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

[Foobert]

Dunno a bout the orange quote.. most FTP numbers are suspicious, once a free-to-player always always a FTP and counted always since you can't quit.. so any numbers from here out are really... well .. just dam SILLY.

 

They could, although I don't know who actually inflates numbers by not counting just the aggregate login numbers. It does neither the beancounters nor the investors any good for fake numbers.

[Soluss]

For what its worth:

 

The release lacked metrics from the company's large multiplayer online game, "Star Wars: The Old Republic," which made headlines this summer when the company said it was planning to offer a limited version of the game as a free-to-play title, in addition to its regular subscription price of $14.99, which allows full access to all the game's features. At the time, EA had said the new pricing model would make the game "more accessible."

The game, which EA released last December, has struggled to find a footing in the marketplace as it competes against Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "World of Warcraft" large multiplayer-online game. Active customers slipped below one million in the company's first quarter reported in July, down from 1.3 million in the fourth quarter and 1.7 million in the months following the game's release. "World of Warcraft," by comparison, has about 10 million subscribers.

Mr. Jorgensen, who was appointed as EA's chief financial officer July 31, said he chose not to include "Star Wars" subscription numbers because they would detract from the company's efforts to move the game forward.

"People have hung on the subscription numbers and it hasn't reflected the underlying business very well," he said. "As you move to free to play, what does a subscription really mean?"

[Tim-ONeil]

Mr. Jorgensen, who was appointed as EA's chief financial officer July 31, said he chose not to include "Star Wars" subscription numbers because they would detract from the company's efforts to move the game forward.

"People have hung on the subscription numbers and it hasn't reflected the underlying business very well," he said. "As you move to free to play, what does a subscription really mean?"

 

And that makes perfect sense. Of course it will be pounced upon as a sign of weakness but soon F2P will be here and we move on.

[Soluss]

And that makes perfect sense. Of course it will be pounced upon as a sign of weakness but soon F2P will be here and we move on.

 

I believe it is a sign of weakness. I believe we are now under the 500k subs. However, I also believe it was the correct move and his statement is accurate. Different business model means subs are no longer relevant.... That also means they will push more F2P stuff, because that is their important customer now, while subs take a backseat.

[LordArtemis]

Well, if the discussion is coming to an end I appreciate all that participated. Thanks.

[DrayenAuros]

Let's see how these 'numbers' go when Disney sticks his ears into this game. And please people, if you think Disney won't ... you got another thing comming. As long as they control the Star Wars licinese they will have a say how any game goes ... and their word will be law.

[Goretzu]

I'm starting this thread as a place to discuss the state of the game while keeping things in perspective without employing excessive hyperbole to make my point. I hope it can generate a good discussion.

 

The Truth in Numbers

 

The Electronic Arts Q2 FY2013 earnings report just came out. The information EA provided about about Star Wars: The Old Republic is sparse. No subscription numbers.

 

Documents at http://investor.ea.com/ .

 

• "Subscriptions, advertising, and other digital revenue grew 48%, driven by Star Wars: The Old Republic. As we mentioned on the last call, a free-to-play option for this game will be available this quarter, and we will provide more insight regarding the results of this change in future calls."
   
  
• "Non-GAAP revenue for the quarter is expected to be between $1.25 and $1.35 billion, a decline in comparison from last year's $1.65 billion, which included the launches of Battlefield 3 and Star Wars: The Old Republic. Both titles drove packaged goods and full-game digital download revenue."
  

 

Yeah they won't mention numbers unless asked a direct shareholder question (and even then), until/unless SWTOR accounts massively increase with F2P.

 

 

And that makes perfect sense. Of course it will be pounced upon as a sign of weakness but soon F2P will be here and we move on.

 

F2P is not a magic wand, it has the capability to raise struggling subscription MMORPG revenue in the short-term, but long-term is less certain, it also isn't guarenteed to raise revenue or players numbers massively (although it would have be implimented terrible not to IMO) anymore than selling 2,500,000 boxes did.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Goretzu

[JarekCyphus]

I believe it is a sign of weakness. I believe we are now under the 500k subs. However, I also believe it was the correct move and his statement is accurate. Different business model means subs are no longer relevant.... That also means they will push more F2P stuff, because that is their important customer now, while subs take a backseat.

