-subs-will-make-sw-tor-profitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackavaar Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Really? Who really writes home about anything these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 (edited) Bad news got you down? Funny how the numbers we hear now with old quotes don't paint the best of pictures though. Funny how you ignore the fact that said quotation was made before they restructured in May. They would be profitable if the populations were south of 250K right now. As for EA commentary about it's game portfolio... it's about box sales for the senior management team. Always has been, always will be. The MMO division has always been small potatoes in the total revenue contribution analysis. Revenue is revenue, so they will take it, but it's mega box sales (or the digital equivalent) that charges the management teams batteries. Please stop trying to stir up drama. Edited September 26, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 Funny how you ignore the fact that said quotation was made before they restructured in May. They would be profitable if the populations were south of 250K right now. As for EA commentary about it's game portfolio... it's about box sales for the senior management team. Always has been, always will be. The MMO division has always been small potatoes in the total revenue contribution analysis. Revenue is revenue, so they will take it, but it's mega box sales (or the digital equivalent) that charges the management teams batteries. Please stop trying to stir up drama. They put the quote out there. So now with numbers around that being bounced around, wonder if they still feel it's "not worth writing home about". Why so mad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 (edited) They put the quote out there. LOL.... yeah, a LOOOONG time ago. Before they reset their operations plan to align with smaller subscriptions. You cannot defend using an out of date and obsolete comment from an EA exec, especially out of context like you are trying to do with this thread. Why so mad? I'm not mad. I don't get mad in a gaming forum. Therefore, you are projecting. Edited September 26, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kourage Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I guess you didn't hear. Free to Play is supposed to make them big money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 LOL.... yeah, a LOOOONG time ago. Before they reset their operations plan to align with smaller subscriptions. You cannot defend using an out of date and obsolete comment from an EA exec, especially out of context like you are trying to do with this thread. I'm not mad. I don't get mad in a gaming forum. Therefore, you are projecting. Supply a more recent quote then. Don't just go all defense like normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 I guess you didn't hear. Free to Play is supposed to make them big money. That can go either way. F2P conversion is not guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polebreaker Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The original post cited the actual quote of the 500k subscriber number. Whether you consider it relevant or not is a matter of opinion, as we know nothing about the effect the layoffs had on the bottom line of operating and development costs of the game, nor do we know anything about the f2p projections EA has made as regards future income. But it is a valid reference point and an actual fact. Also, the OP didnt state any opinions as fact, merely asked a question, and has further asked for supporting evidence of other opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidacid Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 (edited) The original post cited the actual quote of the 500k subscriber number. Whether you consider it relevant or not is a matter of opinion, as we know nothing about the effect the layoffs had on the bottom line of operating and development costs of the game, nor do we know anything about the f2p projections EA has made as regards future income. But it is a valid reference point and an actual fact. Also, the OP didnt state any opinions as fact, merely asked a question, and has further asked for supporting evidence of other opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. the only bit of evidence in this whole thread is one very outdated quote that may not even actually be true anymore and even the quote itself isn't explicit and uses a colloquialism as it's metric ... that's not relevant evidence or a reliable enough fact to base anything off of... Edited September 26, 2012 by Liquidacid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamus_Divinus Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The original post cited the actual quote of the 500k subscriber number. Whether you consider it relevant or not is a matter of opinion, as we know nothing about the effect the layoffs had on the bottom line of operating and development costs of the game, nor do we know anything about the f2p projections EA has made as regards future income. Precisely. The statement was made before layoffs took place. I'd imagine most people would believe that Bioware fired a lot of staff in order to reduce costs. It would be a sensible presumption right? We don't know nearly enough to be able to judge since so much has happened since May 2012 when that statement in the OP was made. In May 500k subs weren't anything to write home about. True. May 2012. Today, 26th September 2012? We have no idea what Sub threshold BW deems worthy enough to write home and brag about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidacid Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 (edited) Precisely. The statement was made before layoffs took place. I'd imagine most people would believe that Bioware fired a lot of staff in order to reduce costs. It would be a sensible presumption right? We don't know nearly enough to be able to judge since so much has happened since May 2012 when that statement in the OP was made. In May 500k subs weren't anything to write home about. True. May 2012. Today, 26th September 2012? We have