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

[Andryah]

I disagree Andryah. We know there were 700k+ more games sold to players who didn't like the game enough to even sub. That directly impacts the retention rate that Tim is trying to prove. Ignoring those additional 700k+ makes any conclusion meaningless.

 

If you insist on going this route... then you have to do it for every game compared in the discussion, or you are being hypocritical. In which case, you need to create new research because MMOdata does not cover box sales, and never has. So the burden is on you to be fair and objective here if you want to go by box sales.

 

Right now... you are pressing the box sales only for SWTOR, which discredits you comments here as far as I am concerned.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Andryah

[TUXs]

Please reread Andryah's post.

 

The comparisons have to be the same, or they are not comparisons. I explicitly laid out the terms of what we are comparing data. SWTOR's sales to subs ratio is meaningless without comparison.

 

But you immediately discarded 700k subscribers to pretend you found a retention %.

[Andryah]

I am Andryah. I think that by tossing out the additional 700k, like he's done, you're generating a very sketchy conclusion. Those additional 700k box sales came with a 30 day subscription. Ignoring them to prove retention rate is wrong.

 

There is no subscription with the box sale. It's 30 days of free play time. And, respectfully, you are not listening and you are trying to skew the discussion by using one set of data for SWTOR and different data for every other game.

[Andryah]

But you immediately discarded 700k subscribers to pretend you found a retention %.

 

They were not subscribers. And EA has said so.

[TUXs]

If you insist on going this route... then you have to do it for every game compared in the discussion, or you are being hypocritical. In which case, you need to create new research because MMOdata does not cover box sales, and never has. So the burden is on you to be fair and objective here if you want to go by box sales.

 

Right now... you are pressing the box sales only for SWTOR, which discredits you comments here as far as I am concerned.

 

Whatever lol. Go ahead and use your fake numbers to prove some fake point. We have the numbers for SWTOR and those 2.4 million were ALL subscribers this year. Ignoring 700k just because they dropped early, doesn't negate them as a factor in retention.

[TUXs]

They were not subscribers. And EA has said so.

 

All game sales come with a 30 day subscription Andryah.

[Urael]

I disagree Andryah. We know there were 700k+ more games sold to players who didn't like the game enough to even sub. That directly impacts the retention rate that Tim is trying to prove. Ignoring those additional 700k+ makes any conclusion meaningless.

 

TUXs ... I think what Tim and Andryah are trying to tell you is that box sales can't be considered because competitors data on the same isn't available. In this case Tim is using measured subscribers as the main analysis point. All the same data from SWTOR and competitors hence, apples to apples.

 

I agree that the box sales vs. initial subscribers would be interesting but that is another set of analysis.

 

What would also be interesting would be the rate of drop of in subscriptions vs. box sales but that again is not part of this analysis.

 

Box sales as a data point isn't valid in this case because the discussion concernes subscriptions. So think of it as starting from the point of initial subscribers and moving forward.

 

Your concern is valid but again not in the case of this analysis.

[Hambunctious]

I suggest you spend some time to understand how he synthesizes his data (for which he uses a number of different sources to cross check and rationalize the data), rather then just jump to is statement of caveat to discedit data you don't understand or don't like.

 

My point being that he uses a very consistent methodology to help insure he is not doing what so many people on gaming forums do (pulling numbers out of dark places in their anatomy).

 

Are his numbers absolute official subscription numbers? .. in most cases no. Does he have a sound methodology for arriving at estimations that test well? YES.

 

I suggest you use your head, and realize it's still just a guess without actual numbers from the company. We can't KNOW factual numbers without it being released by EA. All we know now is just a guess within a range of numbers.

[Andryah]

Whatever lol. Go ahead and use your fake numbers to prove some fake point. We have the numbers for SWTOR and those 2.4 million were ALL subscribers this year. Ignoring 700k just because they dropped early, doesn't negate them as a factor in retention.

 

You are missing the point. IF you want to include box sales in retention calculations for SWTOR, then you must do so for ALL other MMOs in the discussion. Otherwise... you are prosecuting apples with oranges.