 

Hardly. It's a trend toward the future of MMOGs. Blizzard has no incentive to do so with so many subscribers, but LotRO, DDO, and STO have all risen in paying subscribers / revenue since converting to F2P+Sub models (the latter a bit more modestly). Guild Wars 2 is now setting the trend with having the highest selling first month MMOG in history.

 

This was day 1: http://techland.time.com/2012/08/28/guild-wars-2-sales-one-million-pre-served-record-400000-playing-at-once/

 

Two weeks later: http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/13/guild-wars-2-breaks-the-two-million-sales-mark/

 

Given the size, scale, and scope of SWTOR compared to that of Guild Wars 2, had SWTOR launched with an F2P+Sub model, I think the game would have proven itself to be a lot more marketable and successful. Still, the numbers don't lie, and SWTOR remains (on paper) the #2 MMOG, even though Guild Wars 2 has already far surpassed it in revenue.

 

If anything, this F2P launch of SWTOR is a "better late than never" sort of scenario for the game. I strongly suspect if BioWare takes the time to listen to its audience during the transition rather than oil every squeaky wheel, SWTOR will be here to stay and may even justify its existence in the plane of MMORPGs.

[Tim-ONeil]

Hardly. It's a trend toward the future of MMOGs. Blizzard has no incentive to do so with so many subscribers, but LotRO, DDO, and STO have all risen in paying subscribers / revenue since converting to F2P+Sub models (the latter a bit more modestly). Guild Wars 2 is now setting the trend with having the highest selling first month MMOG in history.

 

This was day 1: http://techland.time.com/2012/08/28/guild-wars-2-sales-one-million-pre-served-record-400000-playing-at-once/

 

Two weeks later: http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/13/guild-wars-2-breaks-the-two-million-sales-mark/

 

Given the size, scale, and scope of SWTOR compared to that of Guild Wars 2, had SWTOR launched with an F2P+Sub model, I think the game would have proven itself to be a lot more marketable and successful. Still, the numbers don't lie, and SWTOR remains (on paper) the #2 MMOG, even though Guild Wars 2 has already far surpassed it in revenue.

 

If anything, this F2P launch of SWTOR is a "better late than never" sort of scenario for the game. I strongly suspect if BioWare takes the time to listen to its audience during the transition rather than oil every squeaky wheel, SWTOR will be here to stay and may even justify its existence in the plane of MMORPGs.

 

The only thing I'll point out is that the GW2 having more revenue is a flawed statement. They might have sold more boxes but SWTOR sold Digital Deluxe and Collectors editions are premium price points to generate enough from initial box sales to make back their investment in the game.

 

Add to this 10 months of collecting subscription fees and it's no contest really.

[lklinga]

Yeah it's quite obvious by just logging in. Not to mention there's this thing I like to use common sense. Not everyone needs things spoon fed to them.

First common sense is not common

Second the numbers IF we have to resort to eyeballing The servers in EU are healthy stable and lately I even start seeing fleet population rise more and more on my server small but steady.

 

No science here just taking note of the population on fleet Hutta and Dromund Kass and the respective republic side.

 

Since July Tendecy stable with slight upward trend.

 

OP nice post bit too long but nice

[Andryah]

The only thing I'll point out is that the GW2 having more revenue is a flawed statement. They might have sold more boxes but SWTOR sold Digital Deluxe and Collectors editions are premium price points to generate enough from initial box sales to make back their investment in the game.

 

To adjust this just slightly..... digital product sales/delivery = much higher profit margins for every dollar of revenue.

 

There is a reason the big game companies are pushing very rapidly into digital sales and delivery of what used to be boxed games. Their profit margins on a single sale are on the order of 3-5x what they earn off of a box sale. Why? because the reduce the cost to produce and deliver significantly AND they remove at least two layers of the delivery channel (each of which needs a slice of the sales) to the end user.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Andryah

[Arkerus]

To adjust this just slightly..... digital product sales/delivery = much higher profit margins for every dollar of revenue.

 

There is a reason the big game companies are pushing very rapidly into digital sales and delivery of what used to be boxed games. Their profit margins on a single sale are on the order of 3-5x what they earn off of a box sale. Why? because the reduce the cost to produce and deliver significantly AND they remove at least two layers of the delivery channel (each of which needs a slice of the sales) to the end user.

