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

[Goretzu]

[Rift: 11 months from start to the used data point

Starts 3 months after Live date. 600,000 number comes in at May 2011 - 248,000 Jan 2012 - total period of measurement = 7-8 months.

 

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

Starts 2 months after Live date. 700,000 number comes in at Jun 2008 - 110,000 Nov 2008 - total period of measurement = 5 months.

 

Strangely as you say the next point some 6 months later is exactly the same (which suggests erroneous data points somewhere there) before it drops further and then starts to rise.

 

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

Starts 2 months after Live date. 1.7m number comes in Feb 2012 - 500,000 to 1,000,000 (which is so ridiculously variable [100% variable in fact ] as to almost be meaningless) Aug 2012 to = 7 months. However the last remotely accurate data point is 1.3m subs in May.

 

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

Starts 2 months after Live date. 800,000 number comes in at Nov 2008 - 175,000 Jun 2009 - total period of measurement = 7 months.

 

(11 months would put it about 125,000)

 

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.)

So total period of measurement = 4 months.

 

It can't paint any picture as we've seen (again) your data is all over the place and IS NOT comparing like for like.

 

Somewhere along the line you decided that these are not 1 year periods

Yes, pretty much when I added them up, I "decided" they weren't 1 year periods, strange that isn't it?

 

 

 

So again (again) your "data" is meaningless you aren't comparing like for like and as such it show nothing really.

 

The only valid comparrion in retention is box sales versus time after going Live (6 months, 12 months etc), you are looking at peak subs (which is meaningless unless you know customer turnover) versus random periods of time after that point.......... which shows........ nothing.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Goretzu

[Goretzu]

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.

 

Past performance doesn't guarentee future results, all we can say at present no one has equalled WoW.

 

 

Look at the games being compared here:

 

AoC - was fine till you got of the first island then there was basically no game - this game could not succeed like this, it was bound to bleed subs, yet once they rolled content out it started to rise.

 

WAR- developers were being cut in Beta, patches too ages to roll out and included arguable 2 of the worse PvP balance patches in MMORPG history, the game eventually got it feet under it and what came along? Biowares first big solo patch (1.4) which totally changed the game (and about 50% of the remain people left because of it) - again WAR couldn't succeed because it wasn't released in a state if ever could have.

 

STO - hehe see above - the only reason it has any subs before F2P I think was lifetime subs which skew its numbers all over the place.

 

 

 

Rift - is the only one that actually support what you are saying because it was solid, it was supported and it was more or less finished, unfortunately for it, it had by far the weakest IP of any of the above.

 

 

 

 

So what can you REALLY draw from that?

 

1. Bad, bugged, broken and unfinished games won't do well.

 

2. Weak IPs won't sell or retain as well as stronger ones.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Goretzu

[Graydon]

I don't care what numbers and what data is displayed here.

 

It's all about the player's perception and this game has a horrible reputation. It has and continues to be mismanaged. So badly that another round of "restructuring" can't save it.

 

People see their friends leaving, people read reviews and discussions from MMO websites. They don't make this stuff up and it's not a few isolated instances.

 

Tell me this game has 10 million subscribers if you want. I don't care. The server pops are declining again. The fixes and services are slow and the bugs continue to roll out.

 

Side note - Yes SWTOR won Online or MMO game of the year from the Game Developers Conference (or something like that) but to me the most interesting category was "Customer Service" and one of the nominees was WOW. After 8 years the company is at the top of the industry regarding their customers. That's how you run a business.

[Evensong]

It is still the fact though, that SWTOR is the second after WoW P2P MMO.

[DorkTrooper]

People see their friends leaving, people read reviews and discussions from MMO websites.

 

That's the problem: people are lemmings. There are probably more people who have quit or decided not to play based on other peoples' opinions than based on their own enjoyment and analysis of the game. True of many other consumer-land things as well.

[simplius]

It is still the fact though, that SWTOR is the second after WoW P2P MMO.

 

prolly not anymore,,i think theyre below EVE now

 

and when the new BW get the new numbers,,theyll just freak out and panic

[simplius]

People see their friends leaving, people read reviews and discussions from MMO websites.

 

That's the problem: people are lemmings. There are probably more people who have quit or decided not to play based on other peoples' opinions than based on their own enjoyment and analysis of the game. True of many other consumer-land things as well.

 

so bad press killed this game? 700k playesr left in first month, because of that?

 

no,,some losses due to friends and guildies leaving yes,,but not so many

 

this game is simply too narrow for a big budget,,until they change that,,no hope

[Evensong]

deleted Edited October 28, 2012 by Evensong

[Tim-ONeil]

Goretzu please go away since you can't read the chart. It's embarrassing for you. I've explained how it works and you still can't follow it. The high number used is the peak number but the clock started on release day this is totally ok of course since it captures the numbers of subs over a complete 1 year period that the game in question has been live. Since you have no data whatsoever of your own and you don't know how to read the chart in question you aren't convincing anyone of your intelligence. The high subs point is not the starting point for comparison and it's pretty clear you don't understand that. In this case it doesn't matter when that high point occurred over the course of the year and each of the games mentioned released their highest numbers first.