[Andryah]

I suggest you use your head, and realize it's still just a guess without actual numbers from the company. We can't KNOW factual numbers without it being released by EA. All we know now is just a guess within a range of numbers.

 

I do use my head about subscription comparisons and analysis. Which is precisely why MMOdata is a credible source for COMPARISON data on subscription run rates over time. Precisely because he does not pull numbers out of his keester, he has a methodology with cross checks to insure he is creating and presenting data in a consistent manner.

 

Let me re-empahsize the salient point in the discussion:

 

1) a common source of comparison data across a range of MMOs, using a consistent methodology with cross checks in the methodology. You can read this on the web site if you care to to understand.

 

2) The discussion is about subscription (or active account) run rates over time, across multiple MMOs, being compared on a relative basis (not an absolute numbers basis, though there is enough public numbers from companies to independently check the validity of MMOdata.) MMOdata has a high confidence level in it's numbers and a very high confidence level in it's methodology.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Andryah

[Tim-ONeil]

Whatever lol. Go ahead and use your fake numbers to prove some fake point. We have the numbers for SWTOR and those 2.4 million were ALL subscribers this year. Ignoring 700k just because they dropped early, doesn't negate them as a factor in retention.

 

Again, if you can bring me the box sale numbers LIMITED to the first year of launch for the games in the last 4 years along with a source for each I will update that. It states as much in the original post.

[Tim-ONeil]

TUXs ... I think what Tim and Andryah are trying to tell you is that box sales can't be considered because competitors data on the same isn't available. In this case Tim is using measured subscribers as the main analysis point. All the same data from SWTOR and competitors hence, apples to apples.

 

I agree that the box sales vs. initial subscribers would be interesting but that is another set of analysis.

 

What would also be interesting would be the rate of drop of in subscriptions vs. box sales but that again is not part of this analysis.

 

Box sales as a data point isn't valid in this case because the discussion concernes subscriptions. So think of it as starting from the point of initial subscribers and moving forward.

 

Your concern is valid but again not in the case of this analysis.

 

Exactly this. If the data exists for that comparison I'll use it. But since I am unable to locate it I can't make a statistically relevant comparison.

[Spoletta]

TUXs reread the OP, think on it for a bit and you will realize that you are making a mistake.

 

Tim great post, it's not an easy feat to bring objective data in this forum.

[SawneyRath]

I really like this thread. I think that using actual data is the only way anyone can prove anything. All these people on the forums who ask "Will the game live past 2013" or say "This game is doomed" don't have any factual information about it.

 

In all common sense would EA/Bioware waste their time with a doomed game? No. No sensible company would. So with this data, and the use of common sense, people can clearly see (And all the nay sayers will argue against it) that the game is doing fine, and will continue to do fine.

 

This is a good counter to all the "hate" posts I see.

[Hambunctious]

2) The discussion is about subscription (or active account) run rates over time, across multiple MMOs, being compared on a relative basis (not an absolute numbers basis, though there is enough public numbers from companies to independently check the validity of MMOdata.) MMOdata has a high confidence level in it's numbers and a very high confidence level in it's methodology.

 

No he doesn't, actually. Not on many of the games he lists, and he admits that by rating his confidence on the numbers of specific games.

 

Using Xfire to get an estimate is pretty funny. Not knowing the true percentage of players of any game that uses the software throws that right out the window. Using 6 month old, or older, company info that states sub range, and not a specific number is barely better than using Xfire.

[Andryah]

No he doesn't, actually. Not on many of the games he lists, and he admits that by rating his confidence on the numbers of specific games.

 

Using Xfire to get an estimate is pretty funny. Not knowing the true percentage of players of any game that uses the software throws that right out the window. Using 6 month old, or older, company info that states sub range, and not a specific number is barely better than using Xfire.

 

Once again, you are fractioning the methodology so you can prosecute your discontent in some manner. It's not any single data source, it's the use of multiple sources and cross checking and rationalizing if the data is coherant for the purposes of comparison analysis and tracking over time that makes MMOdata a long standing credible source of data. For example: he uses Crossfire as one source of data, not THE source of data, and then tests if the data even makes sense with other data available.

 

You keep trying to judge and dismiss based on absolutes. That is not the purpose of the site

Edited October 26, 2012 by Andryah

[Urael]

No he doesn't, actually. Not on many of the games he lists, and he admits that by rating his confidence on the numbers of specific games.

 

Using Xfire to get an estimate is pretty funny. Not knowing the true percentage of players of any game that uses the software throws that right out the window. Using 6 month old, or older, company info that states sub range, and not a specific number is barely better than using Xfire.

 

The numbers available may not be "the exact" data but, they are a "reliable subset" of the whole. Therefore, they can be used as an initial hypothesis to the way things are trending overall. When "actual" numbers become available (if ever) then the validity of this particular study can be evaluated. In the mean time since this is the set of data we have to go on, we can reasonably make the assumption that they are reliable enough to view the overal trajectory of the SWTOR vs. it's competitors. Make sense?

[Jett-Rinn]

I won't disagree with the message but I will disagree with the numbers. Edited October 26, 2012 by Jett-Rinn

[Soluss]

If you insist on going this route... then you have to do it for every game compared in the discussion, or you are being hypocritical. In which case, you need to create new research because MMOdata does not cover box sales, and never has. So the burden is on you to be fair and objective here if you want to go by box sales.

 

Right now... you are pressing the box sales only for SWTOR, which discredits you comments here as far as I am concerned.

 

While the data of box sales may not be comparitive to other games, without that data as well, there is no need to toss it out. If anything that added data at the very least reflects the rate of true retention for this specific game. You cannot just discard true data because you dont have it from the other sources. You can discard it in the "how is ToR doing compared to other MMOs" without having their data. You cannot discard it to show ToRs true retention.

 

If people bought the game and didnt sub it still declines the retention rate. The game didnt hold them enough to subscribe. That is still a decline in overall retention rate. As a stand alone game you use the true retention rate %.

[Urael]

While the data of box sales may not be comparitive to other games, without that data as well, there is no need to toss it out. If anything that added data at the very least reflects the rate of true retention for this specific game. You cannot just discard true data because you dont have it from the other sources. You can discard it in the "how is ToR doing compared to other MMOs" without having their data. You cannot discard it to show ToRs true retention.

 

If people bought the game and didnt sub it still declines the retention rate. The game didnt hold them enough to subscribe. That is still a decline in overall retention rate. As a stand alone game you use the true retention rate %.

 

A valid concern and interesting but, a different analysis.

 

This analysis concerns subriber data only from the time of initial subscribers which does not contain those that didn't subscribe in the initial wave of box purchases. While that data is known for SWTOR at the time of this analysis, it is not known for all the competitors at the same point in time of initial release of each. Tim said if someone could provide that data he would be more than happy to include it.

 

For now think of this analysis' time zero is at the point that the first wave of subscribers stated paying (e.g. after the initial 30days of free time). This analysis has to be viewed from this context ONLY.

 

Again the other concerns of Box Sales are valid but not in the case of THIS analysis.

 

This analysis conjuction with an analysis of box sales vs. initial subscriptions for SWTOR and their competitors would provide a more accurate picture overall concerning attrition but, since we don't have that data this analysis suffices as a subset to analyze the over all trend.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Urael

[Soluss]

With the new conference call comming next week, this thread would have been better suited to wait until then. As it stands the data is old news and not indicative of what is current. If another source wasnt comming out for months then that would be one thing but we know a new source will be comming next week. IOW, its silly to debate this now when the data will most likely have different results next week.

 

A better analysis for your topic would be to use data to show what each MMO has done in its first 6 months. That would be more reliable to show true comparitive results. The reason being is this... As an example, you show WoW statistics. It is not really a fair comparison because the game is 8 years old. Not many people stick with anything for 8 years. Most people will go for the new shiney as apposed to the old outdated.

 

So take all those MMOs, in your list, and post the data for their 6 month after launch mark. That would be the fair comparison. As it stands you are judging a comparison of not only old data but also data of a 10 month old game a 1.5 year old game a 8 year old game etc.... Again, its slanted statistics because its judging a retention rate and current sub numbers of something relatively new versus something years old. People always go for the new thing.

[Tim-ONeil]

The numbers available may not be "the exact" data but, they are a "reliable subset" of the whole. Therefore, they can be used as an initial hypothesis to the way things are trending overall. When "actual" numbers become available (if ever) then the validity of this particular study can be evaluated. In the mean time since this is the set of data we have to go on, we can reasonably make the assumption that they are reliable enough to view the overal trajectory of the SWTOR vs. it's competitors. Make sense?

 

Exactly. I will update this when new numbers are available as well it's a fluid discussion.

 

We have two choices really. We can use the data available acknowledging it's limitations as well as acknowledging it is going to be the most accurate model we have until more data is available, if ever. Or we can continue to base everything on our uniformed personal feelings and make ridiculous statements and about the game being pulled after a year.

 

I prefer the more logical approach.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Urael]

With the new conference call comming next week, this thread would have been better suited to wait until then. As it stands the data is old news and not indicative of what is current. If another source wasnt comming out for months then that would be one thing but we know a new source will be comming next week. IOW, its silly to debate this now when the data will most likely have different results next week.

 

A better analysis for your topic would be to use data to show what each MMO has done in its first 6 months. That would be more reliable to show true comparitive results. The reason being is this... As an example, you show WoW statistics. It is not really a fair comparison because the game is 8 years old. Not many people stick with anything for 8 years. Most people will go for the new shiney as apposed to the old outdated.

 

So take all those MMOs, in your list, and post the data for their 6 month after launch mark. That would be the fair comparison. As it stands you are judging a comparison of not only old data but also data of a 10 month old game a 1.5 year old game a 8 year old game etc.... Again, its slanted statistics because its judging a retention rate and current sub numbers of something relatively new versus something years old. People always go for the new thing.

 

Actually, this analysis is perfectly timed to assess what is released IN the up coming conference call. Think of this analysis as the intial hypothesis with the conference call being the "observed" state.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Urael

[Soluss]

A valid concern and interesting but, a different analysis.

 

This analysis concerns subriber data only from the time of initial subscribers which does not contain those that didn't subscribe in the initial wave of box purchases. While that data is known for SWTOR at the time of this analysis, it is not known for all the competitors at the same point in time of initial release of each. Tim said if someone could provide that data he would be more than happy to include it.

 

For now think of this analysis' time zero is at the point that the first wave of subscribers stated paying (e.g. after the initial 30days of free time). This analysis has to be viewed from this context ONLY.

 

Again the other concerns of Box Sales are valid but not in the case of THIS analysis.

 

This analysis conjuction with an analysis of box sales vs. initial subscriptions for SWTOR and their competitors would provide a more accurate picture overall concerning attrition but, since we don't have that data this analysis suffices as a subset to analyze the over all trend.

 

As I said, it is fair when judging versus other MMOs, only if you dont have that data for others, but it is not fair as a stand alone. If you want to just give data for ToR and ToR alone then you must start at box sales. I wasnt trying to say it was a concern for THIS analysis.

 

What is a concern however is judging a fresh game vs games that are from 1.5 to 8 years old. See my post just below yours.

[LordArtemis]

It is an interesting hypothesis, though it's cherry picking a bit to make everything fit. Drawing data from from the same site you can come up with different results with varying degrees of validity.

 

This hypothesis I suppose is as valid as any at this point in time.

 

All I will say is that the information can be mined that will support almost almost an position for or against, and at the moment all hypothesis are slim at best. Some of the numbers are even disputed by the very companies listed, though they will not list specifics (this game included).

 

At any rate I still stand by my own hypothesis and find that and Raven Night's numbers more credible than this scenario, though there isn't that much daylight between his numbers and yours, except that his scenario does not support the stretch that all games have suffered the same type of subscriber attrition.

 

The major flaw, as I see it, is that this game is not free to play.....yet.

 

On a side note, if your end point is to contend the game is not going to be dead in a few months as some contend, I would agree with that sentiment. Many games have continued to survive with very low populations as the list demonstrates.

Edited October 26, 2012 by LordArtemis