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

[Thylbanus]

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.

 

Realy? Three months ago is a world away? Now who is not being logical.

[Goretzu]

54% retention? Man it must be fun to not know numbers!

 

They gave us the number 2.1-2.4 million or so for people who outright bought the game. I think it's a fair estimate to say we're at about 700k players now. That means the game has a retention factor of only 30%. Regardless the game had one of the largest releases of an MMO ever, and very fast and sharply dropped off. 50% of the population quitting in several months I think alone is enough to evaluate the state of the game. And that state is poor.

 

The game is seeing only continuous decline and no new bodies joining in. People who had any sort of inclination to play the game seriously got it in the first few months, and judging from the numbers they had no inclination to stay. People quit for various reasons, and BW has done nothing significant to the game except continue to keep it a WoW clone with buggy patches.

 

The bottom line is the game had a great start, they dropped the ball, and they lost A LOT of players. You need no other games to compare it to, if you have a 50% lose of players in a few months, then something is wrong and the game is NOT a resounding success.

 

 

Yeah as I've mentioned in prior threads this is a likely closer percentage for overall retention in SWTOR.

 

The 50% retention use in the OP for some rather strange reason is using peak subs (which isn't a figure that can be used as absolute retention only relative retention - that is growth vs loss) and the highest possible last subsciption number which, of course, had a MASSIVE variability of 500,001 to 999,999.

 

 

Absolute retention (going from total sales to likely last subs) is something in much, much lower indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

Also the another flaw in the data is the "year" idea, because the OP is taking the maxium subscription number and measuring from there, he isn't measuring like for like.

 

Take the Rift example. His first 600,000 number comes from the peak subscription of Rift which is 6 months into Rifts life (SWTORs is closer to 3-4 months) and his last number is 17 months later, nearly 50% over the arbitary "year from peak subscription" he seems to be measuring.

 

His Warhammer Online figures show the same flaw, measuring from 3-4 month after Live (peak subs) to again 1 and a half years later which makes a comparrison utterly meaningless.

 

AoC shows the same flaws and of course has rising in numbers since it's nadir (even before F2P).

 

STO's data is even less meaningfull as it tracks a decline from peak subs ~3 months in to only ONE data point less than 6 months after that.

 

 

 

The only like for like measurement that can really apply here is a measure of TOTAL retention over the first 12 months from the Live date, something which isn't being discussed or remotely shown in this thread.

[Tim-ONeil]

Realy? Three months ago is a world away? Now who is not being logical.

 

If you read what I wrote I didn't say that at all. Business is evaluated on a constant on going basis.

 

And you are just further proving what I said by the way.

[Thylbanus]

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.

 

Really? This is my sandbox, if you want to play, you play by my rules. My rules say that I win.

 

This is getting out of hand. This isn't an exercise in debate, it's a forum for you to profess your own greatness.

[adamqd]

NOOOOO but SWG was the greatest game evar!!! TOR needs to be turned into SWG2 NAO!!!!

 

/sarcasm off

 

Quality not quantity

[Goretzu]

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.

 

Indeed, that is what I was saying.

 

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.

 

Read the post above, I show why your "trends" have no real meaning are fairly arbitary and frankly just plain wrong. Sorry.

 

Very logically and scientifically too, the data speaks for itself when you examine what you've done in your OP.

 

Your data is from all over the place and is NOT comparable to itself, you need to compare like with like, not like with seemingly random.

 

As you can see

|

V

 

Also the another flaw in the data is the "year" idea, because the OP is taking the maxium subscription number and measuring from there, he isn't measuring like for like.

 

Take the Rift example. His first 600,000 number comes from the peak subscription of Rift which is 6 months into Rifts life (SWTORs is closer to 3-4 months) and his last number is 17 months later, nearly 50% over the arbitary "year from peak subscription" he seems to be measuring.

 

His Warhammer Online figures show the same flaw, measuring from 3-4 month after Live (peak subs) to again 1 and a half years later which makes a comparrison utterly meaningless.

 

AoC shows the same flaws and of course has rising in numbers since it's nadir (even before F2P).

 

STO's data is even less meaningfull as it tracks a decline from peak subs ~3 months in to only ONE data point less than 6 months after that.

 

 

 

The only like for like measurement that can really apply here is a measure of TOTAL retention over the first 12 months from the Live date, something which isn't being discussed or remotely shown in this thread.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Goretzu

[Tim-ONeil]

Really? This is my sandbox, if you want to play, you play by my rules. My rules say that I win.

