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

[Xaintis]

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.

 

I'm of the same opinion. It's not as if having people come check out this game is going to somehow magically fix it. All of it's problems that made it a flop in the first place are still here. Hell, the only reason I'm here is my investment of time and money and the hopes that one day it'll be even marginally better than it is now....foolish, I know.

[Soluss]

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.

 

Thats because an MMO is a social game. If players friends quit then other friends tend to follow them. With these games its friendships that keep people playing. Doesnt matter what MMO it is. Thats why developers cater to those people as it is those people that make up the bulk.

[Lord_Ravenhurst]

I only trust statistics which I have faked myself. Edited October 28, 2012 by Lord_Ravenhurst

[LordArtemis]

If its a choice between hyperbole that denounces the game and hurts retention or encouraging people to avoid the game, or hyperbole that supports the game and helps retention or encourages people to try the game I will always prefer the latter.

 

I don't see any harm in having the opinion that standard attrition caused the losses, AS LONG AS it is not presented as a counter to the opinion that the game lost subs due to poor design or offered as the only logical or sensible contention.

 

It is one way to look at it, and a positive way at that. I'm ok with that, and glad the discussion is taking place.

Edited October 29, 2012 by LordArtemis

[Tim-ONeil]

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.

 

Now this is an interesting statement. If we base the health of the game by how many people are playing it then I'd say based on that alone the game is fine because their revenue stream is already larger than any other game minus WoW and about to increase with F2P options. After all it is the number 2 sub or sub + free to play game. See the error here?

 

As far as questioning the purpose of this thread, it's only purpose is to inject facts and real numbers into a debate that is filled with anything but those staples of truth. Claiming the game is going to die soon is an opinion and it is an opinion without factual basis, or numbers. It is also an opinion of someone that wants that to be the case for whatever reason and is willing to overlook any and all evidence to the contrary.

 

If Bioware were to come out and say that they grew the player base these same people wouldn't accept that as truth because it doesn't fit their own view. Conversely people like myself that look at the numbers will accept what they say positive or negative because it makes no sense to think you know more than they do.

 

I'm sure some of you might not understand business and that leads to the panic as well. Claiming the game is in maintenance mode is a good tactic because there's nothing that can quantitatively debunk it and you can't prove it therefore it is 100% opinion based. I might point out the person in question with that attitude wants it to be the case, and would be delighted if it were so. Schadenfreude forever.

 

As far as the relevance of these numbers go are you aware Bioware, Bethesda, and Blizzard all have run similar numbers internally before green lighting their projects? This is standard in cost and revenue analysis when approving a major product. All of the projects that I work on at my job are also evaluated in the same way.

 

This game got the go ahead in 2006 when the industry was in a state of explosive growth. Anything seemed possible at the time and emulating WoW would have been completely in the realm of possibilities. As time went on we can see the trend of immediate growth and decent retention stopped for a myriad of reasons. I can guarantee that Bethesda is acutely aware of this as they work on Elder Scrolls Online. I will not be surprised for that game to launch with a sub initially (helps recoup development costs) then transition to F2P much sooner than this one because they would be foolishly betting at this point that they can buck the trend and should prepare ahead of time for that.

 

My last point is this, if you want to claim the game is 'dying zomg it's over' you can do that, it's your opinion and it's not based on fact since there is a sizable population here and it will be expanding in 2 weeks when F2P launches.

 

If you want to claim the game will shut down soon you can do that, again this isn't based on facts but your own impending feeling of doom and it makes you look insecure.

 

If you want to claim the game is in maintenance mode despite 5 major patches in 10 months, F2P about to launch, and a confirmed Makob expansion on the way then you just look silly. But hey, no one can ever prove you wrong since it's based on your feelings right?

Edited October 29, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Goretzu]

If its a choice between hyperbole that denounces the game and hurts retention or encouraging people to avoid the game, or hyperbole that supports the game and helps retention or encourages people to try the game I will always prefer the latter.

 

I don't see any harm in having the opinion that standard attrition caused the losses, AS LONG AS it is not presented as a counter to the opinion that the game lost subs due to poor design or offered as the only logical or sensible contention.

 

It is one way to look at it, and a positive way at that. I'm ok with that, and glad the discussion is taking place.

 

 

 

I honestly don't think it makes any difference.

