The sky isn't falling. A numbers based view.

[Oyranos]

Yes, I think most reasonable people can agree that almost all games on the market have suffered sub loss, .

 

Logical, since people woke up and saw that subscription is just a greey method and not because of the servers.

 

Servers today cost nothing for the big companies, its more like 0.1p per person...

 

I think EA rushed the game a bit? And it came out earlier than expected?

Edited October 27, 2012 by Oyranos

[Tim-ONeil]

Lets agree on a few things. I really dont think you would disagree with this.

 

1. Most MMOs have a decline in subs at a certain point. Only a few MMOs increase rather then decline. This is indicative from the MMO data chart that is linked in your OP.

2. Almost all MMOs have their peak subs in the first 6 months before going on decline. Only a few still gain subs.

3. A big part of your OP is retention rate.

4. You are showing ToR to have a higher retention rate.

 

Saying that.... Is it not fair to say that the data is skewed in favor of ToR?

 

1 - 3 are correct. 4 is not, and I'll explain below.

 

It would be illogical to state that a fair comparison is the one where I have to lower TOR's retention date based on a number that exists only for this title and not the rest we are comparing. Having considered that dilemma the only solution that makes sense is using the equal data that exists in terms of max subs.

 

There's no deception here, I clearly stated what I was doing, and should the first year box sales number be available for those other games I will gladly use them- they aren't however anywhere I can find them. Logically you can't believe that only TOR has a discrepancy between box sales and max subs upon launch.

 

Your argument is that I am artificially raising that number, when in reality using the boxes sold only for SWTOR makes the retention % meaningless without similar context. I hope you understand what I mean.

 

I will gladly recalculate this if those numbers become available.

 

To your other point... I don't agree. We'll leave it at that. It's perfectly ok to use what we have an continue to refine it as we go along and have more data added. Next week that number will change, I will update and draw new conclusions. 3 months from now we will have the approximate 1 year data for TOR. We will reassess again. This is not an absolute.

[Tim-ONeil]

Its not a matter of berating him because we have opposing views. You cannot have a discussion that is one sided. Its like playing chess and dictating where your opponent can move his piece.

 

You cant just start a thread and exclaim "agree with me or your wrong and get out of my thread" . Topics of debate do not work like that.

 

You can have your own opinions but not your own facts. I presented where my facts came from and drew my conclusions. If you disagree with the data itself (which is imperfect of course) unless you are able to specifically fix said data you are just disagreeing based on your feelings and missing the bigger picture.

 

We can determine trends with statistics, then discuss what they mean, in fact your last post agreed with me in principal. The rest of what you are doing here is because you refuse to accept my conclusions and you don't have to agree with me. I'm ok with that but the data presented is the best we have. If you exclude that then this is a feelings based debate again.

[simplius]

not he sky isnt falling,,,why?

 

BECAUSE IT FELL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, AND TRIGGERED THE LAYOFFS AND F2P PLAN

 

this isnt ANY game,,,this is STAR WARS ,,the BIGGEST IP on market

 

they had SO much more time and resources to make this, than other games have

 

and the fact that its doing no better than those , MAKES it a failure

[Tim-ONeil]

This is the last post I'll make for a while because I want to see the discussion unfold on it's own but I think a few of you are being terribly biased here.

 

If I had posted "Will the game end in 2013?" you would have accepted this as a perfectly reasonable premise and commented on it as you have in that thread never actually pointing out the flaws with the illogical statement that you are being asked to evaluate. In fact a few of you have even agreed it could be shut down under certain conditions and that isn't based on anything factual whatsoever.

 

Instead I came into a discussion with numbers I actually looked up, and drew conclusions based on that. You are rejecting that premise as flawed for technicalities that you consider enough to invalidate the whole thread. The discussion then turns from discussion of my conclusions themselves and proposing your own to questioning my methods, motivations, and objectivity.

