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

[Soluss]

Well that means is they sold 2.1 mil to 2.4 mil games to retailers, not people. Only 1.7 mil subs at launch, that is the highest point, it's been down hill from there. So that means that some of those remaining 400k to 700k boxes were either sold later after some had already dropped their subs, were lost or destroyed, or in some other way not used. So it is 1.7 mil. And going by reported numbers, not by conjecture or supposition is how the percentage was reached. That number was taken by subtracting the 800k loss (two consecutive quarters of 400k losses) from the launch number of 1.7 mil, or 900k. I'm willing to bet 700k is about right, but that is just supposition and that has been excluded in the framework of Tim's discussion.

 

I hate to come to EA's defence, they have done something significant to generate income and that is by going F2P. Turbine has shown that it has lead to great success with LotRO and DDO. Sure Turbine just went through a layoff, but that is expected when you put out a major expansion. They simply don't need that amount of people to run the game once it's been shipped. It's like seasonal help for developers.

 

Believe me, I agree that this game has flopped, but don't skew numbers to make things seem worse than they are. We will know for sure in 3+ days where the subscription rate is.

 

Since this thread was designed to eliminate pure speculation.... your post is pure speculation.

[Thylbanus]

Since this thread was designed to eliminate pure speculation.... your post is pure speculation.

 

Please, elaborate.

[Soluss]

Please, elaborate.

 

You have no idea how many boxes were sold versus how many remained in stores. Thats impossible to know, therefor pure speculation. What we do know is that Bioware has said that 2.4 million copies sold. Anything outside of that is speculation and therefor you have to go with what is given 2.4 mil

[Tim-ONeil]

Thanks for all the responses. We are lapsing back into non useful speculation. Please stick to the topic.

 

The thread set out to answer TWO questions.

 

First, how does SWTOR compare today subscription wise to other most popular MMO's that have the same payment model using the most accurate numbers available without resorting to speculation. Since we can only give a range for SWTOR numbers the responses that pinpoint them can be ignored, they are useless.

 

Second, of the MMO's that are targeting the same audience with the same payment structures how have they fared in the marketplace since 2008 with a focus on first year subscription retention.

 

These are fair questions. I presented the information to answer these questions.

 

 

 

Now, I've been accused of cherrypicking the data. I'm fine with that because the people that have read and understand the thread realize that this analysis is based on those 2 questions only. I've explained the methodology I've used and I'll do so again for new viewers.

 

I am not looking at the whole of the MMO market because that would not provide relevant data to the questions at hand. This is a reflection on the broad term of MMO.

 

MMO has many meanings and has evolved into a genre that is targeting a much wider audience than ever before. SWTOR is not on the same level as Hello Kitty Online or the hundreds of games listed at MMORPG.com that you have likely never heard of before. If you are comparing data it only makes sense that what you are comparing is as similar as possible or the conclusions are skewed.

 

The gateway for entering a game is much different depending on the payment model, we can't argue that it's been proven as a fact. Aion has no cost to join the game or continue to play it without restrictions month to month. In that light it's not attempting to cater to the same audience. There may indeed be an overlap between the people that play Aion and other MMO's with a subscription based model and I'm not disputing it. I am instead pointing out that their numbers are not useful as a direct comparison that makes any logical sense. We will never know how SWTOR would have done if had the same payment gateway model. You can SPECULATE, but this thread is NOT about speculation that is not based on data presented.

 

GW2 is also another game that is more akin to a console experience. There is a single upfront cost to the game and then the gamer can play it without any restrictions. Again we will never know how SWTOR would have done if had the same payment gateway model. You can SPECULATE, but this thread is NOT about speculation that is not based on data presented.

 

Now that we've established the why of what is presented we can get back to actually discussing it and not trying to frame an argument about ALL MMO's when they are not targeted to the same people or have the same payment gateway. That might be an interesting discussion on it's own but has zero relevance to SWTOR singularly.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Thylbanus]

You have no idea how many boxes were sold versus how many remained in stores. Thats impossible to know, therefor pure speculation. What we do know is that Bioware has said that 2.4 million copies sold. Anything outside of that is speculation and therefor you have to go with what is given 2.4 mil

 

That doesn't invalidate my post.

FACT: sold 2.4 million copies

FACT: 1.7 million subs

Where did the missing 700,000 copies go?

 

Having worked in a retail electronics store, the home warehouse, or in our case regional warehouses, would buy and store multiple copies to be distributed to each outlet. This purchase in bulk is factored into sales of a product. In some cases we would store up to 3 years worth of a product, depending on how much room it occupied in the warehouse. All the ways I cited are valid, within the conversation. I did forget to include purchased by a consumer, but not used for one reason or another. The only supposition is what happened to each individual copy of the said 700k copies. As a whole, it is factual.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Thylbanus

[Thylbanus]

Thanks for all the responses. We are lapsing back into non useful speculation. Please stick to the topic.

 

The thread set out to answer TWO questions.

 

First, how does SWTOR compare today subscription wise to other most popular MMO's that have the same payment model using the most accurate numbers available without resorting to speculation. Since we can only give a range for SWTOR numbers the responses that pinpoint them can be ignored, they are useless.

 

Second, of the MMO's that are targeting the same audience with the same payment structures how have they fared in the marketplace since 2008 with a focus on first year subscription retention.

 

I do want to conted that 2008 is such an arbitrary number. The reliability of statistics is based on how large the sample population is. Since 2008, there have only been 12 games of this type that are western based. Of these one is already defunct, and only four have these numbers available. They are AoCU, WAR, STO, and SWTOR. The sample size is just too small to get any real comparison. Please, reconsider the parameters of your postulation.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Thylbanus

[Tim-ONeil]

I do want to conted that 2008 is such an arbitrary number. The reliability of statistics is based on how large the sample population is. Since 2008, there have only been 12 games of this type that are western based. Of these one is already defunct, and only four have these numbers available. The sample size is just too small to get any real comparison. Please, reconsider the parameters of your postulation.

 

You don't have to agree with it.

 

I can't change the parameters because that changes the question. The question is RECENT MMO's with these parameters. If the data was all over the place you'd have a point. It's showing the exact same things which in turn proves it is a fair question. It also allows us to debate on the WHY behind the data. That's what the debate is about.

 

We have to not only compare like to like, we also have to account for market saturation, economy, etc. I believe that based on these factors 2008 is a fine assessment point considering it is also the start of the collapse of the US economy.

 

It can conversely be argued that prior to 2008 MMO's had better retention rates on average as you have pointed out. Now the question is why?

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Soluss]

That doesn't invalidate my post.

FACT: sold 2.4 million copies

FACT: 1.7 million subs

Where did the missing 700,000 copies go?

 

Having worked in a retail electronics store, the home warehouse, or in our case regional warehouses, would buy and store multiple copies to be distributed to each outlet. This purchase in bulk is factored into sales of a product. In some cases we would store up to 3 years worth of a product, depending on how much room it occupied in the warehouse. All the ways I cited are valid, within the conversation. I did forget to include purchased by a consumer, but not used for one reason or another. The only supposition is what happened to each individual copy of the said 700k copies. As a whole, it is factual.

 

 

 

Fact: 2.4 million copies sold

Fact: 1.7 million converted to subscribers

Fact: You have no idea what happend with the other 700k copies

 

Could be some in store, could be all in store. Could be all purchased and never paid a subscription. Could be partial purchased but never opened and partial sitting in store. The only facts are the 3 I just listed. Therefor you have to go by the 2.4 million number because you have no idea what happened.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Soluss

[LordArtemis]

This is exactly what I am presenting. When you analyze something you give the data you are using to base your conclusions upon.

 

The data itself and the conclusions with the 1. and 2. numbers points are the absolute facts that I'm using as framework for discussion taken directly from the data shown.

 

Everything else that is typed is my interpretation of the data which is a standard model when presenting something like this.

 

From the data we can form a view of WHY the market has been experiencing a downward trend in each release since 2008 now that the trend has been established.

 

Specifically this can also be used a reference for talking about the health of the game compared to the market rather than guessing that the game will shut down next year based on feeling and conjecture.

 

Then I would say your analysis seems very plausable. I also find the contention that the market has shrunk, for lack of a better word interesting.

 

I expect that the next report will be a lower sub count than the last, if they even mention current numbers, but this doesn't concern me as much anymore because of the new income model.

[Tim-ONeil]

Then I would say your analysis seems very plausable. I also find the contention that the market has shrunk, for lack of a better word interesting.

 

I expect that the next report will be a lower sub count than the last, if they even mention current numbers, but this doesn't concern me as much anymore because of the new income model.

 

Based on the data from http://www.mmodata.net/ we can see the total number of MMO subscriptions and accounts across all of the games in which they have a subscription number formulated and the trend over time.

 

From the start of the MMO craze to 2009 the market was growing at a pretty substantial rate having nearly doubled from 2006 to 2009. In 2009 we reached a high water mark of about 22.1 million subs.

 

Then something unexpected happened. The number stagnated and by the last report was down to 20.5 million. Previously there had never been a full year where the industry lost players overall.

 

Something has changed in MMO's recently. The data supports this. We can debate what it was and why it's happening.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[spectreclees]

Keep in mind these numbers are western subscriber only. WoW has an even more lucrative China operation that beefs up the overall number of their subs.

 

If SWTOR can roll out a game to China we won't have to worry about revenue.

 

Very true, I forgot this was only western sub numbers. Still, a large number of those china subscriptions and I hate to put them in this spot but, many are gold farmer subscriptions. I calculate at least numbers in the thousands for those, this is pure speculation on my part.

Edited October 27, 2012 by spectreclees

[Soluss]

Based on the data from http://www.mmodata.net/ we can see the total number of MMO subscriptions and accounts across all of the games in which they have a subscription number formulated and the trend over time.

 

From the start of the MMO craze to 2009 the market was growing at a pretty substantial rate having nearly doubled from 2006 to 2009. In 2009 we reached a high water mark of about 22.1 million subs.

 

Then something unexpected happened. The number stagnated and by the last report was down to 20.5 million. Previously there had never been a full year where the industry lost players overall.

 

Something has changed in MMO's recently. The data supports this. We can debate what it was and why it's happening.

 

Games across the board are reporting a loss. Even the console titles are. Its not limited to MMOs.

[Tim-ONeil]

Games across the board are reporting a loss. Even the console titles are. Its not limited to MMOs.

 

Do you have data to prove that? I won't disagree with the statement but I'd like to see something that shows this.

 

I know they say that consumer spending on point of sale gaming purchases is down all the time, yet MMO's seemed unaffected by the trend for years.

[Tim-ONeil]

Very true, I forgot this was only western sub numbers. Still, a large number of those china subscriptions and I hate to put them in this spot but, many are gold farmer subscriptions. I calculate at least numbers in the thousands for those, this is pure speculation on my part.

 

They play on their own servers with their own version of the client. If they are goldfarming then the currency can't get over to the NA game.

 

Goldfarmers buy the NA accounts because they need the mining and selling to be on the same server.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Soluss]

Do you have data to prove that? I won't disagree with the statement but I'd like to see something that shows this.

 

I know they say that consumer spending on point of sale gaming purchases is down all the time, yet MMO's seemed unaffected by the trend for years.

 

Not atm but I can look tommorow. I just remember reading an article about game purchases being way down.

[Goretzu]

It's a fair statement I think, but I think you might be taking pause to my term of cherrypicking.

 

I can explain why I use that contention, and Ill attempt to make it brief, though I expect I will fail miserably.

 

Generally speaking you took different times in history over all MMOs listed and looked at them in the first year for those ONLY that are hybrid models.

 

There are two problems with doing this....First, a few games on your list were reported to have lost subs in that time frame (or a bit off depending on which game you are speaking of) based on factors other than market conditions, and in fact in some cases other games were gaining in subs. Market conditions were not, in all cases, what they are now and were favorable to some games, not so favorable to others.

 

The factor most cited during favorable conditions for difficulty in keeping subs was WoW more often than not. The negative trend for that particular game sometimes was also attributed to different factors than attrition by the company themselves, such as stating they lost subs because end game was not complete, or because a particular feature in the game was not implemented wisely in the game's framework and people voted with their feet.

 

Not every game, mind you. But quite a few on that list did not, according to the developers themselves, lose customers due to market conditions. They lost them due to poor decisions.

 

This skews the results a bit...its like looking at statistics for violent crime in two different states overall, basing an overall trend on that analysis, when the two states have different types of violent crime that occur for different reasons.

 

However...it does not invalidate the overall idea that attrition occurs. This is a well known fact for ALL games. It would be silly to say otherwise IMO.

 

The contention only really loses traction when used as an excuse for the losses here. Even the devs themselves have admitted that a large portion of the subscriber base seems to have left because they did not desire to pay a sub...the reasons unknown, but one could say market, another could say the product was not worth the price.

 

I contend both are logical. I also contend many MANY different conclusions can be drawn from the same exact data. I will not repost such arguments as they are lengthy and contested.

 

I will simply say this...if you contend that the only logical course of discussion is to discuss the game in the framework that it lost subs only due to market conditions and use this data for that contention I contend that there is no logic in this discussion at all as a result.

 

However...if you are providing this as a basis for ONE WAY of looking at the data so a logical discussion can be had on this ONE VIEWPOINT, not invalidating others, than it is bathed in logic IMO.

 

After all, that is the only true logical stance you can have.

 

 

 

Exactly, you can look at the numbers, and you can tell...... not a great deal really (apart from which is bigger), because there are simply so many variables there is nothing TO test, "logically" or otherwise.

 

It's no more "scientific" than comparing two sit-com viewing figures and trying to work out what makes sit-coms work or not.

 

The figures are simple the result of a myriad of causes.

[Goretzu]

My assumption is that this is based on the dev team saying that 500,000 is the minimum subscriber based to break even on the game, in the same post it was said they they are under 1 mil but well above 500,000. This seem to exactly match the OPs current estimate:

 

He said he used the most recent update available, you can't fault him for that especially when he says he will update it with better numbers when they are announced.

 

 

 

I'm saying that Andrea saying the 500,000 point is now lower is pure speculation (dressed up as fact), not that the 500,000 they repeatedly mentioned is pure speculation.

[Digimanbyte_ID]

This is the only thing the Media will ever see regarding MMOs until WoW is dethroned.

 

WoW is failing regardless. When a bunch of next gen MMO's with highend graphics and new game mechanics go out for F2play and your still paying $15 a month on top of vanity item prices you buy for the heck of it and aren't getting an ounce of appreciation or benefit from it then you leave.

 

WoW had the market but was to greedy and arrogant to care about consumer relationships and thus their whole to big to fail idea is sinking them. When they go F2play people will leave outright from rage and those who left won't comeback unless enticed.

[Thylbanus]

You don't have to agree with it.

 

I can't change the parameters because that changes the question. The question is RECENT MMO's with these parameters. If the data was all over the place you'd have a point. It's showing the exact same things which in turn proves it is a fair question. It also allows us to debate on the WHY behind the data. That's what the debate is about.

 

We have to not only compare like to like, we also have to account for market saturation, economy, etc. I believe that based on these factors 2008 is a fine assessment point considering it is also the start of the collapse of the US economy.

 

It can conversely be argued that prior to 2008 MMO's had better retention rates on average as you have pointed out. Now the question is why?

 

Because you cannot have a fruitful discussion without comparitive facts. It is an exercise in statistical analysis. To properly analyze you need a broad base, as broad as you can make it. With 4 games, that simply is not enough of a base in which to operate. What 4 colors do you want to chose to discuss a rainbow? Or it's like discussing the merits of a Lhasa Apso, Labrador Retriever, Greyhound, and a Basset Hound. Sure they are all dogs, but in no way encompass the range of dogs that are out there.

 

So a new formulation should be based large enough to include preferably 10 games. Eight minimum. You sell your arguement short when you leave so little to pull from. Hence the accusations that you are cherry picking. Just simply stating "...prior to 2008 MMO's had better retention rates on average as you have pointed out." begs to be pounced upon as cherry picking. In other words, you don't want to include those because they don't fit your arguement.

 

You also want to debate the "Why" behind the data. Well, that is supposition. Even if it is supposition based in fact. There is an inconsistancy in logic that we are not allowed to make suppositions on facts, but then turn around and want to discuss what these numbers MAY mean. You, in effect, have posited an arguement and then framed it so that you cannot be proven wrong. Then that makes this whole thread nothing more than a statement. An op-ed piece.

 

So then if the socio-economic situation in the world is your basis, then 2007 was the beginning of the current plight, not 2008. That would at least add in LotRO to your equation. Plus I would say that the way RECENT MMOs function was established back in 2003. You could see the turn in the trend with titles such as SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, and of course WoW. Looking back at their predecessors, AC2, DAC, AO, and EQ, it's like night and day. It is inescapable that WoW set the curve. So much so that games being made today STILL emulate it!

 

So my arguement is that RECENT is subjective in this discussion.

[Goretzu]

Thylbanus:

 

SWG is compared to make a point about it's actual subscription numbers vs the amount of praise it receives on these forums. Additionally being a star wars game not having the numbers would seem incomplete. The rest of the compared games are not only of the same sub model but the ones that people in these forums bring up when they talk about other game play designs.

 

I've already discussed why Aion is not included. It is not a sub or a sub+FTP model. There is no sub at all. It is not an equal comparison in that regard. This is the same reason the GW2 will never be discussed here.

 

This is a discussion of SWTOR vs it's peers with the same subscription models. Not SWTOR vs all games that are MMO's though you are welcomed to start that analysis.

 

My goal was to look at recent launch comparisons from 2008 and newer with equal sub models for the reasons that I describe in my post which I believe accurately represent the MMO market as it exists today.

 

Trying to compare WoW at launch to SWTOR at launch is a useless endeavor and I hope you can understand the reasons why. Wow caught lightning in a bottle and much of this was due to the market factors existing when it was released- to say nothing of the game play itself which was certainly different at the time.

 

It is because things are NOT equal in this context that comparisons should be made where possible under as close to equal circumstances as you can obtain or the data has little meaning.

 

 

 

How on earth does SWG being refered to on this forum influence anything? It's an MMORPG from way berfore your supposed arbitary "timeline" a complete different MMORPG epoch in fact.

 

 

As is EvE Online for that matter, and both are/were completely different types of game to SWTOR other than that they has subscription models (as did many of the other MMORPGs you for some reason decided to leave out).

 

Again actually looking at this reveals (shockingly) yet more pseudo-science, because you can't meaningfully say anything simply by cherrypicking and ignoring vast swathes of the MMORPG landscape (nor changing your fairly arbitary date whenever it seem to suit).

 

It simply makes the whole thing meaningless.

[Tim-ONeil]

Exactly, you can look at the numbers, and you can tell...... not a great deal really (apart from which is bigger), because there are simply so many variables there is nothing TO test, "logically" or otherwise.

 

It's no more "scientific" than comparing two sit-com viewing figures and trying to work out what makes sit-coms work or not.

 

The figures are simple the result of a myriad of causes.

 

Come on, you are going out of your way to show that you just don't believe what is presented here. And really I don't care about your opinion because you refuse to accept trends in data as scientific. You can pretty much remove yourself from the thread then.

 

Trends that can be tracked have statistical meaning.

 

The WHY behind what the numbers shows is subjective but a perfectly suitable jump point for logical debate once the factual basis of the debate has been established.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Thylbanus]

I'm saying that Andrea saying the 500,000 point is now lower is pure speculation (dressed up as fact), not that the 500,000 they repeatedly mentioned is pure speculation.

 

It is not pure speculation. Read what Frank Gibeau said in the EA Q1 FY13 Prepared Comments on July 31, 2012. He clearly states that 500k subs is a break even point for them.

[Tim-ONeil]

So my arguement is that RECENT is subjective in this discussion.

 

And I am defining recent in the term laid out because it's necessary for these purposes to have a tangible starting point. Logically you are claiming that if there isn't a consistent definition of recent then the debate is pointless. I've given you a starting point and the rational for this, take it or leave it or start your own analysis.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Tim-ONeil]

It is not pure speculation. Read what Frank Gibeau said in the EA Q1 FY13 Prepared Comments on July 31, 2012. He clearly states that 500k subs is a break even point for them.

 

And you are proving again that you don't have the capacity for logical debate or the understanding of business. The statement was true at the time he said it. They will be evaluating and making changes to that always of course. I know of no business that has absolute costs when dealing with software and sales.

 

Expenses when tied to a product are controllable. There are going to be things out of their control like licensing fees. A company can control employee costs for example- and frequently does in the gaming industry. Layoffs around games aren't to be evil companies but to maintain a profit margin.

 

Disagreeing just to disagree isn't cool, it doesn't make you smarter than anyone, and you are only showing your own limitations in the ability to reason or your limited exposure to real world business environments.

[Thylbanus]

Fact: 2.4 million copies sold

Fact: 1.7 million converted to subscribers

Fact: You have no idea what happend with the other 700k copies

 

Could be some in store, could be all in store. Could be all purchased and never paid a subscription. Could be partial purchased but never opened and partial sitting in store. The only facts are the 3 I just listed. Therefor you have to go by the 2.4 million number because you have no idea what happened.

 

Ok, how about this? Since we are discussing subs not copies sold, this point is moot.