 

What will help the game is what Bioware EA do (or don't do), which not coincidentally is the same thing responsible for where SWTOR is today.

 

However any anaylsis needs to be accurate and meaningful, which this broadly speaking is not.

 

 

As I meantioned above all the games used here have actually done many of the same (bad) things again and again, but they aren't mistakes that were made for some ephemeral reason that can't be tracked down, they basically made core design mistakes and released games far, far, far too early (they may have had no choice in that due to running out of money or parent companies - but that changes nothing when it comes to subscribers and success).

[Goretzu]

Now this is an interesting statement. If we base the health of the game by how many people are playing it then I'd say based on that alone the game is fine because their revenue stream is already larger than any other game minus WoW and about to increase with F2P options. After all it is the number 2 sub or sub + free to play game. See the error here?

 

 

But again the costs before a profit they have mentioned are also much larger than ANY other MMORPG around including WoW (assuming they are still that high - something we have no idea about.

 

F2P account also need to be spending $15 a month to generate the same amount of cash as subscriber account (although again some of thier cost depends on how much or little they play).

 

 

So it's hard to tell, hopefully SWTOR will get over 1,000,000 FP2 active accounts which is going to put them nicely into the black income-wise, but equally it is possible with 1,000,000 F2P accounts they wouldn't be pulling in the same revenue as 500,000 subscription accounts.

 

But again this all depends on what Bioware EA do......... a Freelancer-esq space expansion and amazing SW based RvR (rivialling Planetside 2)......... and we'll be on 3,000,000 F2P active accounts IMO.

 

Conversly a bit of new gear in the cashshop and little new content and the game could be in dire trouble.

[Tim-ONeil]

If its a choice between hyperbole that denounces the game and hurts retention or encouraging people to avoid the game, or hyperbole that supports the game and helps retention or encourages people to try the game I will always prefer the latter.

 

I don't see any harm in having the opinion that standard attrition caused the losses, AS LONG AS it is not presented as a counter to the opinion that the game lost subs due to poor design or offered as the only logical or sensible contention.

 

It is one way to look at it, and a positive way at that. I'm ok with that, and glad the discussion is taking place.

 

Nail on the head. Perception is EVERYTHING. Every time there is an article about TOR on another site the comments just show how the cool thing to do is bash this game with the intention to keep people away. It's even the cool thing to do on this forum and I suppose the reason for that would go way beyond the game itself and hint at that persons own personal issues or grievances that they want to air.

 

Word of mouth is important when there is an upfront cost to trying something yourself. Word of mouth generates buzz and drives sales. This is why all forms of advertising are important especially the advertising you can get for free from your own customers.

 

I can see the illogical doom brigade just replied to your post and said that word of mouth isn't important. It's true that Bioware has to deliver additional content and with 1.5 due out that's no problem. The issue is when someone comes here and reads this crap about 'zomg the game is going to die!' and figures they will stay away from it.

 

There are people that post solely with that motivation and there's a post on this front page that exists only to serve that purpose, I feel sorry for them.

[Tim-ONeil]

I also thought maybe it would help to bring in a completely non biased industry analyst's view of the subject of long term growth.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-08-01-star-wars-the-old-republic-could-attract-upwards-of-50-million-monthly-players-says-wedbush

 

Believe it or not their job is to do the type of research that I did and make predictions based on that information. Many times they are correct and sometimes they are wrong but you should at least consider that they have a much better knowledge of the subject than you personally (even myself) possess and their opinion shouldn't be discounted.

 

Even if you disagree with the message Wedbush Securities is presenting it's pretty interesting to see that type of growth predicted from a business analysis perspective.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[LordIceclaw]

I also thought maybe it would help to bring in a completely non biased industry analyst's view the subject of long term growth.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-08-01-star-wars-the-old-republic-could-attract-upwards-of-50-million-monthly-players-says-wedbush

 

Believe it or not their job is to do the type of research that I did and make predictions based on that information. Many times they are correct and sometimes they are wrong but you should at least consider that they have a much better knowledge of the subject than you personally (even myself) possess and their opinion shouldn't be discounted.

 

Even if you disagree with the message Wedbush Securities is presenting it's pretty interesting to see that type of growth predicted from a business analysis perspective.