 

What you want to do is start at each games high subs numbers and measure from there and then you contend that that can't be done because they are all different times... circular logic is failed logic.

 

I suggest here sticking to the comments about how the game is going to be closing down next year, that's totally more your style and clearly you can't ever be proven to be incorrect because it's all about your opinion.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Wraiven]

Past performance doesn't guarentee future results, all we can say at present no one has equalled WoW.

 

 

Look at the games being compared here:

 

AoC - was fine till you got of the first island then there was basically no game - this game could not succeed like this, it was bound to bleed subs, yet once they rolled content out it started to rise.

 

Not true, most players who quit the game, was so disappointed with the first island, many of them never even left that island. I almost quit the game due to how boring that first island was. I stuck it out just out of morbid curiosity, and thankfully so. I rather enjoyed the game. Why did I leave? The worlds were confined, forced to travel roads...just like this game. Also, they took powers away...not nerfed them, took them completely away. So, I left. If you ask around and read up, most people never even left the first island. So I strongly disagree with this statement. There was a ton of things to do in that game.

 

 

STO - hehe see above - the only reason it has any subs before F2P I think was lifetime subs which skew its numbers all over the place.

 

I have not much nice to say about that game. Cryptic mislead us in so many ways, it was not even funny. They lead us to believe it was going to be wide open space, sandboxed, not closed in. They lead us to believe we could discover random worlds in deep space, name those worlds, make first contact...again, they lied. Cryptic lied to us from the beginning.

[Apache]

Threads like this confuse me. Why bother with stuff like this? What is trying to be accomplished here in this thread?

 

Comparing population numbers of different games in order to do ... what? Justify that the game is dying? Living? Will Survive until next year? Be shut down next month?

 

It seems rather pointless to me to debate on such a non issue.

 

The bottom line is that people who like the game will play it. People who dont will leave. After that, what else is there to know?

 

If you like the game, then enjoy it. Dont worry about it.

 

If you dont like the game, thats fine. Move on to a game that you do like. Its all good. Different strokes for different folks.

 

/cheers

[Trenter]

Threads like this confuse me. Why bother with stuff like this? What is trying to be accomplished here in this thread?

 

Comparing population numbers of different games in order to do ... what? Justify that the game is dying? Living? Will Survive until next year? Be shut down next month?

 

It seems rather pointless to me to debate on such a non issue.

 

I can definately see the purpose of a thread like this. Threads and posts stating that TOR is the biggest MMO flop ever, while not long lived, aren't exactly the best way to get new people interested in the game. Threads like these can atleast offer a balanced and documented counter to hyperbole like that, for those interested.

[simplius]

Threads like this confuse me. Why bother with stuff like this? What is trying to be accomplished here in this thread?

 

Comparing population numbers of different games in order to do ... what? Justify that the game is dying? Living? Will Survive until next year? Be shut down next month?

 

It seems rather pointless to me to debate on such a non issue.

 

The bottom line is that people who like the game will play it. People who dont will leave. After that, what else is there to know?

 

If you like the game, then enjoy it. Dont worry about it.

 

If you dont like the game, thats fine. Move on to a game that you do like. Its all good. Different strokes for different folks.

 

/cheers

 

yup ,,thats what i did for the last 10 years,,then wow went to china, and CoX suddenly closed

 

two of the best mmos was suddenly gone,,,and now this disaster

 

GW2,,hacking de luxe,,,,TERA is tanking because of bad western provider

 

GIVE ME A GOOD MMO; OR I PUT MY HAMSTER IN THE MICROWAVE:mad:

[Graydon]

I can definately see the purpose of a thread like this. Threads and posts stating that TOR is the biggest MMO flop ever, while not long lived, aren't exactly the best way to get new people interested in the game. Threads like these can atleast offer a balanced and documented counter to hyperbole like that, for those interested.

 

I'm thinking a potential player would see this thread and wonder why something like this would need to be created.

 

Just my opinion though.

[chuixupu]

Nevermind, derp Edited October 28, 2012 by chuixupu

[Trenter]

I'm thinking a potential player would see this thread and wonder why something like this would need to be created.

 

Just my opinion though.

 

Yes, because the doomsaying is so concealed on these boards

 

Your opinion, fair enough!

[Trenter]

Potential players can't see this thread, only subscribers

 

...What?

[Xaintis]

This game is becoming a money grubbing hamster wheel. As are all the other games you listed short of WoW which can actually make a game that's fun and aren't worried about sucking every penny out of us before the game goes into twilight.

 

Just thinking about the devs who got the tattoo's.

Just thinking about all the hype.

Just thinking about how EA/Ware somehow convinced themselves that they could compete in the MMO market, a direct competitor to WoW...LOL.

