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

[malangus]

I think the game is doing good subwise but things like planets keep people apart. During peak hours my server has 2-3 instances on the fleet on either side and scattered around the planets so if thats any indication I think we're doing great

 

Developers use the instanced planets to spread players since graphic engine sucks and slows down to a crawl if too many players (or different ones) are on the same area.

[Arkerus]

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?...

 

I'm sorry, but until you can post a single, logical thought I can't engage in this conversation. Analogies and broken sentences aren't going to work. You may refer to my quoted text for an explanation about how the real world and licensing work.

[simplius]

I'm sorry, but until you can post a single, logical thought I can't engage in this conversation. Analogies and broken sentences aren't going to work. You may refer to my quoted text for an explanation about how the real world and licensing work.

 

nevermind u wouldnt understand it anyway

 

and soon reality will get into ur game,,,perhaps u can feel it better there

[Tim-ONeil]

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.

 

They claimed already in the first investors call post release that the game made back it's initial investment on initial sales alone. Combine that with the 10 months of sub fees and it's not a guess anymore.

[malangus]

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

 

In the news I read the adquisition included:

• Lucasfilm
  
• Industrial Light and Magic
  
• Skywalker Sounds
  
• Skywalker Ranch
  

 

No mention of LucasArts. Either (a) the adquisition was to get another movie division like Marvel or Pixar, where a game division has nothing to do with, or (b) the game division has some money loss somewhere and they said no.

[malangus]

And a last note to the offtopic adquisition.

 

Unlike Lucas who said was not going to make more Star Wars movies, Disney already said they will do Episode VII, VIII, IX, starting 2015.

[Urael]

In the news I read the adquisition included:

• Lucasfilm
  
• Industrial Light and Magic
  
• Skywalker Sounds
  
• Skywalker Ranch
  

 

No mention of LucasArts. Either (a) the adquisition was to get another movie division like Marvel or Pixar, where a game division has nothing to do with, or (b) the game division has some money loss somewhere and they said no.

 

Maybe LucasArts is going to EA? Wouldn't surprise me. I just hope GL gets out of the whole mix. His idea has surpassed him and he is just holding it back. Hubris thy name is George!

[Tim-ONeil]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-acquire-lucasfilm-ltd-195100740.html

 

Read the release, it's in there:

 

About Lucasfilm Ltd.

 

Founded by George Lucas in 1971, Lucasfilm is a privately held, fully-integrated entertainment company. In addition to its motion-picture and television production operations, the company's global activities include Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound, serving the digital needs of the entertainment industry for visual-effects and audio post-production; LucasArts, a leading developer and publisher of interactive entertainment software worldwide; Lucas Licensing, which manages the global merchandising activities for Lucasfilm's entertainment properties; Lucasfilm Animation; and Lucas Online creates Internet-based content for Lucasfilm's entertainment properties and businesses. Additionally, Lucasfilm Singapore, produces digital animated content for film and television, as well as visual effects for feature films and multi-platform games. Lucasfilm Ltd. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

 

As we just announced, The Walt Disney Company has agreed to acquire Lucasfilm and its world class portfolio of creative content – including the legendary Star Wars franchise – along with all of its operating businesses, including Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Soluss]

They claimed already in the first investors call post release that the game made back it's initial investment on initial sales alone. Combine that with the 10 months of sub fees and it's not a guess anymore.

 

Please post me a link and text where EA says they made back its initial investment.

 

Thought this quote was a good one from an early conference call:

Keep in mind that this does not indicate making its investment back by just selling boxes.

What we've told folks is that this is a product that would make profitability at about a half-a-million subs. At about a million subs it's good business, it makes good money on an ongoing basis but it doesn't feel good about the historical investment. Anything north of a million, as we approach a million-and-a-half or 2, it starts to look like a great investment that justifies the price in a very positive way."

Edited October 31, 2012 by Soluss

[Tim-ONeil]

I'm looking for it and I've read it in several places. The quote you maintain is about ongoing profitability. Keep in mind LA's fee didn't kick in until they recouped their initial investment.

 

This is from the May investors call:

 

“Its performance right now is in line with original assumptions,” Riccitiello said. “In terms of profitability it’s in our top ten, but not our top five. It’s not as important as Fifa, Madden or The Sims, but it’s more important than Tiger Woods PGA Tour." - CEO John Riccitiello

 

It's only measured in profitability if it's not showing a loss.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Andryah]

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.