 

No kidding. Its amazing how much bigger the profit margin is on digital delivery.

 

Its great for consumers too because you get on demand delivery and sometimes...lower prices.

[simplius]

soon we will know,,,when disney crew arrives to take stock

 

they prolly wont tell numbers, but their actions will show, if they believe in this game

 

i dont think they pour 100s of mio$ more into this,,a little maybe,,but no huge amounts

 

and they shouldnt either,,or would u have ur game financed by the kids donald and mickey $?

 

i think they will "suggest" a total revamp,,or pull the plug,,but they better hurry, while there is still time

[Andryah]

Given the size, scale, and scope of SWTOR compared to that of Guild Wars 2, had SWTOR launched with an F2P+Sub model, I think the game would have proven itself to be a lot more marketable and successful. Still, the numbers don't lie, and SWTOR remains (on paper) the #2 MMOG, even though Guild Wars 2 has already far surpassed it in revenue.

 

Two comments to share:

 

1) GW2 and SWTOR are very different product models, even after SWTOR goes freemium here in November. 95% of GW2 revenue is from the box sale, and always will be (even with expansions). For SWTOR, they get a spike in revenue from box sales, but the real revenue contribution to EAs financials is long term earned revenue from subscriptions/coin_sales. I'm not judging which model is better, only pointing out that they are different models in the MMO market that have both been successful. A company decides on a model up front and goes with it. The GW2 model is pretty much a native model for Asia (and given the parent companies lineage, that makes sense) that has been imported into the western market. The more traditional models for MMOs have always existed in the western market and not propagated well into the Asian markets.

 

2) SWTOR is an EA company and at EA box sales (even though they are mostly digital now days) is king. So a company like EA would definitely want to sell into a launch as subscription simply because subscription MMOs command premium sales pricing (compared to F2P). So I'm almost positive that Bioware was keen to go freemium on launch but the box sales parent company wanted to extract maximum value up front on the product, and then adjust the operations model later if business needs dictated (which clearly they have). EA wanted both halves of the pie... large spike revenue from launch sales (especially pent up presales) AND continuing revenue from operations after launch.

[Andryah]

soon we will know,,,when disney crew arrives to take stock

 

they prolly wont tell numbers, but their actions will show, if they believe in this game

 

i dont think they pour 100s of mio$ more into this,,a little maybe,,but no huge amounts

 

and they shouldnt either,,or would u have ur game financed by the kids donald and mickey $?

 

i think they will "suggest" a total revamp,,or pull the plug,,but they better hurry, while there is still time

 

Step back and think for a moment. The Disney deal is about owning a successful production company (they own a number of them) with a very valuable IP franchise. The big bucks for Disney here is movies and merchandising off of the IP. SWTOR is a license agreement (with sharing of revenue) with EA. ALL investment into SWTOR has been and will continue to be from EA. NOTHING about Disney's aquisition of LucasFilm changes that. It's free revenue for Disney.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Andryah

[Arkerus]

soon we will know,,,when disney crew arrives to take stock

 

they prolly wont tell numbers, but their actions will show, if they believe in this game

 

i dont think they pour 100s of mio$ more into this,,a little maybe,,but no huge amounts

 

and they shouldnt either,,or would u have ur game financed by the kids donald and mickey $?

 

i think they will "suggest" a total revamp,,or pull the plug,,but they better hurry, while there is still time

 

I'm not sure how some of you believe Disney is going to cry for a total remake of this game or pour millions of dollars into it. There is something you should know: In the immediate short term, they won't change a thing and they probably never will.

 

Disney/Lucasfilms just owns the IP and some right to profit. They gave Bioware a creative license and expect them to handle development costs, marketing, strategy, etc.

 

No one from Disney is going to bust down the doors at EA/Bioware and start calling the shots. They gave up part of their creativity and control when they licensed it to Bioware.

 

I don't understand what you people expect to happen? Walt Disney rise from his grave and turn this game into a sandbox space sim with Pluto as the emperor and Mickey Mouse as the hero?