 

[Xaintis]

I can definately see the purpose of a thread like this. Threads and posts stating that TOR is the biggest MMO flop ever, while not long lived, aren't exactly the best way to get new people interested in the game. Threads like these can atleast offer a balanced and documented counter to hyperbole like that, for those interested.

 

What hubris, to think that our discussion are going to keep people away from this game when it goes F2P. What is going to keep people away from this game is it's **** design, **** communication, and **** outlook of the game's future.

 

Oh I know...we need another operation which only 15% of the playing population will even give a **** about. Or maybe facial emotions that we CAN'T EVEN SEE.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Xaintis

[Roalmo]

We will have a new statement from EA on the SWTOR subscription numbers next week. At that point I will completely reassess again based on those numbers.

 

You actually, really believe this?

 

Or will a vague number like between 500,000 and 1,000,000 be good enough to qualify?

 

We didn't get a hard number or even a good "range" at last call by these shysters, and you expect a good one now?

 

I don't expect any real numbers, only vague "we are maintaining" verbiage.

[Goretzu]

Goretzu please go away since you can't read the chart. It's embarrassing for you. I've explained how it works and you still can't follow it. The high number used is the peak number but the clock started on release day this is totally ok of course since it captures the numbers of subs over a complete 1 year period that the game in question has been live. Since you have no data whatsoever of your own and you don't know how to read the chart in question you aren't convincing anyone of your intelligence. The high subs point is not the starting point for comparison and it's pretty clear you don't understand that. In this case it doesn't matter when that high point occurred over the course of the year and each of the games mentioned released their highest numbers first.

 

What you want to do is start at each games high subs numbers and measure from there and then you contend that that can't be done because they are all different times... circular logic is failed logic.

 

I suggest here sticking to the comments about how the game is going to be closing down next year, that's totally more your style and clearly you can't ever be proven to be incorrect because it's all about your opinion.

 

 

That makes absolutely no sense, as (for example) 1.7M subs for SWTOR does NOT represent the TOTAL number of subs SWTOR has had, it simply represents the PEAK NUMBER AT ONE TIME.

 

Which is why box sales are the only thing you can constrast with subs numbers because that shows (roughly) the churn/turnover of subscribers.

 

1.7m is meaningless in a retention sense, because it only means anything versus total box sales - if a game has 1.7m subscriber and 1.7m game sales it has 100% retention, but if it has 2.5m box sales and only 1.7m subs that makes ~68% retention............ and of course 2.5m box sales and 500,000 subs make ~20% retentiion.

 

But measuring peak sub population versus later population and ignoring box sale just makes a meaningless comparrison of nothing really.

 

 

 

 

I also don't understand how you are "supposedly" counting the time before peak subs when your "data" and % caculations only show from peak sub till and arbitary time after peak sub.

[MOPSFounder]

That makes absolutely no sense, as (for example) 1.7M subs for SWTOR does NOT represent the TOTAL number of subs SWTOR has had, it simply represents the PEAK NUMBER AT ONE TIME.

 

Which is why box sales are the only thing you can constrast with subs numbers because that shows (roughly) the churn/turnover of subscribers.

 

1.7m is meaningless in a retention sense, because it only means anything versus total box sales - if a game has 1.7m subscriber and 1.7m game sales it has 100% retention, but if it has 2.5m box sales and only 1.7m subs that makes ~68% retention............ and of course 2.5m box sales and 500,000 subs make ~20% retentiion.

 

But measuring peak sub population versus later population and ignoring box sale just makes a meaningless comparrison of nothing really.

 

 

 

 

I also don't understand how you are "supposedly" counting the time before peak subs when your "data" and % caculations only show from peak sub till and arbitary time after peak sub.

Definitely agree here. One other thing I don't understand is how people can say this game was successful if it only sold X number of box sales and now it only retains less than 50% (1,700,000/2) of those that stayed playing the game (in terms of subscribers after box sales). Divide those number of box sales by 4 and you have 425,000, and I bet there are even less players still even subbed to this game whether they're playing or not.

 

Goretzu and I understand that some of you love this game to death and defend it to the letter, but recognize that this game has been stuck in maintenance mode for months now and has shown very little signs of getting better. Much of what Goretzu is saying says it all.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2012 by MOPSFounder

[Folky]

TLDR: This game is in bad shape, hope for the best.

[chuixupu]

...What?

 

Yeah sorry I don't know what I was thinking, been getting too used to another forum where they restrict the viewing of certain forum subsections if you aren't logged in.

[mavsynchroid]

I stopped reading as soon as you said something along the lines of "It's only fair to judge a game based on it's direct competition".

 

 

 

.....No. That's just silly. You judge how well an MMO is doing based off how many people are playing it. The game has been slowly dying, and F2P is it's life line where we'll find out whether or not it will last.

 

We won't know whether or not the game will last until F2P comes out, but I personally think it's not going to do well. We'll have increase in curious players, then they will drop off.

 

It's too bad, this was my favorite MMO.