 

Whether or not they are non-biased, which is kinda up for grabs, pales in the face of whether they know what they are talking about. The fact they talk about numbers as high as the total population of certain european countries, five time higher than WoW in it's heydays, and the fact their only stated reasons for the game's current state is its price really lead me to believe that they do not have the faintest clue about this game (which they never, ever call anything other than Star Wars, not Star Wars: The Old Republic, or The Old Republic, just Star Wars) and mmorpgs in general.

For you to bring this already derided to death piece of garbage to the debate is not exactly wise.

The same way certain project leaders can run games after games into the ground and still get a job, analyst can run their mouths off and still not starve.

[Draekos]

Interesting side note. Turbine just laid off a bunch of staff and their forums arent filled with posts about it. Why is this game different?

[Tim-ONeil]

Whether or not they are non-biased, which is kinda up for grabs, pales in the face of whether they know what they are talking about. The fact they talk about numbers as high as the total population of certain european countries, five time higher than WoW in it's heydays, and the fact their only stated reasons for the game's current state is its price really lead me to believe that they do not have the faintest clue about this game (which they never, ever call anything other than Star Wars, not Star Wars: The Old Republic, or The Old Republic, just Star Wars) and mmorpgs in general.

For you to bring this already derided to death piece of garbage to the debate is not exactly wise.

The same way certain project leaders can run games after games into the ground and still get a job, analyst can run their mouths off and still not starve.

 

I'm presenting it as something for discussion. You've made your point clear you don't believe it but since it's stock advice it's not pulled out of a hat.

 

This is something to consider at least if you casually dismiss it as garbage then you aren't interested in debate or any view that might actually contradict your own. It's listed as Star Wars because it's not directed solely at the audience that might know what that is specifically, it's for investors.

 

For what it's worth the numbers they listed shock me but time will tell, and it's certainly something we can discuss objectively.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Tim-ONeil]

Interesting side note. Turbine just laid off a bunch of staff and their forums arent filled with posts about it. Why is this game different?

 

Tongue in cheek answer: Because SWTOR has cornered the market on people that enjoy paying to troll the game on forums.

 

 

Seriously though that's a good question and I bet it has something to do with the maturity of their forums members or an aggressive mod staff. Actually if you look at the data charts they lost about 200k players right when this game came out so it is conceivable that we inherited most of their malcontents already.

[LordIceclaw]

I'm presenting it as something for discussion. You've made your point clear you don't believe it but since it's stock advice it's not pulled out of a hat.

 

This is something to consider at least if you casually dismiss it as garbage then you aren't interested in debate or any view that might actually contradict your own. It's listed as Star Wars because it's not directed solely at the audience that might know what that is specifically, it's for investors.

 

For what it's worth the numbers they listed shock me but time will tell, and it's certainly something we can discuss objectively.

 

But my point is that it is pulled from a hat, and based on flawed assumptions. I am calling this thing garbage because that's it's actual worth. Not all arguments are equals. Those unsupported by solid proofs, and drawing farfetched, unrealistic conclusions very much deserve to be called trash.

Just filling this in and saying "that's something you brought up for debate" doesn't mean anything. Do you believe the expectations layed in this article realistic? In its entirety? Partially?

Regarding the name, sorry but that lacks punch as well. I mean, according to you, referring to the game only by the name of the licence it came from, said licence having spawned quite a lot of things, actually help investors to know what they are talking about, instead of giving the full name? By itself it would not be a problem, but when you connect it to flawed assumptions about the reasons players have quit, and ridiculous expectations, then it's pretty hard not to come to the conclusion the analyst spent all of five minutes coming up with those pearls of wisdom.

Edited October 29, 2012 by LordIceclaw

[Goretzu]

I also thought maybe it would help to bring in a completely non biased industry analyst's view of the subject of long term growth.

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-08-01-star-wars-the-old-republic-could-attract-upwards-of-50-million-monthly-players-says-wedbush

 

Believe it or not their job is to do the type of research that I did and make predictions based on that information. Many times they are correct and sometimes they are wrong but you should at least consider that they have a much better knowledge of the subject than you personally (even myself) possess and their opinion shouldn't be discounted.

 

Even if you disagree with the message Wedbush Securities is presenting it's pretty interesting to see that type of growth predicted from a business analysis perspective.

 

 

 

They are saying lowering the retial price and going F2P is likely to increase current revenues - it is (short term anyway - as with LOTRO and DDO a sustained boost to number and revenue is a different kettle of fish).

 

They aren't saying anything about retention or relative retention from peak subs (whatever that is supposed to be ), or really why SWTOR sold 2.5 million copies and end up with ~500,000 subscribers.

 

 

 

 

Edit - eep I missed this bit (this has been posted ages ago come to think of it, back in August):

Pachter believes that Star Wars now has the potential to "attract at least 10 million MAUs indefinitely, with upside to perhaps 50 million." He added, "Thus, we believe that contribution from the model shift could be significant for years to come."

 

With the best will in the world it's hard to see SWTOR getting 10,000,000 active accounts with F2P, 50,000,000 is just plain barmy numbers.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Goretzu

[Tim-ONeil]

But my point is that it is pulled from a hat, and based on flawed assumptions. I am calling this thing garbage because that's it's actual worth. Not all arguments are equals. Those unsupported by solid proofs, and drawing farfetched, unrealistic conclusions very much deserve to be called trash.

Just filling this in and saying "that's something you brought up for debate" doesn't mean anything. Do you believe the expectations layed in this article realistic? In its entirety? Partially?

Regarding the name, sorry but that lacks punch as well. I mean, accoding to you, referring to the game only by the name of the licence it came from, said licence having spawned quite a lot of things, actually help investor to know what they are talking about, instead of giving the full name? By itself it would not be a problem, but when you connect it to flawed assumptions about the reasons players have quit, and ridiculous expectations, then it's pretty hard not to come to the conclusion the analyst spent all of five minutes coming up with those pearls of wisdom.

 

I posted that to see what others thought of it. It's a conversation starter. It's has nothing to do with WHY behind why people left the game, it's about future growth.

 

I'll reserve my own critique until more people weigh in on it, good, bad, or otherwise. There are a few people here that just pounce on what I have to say and that drowns out other voices. Your opinion when presented like you did above is fine of course because it's your view. Now that you've expanded upon it I appreciate you taking the time to post it.

[Goretzu]

Tongue in cheek answer: Because SWTOR has cornered the market on people that enjoy paying to troll the game on forums.

 

 

Seriously though that's a good question and I bet it has something to do with the maturity of their forums members or an aggressive mod staff. Actually if you look at the data charts they lost about 200k players right when this game came out so it is conceivable that we inherited most of their malcontents already.

 

/em removes tinfoil hat

 

Turbine hired extra people, but supposedly didn't get the growth to support them, 80 or the jobs are in admin with 40 going from their closed down SF studio.

 

However there are forum posts about it.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Goretzu

[Soluss]

I'm presenting it as something for discussion. You've made your point clear you don't believe it but since it's stock advice it's not pulled out of a hat.

 

This is something to consider at least if you casually dismiss it as garbage then you aren't interested in debate or any view that might actually contradict your own. It's listed as Star Wars because it's not directed solely at the audience that might know what that is specifically, it's for investors.

 

For what it's worth the numbers they listed shock me but time will tell, and it's certainly something we can discuss objectively.

 

I actually quite agree with the poster you quoted. You say he is an outside, unbiased analyst that knows alot more then we do. He may know more then we do in stock analysis. I assure you that I know more and alot of people on these forums know more about MMO trends then he does. There is no way in high hell that you can analyze and come to that conclusion. The potential to draw 10 million regular players and 50 million players in all? Thats way overly optimistic and I would love to know what data he used to come to that conclusion. Does he happen to own stock in EA by chance?

[Tim-ONeil]

/em remove tinfoil hat

 

Turbine hired extra people, but supposedly didn't get the growth to support them, 80 or the jobs are in admin with 40 going from their closed down SF studio.

 

However there are forum posts about it.

 

That's awfully convenient since that post was made about 15 minutes ago and has no responses. Looking through the first 2 pages of their forums I can't see anything else that even strikes me as remotely negative at all.

 

That's a novel concept huh? Players actually discussing in game things without posts about the end of it all. If the game has that mature of a player base then they will survive as a niche game long term if properly managed.

[Vladnar]

So they load it up ITS ALL FREE and how much, often and to what level do they play anyway? Everybody may as well at least load it up and have a character eh....but if ill being doing ops and wz's with them at the top will be another matter altogether, but fingers crossed and we have hope.

[Soluss]

That's awfully convenient since that post was made about 15 minutes ago and has no responses. Looking through the first 2 pages of their forums I can't see anything else that even strikes me as remotely negative at all.

 

That's a novel concept huh? Players actually discussing in game things without posts about the end of it all. If the game has that mature of a player base then they will survive as a niche game long term if properly managed.

 

To answer the original question in my opinion:

 

At this point in LoTRo's life cycle... there are not really that many players left. There are not really that many players that use the forums. You can tell this when you goto page 2 of general section and the posts are 2 days old. Then goto page 3 and see that the posts are upwards of 4 days old. Page 5 here is still between yesterday and 2 days old for comparison.

 

IOW... Lotro is so old now that it has its niche players. Most of them dont use the forums. This game is still young and arent in their niche player life cycle yet.

[Goretzu]

That's awfully convenient since that post was made about 15 minutes ago and has no responses. Looking through the first 2 pages of their forums I can't see anything else that even strikes me as remotely negative at all.

 

That's a novel concept huh? Players actually discussing in game things without posts about the end of it all. If the game has that mature of a player base then they will survive as a niche game long term if properly managed.

 

Shows as been made 5+ hours ago to me.

 

Maybe they delete them all? Or maybe there's more, it just took me 5 seconds of looking to find that one. You'll have to keep an eye on it to see if there IS a game spanning conspiracy of silence.

 

Personally I suspect it is the Wookie(e)s pulling the strings.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Goretzu

[Tim-ONeil]

Shows as been made 5+ hours ago to me.

 

Maybe they delete them all? Or maybe there's more, it just took me 5 seconds of looking to find that one. You'll have to keep an eye on it to see if there IS a game spanning conspiracy of silence.

 

Personally I suspect it is the Wookie(e)s pulling the strings.

 

Full Disclosure (I have no interest in LOTRO because I don't like the setting.)

 

If they do tightly control the message on the forum it's working as intended. Looking at the lack of QQ there gave me more respect for the game, one that I have not to this point ever played and can't see myself playing but having a mature community is a huge turn on. Compare and contrast what we see here and it's night and day. For that I am really impressed at least.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[simplius]

Whether or not they are non-biased, which is kinda up for grabs, pales in the face of whether they know what they are talking about. The fact they talk about numbers as high as the total population of certain european countries, five time higher than WoW in it's heydays, and the fact their only stated reasons for the game's current state is its price really lead me to believe that they do not have the faintest clue about this game (which they never, ever call anything other than Star Wars, not Star Wars: The Old Republic, or The Old Republic, just Star Wars) and mmorpgs in general.

For you to bring this already derided to death piece of garbage to the debate is not exactly wise.

The same way certain project leaders can run games after games into the ground and still get a job, analyst can run their mouths off and still not starve.

 

yea if the suits base their decisions on what this "analyst" says,,no wonder SWtor is tanking

 

i agree with him on the market size for STAR WARS mmo, though

 

but it would be ANOTHER SW mmo,,,not his one

[Xenirath]

Somewhere I read that SWTOR would need to keep over 500k subs for over 1 year to break even; anything over that is a win for them. Just a few more months to go... With the rate of updates right now I think they will break even, especially with the Cartel Market coming to the game. It's amazing how much money people are willing to spend on a f2p game... lol

 

Wherever you read that I wouldn't ever go again.

 

Bioware has already made its initial investment back with retail box sales, let alone 6-7 months of subscriptions according to their Initial investor report. Which by all means is the only accurate representation of the financial state of a company due to other sources not having access to CFO's files.

 

You have to remember EA and LucasArts also invested heavily into this game. Likely with their investments being in the Subscription revenue percentages returns. So Lucas Arts and EA may not have made their money back but Bioware did.

 

LucasArts could flush their initial Investment down the toilet and not be hurt for cash, and EA makes enough money from TheSims to buy a small country. So even if this game doesn't make exorbitant profit margins EA will likely still host servers since they are relatively low cost to maintain.

 

All in all Bioware the developer got their money back and that means development will not be hindered, just don't expect EA or Lucas to shell out more money. Which is fine since "Expansions" never cost as much to produce.