 

See the difference? I am sure that because I posted this that plays a role so I'm not taking that personally. Just step back an look at it again in context.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[MaliksKid]

Guild wars 2 isn't sub + f2p so it's not in the list as you can't accurately give numbers for it's player base. Take STO, it has low sub numbers but thats not to say that it doesn't have a healthy f2p base. I saw a post where someone mentioned LOTRO was a fail because of layoffs. This will always happen in MMO's, they will increase staff to push out an expansion then release some or all of them once it's out. Then you'll have some decay from the fact that new tools will replace the need for certain people as happens when technology moves on, ask the car industry. Bioware for example have mentioned in several interviews that they have been working on tools that allow them to add content quicker. This may take the form of a kind of map editor, and once you have tools like that then you can start to pump out content much faster with fewer people. So staffing levels don't really mean much unless you know the full background to what is happening within the studio.

[simplius]

about the "wow-killer",,ive seen interviews where the mention up to 25 mio players

 

i know they didnt SAY it, but did they spend all that work, aiming for a MEDIOCRE game?

 

and look at THE NUMBER OF SERVERS AT LAUNCH,,do u think they would have paid for those,

 

if they didnt think(hope) they were needed?

 

nope ..they were aiming for it..and they COULD have done it

 

if they had finished the game BEFORE launch

[Goretzu]

We will have 10 month old numbers next week after the conference call and I will add them in and recalculate. And if necessary change my opinion of the data. That's only logical, the debate always has purpose because we can see it progress and measure against that.

 

The bottom line is this though. We can never be 100% accurate with any of this and you should already know that. Companies do not have to give us the information unless they are publically traded and even then it can be vague. Accepting this as the medium we have to work in then you can still draw conclusions from the data. This will ALWAYS be more accurate than feelings based discussion. Conversely you can state that this can never be 100% accurately assessed therefore is worthless and move on. I don't believe that is logical however.

 

 

 

The problem is as you are measuring different things for every single MMORPG you mention, so you're not even 1% accurate.

 

Because not ONE of your measurements for ONE MMORPG (you list) compares directly to another - they all start at different points, stop at different points and last for different amounts of time.

 

It makes an comparrison of retention (even just compararive % retention from peak sub) more or less meaningless, because nothing is compared like for like.

 

It's like you are trying to compare a series of cars for 0-60mph times, but you are starting your timing for some cars at 0 mph and 0s some at XXmph and 10s and then measuring different times in between then stopping timing at different times, all you end up with is a load of unrelated measurements that happen to involve cars.

 

With a bit of work you could change your figures to be like for like in some cases, but some like STO you simply don't have enough data points to measure say 12 months from peak subs.

 

 

 

Which is why we're back to guesstimates, which are fine, but are more "Dark Art" than "Science".

 

 

 

The only really valid discusion of retention is one of box sales (and digital sales) vs subscriber populations over the first 6 or 12 or 24 months. With that it IS possible to more or less compare like with like in MMORPGs.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Goretzu

[Tim-ONeil]

I went back and double checked. You can't read a chart and you are telling me that the numbers aren't for a 1 year period?

 

I will say this again. You are wrong on this period. And no strange use of spaces in your post will explain it away.

 

Knowing that you eventually be proven wrong you then attacked the peak subs vs low subs. Peak subs vs low subs in the first year is measurable and represented. It starts when the graph is at the zero mark (game launch) and I used the closest data point for a 1 year period from that. It's a perfectly fine system to use because it's equal.

 

Rift: 11 months from start to the used data point

Age of Conan: 10 months and 14 months have the same data point on the chart

SWTOR: 7 months, will be 10 month data next week.

Warhammer Online: 11 months from start to the used data point.

STO: 4 months (I'll agree this one is faulty and it's removal would paint an even more dire industry picture I'll take that off when I update SWTOR's new numbers. It also illustrates how poorly the game did because they stopped reporting anything measurable at that point.)

 

Somewhere along the line you decided that these are not 1 year periods or as close to them within a month or two as the data points will allow. What you did instead is look at the whole timeline on the chart ASSUMED that I used that rather than pulling the correct number at the correct data point and then posted a flimsy debunking. I'm embarrassed for you because that means you couldn't read the chart correctly. Or in a hastily put together attempt to discredit me you didn't verify what I said to each of the points on the chart.