 

Nothing is going to happen at least for a few years. EA/Bioware control the game. Disney does not.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Arkerus

[Arkerus]

Step back and think for a moment. The Disney deal is about owning a successful production company (they own a number of them) with a very valuable IP franchise. The big bucks for Disney here is movies and merchandising off of the IP. SWTOR is a license agreement (with sharing of revenue) with EA. ALL investment into SWTOR has been and will continue to be from EA. NOTHING about Disney's aquisition of LucasFilm changes that. It's free revenue for Disney.

 

lol. We literally went after the same post to type almost the same thing.

[CosmicKat]

 

2) SWTOR is an EA company and at EA box sales (even though they are mostly digital now days) is king. So a company like EA would definitely want to sell into a launch as subscription simply because subscription MMOs command premium sales pricing (compared to F2P). So I'm almost positive that Bioware was keen to go freemium on launch but the box sales parent company wanted to extract maximum value up front on the product, and then adjust the operations model later if business needs dictated (which clearly they have). EA wanted both halves of the pie... large spike revenue from launch sales (especially pent up presales) AND continuing revenue from operations after launch.

 

This is one of your more "out there" ideas. What logic do you use to leap to this conclusion? Nothing about the game indicates that a F2P model was their plan or eventual goal.

 

If F2P is what you are always trying to sell it as, a good thing and the way of the future, why doesn't the Big Game go F2P? Because it's not the way of the future. It's nothing more than a reaction to the bottom falling out of the MMO marketplace and WoW will never go F2P till the bottom falls out of their customer base.

 

Giving it a shiney, happy name like "Freemium" doesn't change the fact that F2P is really the online equivalent of the bargain bin at Walmart.

[simplius]

Step back and think for a moment. The Disney deal is about owning a successful production company (they own a number of them) with a very valuable IP franchise. The big bucks for Disney here is movies and merchandising off of the IP. SWTOR is a license agreement (with sharing of revenue) with EA. ALL investment into SWTOR has been and will continue to be from EA. NOTHING about Disney's aquisition of LucasFilm changes that. It's free revenue for Disney.

 

this game is hurting the IP,,and we heard from LA "next SW MMO will be made in house"

 

revenue??? where? did they fire all those people just for FUN?

[Soluss]

Hardly. It's a trend toward the future of MMOGs. Blizzard has no incentive to do so with so many subscribers, but LotRO, DDO, and STO have all risen in paying subscribers / revenue since converting to F2P+Sub models (the latter a bit more modestly). Guild Wars 2 is now setting the trend with having the highest selling first month MMOG in history.

 

This was day 1: http://techland.time.com/2012/08/28/guild-wars-2-sales-one-million-pre-served-record-400000-playing-at-once/

 

Two weeks later: http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/13/guild-wars-2-breaks-the-two-million-sales-mark/

 

Given the size, scale, and scope of SWTOR compared to that of Guild Wars 2, had SWTOR launched with an F2P+Sub model, I think the game would have proven itself to be a lot more marketable and successful. Still, the numbers don't lie, and SWTOR remains (on paper) the #2 MMOG, even though Guild Wars 2 has already far surpassed it in revenue.

 

If anything, this F2P launch of SWTOR is a "better late than never" sort of scenario for the game. I strongly suspect if BioWare takes the time to listen to its audience during the transition rather than oil every squeaky wheel, SWTOR will be here to stay and may even justify its existence in the plane of MMORPGs.

 

I think you misunderstood my post. However, I will talk about yours a tiny bit. There were no new numbers so the current numbers arent accurate. Not only are they not accurate but they are very broad range due to a very broad answer. I dont believe ToR to be the number 2 MMO any longer.

 

For two, F2P doesnt guarentee any success. It may have no success. It may have short term success. Its doubtful to have long term success. Even Lotro is fading.

[Soluss]

The only thing I'll point out is that the GW2 having more revenue is a flawed statement. They might have sold more boxes but SWTOR sold Digital Deluxe and Collectors editions are premium price points to generate enough from initial box sales to make back their investment in the game.

 

Add to this 10 months of collecting subscription fees and it's no contest really.

 

Flawed, GW2 also had Collectors editions at a higher premium rate. They also had digital sales and at premium rates as well. They sold far more units then ToR with substantially less budget. This was a business model by design while ToR is not. They have also had cash shop sales from day 1. You are now just making assumptions or guesses.... which goes against the original context of your OP. You are also assuming that EA made back their initial investment. That is not necessarily true. You also neglect that GW2 doesnt have to pay a huge premium for a license to Lucas Arts.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Soluss

[Urael]

... F2P doesnt guarentee any success. It may have no success. It may have short term success. Its doubtful to have long term success. Even Lotro is fading.