 

So... you are denying the fact that EA is focused on box sales over all else?

 

MMOs is mice nards to EA. They want box sales. They will take profitable contribution of revenue from their MMOs, but make no mistake about it.... EA is a box sales company first and foremost.

[Andryah]

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"

 

We are NOT in disagreement that EA did not want F2P at launch. In fact we agree. AND they did so in the face of market data and analysis showing that F2P would dominate the MMO space by 2012 and that revenue would grow at 2X+ the rate that subscriptions MMO revenue would moving forward. Further, there is more then anecdotal evidence that Bioware management wanted to go F2P at launch and that they were over-ruled by EA. EA took a gamble that they could cash in on box sales at launch AND run the game successfully as subscription only. But hey, give them credit for realizing early in the life cycle of the game that they made a mistake, and adjusted to market forces.

 

Note: there will be no more AAA MMOs release as subscription only. Watch and see. EAs gamble with SWTOR was the nail in the coffin for a pure subscription model moving forward for new MMOs.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Andryah

[Soluss]

I'm looking for it and I've read it in several places. The quote you maintain is about ongoing profitability. Keep in mind LA's fee didn't kick in until they recouped their initial investment.

 

This is from the May investors call:

 

“Its performance right now is in line with original assumptions,” Riccitiello said. “In terms of profitability it’s in our top ten, but not our top five. It’s not as important as Fifa, Madden or The Sims, but it’s more important than Tiger Woods PGA Tour." - CEO John Riccitiello

 

It's only measured in profitability if it's not showing a loss.

 

That doesnt mean they got their initial investment back. If you cant find a link then I think you only read what you wanted to or you heard someone else on the forums claim it. If they said it in a conference call then it would be in the records. It is not. So they never said it.

[Soluss]

We are NOT in disagreement that EA did not want F2P at launch. In fact we agree. AND they did so in the face of market data and analysis showing that F2P would dominate the MMO space by 2012 and that revenue would grow at 2X+ the rate that subscriptions MMO revenue would moving forward. Further, there is more then anecdotal evidence that Bioware management wanted to go F2P at launch and that they were over-ruled by EA. EA took a gamble that they could cash in on box sales at launch AND run the game successfully as subscription only. But hey, give them credit for realizing early in the life cycle of the game that they made a mistake, and adjusted to market forces.

 

I may have misunderstood your original post. I took it as you believe they wanted to go F2P from the begining. I still dont see any evidence that BW wanted to though. Also, I dont think they banked on box sales alone. You would have to sell an assload of copies to recoup the 200m buck figure rumor (which I believe). Further, you can still have box sales while launching F2P. Similar to GW2.

 

Edit: to your note.... Its possible there will no longer be pure sub models. Its still possible there will be though. Im sure almost all games will have a cash shop ready from now on though =)

Edited October 31, 2012 by Soluss

[Andryah]

That doesnt mean they got their initial investment back. If you cant find a link then I think you only read what you wanted to or you heard someone else on the forums claim it. If they said it in a conference call then it would be in the records. It is not. So they never said it.

 

 

It does not matter guys.

 

Since corporations account for capital investments in product development as a sunk captial cost, amortized over a period of years (and regardless if they ever launch a product), there is no direct cost recovery in their financials. In other words, it's not part of a calculation against the margins and contribution of the product.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Andryah

[Andryah]

Im sure almost all games will have a cash shop ready from now on though =)

 

On that we agree.

[CosmicKat]

So... you are denying the fact that EA is focused on box sales over all else?

 

MMOs is mice nards to EA. They want box sales. They will take profitable contribution of revenue from their MMOs, but make no mistake about it.... EA is a box sales company first and foremost.

 

No, I'm saying that going F2P would likely have been their absolute worst-case-scenario, plan Z.

 

EA is transitioning away from box sales and going all out for digital downloads. I think this has more to do with retailers refusing to stock PC games over higher margin console games.

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

In the news I read the adquisition included:

• Lucasfilm
  
• Industrial Light and Magic
  
• Skywalker Sounds
  
• Skywalker Ranch
  

 

No mention of LucasArts. Either (a) the adquisition was to get another movie division like Marvel or Pixar, where a game division has nothing to do with, or (b) the game division has some money loss somewhere and they said no.