no idea what Sub threshold BW deems worthy enough to write home and brag about it doesn't matter as "to write home about" is a saying that has no actual value... it's like saying "that's a lot" ... what is considered good enough "to write home about" a fixed amount and is different to different people and in different situations... who knows what actual figure the person who said the quote thinks "is enough to write home about"? Edited September 26, 2012 by Liquidacid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamus_Divinus Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 it doesn't matter as "to write home about" is a saying that has no actual value... it's like saying "that's a lot" ... what is considered good enough "to write home about" a fixed amount and is different to different people and in different situations... who knows what actual figure the person who said the quote thinks "is enough to write home about"? I agree which is why I wrote: We have no idea what Sub threshold BW deems worthy enough to write home and brag about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudwalkerrr Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I just play the game and enjoy it lol.. I never been one to form my opinon on something based off how others view it, I deff dont like getting into the numbers of subs or whatever.The group of people i play with are still around so thats good enough for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 I just play the game and enjoy it lol.. I never been one to form my opinon on something based off how others view it, I deff dont like getting into the numbers of subs or whatever.The group of people i play with are still around so thats good enough for me... That's all good and fine but it's off topic of the thread. It's not whether it's enjoyed or not. It's about the way the bean counters say if it's a success to EA or not. And apparently there were not enough subs for them to "write home about" as he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turjake Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 That's all good and fine but it's off topic of the thread. It's not whether it's enjoyed or not. It's about the way the bean counters say if it's a success to EA or not. And apparently there were not enough subs for them to "write home about" as he said. That makes all the other posts in this thread kind of pointless since you already said that in the first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudwalkerrr Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 That's all good and fine but it's off topic of the thread. It's not whether it's enjoyed or not. It's about the way the bean counters say if it's a success to EA or not. And apparently there were not enough subs for them to "write home about" as he said. I know i read the quote... you're not wrong unless others can prove otherwise.. I understand that. I think its safe to say the game wasnt considered a "Success" to EA, Who can argue that lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) That makes all the other posts in this thread kind of pointless since you already said that in the first post. I asked do they still view it as something they need to write home about. Personally if you enjoy it has no bearing on if TOR's success is something to EA to as he said "write home about". Oranges do not belong in a thread about apples. In the original post the only part that is MY words were: A while back a high ranking corporate member made an interesting statement: Rest was copied from the article that I linked. So don't blame me for quoting a high ranking official. Edited September 28, 2012 by Jacen_Starsolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) I know i read the quote... you're not wrong unless others can prove otherwise.. I understand that. I think its safe to say the game wasnt considered a "Success" to EA, Who can argue that lol. People in this thread tried to argue it. And failed miserably. Edited September 28, 2012 by Jacen_Starsolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) People in this thread tried to argue it. And failed miserably. IMO, all you are doing here is fractionally parsing to hold to your point, about an off hand comment made by an EA executive about one product in a very large portfolio. Which you are free to do, and others are free to comment in the thread as well. Please stop demanding people not post in the thread unless you approve of what they have to say. If you really feel something is off-topic, report it to the mods and let them sort it out. In the end the entire thread topic does not matter in the context of the MMO and it's player base. People who like it will play it, regardless of what some suit says about it (and vice versa). And the irony is that virtually nobody in this forum (myself included) really cares what an EA executive thinks/does-not-think about SWTOR. EA management as a whole is probably the most discredited commenters about the state of the game to the player base (unless it's to use as an instrument of agenda). Besides, I would be willing to bet the EA exec in this case NEVER writes home to Mom about anything in his business. So all you did here was take some EA rhetoric and try to make it significant in some way. As to why, I have no idea. Edited September 28, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 IMO, all you are doing here is fractionally parsing to hold to your point, about an off hand comment made by an EA executive about one product in a very large portfolio. Which you are free to do, and others are free to comment in the thread as well. Please stop demanding people not post in the thread unless you approve of what they have to say. If you really feel something is off-topic, report it to the mods and let them sort it out. In the end the entire thread topic does not matter in the context of the MMO and it's player base. People who like it will play it, regardless of what some suit says about it (and vice versa). And the irony is that virtually nobody in this forum (myself included) really cares what an EA executive thinks/does-not-think about SWTOR. EA management as a whole is probably