 

Indeed. SWTOR will have life for at least 6 months to a year from the launch of F2P before any talk of sunsetting happens. It will take that long to fully assess the success or failure of SWTOR's F2P model.

[simplius]

I'm not sure how some of you believe Disney is going to cry for a total remake of this game or pour millions of dollars into it. There is something you should know: In the immediate short term, they won't change a thing and they probably never will.

 

Disney/Lucasfilms just owns the IP and some right to profit. They gave Bioware a creative license and expect them to handle development costs, marketing, strategy, etc.

 

No one from Disney is going to bust down the doors at EA/Bioware and start calling the shots. They gave up part of their creativity and control when they licensed it to Bioware.

 

I don't understand what you people expect to happen? Walt Disney rise from his grave and turn this game into a sandbox space sim with Pluto as the emperor and Mickey Mouse as the hero?

 

Nothing is going to happen at least for a few years. EA/Bioware control the game. Disney does not.

 

ok so they own "just" the IP,,thats not an important part of this game is it? lets just skip that

 

i have seen the dismantling of a shipyard,,within hours there were lawyers and accountants EVERYWHERE

 

counting every bolt and nail,,,the same will happen here,,they will look in every corner for hidden assets

 

and i believe SWtor is high on their list, since its a HUGE investment, and giving so much bad press

 

so lets face it: the ONLY thing , that can save SWtor,,is mickey and donald

 

a real "hardcore" game, right?...

[Soluss]

Two comments to share:

 

1) GW2 and SWTOR are very different product models, even after SWTOR goes freemium here in November. 95% of GW2 revenue is from the box sale, and always will be (even with expansions). For SWTOR, they get a spike in revenue from box sales, but the real revenue contribution to EAs financials is long term earned revenue from subscriptions/coin_sales. I'm not judging which model is better, only pointing out that they are different models in the MMO market that have both been successful. A company decides on a model up front and goes with it. The GW2 model is pretty much a native model for Asia (and given the parent companies lineage, that makes sense) that has been imported into the western market. The more traditional models for MMOs have always existed in the western market and not propagated well into the Asian markets.

 

2) SWTOR is an EA company and at EA box sales (even though they are mostly digital now days) is king. So a company like EA would definitely want to sell into a launch as subscription simply because subscription MMOs command premium sales pricing (compared to F2P). So I'm almost positive that Bioware was keen to go freemium on launch but the box sales parent company wanted to extract maximum value up front on the product, and then adjust the operations model later if business needs dictated (which clearly they have). EA wanted both halves of the pie... large spike revenue from launch sales (especially pent up presales) AND continuing revenue from operations after launch.

 

Dont know how you come to that conclusion. It was clear from day one that EA did not want to go F2P. Statements like "F2P games cant offer the quality we can" as well as being silent and or denying rumors of F2P would indicate the exact opposite of you being almost positive of this "plan"

[Urael]

Dont know how you come to that conclusion. It was clear from day one that EA did not want to go F2P. Statements like "F2P games cant offer the quality we can" as well as being silent and or denying rumors of F2P would indicate the exact opposite of you being almost positive of this "plan"

 

Indeed.

 

Ohlen rejects F2P for Star Wars: The Old Republic

 

December 24, 2011

 

Star Wars: The Old Republic will not adopt a free-to-play model any time soon, creative director James Ohlen has told Gamasutra.

 

Despite the overwhelming trend towards free-to-play MMOs, Ohlen said, “Right now, we’re very much focused on making it a subscription game.”

 

Ohlen addressed the challenge of launching a subscription-based and attributed it to high expectations. He said, “Yes, it’s getting difficult for companies to compete in the subscription space because players’ expectations are so high. That has been a big challenge for us, mainly because Blizzard set the bar so high with World of Warcraft.

 

However, Ohlen believes The Old Republic will provide enough value to justify its subscription model. He said the MMO is “bringing innovations that are really going to change the way people view the AAA subscription MMO.”

 

Star Wars: The Old Republic is available now for PC.