 

This is getting out of hand. This isn't an exercise in debate, it's a forum for you to profess your own greatness.

 

I presented something that I researched myself because I was curious about it. I presented what I found, laid out the method I used, and my conclusions from them. You may disagree of course but you've made your position clear on it and continuing to push that doesn't change what I presented.

 

You are welcomed to do the same.

 

In fact I don't recall ever saying I was great and I've been as civil as possible in this thread and you are becoming more and more hostile towards me. This is a debate on things that can be quantified.

 

I am going to stop replying to both you and Goretzu now. Your positions are clear and do not need to be restated ad nausium.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Thylbanus]

If you read what I wrote I didn't say that at all. Business is evaluated on a constant on going basis.

 

And you are just further proving what I said by the way.

 

Ok the whole statement was, "Last year we announced that the breakeven point was roughly 500,000 subscribers." So why is it OK for him to draw conclusions from last year, as a business professional in his field, and they not be pertinent only 3 months later?

[Goretzu]

I presented something that I researched myself because I was curious about it. I presented what I found, laid out the method I used, and my conclusions from them. You may disagree of course but you've made your position clear on it and continuing to push that doesn't change what I presented.

 

You are welcomed to do the same.

 

In fact I don't recall ever saying I was great and I've been as civil as possible in this thread and you are becoming more and more hostile towards me. This is a debate on things that can be quantified.

 

I have shown above your method is wrong, or at least so inconsistant as to be meaningless.

 

To make these figures somewhat meaningful you need to compare like for like, i.e. the same time periods (both in length and start point), and not just cherry-pick (lenghts of time or MMORPGs).

 

I'm sorry you don't seem to like that, but that is what debate is all about, not just people agreeing with whatever you say.

 

 

 

Although at this juncture the real issue is not what SWTOR did so wrong, but hopefully what will the do right to make F2P a "success".

Edited October 27, 2012 by Goretzu

[Thylbanus]

I presented something that I researched myself because I was curious about it. I presented what I found, laid out the method I used, and my conclusions from them. You may disagree of course but you've made your position clear on it and continuing to push that doesn't change what I presented.

 

You are welcomed to do the same.

 

In fact I don't recall ever saying I was great and I've been as civil as possible in this thread and you are becoming more and more hostile towards me. This is a debate on things that can be quantified.

 

I didn't say you were blatant about it, like Donald Trump. But you post on a forum an open invitiation to discuss a topic of high contention. That propells this into a hot topic. "The buzz." Now you proceed to moderate the discussion, broaching it in only ways that you can win. So you in effect, cry "Look at me! I'm winning!" Like the Roman Emperors Caligula, Titus, Hadrian, Caracalla, and Commodus, you take the sands of the arena and fight against men who are constrained from fighting effectively. And when you win by design, you are the Champion of the Forum, but it means little as the opponents have no real way to win. That is why I say you profess your greatness, not with word, but action.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Thylbanus

[Anubis_Black]

If SWTOR is a failure then all other games with the exception of WoW are failures as MMO's that use a subscription or subscription + F2P model.

 

That's just it, man, they are. Every single MMO since WoW has crashed and burned. SWTOR was said to be the last subscription based MMO to be developed and if it failed, it meant no other MMO will go for a subscription model in the foreseeable future. And that's exactly what happened.

[Thylbanus]

I have shown above your method is wrong, or at least so inconsistant as to be meaningless.

 

To make these figures somewhat meaningful you need to compare like for like, i.e. the same time periods (both in length and start point), and not just cherry-pick (lenghts of time or MMORPGs).

 

I'm sorry you don't seem to like that, but that is what debate is all about, not just people agreeing with whatever you say.

 

 

 

Although at this juncture the real issue is not what SWTOR did so wrong, but hopefully what will the do right to make F2P a "success".

 

I hate to agree with Goretzu on this, he and I so rarely see eye-to-eye, but I do. He echoes my sentiments in that time periods must be comparable. Launch to one year, same time period over ALL games, or some funtion that allows comparison. Otherwise you hamstring your arguement and only YOU can win with facts that YOU provide.

 

Your flippant attitude about going somewhere else to discuss OUR point of view just reinforces my contention that you are just here to pat those who agree with you on the back and dismiss those who don't. Effectively gathering about you those of like mind to show how "right" you are and dismissing others as "haters." That's what people like Bill Maher and Bill O'Reily do. That means that this is not a debate, but a club or guild where you are the leader.

[Thylbanus]

That's just it, man, they are. Every single MMO since WoW has crashed and burned. SWTOR was said to be the last subscription based MMO to be developed and if it failed, it meant no other MMO will go for a subscription model in the foreseeable future. And that's exactly what happened.

 

Wow! Way to bring it on home, Anubis.

[Tim-ONeil]

That's just it, man, they are. Every single MMO since WoW has crashed and burned. SWTOR was said to be the last subscription based MMO to be developed and if it failed, it meant no other MMO will go for a subscription model in the foreseeable future. And that's exactly what happened.

 

I agree with you to a point. All other games didn't achieve the same numbers as WoW so in that respect they 'failed' even if it's an unrealistic premise.

 

Looking at the total profitability of any of the games however will show you that while WoW can print the GDP of many small 3rd world countries on a monthly basis even if you can do a fraction of that it's a great revenue generator.

 

Now we can look at SWTOR specifically and see that it still generates anywhere from 90-180 million gross revenue yearly based on the sub range they provided. That is still a considerable amount of money and something that is lost on the average forum poster.

 

F2P might be the way forward for the industry as you state and I agree with you. The only other MMO in development that I would consider to have a chance at a large success is Elder Scrolls and I'm very curious to see what type of payment gateway model they ultimately use.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[LordArtemis]

I don't get the impression Tim is claiming that he corners the market on the reason the game lost subs here. It looks to me like hes looking at trying to speak logically about the possibility that the game lost subs due to normal attrition. He has gathered his information, and is probably looking to like minded individuals to discuss the issue.

 

I stand in opposition to this view and the others that have presented it for many of the same reasons stated in this thread...ones I have pointed out before. But that doesn't mean, IMO, that this is any less valid of a reason for lost subs than any other. And I think that we should not interfere with those that wish to logically discuss the issue.

 

Perhaps they will discover there is no basis for this contention. Perhaps not. But I think it's not beyond consideration.

 

After all, losses by attrition is a common occurrence and well known fact. What is in question here is whether or not the losses incurred can be attributed ENTIRELY or in large part to attrition.

 

I say the evidence is overwhelmingly against that contention. But I think TIm and like minded individuals have a right to discuss their point of view unmolested.

 

Just my view of course.

[Oyranos]

I thought your post is old, because I didnt see guild wars 2 in the list..

 

WoW have lots of subscribers for 2 reasons. Before diablo 3 release, they offered 1 year sub with diablo 3 free.... So many wow players pay 70 euro and they got 1 year full sub and a brand new game with all betas included..

 

Now pandaria came, so it was a nice marketing move, to keep up this players...

 

EVE is a brilliand hard core game, so I am surprised for this population... You need tutorials to be able start and play this game.. so hard.. But I love it be that hard...

 

after edit:

 

I did some research abou it, and gw2 have arround 5 million players... They said (we banned about 4-5k exploiters that is 0.001% of the overall population).. that means about 5 million.. And they also made a world record, of people being online at the same time... So its more like gw2 + wow at the same level.. at this point

Edited October 27, 2012 by Oyranos

[Soluss]

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

 

You arent discussing subs though. This thread is based on retention. Buying a box and then not subscribing is a loss in retention.

[Tim-ONeil]

I don't get the impression Tim is claiming that he corners the market on the reason the game lost subs here. It looks to me like hes looking at trying to speak logically about the possibility that the game lost subs due to normal attrition. He has gathered his information, and is probably looking to like minded individuals to discuss the issue.

 

I stand in opposition to this view and the others that have presented it for many of the same reasons stated in this thread...ones I have pointed out before. But that doesn't mean, IMO, that this is any less valid of a reason for lost subs than any other. And I think that we should not interfere with those that wish to logically discuss the issue.

 

Perhaps they will discover there is no basis for this contention. Perhaps not. But I think it's not beyond consideration.

 

After all, losses by attrition is a common occurrence and well known fact. What is in question here is whether or not the losses incurred can be attributed ENTIRELY or in large part to attrition.

 

I say the evidence is overwhelmingly against that contention. But I think TIm and like minded individuals have a right to discuss their point of view unmolested.

 

Just my view of course.

 

Eloquent as always.

 

As far as the data goes I presented what I could based on the data that was available to us. 1 year time frame is valid in that sense it's as close to it as possible data points allow. That isn't unreasonable or I guess we could just continue to make up our own facts. If that is more your style there's a thread on if the game will end next year. You (informal plural) will probably be happier there.

 

The reason I started this thread was to see if a discussion here could be started based on data rather than 'feeling' as the basis for the discussion itself. It did generate discussion, the flaming of me is generating exposure. I'm ok with that.

 

Things that are absolute stated in the first post are still true even if you don't like the presentation or disagree slightly in how they were complied. SWTOR is still the #2 sub based MMO and from 2008 the comparable games have had the same trend of high to low sub retention. Those statements can be made as facts because they have data that PROVES them.

 

That isn't a debatable subject, even if you want it to be. Maybe you think that 2006-12 is a better fit but that doesn't make the facts presented any less true it would just give a different viewpoint. Changing the date range doesn't change the fact that from 2008-present there is a decline in all games of nearly the same amount. So I reject the notion that the data is cherrypicked on that basis.

 

The interpretation is up for debate and I welcome it. But at the very least frame your argument on the facts presented, not feelings, assumptions, or innuendo.

 

And if you aren't able to do that please don't post here. This thread is better suited to that style of 'debate': http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=547607

[Soluss]

Yeah as I've mentioned in prior threads this is a likely closer percentage for overall retention in SWTOR.

 

The 50% retention use in the OP for some rather strange reason is using peak subs (which isn't a figure that can be used as absolute retention only relative retention - that is growth vs loss) and the highest possible last subsciption number which, of course, had a MASSIVE variability of 500,001 to 999,999.

 

 

Absolute retention (going from total sales to likely last subs) is something in much, much lower indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

Also the another flaw in the data is the "year" idea, because the OP is taking the maxium subscription number and measuring from there, he isn't measuring like for like.

 

Take the Rift example. His first 600,000 number comes from the peak subscription of Rift which is 6 months into Rifts life (SWTORs is closer to 3-4 months) and his last number is 17 months later, nearly 50% over the arbitary "year from peak subscription" he seems to be measuring.

 

His Warhammer Online figures show the same flaw, measuring from 3-4 month after Live (peak subs) to again 1 and a half years later which makes a comparrison utterly meaningless.

 

AoC shows the same flaws and of course has rising in numbers since it's nadir (even before F2P).

 

STO's data is even less meaningfull as it tracks a decline from peak subs ~3 months in to only ONE data point less than 6 months after that.

 

 

 

The only like for like measurement that can really apply here is a measure of TOTAL retention over the first 12 months from the Live date, something which isn't being discussed or remotely shown in this thread.

 

This is why it is my contention that the same timeframe should be used in this analysis. He wants to do a few things with the OP. 1 is to show retention and 2 is to show a market trend. The flaw in that is that a launch game will show more retention in the first 6 months then any time after. So if you use a game during its first 6 months subscriber numbers and then compare it to a game that is showing subscriber numbers for a year or more later... the data is already skewed in favor of the new MMO.

 

Market trends show one thing very clearly. The first 6 months of the game has the strongest subscriber numbers. Its no coincidence that ToR looks to be the best game out there when you are showing numbers from its first 6 months, while comparing to MMOs that are using numbers past the first year mark.

 

Im sorry but this is a major flaw in your analysis. You cannot skew the numbers like that and expect correct results.

[Tim-ONeil]

This is why it is my contention that the same timeframe should be used in this analysis. He wants to do a few things with the OP. 1 is to show retention and 2 is to show a market trend. The flaw in that is that a launch game will show more retention in the first 6 months then any time after. So if you use a game during its first 6 months subscriber numbers and then compare it to a game that is showing subscriber numbers for a year or more later... the data is already skewed in favor of the new MMO.

 

Market trends show one thing very clearly. The first 6 months of the game has the strongest subscriber numbers. Its no coincidence that ToR looks to be the best game out there when you are showing numbers from its first 6 months, while comparing to MMOs that are using numbers past the first year mark.

 

Im sorry but this is a major flaw in your analysis. You cannot skew the numbers like that and expect correct results.

 

We will have 10 month old numbers next week after the conference call and I will add them in and recalculate. And if necessary change my opinion of the data. That's only logical, the debate always has purpose because we can see it progress and measure against that.

 

The bottom line is this though. We can never be 100% accurate with any of this and you should already know that. Companies do not have to give us the information unless they are publically traded and even then it can be vague. Accepting this as the medium we have to work in then you can still draw conclusions from the data. This will ALWAYS be more accurate than feelings based discussion. Conversely you can state that this can never be 100% accurately assessed therefore is worthless and move on. I don't believe that is logical however.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[LordArtemis]

Yes, I think most reasonable people can agree that almost all games on the market have suffered sub loss, and the information gathered supports that contention. I would agree with that.

 

I will not argue against your point Tim, as we have had this discussion before, I don't feel it's necessary to rehash it here and I think you should be able to discuss your conclusions with those that agree in whole or part without being berated by opposing views.

 

I may make comments from time to time but do not want to derail your thread. Discuss on.

[Sweeet]

There may just about be just 500,000 subscribers at present, but only because people have been resubscribing the last few weeks for the FTP bonus coins. There is absolutely no way in hell there are 500,000 active players, and there is a big difference between the two.

 

It is also more likely those people who only resubscribed for the bonus coins, will be the first to unsubscribe again. So I wouldn't get too excited over the current number of subscriptions if I were you.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Sweeet

[Tim-ONeil]

I added this to the original post. That should satisfy the people that do not agree with the data itself. I believe it to be self evident but apparently it's not.

 

 

Disclaimer: We can never be 100% accurate with any of this and you should already know that. Where possible the most accurate and available datapoints have been used for the time frames under consideration. Companies do not have to give us the information unless they are publicly traded and even then it can be vague. Accepting this as the medium we have to work in then you can still draw conclusions from the data. This will ALWAYS be more accurate than feelings based discussion. Conversely you can state that this can never be 100% accurately assessed therefore is worthless and move on. I don't believe that is logical however.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Tim-ONeil

[Soluss]

We will have 10 month old numbers next week after the conference call and I will add them in and recalculate. And if necessary change my opinion of the data. That's only logical, the debate always has purpose because we can see it progress and measure against that.

 

The bottom line is this though. We can never be 100% accurate with any of this and you should already know that. Companies do not have to give us the information unless they are publically traded and even then it can be vague. Accepting this as the medium we have to work in then you can still draw conclusions from the data. This will ALWAYS be more accurate than feelings based discussion.

 

Thats not my entire point though. Its not a matter of using 6 month or 8 month or 10 month. Its a matter of you using 6 months worth of data on a launch game versus the last 6 months of data of a game that is more then a year old.

 

Lets agree on a few things. I really dont think you would disagree with this.

 

1. Most MMOs have a decline in subs at a certain point. Only a few MMOs increase rather then decline. This is indicative from the MMO data chart that is linked in your OP.

2. Almost all MMOs have their peak subs in the first 6 months before going on decline. Only a few still gain subs.

3. A big part of your OP is retention rate.

4. You are showing ToR to have a higher retention rate

 

Im sure you agree with these 4 points. If you do not then I would like an explanation as to why you dont agree with them.

 

Saying that.... Is it not fair to say that the data is skewed in favor of ToR? Think about this logically now.

 

1. Almost all MMOs have their sub peak inside their first 6 months from launch

2. The data you are using for ToR is inside its first 6 months from launch

3. The data you are using to compare ToR against is data not from the first 6 months of launch of other MMOs... but rather data from an entire year or more after launch.

 

If you were to look at data from the first 6 months of launch of the other compared MMOs, you would come out with a different retention rate for those MMOs. The reason is because after the first 6 months most MMOs hit a fairly large decline. For a fair comparison you would need to compare the time frame from launch and stop at the 6 month mark. If you do not do this then your data is skewed and your OP is flawed.

 

Then if you go on to update the 10 month mark then you must update all of them from the 10 month mark.

 

That is my biggest disagreement with your analysis. I wont go into the fact that you conviently chose the 2008 starting point. Because if you went back farther you would have to add in MMOs that totally destroy your opinion. WoW for one and Eve Online for two. Both of those MMOs have well over 100% retention because both of those games have done nothing but grown. Then you would also have to factor in alot of other MMOs such as Lotro, EQ2, DAoC, etc.

[Soluss]

Yes, I think most reasonable people can agree that almost all games on the market have suffered sub loss, and the information gathered supports that contention. I would agree with that.

 

I will not argue against your point Tim, as we have had this discussion before, I don't feel it's necessary to rehash it here and I think you should be able to discuss your conclusions with those that agree in whole or part without being berated by opposing views.

 

I may make comments from time to time but do not want to derail your thread. Discuss on.

 

Its not a matter of berating him because we have opposing views. You cannot have a discussion that is one sided. Its like playing chess and dictating where your opponent can move his piece.

 

You cant just start a thread and exclaim "agree with me or your wrong and get out of my thread" . Topics of debate do not work like that.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Soluss