the most discredited commenters about the state of the game to the player base (unless it's to use as an instrument of agenda). Besides, I would be willing to bet the EA exec in this case NEVER writes home to Mom about anything in his business. So all you did here was take some EA rhetoric and try to make it significant in some way. As to why, I have no idea. You haven't finished your homework to supply a contradicting statement yet? If you can't, it's okay. But don't just say it's wrong without a lick of proof while I have supplied the quote. Just admit you can't dispute the quote with real evidence. It's okay. You won't lose any favor with Bioware that you hold so dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insomnio Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) IMO, all you are doing here is fractionally parsing to hold to your point, about an off hand comment made by an EA executive about one product in a very large portfolio. Which you are free to do, and others are free to comment in the thread as well. Please stop demanding people not post in the thread unless you approve of what they have to say. If you really feel something is off-topic, report it to the mods and let them sort it out. In the end the entire thread topic does not matter in the context of the MMO and it's player base. People who like it will play it, regardless of what some suit says about it (and vice versa). And the irony is that virtually nobody in this forum (myself included) really cares what an EA executive thinks/does-not-think about SWTOR. EA management as a whole is probably the most discredited commenters about the state of the game to the player base (unless it's to use as an instrument of agenda). Besides, I would be willing to bet the EA exec in this case NEVER writes home to Mom about anything in his business. So all you did here was take some EA rhetoric and try to make it significant in some way. As to why, I have no idea. While it is an "older" statement, it was said and publicly that the game was a miss and nothing to write home about. That sounds poor. If the game was going good, or OK even, im sure they would have used other verbs or adjectives to describe the game. The new 250,000 to profit number you suggested is something I have never seen. Could you link ? I know they slashed the programmers and develops off the team for a second surprise layoff, but that just seems to indicate that they were not happy at all with the performance of the game. Edited September 28, 2012 by Insomnio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) The new 250,000 to profit number you suggested is something I have never seen. Could you link ? I know they slashed the programmers and develops off the team for a second surprise layoff, but that just seems to indicate that they were not happy at all with the performance of the game. EA has a long history of resizing their MMO teams to keep inside the cost curve and stay profitable on their MMOs. DAoC is evidence of this, almost to an extreme. NCsoft would have pulled the plug on it 5 years ago. EA though looks at revenue as revenue contribution to the company (regardless of size of revenue) and only requires cost to be X% less then revenue in order to meet a profit threshold number. This is pretty much what large holding companies do, and EA is a large holding company of many different game properties. Based on what is publicly available to us, and doing a reasonable business estimate of what they removed from their operations plan, they reset their operation to 250-300K break even (could even be less, but I doubt it based on what is known as of now). It's not hard to work that number out, based on data and numbers they have provided in their financials and analyst comments since before launch. So in the context of their operations plan TODAY, the quotation that spawned the thread is largely irrelevant, no matter what the orginal poster wants to claim. Edited September 28, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacen_Starsolo Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) EA has a long history of resizing their MMO teams to keep inside the cost curve and stay profitable on their MMOs. DAoC is evidence of this, almost to an extreme. NCsoft would have pulled the plug on it 5 years ago. EA though looks at revenue as revenue contribution to the company (regardless of size of revenue) and only requires cost to be X% less then revenue in order to meet a contribution number. This is pretty much what large holding companies do, and EA is a large holding company of many different game properties. Based on what is publicly available to us, and doing an reasonable business estimate of what they removed from their operations plan, they reset their operation to 250-300K break even (could even be less, but I doubt it based on what is known as of now). It's not hard to work that number out, based on data and numbers they have provided in their financials and analyst comments since before launch. So TUXs was right. Those cuts were not ever planned nor expected? And you think that's a good sign? Yet another asked for your source link and you didn't give it. smh Edited September 28, 2012 by Jacen_Starsolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 While it is an "older" statement, it was said and publicly that the game was a miss and nothing to write home about. That sounds poor. If the game was going good, or OK even, im sure they would have used other verbs or adjectives to describe the game. The new 250,000 to profit number you suggested is something I have never seen. Could you link ? I know they slashed the programmers and develops off the team, but still that 250,000 number seems made up 250,000 x $15 = $3,750,000/month. If their monthly costs are anywhere close to that, I'm a Chinese jet pilot. Every number you ever read about any MMO is always "spin". Cost to produce, cost to maintain, subscriber numbers, etc. is all pure b.s. designed to either make things look better or worse than they are, depending on who is quoted, what day it is, and which department's budget they are trying to get boosted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts