As Makeb will never get released ... how will I get my money back

[CosmicKat]

Have any of you been to the official GW2 forums. They will delete your posts and ban you for anything negative you say about the game, period, no exceptions. I they close the forums, so be it. Most of what goes on here is complaining.

 

If they banned everyone here who posted anything negative, they could hold a subscriber meeting in a Corvette.

[rbkrbk]

Yeah this is actually one of EA's more successful titles. If I remember the last earnings report correctly they said one of the areas making the most money was digital sales or something and TOR was one of the highest earners in that category.

 

The internet is currently on some sort of nostalgia fueled rampage against Bioware so no one realizes that a LOT of people play and enjoy this game.

 

No it isn't. See my sig. Read their Q4/FY (last April) Earnings Conference Call notes, then their Q1, Q2, Q3 2013 notes. You will see that you are completely incorrect.

[rbkrbk]

You can't compare the gross health. You need to compare the relative health of the divisions. Large companies live and die by "return on investment". EA's cash cows are their sports franchises (FIFA, etc.) which have phenomenal ROI.

 

MMO's are attractive because they generate huge gross revenues but what many people fail to understand is there are significant operational expenses involved. For most companies the net profit exceeds what their non-MMO titles can generate. This is not true in EA's case.

 

Ignoring terms of their contract with LucasArts the future of SW:TOR likely depends on if EA has saturated their other markets or if they can get better ROI from funding a different project.

 

This guy gets it.

[AlaricSevGirl]

If they banned everyone here who posted anything negative, they could hold a subscriber meeting in a Corvette.

 

Not banned from the game, banned from the forums and yes they have. It is a well known fact that they delete forum posts all the time and have banned forum posters for posts that disagreed with them. I know, I play GW2 but I read player based forums and there are no subscribers, GW2 is f2p.

Edited February 28, 2013 by AlaricSevGirl

[rbkrbk]

Glad to see you didn't jump to any conclusions ..

 

EA isn't running out of money..

 

they reported 5,000,000,000 ,0000 (thats Billion) in assets last report. As for the reason only they know but ill guess there was no need for 3 cm's when 3 can handle it. Most titles don't have 6 Cm's.

 

Either way..Makeb is coming..

 

Its not spring yet and technically they still have a full 4 months to roll out Makeb since spring doesn't end until to June 21st..

 

Total assets in the world of finance is almost completely irrelevant. When a CFO looks at their Balance Sheet, Income & Cash Flow Statements, they care about current assets vs current liabilities (those are short term), cash flow, etc. LIQUIDITY, in a word. The executives care about QoQ and YoY growth. Total assets means very little, unless they're looking for an Merger opportunity (unlikely) or being bought out (even more unlikely).

 

A business could have Ten Trillion in total assets, but that means very little if they have little to no cash flow. If their assets are all illiquid or goodwill, a company could file for Chapter 11 in a week because they don't have enough cash to pay their upcoming debt obligations.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your post (I too, have no idea as to the cause of the change, it could simply be restructuring), but I simply cannot stand it when people are given misleading information.

[DarthTHC]

No it isn't. See my sig. Read their Q4/FY (last April) Earnings Conference Call notes, then their Q1, Q2, Q3 2013 notes. You will see that you are completely incorrect.

 

Your sig says it's in their top 10.

 

If you look at an incomplete list of all their titles, like here, and do some basic math, you'll see that puts SWTOR in the top 10% or maybe even top 5% of EA titles.

 

One might suggest that a game that is in its publisher's top 10% is certainly one of its most successful titles, no?

[DarthTHC]

Not banned from the game, banned from the forums and yes they have. It is a well known fact that they delete forum posts all the time and have banned forum posters for posts that disagreed with them. I know, I play GW2 but I read player based forums and there are no subscribers, GW2 is f2p.

 

I don't think the mods are banning forum posters for posting dissatisfaction with the game or with EA. I've done that more times than I can count and have never even been infracted for it, let alone banned.