 

You are wrong, convinced yourself that you that somehow along the way you are right and keep repeating it. I'm annoyed with myself for not double checking sooner.

 

Thank you for bumping the thread but please move along at this point. I expect you to acknowledge your error at least if you are going to still post here and have any credibility.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Dyvid]

Well the important numbers to worry about is losing 1 million plus subs in just 6 months for one reason or another. That would make anyone worry about what the next year holds. More so when you invest so much money into a project you don't want it to go belly up in two years.

 

Don't get me worry, there is plenty of blame to go around. EA isn't consider the worst company in America because they have bad press. Their closed minded ideas and micro management approach has ruined them more than any bad game could have. It's also no secret that the board would sell the company tomorrow if they could get twenty bucks a share for it. That's not a company I want to back.

 

Bioware for all good intentions also failed when it comes to the game development. It's seems like they stopped looking at the "other" guys and what they were doing to push the genre forward, big mistake. I doubt anyone would say if the game launched with group finder, custom UI, and current PvP, the game would have been more successful.

 

They also failed at development cycles. They should have just released content when it was ready instead of waiting for something else. The days of big updates are over. If something is ready, launch it. Don't seat on your hands for two more months because an operation still needs work.

 

But all that is past because next month the game goes F2P. If the games owners, who ever that is, was smart they would have another guild town hall and do some community polls to find out what the players, the people who are going to make or break the game, what they want in the game.

[Andryah]

Lets agree on a few things. I really dont think you would disagree with this.

 

1. Most MMOs have a decline in subs at a certain point. Only a few MMOs increase rather then decline. This is indicative from the MMO data chart that is linked in your OP.

2. Almost all MMOs have their peak subs in the first 6 months before going on decline. Only a few still gain subs.

3. A big part of your OP is retention rate.

4. You are showing ToR to have a higher retention rate

 

Im sure you agree with these 4 points. If you do not then I would like an explanation as to why you dont agree with them.

 

1, 2, and 3 I agree. Number 4, I disagree. SWTOR attrition rates over time are almost identical to other modern MMO releases. Not materially better or worse.

 

In other words on a percentage of subscriptions (not box sales because there is simply no coherant source for data to compare across MMOs). Now, in terms of absolute numbers (ie: total subscription numbers), each MMO is on a different scale (such as SWTOR being ~2.5-3x Rift in absolute numbers.)

 

When discussing trends, the % attrition is what matters for the discussion, not absolute numbers. Why? Because every MMO is different in terms of it's size scale (no matter how much people want to pretend otherwise).

 

So, to recap.... agree on 1,2,3, disagree on 4 (for the reasons outlined above).

 

So... one way to look at modern attrition curves is that the sky is falling on every MMO becasue every MMO in the modern era bleeds out a majority of it's subs within 9 months of launch before populations stablize. And by the way.. this is also true for WoW expansions in the last seveal years, so WoW is not immune to the pehnomena, only benefiting from a well entrenched base it establishing in an earlier era of modern MMOs. However since it is not a unique phenomena to one MMO, but rather to all MMOs... then the sky is in fact NOT falling. But something is happening and what that happening is -> the dynamics of the player base has changed to be more nomadic and less committed to sticking with any single MMO. AND...Inb4.....someone says I am blaming the players... I'm not... I am acknowleding a clearly observable phenomena without applying any judgement toward it.

 

World Wide populations in the player base did peak in 2010 and have been in modest decline since then (per MMOdata once again).... but not that much as of yet... so what we are seeing is players game hopping from MMO to MMO... which is exaggerated when new MMOs launch in a successive wave as they have in the last year.

 

TL;DR: the sky is not falling. Nothing spectacular in terms of MMO attrition trends has happened with this MMO vs other MMOs launched in the last 3 years. Comparing the life cycle trends for Rift with SWTOR shows almost identical characteristics.... and nobody has been banging on how bad Rift "failed"........ conclusion.... there are people applying double standards as an instrument to bash SWTOR for personal reasons in the forum. Which I believe is the salient point of Tim creating this thread to begin with.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Andryah

[Folky]

You're deluding yourself if you don't think this game is losing players. I logged in yesterday on a Friday afternoon after not playing for several months and both fleet had about 180 players and only one instance. That's less than what I saw several months ago and this is after several servers closing down/players moved. GW2 on the other hand still has queue's for World vs world and second instances of maps where many players consolidate.In addition you see many players with items that cost much more than your average 1 month subscription.

[LordArtemis]

According to Mythic, Warhammer Online MOST LIKELY (their words) suffered subscription loss due to market competition. They go on to say choosing to have only two realms instead of three was likely the one factor that hurt overall subscription retention based on feedback. Most people that review the game, speaking of it's losses, state this reason as the number one reason it suffered such a dramatic sub loss.

 

Many have also cited a ridiculous level of imbalance in classes and crowd control problems as factors. This is debatable however.

 

Funcom has stated, in different ways naturally, that the choice to launch 8 months early (taking advantage of Warhammers delay) was a mistake and most likely resulted in subscriber losses beyond what the title would have normally suffered. They were not able to fully develop the game for endgame and upper level play, and after level 30 players could recognize the lack of polish and content. Funcom has directly stated that the lion's share of losses were players that had post level 30 characters, but did not release exact percentages to my knowledge.

 

Reviewers tend to agree this is the number one reason the game lost subs. Others state that a lack of casual oriented gameplay and failure to gain positive reviews in beta contributed, but this has never been mentioned by Funcom.

 

In both cases the companies themselves discussed sub losses and gave reasons as to why they lost subs. Neither blamed it on standard sub attrition, rather poor design.

 

To my knowledge Bioware has not discussed why they suffered such severe sub losses, but there is no doubt that the top two complaints about the game are Space Combat and the linear design of the worlds. It is indisputable, however, that Bioware expected the game to be more successful than it was, and that expectation resulted in too many servers with low populations, which also could have contributed to loss.

 

One could say all three games suffered some degree of loss due to standard player attrition...and that much really can't be denied, as this is well known to happen to almost all games on the market. What can be argued, however, is if this game lost all or almost all of its subs due to this attrition effect, perhaps coupled with an economic downturn, or if design contributed in any reputable way to the decline.

 

I would say that the information provided by the website simply demonstrates gains and losses. Using that information to back up the theory of attrition loss here really does not hold as much reputability as other theories, IMO, because most of the control groups in this particular discussion have lost subs for others reasons stated directly by the developers themselves.

 

As I have indicated before, the only games that have had comparable losses lost those players due to poor design. The "standard" attrition rate, if there is one, seems to be a loss of around 20 to 30 percent of subs after launch AT SOME POINT. Most games that lost more than 70 percent of their subscription base appear to have lost that amount due to design mistakes, missteps or poor feature implementation.

 

This is not speculative. This comes from the actual developers themselves, with the exception of this game.

 

One could claim that the devs either did not know, understand or were unwilling to be honest about the reasons for losses. But really...is it sensible to claim that they would dishonestly paint design failures as the reason their games did not meet exceptions? Wouldn't they gladly blame market forces or standard attrition?

 

 

This is where there tends to be daylight in my stance based on others that support the idea of attrition. I tend to rely on internal and external analysis, those that support attrition tend to create their own.

 

At least in Tims case he drew data to support his view, something it seems most attrition supporters do not do. But that does not mean the contention is accurate or viable...it only means he is open to the discussion of such.

 

 

So, to be clear, I contend the following:

Based on all available data, including statements from the actual development studios of some games that have suffered massive losses after launch, actual metrics from reported sub numbers and industry analysis from experts in investment as well as a few reviewers here and there with more respected followings I am forced to conclude, based on this games parallels in performance compared to time on market that the losses suffers were MOST LIKELY due to poor design decisions and implementation prior to launch.

 

Those losses were most likely amplified by standard attrition, income model and market competition and conditions which were probably contributing factors IMO.

 

I do, however, disagree with the "sky is falling" idea. Many MANY games have lost substantial subs in their lifetime but still thrive, even with less than 300k subs. If the game has reached it's profitability threshold I believe, with the implementation of F2P if done correctly (so far it appears they are doing precisely that) they have a good to great chance of thriving.

Edited October 27, 2012 by LordArtemis

[Andryah]

You're deluding yourself if you don't think this game is losing players. I logged in yesterday on a Friday afternoon after not playing for several months and both fleet had about 180 players and only one instance. That's less than what I saw several months ago and this is after several servers closing down/players moved. GW2 on the other hand still has queue's for World vs world and second instances of maps where many players consolidate.In addition you see many players with items that cost much more than your average 1 month subscription.

 

Setting aside for a moment that your statements have absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discusion.....Let me guess... you are a PvP player on a PvP server. Am I right?

 

If so.. you are deluding yourself if you think this is a PvP game. It's not. It has some PvP mechanics, but this is not the game to play if you are an avid PvPer.

 

PvE and RP servers have been very stable in populations for some time now in this game. PvP servers have seen continued declines as people who like to do world PvP go play actual MMOs that have world PvP. Yet, those avid PvPers seem to come back and play anyway (based on your statement).

Edited October 27, 2012 by Andryah

[Andryah]

As I have indicated before, the only games that have had comparable losses lost those players due to poor design. The "standard" attrition rate, if there is one, seems to be a loss of around 20 to 30 percent of subs after launch AT SOME POINT. Most games that lost more than 70 percent of their subscription base appear to have lost that amount due to design mistakes, missteps or poor feature implementation.

 

Note: this comment by you is in fact applicable to every MMO in recent years... and includes the last two WoW expansions. So, either every single one sucks (including the WoW expansions) or the player base has shifted in terms of how it plays MMOs. I accept that some folks will claim it's the games and the expansions.... but a multi-million player population base is more complicated to model and understand then simply saying "the game design sucks", IMO.

[LordArtemis]

Note: this comment by you is in fact applicable to every MMO in recent years... and includes the last two WoW expansions. So, either every single one sucks (including the WoW expansions) or the player base has shifted in terms of how it plays MMOs. I accept that some folks will claim it's the games and the expansions.... but a multi-million player population base is more complicated to model and understand then simply saying "the game design sucks", IMO.

 

Well, obviously Im not saying "it sucks". Thats rather dismissive Andryah. Im stating that most games that have had comparable percentage losses have publically stated that design shortfalls, missteps and poor implementation have been the primary reasons for those losses.

 

The problem is that you have player opinions that support attrition as the major cause opposed to developer and market analyst opinions. I tend to lend reputability to the latter, and though I concede that I can not say, with absolute certainty, that attrition did not cause the losses I can say with a fair amount of certainty that evidence simply does not support this contention, as I have MANY TIMES.

 

It is just my opinion based on all available evidence. My opinion in no way invalidates the attrition idea. It is still a viable discussion point worthy of consideration IMO.

[Tim-ONeil]

TL;DR: the sky is not falling. Nothing spectacular in terms of MMO attrition trends has happened with this MMO vs other MMOs launched in the last 3 years. Comparing the life cycle trends for Rift with SWTOR shows almost identical characteristics.... and nobody has been banging on how bad Rift "failed"........ conclusion.... there are people applying double standards as an instrument to bash SWTOR for personal reasons in the forum. Which I believe is the salient point of Tim creating this thread to begin with.

 

Correct. That is exactly what I am saying. I am not saying SWTOR is a smashing success, and you will not find that in my posts. What I am doing is giving a context for which we can determine how it has done compared to other recently released games.

 

All the claims that this was the greatest failure in the history of MMO that are constantly posted here were not based on data, they were based on feelings and peoples own expectations. Giving a frame of reference like this allows us not only to evaluate the game but if the expectations were realistic from the start.

 

I wanted to look at the data to see if there was any truth to this. I came away with 2 conclusions that I posted. First, SWTOR is still the number #2 overall sub based MMO currently. Second, it's player attrition rate is average with what we have seen from comparable MMO's since 2008.

 

That's not spin, that's honest. SWTOR didn't perform better or worse than any of those MMOs. I'm not defending it, just pointing that out so we have a context for our debate about WHY that is. Looking at something objectively is the key to understanding. Assuming that because I found data that shows that maybe the game isn't as big as a failure as you believed it to be doesn't invalidate the data itself. If you can accept this as a starting point for debate then fine, if not you are not being objective yourself.

 

On it's own saying that it only has a X% retention rate sounds just terrible without context and leads to further fear and panic. Examining the market and showing that this has been a trend helps put it into perspective and allows us to further discuss the reason for this.

 

Based on this data I think it extremely unlikely we will ever see another WoW in the industry and expecting a new game to morph into that in a short period of time is unrealistic. Next up on the major MMO releases will be Elder Scrolls followed by Titan. If I'm still here by then I'd love to do this analysis again just to see what happens.

 

Could this game have done better in terms of retention? Without a doubt. I constantly point out that instancing 1.7 million people over 120+ servers, 2 factions, 14? planets, and countless instances keeps them from seeing each other and having an understanding of the big picture. Add to this the release of attrition losses that were reported and people panicked and left after 1.2. When server populations continued to drop it lead to lemmings unsubs. That is 100% on Bioware. If they had server mergers in place by March at the latest they would have a much higher population now I believe.

 

It's human nature to base everything on our own personal experience and perception and then extrapolate from there. For the discussion of the health of the game however that approach leads to what always happens in these forums. People that are convinced that they are seeing something different than what the data tells them.

 

Going forward there's a solid foundation here to build this game up. The numbers show that SWTOR is not going to be shut down in the short to long term. Once we can get over these fears and look at everything we can discuss how to move forward.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[LordArtemis]

Correct. That is exactly what I am saying. I am not saying SWTOR is a smashing success, and you will not find that in my posts. What I am doing is giving a context for which we can determine how it has done compared to other recently released games.

 

All the claims that this was the greatest failure in the history of MMO that are constantly posted here were not based on data, they were based on feelings and peoples own expectations. Giving a frame of reference like this allows us not only to evaluate the game but if the expectations were realistic from the start.

 

I wanted to look at the data to see if there was any truth to this. I came away with 2 conclusions that I posted. First, SWTOR is still the number #2 overall sub based MMO currently. Second, it's player attrition rate is average with what we have seen from comparable MMO's since 2008.

 

That's not spin, that's honest. SWTOR didn't perform better or worse than any of those MMOs. I'm not defending it, just pointing that out so we have a context for our debate about WHY that is. Looking at something objectively is the key to understanding. Assuming that because I found data that shows that maybe the game isn't as big as a failure as you believed it to be doesn't invalidate the data itself. If you can accept this as a starting point for debate then fine, if not you are not being objective yourself.

 

On it's own saying that it only has a X% retention rate sounds just terrible without context and leads to further fear and panic. Examining the market and showing that this has been a trend helps put it into perspective and allows us to further discuss the reason for this.

 

Based on this data I think it extremely unlikely we will ever see another WoW in the industry and expecting a new game to morph into that in a short period of time is unrealistic. Next up on the major MMO releases will be Elder Scrolls followed by Titan. If I'm still here by then I'd love to do this analysis again just to see what happens.

 

Could this game have done better in terms of retention? Without a doubt. I constantly point out that instancing 1.7 million people over 120+ servers, 2 factions, 14? planets, and countless instances keeps them from seeing each other and having an understanding of the big picture. Add to this the release of attrition losses that were reported and people panicked and left after 1.2. When server populations continued to drop it lead to lemmings unsubs. That is 100% on Bioware. If they had server mergers in place by March at the latest they would have a much higher population now I believe.

 

It's human nature to base everything on our own personal experience and perception and then extrapolate from there. For the discussion of the health of the game however that approach leads to what always happens in these forums. People that are convinced that they are seeing something different than what the data tells them.

 

Going forward there's a solid foundation here to build this game up. The numbers show that SWTOR is not going to be shut down in the short to long term. Once we can get over these fears and look at everything we can discuss how to move forward.

 

Though I may take pause with the mirror to other games losses when the claim is made its normal, I agree with most of this post. I would also add one point, and this is based on just my opinion based on what I have seen...massive loss in subs does not mean biggest failure IMO, and obviously other games in the market have suffered similar losses, IMO for the same reasons based on the data available (which I think is the only real point in dispute).

 

No, I don't believe, based on current evidence that the game is either the biggest failure or a failure in general, I DO BELIEVE it is likely it did not meet expectations. I fault Bioware almost entirely for this. Burt that does not mean I condemn them.

 

F2P tends to breath new life into games. I expect the same will happen here and look forward to it.

[Tim-ONeil]

F2P tends to breath new life into games. I expect the same will happen here and look forward to it.

 

Exactly. F2P with content expansions like the type we see from WoW will grow the game. The Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Litch King were big parts of their continued success.

 

That model can work here, now that the foundation from the game is in place.

[Soluss]

1 - 3 are correct. 4 is not, and I'll explain below.

 

It would be illogical to state that a fair comparison is the one where I have to lower TOR's retention date based on a number that exists only for this title and not the rest we are comparing. Having considered that dilemma the only solution that makes sense is using the equal data that exists in terms of max subs.

 

There's no deception here, I clearly stated what I was doing, and should the first year box sales number be available for those other games I will gladly use them- they aren't however anywhere I can find them. Logically you can't believe that only TOR has a discrepancy between box sales and max subs upon launch.

 

Your argument is that I am artificially raising that number, when in reality using the boxes sold only for SWTOR makes the retention % meaningless without similar context. I hope you understand what I mean.

 

I will gladly recalculate this if those numbers become available.

 

To your other point... I don't agree. We'll leave it at that. It's perfectly ok to use what we have an continue to refine it as we go along and have more data added. Next week that number will change, I will update and draw new conclusions. 3 months from now we will have the approximate 1 year data for TOR. We will reassess again. This is not an absolute.

 

No no no... thats not what I meant in number 4. What I mean with number 4 is that ToR is showing a better retention rate then other MMOs when if you use the data for the same timeframe, like I mentioned... that wouldnt be the case.

 

I suppose though, that if you plan to keep it updated then thats fine. I just dont think 6 months from now you will.

 

Also another thing that I just thought of. I found it odd that STO had such a high retention rate because that is IMO the worst game ever... and I love Star Trek. Then I remember something... Most of those people, still playing Star Trek have lifetime subs. Meaning.... they are no longer paying for the game.

[Soluss]

1, 2, and 3 I agree. Number 4, I disagree. SWTOR attrition rates over time are almost identical to other modern MMO releases. Not materially better or worse.

 

In other words on a percentage of subscriptions (not box sales because there is simply no coherant source for data to compare across MMOs). Now, in terms of absolute numbers (ie: total subscription numbers), each MMO is on a different scale (such as SWTOR being ~2.5-3x Rift in absolute numbers.)

 

When discussing trends, the % attrition is what matters for the discussion, not absolute numbers. Why? Because every MMO is different in terms of it's size scale (no matter how much people want to pretend otherwise).

 

So, to recap.... agree on 1,2,3, disagree on 4 (for the reasons outlined above).

 

So... one way to look at modern attrition curves is that the sky is falling on every MMO becasue every MMO in the modern era bleeds out a majority of it's subs within 9 months of launch before populations stablize. And by the way.. this is also true for WoW expansions in the last seveal years, so WoW is not immune to the pehnomena, only benefiting from a well entrenched base it establishing in an earlier era of modern MMOs. However since it is not a unique phenomena to one MMO, but rather to all MMOs... then the sky is in fact NOT falling. But something is happening and what that happening is -> the dynamics of the player base has changed to be more nomadic and less committed to sticking with any single MMO. AND...Inb4.....someone says I am blaming the players... I'm not... I am acknowleding a clearly observable phenomena without applying any judgement toward it.

 

World Wide populations in the player base did peak in 2010 and have been in modest decline since then (per MMOdata once again).... but not that much as of yet... so what we are seeing is players game hopping from MMO to MMO... which is exaggerated when new MMOs launch in a successive wave as they have in the last year.

 

TL;DR: the sky is not falling. Nothing spectacular in terms of MMO attrition trends has happened with this MMO vs other MMOs launched in the last 3 years. Comparing the life cycle trends for Rift with SWTOR shows almost identical characteristics.... and nobody has been banging on how bad Rift "failed"........ conclusion.... there are people applying double standards as an instrument to bash SWTOR for personal reasons in the forum. Which I believe is the salient point of Tim creating this thread to begin with.

 

I wasnt including box sales in there. I just worded number 4 poorly. What I mean is that ToR is showing to have a better retention rate then other MMOs. At the 6 month mark, this simply is just not true. ToR is shown as having a better retention rate because the comparisons, to other MMOs, are comparisons past the 6 month mark. Everyone knows that MMOs fall off rather drastically at that specific point. For instance, Rift is showing somewhere between 450k and 500k subs at the 6 month mark. Which is a much higher retention rate, at the same timeframe, as ToR.

 

It would also be my contention that the sky IS falling, based on the very same data. Just about all MMOs are getting losing more and more subs. When you have to continually cut staff more and more and more and eventually shut a game down (or leave 1 server open with a skeleton crew), then that to me is sky falling. If the sky isnt falling at that point then I dont know when you consider sky falling.

[Tim-ONeil]

Also another thing that I just thought of. I found it odd that STO had such a high retention rate because that is IMO the worst game ever... and I love Star Trek. Then I remember something... Most of those people, still playing Star Trek have lifetime subs. Meaning.... they are no longer paying for the game.

 

(The following is my opinion only to be clear. I am not stating any of this as fact, and it's slightly off topic.)

 

I agree with you 100% here. I own all of the star trek series on DVD, my wife and I love Star Trek, and that game isn't even close to a Star Trek experience. I decided to play through beta before buying a lifetime sub and I'm glad I did.

 

I think they knew that the product they were going to be marketing would not do well. I do believe that any game that makes that lifetime subscription offer does so with the understanding that most people won't play long enough for the company to lose money on it so they try to get as much money as they can up front. They also made a huge incentive to buy multiple copies of the game pre-launch to get all the bonus items for this reason.

 

Ultimately if they were going to be developing a game for such a small niche I would have preferred if they went a completely opposite direction and made it based on career paths. Rather than everyone is a captain people are ops, science, medical, engineering, or command. The captain on the mission can be an NPC or someone smarter than me would come up with a solution. The mission content (flashpoint style content) would have them assigned to the same ship and completing episode style content. Individual leveling could be possible through minor away missions and ship duties.

 

I think at worst that game does equally as well as STO did with what they released. The problem is you can't sell it to investors. They want to know you are building a game that can get as many people as possible, not the best star trek experience that could be offered if it is deemed to have less profit potential.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Folky]

Fine this game is as good as other failed MMO's such as Age of Conan, Star Trek Online and Warhammer Online. I'm not saying this game will close down soon, it will be a while, believe me I have played several other failed MMO's and they don't close down right away and yes subs and player population do stabilize but it becomes a niche MMO for a small community so if that's your idea of "the sky isn't falling" then great for you guys. F2P is coming and that will initially boost numbers partly out of curiosity but unless this MMO brings in something fresh and new which it overall has not then the playerbase will drop again, servers will consolidate more and (it might be several years) this game will close down.

[Tim-ONeil]

Fine this game is as good as other failed MMO's such as Age of Conan, Star Trek Online and Warhammer Online. I'm not saying this game will close down soon, it will be a while, believe me I have played several other failed MMO's and they don't close down right away and yes subs and player population do stabilize but it becomes a niche MMO for a small community so if that's your idea of "the sky isn't falling" then great for you guys. F2P is coming and that will initially boost numbers partly out of curiosity but unless this MMO brings in something fresh and new which it overall has not then the playerbase will drop again, servers will consolidate more and (it might be several years) this game will close down.

 

Do you play any other MMO's? Just curious since WoW is the only non failed MMO if you are going to take that position.

[bloodmoon]

Do you play any other MMO's? Just curious since WoW is the only non failed MMO if you are going to take that position.

 

 

Amen to that.