 

Disney bought it all. Most ariticles don't list everything under the umbrella because there's so much and unless the reporter was focused on gaming they probably didn't care to mention LucasArts since it has a dramatically smaller reach then those listed above.

 

Articles that list LucasArts:

http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/30/disney-buys-lucasarts-alongside-lucasfilm/

“Disney bought all Lucasfilm companies, including LucasArts. For the time being, all projects are business as usual. We are excited about all the possibilities that Disney brings,” Lucasfilm publicist Barbara Gamlen said.

Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/30/disney-buys-lucasarts-alongside-lucasfilm/#5x4hAF8OFM3ciJVF.99

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/30/disney-acquires-lucasfilm-for-4-05-billion-lucasarts-included/

http://worthplaying.com/article/2012/10/30/news/87386/

http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/10/30/disney-acquires-lucasarts-for-4-05-billion-plans-to-release-star-wars-episode-7-in-2015/

[Tim-ONeil]

It does not matter guys.

 

Since corporations account for capital investments in product development as a sunk captial cost, amortized over a period of years (and regardless if they ever launch a product), there is no direct cost recovery in their financials. In other words, it's not part of a calculation against the margins and contribution of the product.

 

Interesting. I enjoy learning more about things that I realize I don't fully understand.

[Andryah]

EA is transitioning away from box sales and going all out for digital downloads. I think this has more to do with retailers refusing to stock PC games over higher margin console games.

 

Knock knock... from a business standpoint..... digital sales ARE box sales..... just without the cardboard box. They are point of sale retail merchant transactions... only the medium of delivery is different. And the margins are much higher... hence the business driver.

 

As for who is driving digital sales.... follow the profits.... the big game companies with native digital distribution capabilities is where the focus is. EA is one of them.

 

In fact.. EA makes a business out of distributing 3rd party games as well. Profit margins on digital sales of a product are simply higher margins if you own the product IP. For EA, selling 3rd party products through their infrastructure is sauce for the goose since it costs them virtually nothing.

 

Note: your inventory statement is invalid and obsolete. Retail merchants built agreements over the years for the product producer to hold inventory until "just in time". All the very large merchant chains do it this way now days. Some, like Best Buy Online are even having some inventory shipped directly from the product producer after sale to a customer. That said... when discussing digital delivery... correct.... no inventory.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Andryah

[Roalmo]

.... Since they didn't change the data I would believe the old estimate is still valid.

 

....

 

No new data equals same as old data.

 

Very scientific......

[Jeffor]

If there are 500k to a million subs then where are the players? Anytime I log on I see 100-200 on fleet and a spattering where ever I go. I am not necessarily saying these numbers are wrong but they just don't seem to gel with what I see in game.

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

No new data equals same as old data.

 

Very scientific......

 

You'd rather he just make numbers?

Very scientific

[CosmicKat]

Knock knock... from a business standpoint..... digital sales ARE box sales..... just without the cardboard box. They are point of sale retail merchant transactions... only the medium of delivery is different. And the margins are much higher... hence the business driver.

 

As for who is driving digital sales.... follow the profits.... the big game companies with native digital distribution capabilities is where the focus is. EA is one of them.

 

In fact.. EA makes a business out of distributing 3rd party games as well. Profit margins on digital sales of a product are simply higher margins if you own the product IP. For EA, selling 3rd party products through their infrastructure is sauce for the goose since it costs them virtually nothing.

 

Note: your inventory statement is invalid and obsolete. Retail merchants built agreements over the years for the product producer to hold inventory until "just in time". All the very large merchant chains do it this way now days. Some, like Best Buy Online are even having some inventory shipped directly from the product producer after sale to a customer. That said... when discussing digital delivery... correct.... no inventory.

 

Umm no. It is virtually impossible for any PC game developer to get shelf space now. Most large retailers have exclusives with EA and Blizzard and are unable to sell anything not EA or Blizzard, even if they wanted to. Yes they make more profit selling a digital download, but for most software written in the last decade, it is the only avenue they have. EA is way late to the game, others have been doing it for years because they had to.

[TMar]

I think people are missing out that they also stated that they still have 'well above' 500,000 and later stated that their sub numbers are 'much larger' than 500k.

 

Lol but those people will say the the "much larger than" is old info but the 500k is still a valid number.