 

What they may be doing is banning posters who express their dissatisfaction in hostile, argumentative, and otherwise improper ways.

[Urael]

Yeah this is actually one of EA's more successful titles. If I remember the last earnings report correctly they said one of the areas making the most money was digital sales or something and TOR was one of the highest earners in that category.

 

This is completely false. Meme ends here.

 

*IF* SWTOR was as you say *THEN* EA would have never have changed the model from subscription ( their ORIGINAL intent) to Freemium (move of despiration). They had every intention from the get go ( some one link the quote please ) of being subscription only. When that failed due to Illum, and lack of features ( group finder, etc.), and people were leaving. EA management spun the reason for leaving as "the price of the subscription". This was completely false.

 

Take note here:

 

No it isn't. See my sig. Read their Q4/FY (last April) Earnings Conference Call notes, then their Q1, Q2, Q3 2013 notes. You will see that you are completely incorrect.

 

[CosmicKat]

Your sig says it's in their top 10.

 

If you look at an incomplete list of all their titles, like here, and do some basic math, you'll see that puts SWTOR in the top 10% or maybe even top 5% of EA titles.

 

One might suggest that a game that is in its publisher's top 10% is certainly one of its most successful titles, no?

 

EA's core business is console games. That business has major up and down swings dependent on new release schedules. The percentage of their revenue from TOR could be large one month and miniscule the next.

[Vandicus]

Total assets in the world of finance is almost completely irrelevant. When a CFO looks at their Balance Sheet, Income & Cash Flow Statements, they care about current assets vs current liabilities (those are short term), cash flow, etc. LIQUIDITY, in a word.

 

For those interested in EA's current assets v current liabilities.

 

 

A distinction should be made in how a person measures a company's short term survivability though. EA's current assets(meaning assets that are more liquid in nature) are higher than their current liabilities(obligations they will have to meet in the short term). Almost half of their current liabilities was in unearned revenue(listed as deferred revenue), which is highly unlikely to have a material impact on assets, so a true estimate of their current ratio is around 2:1, which is plenty stable.

 

Based on the info here.

 

http://investor.ea.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=712515-13-7&CIK=712515

 

I should note that my statement on unearned revenue not having a very large affect on assets is particular to EA as a company, in many industries the services provided to earn that revenue can have extensive operating expenses attached to them. Looking over at EA's operating expenses and considering that this deferred revenue is largely met by an obligation of digital services or relatively low cost packaged goods, expenses matched with the change of this unearned revenue to product or services revenue should be fairly low.

[RikHar]

Err... you are jumping the gun just a little bit aren't you?

 

This reminds me of the posts almost a year to the day when peeps were asserting that this game wouldn't last a year.

 

 

 

Had it not been for the cartel market, maybe it wouldn't of lasted.

[Thylbanus]

Today I saw that the european CMs got fired.

As I am sure that a great company, as EA is, has a lot of respect for theire european comunity and paying customers, the only explanation for this drastical step, I can think of, is that they are running out of money and will not be able to hold TOR much longer.

 

As this probably means "Makeb" will never get released, I want to ask how I will get the money back, I paid for it.

 

Quite the alarmist aren't you? Makeb is the 2.0 aka. Rise of the Hutt Cartel. It's on the Public Test right now. (well the flashpoints and level changes. Makeb is absent as to keep it all a surprise until launch.)

 

Calm down.

 

Have a cookie.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Thylbanus

[sharpenedstick]

The contradictions are strong with this one.

 

Let's not forget that this is a business. What do good businesses do when things are not going as expected? They adapt, or they fail. EA adapted and changed to F2P while still offering subs, and as you even agreed to above, the game is now thriving again and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future as a result. That seems like a good business decision to me. For us as customers, this allows us to continue to play their game.

 

If the game is strong and thriving with more revenue and activity than ever, how (as you also stated above) is it a failure?

 

Also, let's please stop with the "expected to be a WoW-Killer" talk. That was never the expectation and Bioware/EA never pitched it as such.

 

Oh good, another person to school on SWTOR hype history.

 

EA clearly believed it had a game that was going to challenege, and beat, WoW. Did they think it would happen overnight? No. But they used the analogy of silent and sound movies, to represent the future prospects of WoW and SWTOR respectively.

 

A 30 second Google search reveals these statements from, among others, top executives at EA and Bioware. Please try a little research before trying to sound like an authority.

 

http://www.vg247.com/2008/10/24/wow-is-the-target-with-the-old-republic-says-lucasarts-and-ea/

http://www.vg247.com/2011/02/16/riccitiello-ea-dropped-the-ball-but-has-best-ip-in-the-industry/

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/wow-to-lose-big-chunk-of-market-share-to-star-wars-old-republic-says-ea/

 

Now, on F2P, again it was a smart business move by EA. There's no doubt about it. But there can also be no doubt that SWTOR failed as a subscription game. I'm really not sure why that statement is controversial or so hard for you to understand. It failed to live up to expectations (which were set by EA itself), it failed to achieve a sustainable population base, and it failed to support itself on the subscription model.

 

Out of curiosity, do you think massive server shutdowns and consolidations is proof of growth? I'm really confused here.

 

SWTOR now has what seems to be a good future. One predicated on a core of subscribers and a constant influx of microtransactions. I'm glad as I enjoy the game. But I don't let that enjoyment blind me to reality.

Edited February 28, 2013 by sharpenedstick

[Urael]

Now, on F2P, again it was a smart business move by EA. There's no doubt about it. But there can also be no doubt that SWTOR failed as a subscription game. I'm really not sure why that statement is controversial or so hard for you to understand. It failed to live up to expectations (which were set by EA itself), it failed to achieve a sustainable population base, and it failed to support itself on the subscription model.

 

^QFT.

 

Indeed.

 

(BTW all the links in your original reply are broken.)

Edited February 28, 2013 by Urael

[Levity]

Yes, and I think new MMO's should adopt that model from the start. It makes it easier for people to jump in and play, which increases your player base which then increases the chance some one will splurge and purchase a micro transaction.

 

With that said, SWTOR is still far away from pushing the boundaries for MMO's. It's still too safe. These games should be more open and social. They should connect to other places on the internet. I think this is where MMO's are currently dropping the ball. But Makeb will be released. There just might not be enough European player base to justify community managers.

 

You know one of the reasons I think it didn't launch free to play was that so they could sell the box sets. IE. Digital Delux and Collectors Edition. They made bank off of those. If they just launched F2P less people would of bought them, if at all because they wouldn't of needed them. Going straight F2P I bet they knew that it would of taken them a lot longer to actually make money off of the game with how much they spent, but just in 1 month off of box sales they made up the prodcution cost (not counting the advertising and other expenses.) And I guarantee their plan was to roll f2p once box sales streamlined.

 

They played it smart and made fast money two different ways.

[rbkrbk]

Had it not been for the cartel market, maybe it wouldn't of lasted.

 

STOP THAT! It's WOULDN'T HAVE, short for WOULD NOT HAVE!

 

Though I don't disagree with the content of your post.

Edited February 28, 2013 by rbkrbk

[Urael]

STOP THAT! It's WOULDN'T HAVE, short for WOULD NOT HAVE!

 

Though I don't disagree with the content of your post.

 

Can you have an um double contraction: wouldn't've?

 

I agree with the person you quoted also.

[sharpenedstick]

^QFT.

 

Indeed.

 

(BTW all the links in your original replay are broken.)

 

Fixed. Thanks for the notice!

[Kahotep]

Fanboi juice must be wonderful.

 

F2P saved the game and it presented EAware with an alternative earning model that has permitted SWTOR to continue, and even to thrive. But this was not planned as a F2P game. F2P is an admission of defeat for a game that was expected to be a WoW-killer. Let there be no mistake here. SWTOR failed as a subscription based game. "TORTANIC" may be inflammatory, but it's not far off, given EA's hype and the extremely high budget.

 

I am glad that SWTOR is on a stable financial footing. I like that because of F2P we're going to see more content, both paid gated (cartel market) and "free" content releases. But I don't let my enjoyment of SWTOR blind me to reality.

 

F2P saved what was a terrible situation. You guys don't seem to understand just how embarrassing it is to fail with one of the world's most powerful IP licenses. From one of the largest gaming companies. With a budget that shatters previous records.

 

SWTOR was judged on its merits as a subscription game and it was found wanting. F2P is a model by which people can be induced to play at price points that are more acceptable to them, ranging from zero to potentially hundreds of dollars more than a sub would ever be. This revenue source is a good thing for the game, and I'm glad they have it.

 

But I don't pretend that F2P was THE PLAN.

 

I've been itching to reply to this all day, but sadly wasn't able to at work.

 

I think you actually misunderstood what I was saying, or read my words out of context, because I actually agree with everything you say (except the "fanboi" part. First time I've been accused of being a fanboi of a game I think has huge room for improvement and I have criticised a lot on its forums).

 

I agree that the rapidly declining subs was a massive embarrassment for BW. I also agree that a big part of this was due to problems with the game, lack of basic features at launch and lack of endgame at launch. However, I also think that a case can be made that a contributing factor was that BW launched a subscription based game at a time when the PC gaming world is moving away from subs to f2p.

 

I am in no way saying this a defense of BW or SWTOR. It is actually a criticism. BW should have had the forsight to see the way the tide was turning. I can remember before the launch, people saying that they thought that this would be the last MMO of this type we would ever see, because the f2p model was becoming the norm. BW made huge mistake launching as sub only and I firmly believe that they should have launched with the payment model they have now.

 

In my original post, which you sought to criticise, I was merely trying to say that the fact that the game has now gone free to play should not be seen as a sign that the game is about to die. Like you, I think that f2p has saved SWTOR and was the best thing BW and EA could do. However, I don't see it as the last ditch attempt of a failing MMO to try to survive. Rather, I see it as a company realising that they made a massive mistake, totally misjudged the current market for MMOs and finally doing something to rectify their mistake.

[RikHar]

STOP THAT! It's WOULDN'T HAVE, short for WOULD NOT HAVE!

 

Though I don't disagree with the content of your post.

 

 

 

 

Would, wouldn't, would have, would not have, wood, woody, woodrow, woodpecker, couldn't, should not, shouldn't

 

And I agree with the guy who agreed with you agreeing with me, too.

Edited February 28, 2013 by RikHar

[sharpenedstick]

I've been itching to reply to this all day, but sadly wasn't able to at work.

 

I think you actually misunderstood what I was saying, or read my words out of context, because I actually agree with everything you say (except the "fanboi" part. First time I've been accused of being a fanboi of a game I think has huge room for improvement and I have criticised a lot on its forums).

 

I agree that the rapidly declining subs was a massive embarrassment for BW. I also agree that a big part of this was due to problems with the game, lack of basic features at launch and lack of endgame at launch. However, I also think that a case can be made that a contributing factor was that BW launched a subscription based game at a time when the PC gaming world is moving away from subs to f2p.

 

I am in no way saying this a defense of BW or SWTOR. It is actually a criticism. BW should have had the forsight to see the way the tide was turning. I can remember before the launch, people saying that they thought that this would be the last MMO of this type we would ever see, because the f2p model was becoming the norm. BW made huge mistake launching as sub only and I firmly believe that they should have launched with the payment model they have now.

 

In my original post, which you sought to criticise, I was merely trying to say that the fact that the game has now gone free to play should not be seen as a sign that the game is about to die. Like you, I think that f2p has saved SWTOR and was the best thing BW and EA could do. However, I don't see it as the last ditch attempt of a failing MMO to try to survive. Rather, I see it as a company realising that they made a massive mistake, totally misjudged the current market for MMOs and finally doing something to rectify their mistake.

 

You indicated that I was "behind the times" for seeing the move to F2P as a defeat for EAware. I certainly agree with your analysis on the value of F2P, and its permanent place in the MMO, and gaming, market. While a game may certainly move to F2P and not have it viewed as a failure, that's not the case for SWTOR, which was clearly aiming to be a tradiitonal subscription based AAA MMO on the model of (and ultimately superior in revenue and market share to) WoW.

 

F2P is definitely the wave of the future. Even WoW will eventually add some kind of F2P system. There's just too large a market and too much money from reskinning the same junk over and over. But I think it's a mistake to say that the subscription model is dead (not that you were). MMOs are strongest when they have a core of sustainable subscribers. F2P is a supporting economic model that allows for wider participation at different price points, and it also caters to the psychological element of those opposed to subscriptions. This might seem like a negligible concern, but when MMOs first came out the very idea of subscriptions was seen as vaguely offensive. Even in non-gaming areas (like cell phones), you see a clear market for people willing to pay a little more, or get a little less, with a pay-as-you-go system.

[SpearlikeAtom]

You indicated that I was "behind the times" for seeing the move to F2P as a defeat for EAware. I certainly agree with your analysis on the value of F2P, and its permanent place in the MMO, and gaming, market. While a game may certainly move to F2P and not have it viewed as a failure, that's not the case for SWTOR, which was clearly aiming to be a tradiitonal subscription based AAA MMO on the model of (and ultimately superior in revenue and market share to) WoW.

 

F2P is definitely the wave of the future. Even WoW will eventually add some kind of F2P system. There's just too large a market and too much money from reskinning the same junk over and over. But I think it's a mistake to say that the subscription model is dead (not that you were). MMOs are strongest when they have a core of sustainable subscribers. F2P is a supporting economic model that allows for wider participation at different price points, and it also caters to the psychological element of those opposed to subscriptions. This might seem like a negligible concern, but when MMOs first came out the very idea of subscriptions was seen as vaguely offensive. Even in non-gaming areas (like cell phones), you see a clear market for people willing to pay a little more, or get a little less, with a pay-as-you-go system.

 

How could you possibly know that was not the case for SWTOR? Are you privy to information we are not? And to a certain extent WoW does have a free to play system, not as extensive as SWTOR but it does have one.

[sharpenedstick]

How could you possibly know that was not the case for SWTOR? Are you privy to information we are not? And to a certain extent WoW does have a free to play system, not as extensive as SWTOR but it does have one.

 

I wasn't in the boardroom, and I'm not psychic, so it's possible that everything EA said about taking huge market shares away from WoW and being on top of the MMO world was just a huge smoke screen for an eventual F2P system...but does that seem realistic?

 

If, as so many of you seem to believe, F2P was the intended model FROM THE START, why was there no support for it at launch? Do you have any idea how much more successful in terms of numbers the already huge launch would have been if everyone in the world could have played it for free?

 

If, as so many of you seem to believe, F2P was the intended model FROM THE START, why did EAware allow subscription numbers to plummet before introducing it? Why did they allow massive server shutdowns and endure endless critical and fan criticism over ghost towns before they enabled it?

 

If, as so many of you seem to believe, F2P was the intended model FROM THE START, why was hardly any mention of it anywhere, in anything anybody from EA or Bioware said about the dominant form of player access that they expected?

 

I'm just curious. Does the idea that the game was F2P from the start suddenly make the massive subscription loss and server merges look like a good thing to you? Do you think EA's original plan was to launch big, crash, and then swoop in with their F2P model?

Edited February 28, 2013 by sharpenedstick

[Tsillah]

This thread is just insane.

 

Of course this wasn't their masterplan. Full subs with cartel market would've been even better. And the assumption that because they restructure their CMs there will be no Makeb is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen on a game forum. Honestly....

[itsmymillertime]

All mmos gain and lose players as other mmos are released. Its the nature of life. With every content update it goes up and then goes back down.

 

As long as they make enough money to keep the game a live, I will keep playing it.