Why do people care so much about subscription numbers?

[branmakmuffin]

And que times. But to be fair, que times are quite low right now on everything. So it is looking so much better than a year ago.

I seriously doubt there is a direct 1 to 1 correlation between player population and queue times, i.e, a 10% increase in player population does not produce a 10% decrease in queue times.

[Arkerus]

I am a Certified Public Accountant and do understand these things. We're talking about an investment that could easily be 100 million, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it.

 

Also, I have been an EA investor at times. Currently I'm not holding a position, but I did take one up when F2P launched as that was a good financial decision at the time. Now, the next good decision would be a major expansion or even new game.

 

None of that gives you any credibility to make advice on their internal investment decisions.

[EzioMessi]

I seriously doubt there is a direct 1 to 1 correlation between player population and queue times, i.e, a 10% increase in player population does not produce a 10% decrease in queue times.

 

So... An increase in payers... Does not net an increase in players?

 

Funny world we live in. People apparently pay $15 a month but never play the game itself.

[annabethchase]

I seriously doubt there is a direct 1 to 1 correlation between player population and queue times, i.e, a 10% increase in player population does not produce a 10% decrease in queue times.

 

Please debate correctly or I'll move on. Nobody said anything about a 1 to 1 correlation. However, we've seen in this game as server populations have diminished que times become longer and when the populations increase they become shorter. We have literally seen this happen multiple times in this game.

[NoFishing]

I seriously doubt there is a direct 1 to 1 correlation between player population and queue times, i.e, a 10% increase in player population does not produce a 10% decrease in queue times.

 

That depends entirely upon their roles, the type of queue, and how many people you need for a queue pop. Take for example regular 8v8 WZs. If you have 160 people queuing, you have instant queue pops for everyone, and it isn't very interesting.

 

So let's take 159 as an example. You can create 9 WZs for 144 of them, leaving 15 people to wait for a WZ to end before they can get a pop. If the average WZ takes 15m, and you have 9 of them running, then a WZ will end every 100s on average. With 15 people out of 159 waiting an average of 100s for a WZ, the average wait time per person is 9.4s.

 

Let's repeat that calculation for some other interesting values:

159 -> 9.4s

145 -> 0.7s

143 -> 11.8s

129 -> 0.9s

 

So for some reductions in population, you can get better queue times if you get closer to the multiple of the number of people that you need. But on balance, it's going to be worse. Going from 159 to 143 is 10.1% reduction in population but a 25% increase in average wait time.

 

It should also be obvious that for FP queues, with a small population of tanks or healers willing to queue to begin with, that any reduction in those numbers would have an outsized effect on the wait times of the DPS.

[TUXs]

I care because I enjoy this game and I enjoy MMOs. When the numbers decline enough, it impacts things like GF queues, PvP queues, GSF queues, players responding to LFM chat, less crafting...the lower the sub numbers get, the more difficult it is for me to do the things I enjoy in this game.

[ikinai]

So... An increase in payers... Does not net an increase in players?

 

Funny world we live in. People apparently pay $15 a month but never play the game itself.

 

Not necessarily, some payers are going from preferred to paid sub. No net increase in players, as they were already playing, just not paying.

[branmakmuffin]

That depends entirely upon their roles, the type of queue, and how many people you need for a queue pop. Take for example regular 8v8 WZs. If you have 160 people queuing, you have instant queue pops for everyone, and it isn't very interesting.

 

So let's take 159 as an example. You can create 9 WZs for 144 of them, leaving 15 people to wait for a WZ to end before they can get a pop. If the average WZ takes 15m, and you have 9 of them running, then a WZ will end every 100s on average. With 15 people out of 159 waiting an average of 100s for a WZ, the average wait time per person is 9.4s.

 

Let's repeat that calculation for some other interesting values:

159 -> 9.4s

145 -> 0.7s

143 -> 11.8s

129 -> 0.9s

 

So for some reductions in population, you can get better queue times if you get closer to the multiple of the number of people that you need. But on balance, it's going to be worse. Going from 159 to 143 is 10.1% reduction in population but a 25% increase in average wait time.

 

It should also be obvious that for FP queues, with a small population of tanks or healers willing to queue to begin with, that any reduction in those numbers would have an outsized effect on the wait times of the DPS.

You just made all those numbers up for the sake of your example. You have no idea if it actually works that way.

[magecutter]

I care because I enjoy this game and I enjoy MMOs. When the numbers decline enough, it impacts things like GF queues, PvP queues, GSF queues, players responding to LFM chat, less crafting...the lower the sub numbers get, the more difficult it is for me to do the things I enjoy in this game.

 

thank you sir. well said and on the mark.

[NoFishing]

You just made all those numbers up for the sake of your example. You have no idea if it actually works that way.

 

It is true that player behavior is a lot more complex than can be modeled by a simple spreadsheet, with a lot of individual variability, and feedback loops (quick queue pops encourage people to queue, long queue times discourage them, etc). But you were the one that claimed a 10% increase in population would not produce a 10% decrease in queue times. I'm just attempting to point out that relatively small variations in population could have significant results even ignoring player behaviors.

 

Of course those of us that ended up on dead servers during the spring/summer of 2012 or more recently the APAC transfers already know anecdotally that the line between a healthy/active server and a dead one is a fine one. See also the current LFG SM OP queue that basically hasn't popped in 6 months due to a lack of interest.

[GalacticKegger]

So, in all seriousness, who cares???

Shareholders. As a player, I don't need numerical fabrications to know whether or not I'm having fun. Edited February 24, 2014 by GalacticKegger

[ikinai]

 

So, in all seriousness, who cares???

 

[Cidanel]

being a subscriber tends to show a long term dedication to a game imo (at least that's true for me). and gives the game developers a relatively predictable revenue stream.

 

however, with the rise of micro-transactions and low worth high priced DLC's, sub's may be a thing of the past.

obviously, game dev's would like the best of both worlds... MT's and sub's, but I tend to agree with your main point... why would the average player even care much less complain about sub numbers?

 

maybe some just need to complain (a chicken little syndrome? ) I really don't understand it myself.

 

But the numbers don't line up with what you are saying. EA's revenue from SWTOR doubled in the first six months after going F2P, were up 35% Q1 2013 - Q1 2014. The game is doing very well for EA, financially speaking.

 

From EA's 2013 10k, service and other revenue from SWTOR was $1,059 million. That isn't exactly a number EA is going to voluntarily turn away any time soon. Analyzing revenue trends is the best way to determine viability, not subscription numbers.

[NoFishing]

But the numbers don't line up with what you are saying. EA's revenue from SWTOR doubled in the first six months after going F2P, were up 35% Q1 2013 - Q1 2014. The game is doing very well for EA, financially speaking.

 

From EA's 2013 10k, service and other revenue from SWTOR was $1,059 million. That isn't exactly a number EA is going to voluntarily turn away any time soon. Analyzing revenue trends is the best way to determine viability, not subscription numbers.

 

Oy, so much wrong here. First, EA does not break out financial results by game.

 

The 1.059 million was "primarily driven by Star Wars: The Old Republic and FIFA 13 Ultimate Team, as well as Battlefield 3 Premium subscriptions." NOT purely from SWTOR as you just claimed.

 

Looking at Q1 FY14, that 35% was "led by sustained growth in FIFA Ultimate Team, as well as Star Wars: The Old Republic, and FIFA Online 3". That does NOT say that SWTOR revenue went up 35%, only that it went up by some amount. The same report says subscription revenue fell 25% YoY, and ONLY makes mention of SWTOR in that section. Plus it is worth noting that that is the quarter that included the release of RoTHC, which was released at the beginning of Q1 FY2014, so that would have been a naturally good quarter for SWTOR in any case.

 

But the main problem I have with your post is that both of those reports are now completely ancient. Look at the reports that are not 6 months old or more, like Q3 FY14, which says:

 

"extra-content and PC free-to-play ... up 15% over the prior year, led by continued growth in FIFA Ultimate Team, FIFA Online 3, and Star Wars: The Old Republic"

 

and also

 

"And finally, subscriptions, ... down 16% over the same period last year. This was driven by a decline in POGO subscription and advertising revenue, and a decline in Star Wars: The Old Republic subscription revenue, as the free-to-play offering continues to grow."

 

I'm sorry, but the messaging is clear. Subscriptions are down year-over-year, and more and more of this game's revenue comes from the cartel market.

 

If everything that you want to do in the game can be done with and by F2P/preferred players, then maybe that doesn't matter to you. But a lot of content is effectively unnaccessible without a subscription, and if that happens to be the content you care about, you want subscription numbers to be going up, not down.

Edited February 24, 2014 by NoFishing

[Mortelus]

Subs are steady, predictable income. The more money comes in from CM transactions, the more likely the budget will go into short-term CM related content rather than long-term planned content for subscribers.

 

This, Subs bring stability. F2P bring quick cash before they jump ship to the next game. Of course I am generalizing here.

 

With a steady and predictable income (subs) more long term planned content can be added. Without that you'll just get re-skins and a few CM updates.

[BJWyler]

This, Subs bring stability. F2P bring quick cash before they jump ship to the next game. Of course I am generalizing here.

 

With a steady and predictable income (subs) more long term planned content can be added. Without that you'll just get re-skins and a few CM updates.

 

Possible, but unlikely. What people seem to forget is that it is quick and easy to make cartel market stuff. Thinking that making an OPs or FP is the same as making a couple of new outfits for the CM is pretty asinine. Of course the CM will get more updates - it's the 5 minute ham sandwich I make for lunch. The new FPs and OPs are the meatloaf I eat for dinner (which of course takes a lot more time and effort to make). As mentioned, subs allow developers to get a relatively reasonable income estimate from month to month. They do not bring stability, however. The only sub based game with a relatively stable player base. WoW's playerbase has not been stable for years, and there has not been a single MMO released in the last 3-4 years that can say any different.

 

Looking at the road map, it looks like we are getting quite a bit of non-CM content. And since the move to F2P over a year ago, we have gotten a bit of content already. People really need to get out of the Stone Age and realize that subscriptions are not the end all and be all of the MMO any more. Times have changed and just like gaming graphics, the industry and the business models have grown and changed along with it. There are many misconceptions about F2P that people can't just let go because of their own prejudices. Yes, there are still examples of "bad" F2P out there - but there are bad "subs" out there as well, not to mention the successful examples of both. The only thing subscriptions guarantee the playerbase in today's gaming market is that you will have a monthly bill to pay.

 

In the end, investors don't care about sub numbers either (at least those who are not die hard MMO gamers, which would be the vast majority of investors). Sub numbers mean nothing to them because they are not investing in a single game, they are investing in a company that (if it's smart) has a diversified portfolio, so their only concern would be "is the company making money" and "is the company meeting projections" (and that doesn't mean projections in sub numbers). Heck even sub numbers aren't a guarantee of a stable income source for the dev because a subscription can be cancelled at any time. Ultimately, sub numbers are only usable for bragging rights by the devs (if they are good) and for straw man arguments by the playerbase.

Edited February 25, 2014 by BJWyler

[kirorx]

Oy, so much wrong here. First, EA does not break out financial results by game.

 

The 1.059 million was "primarily driven by Star Wars: The Old Republic and FIFA 13 Ultimate Team, as well as Battlefield 3 Premium subscriptions." NOT purely from SWTOR as you just claimed.

 

Looking at Q1 FY14, that 35% was "led by sustained growth in FIFA Ultimate Team, as well as Star Wars: The Old Republic, and FIFA Online 3". That does NOT say that SWTOR revenue went up 35%, only that it went up by some amount. The same report says subscription revenue fell 25% YoY, and ONLY makes mention of SWTOR in that section. Plus it is worth noting that that is the quarter that included the release of RoTHC, which was released at the beginning of Q1 FY2014, so that would have been a naturally good quarter for SWTOR in any case.

 

But the main problem I have with your post is that both of those reports are now completely ancient. Look at the reports that are not 6 months old or more, like Q3 FY14, which says:

 

"extra-content and PC free-to-play ... up 15% over the prior year, led by continued growth in FIFA Ultimate Team, FIFA Online 3, and Star Wars: The Old Republic"

 

and also

 

"And finally, subscriptions, ... down 16% over the same period last year. This was driven by a decline in POGO subscription and advertising revenue, and a decline in Star Wars: The Old Republic subscription revenue, as the free-to-play offering continues to grow."

 

I'm sorry, but the messaging is clear. Subscriptions are down year-over-year, and more and more of this game's revenue comes from the cartel market.

 

If everything that you want to do in the game can be done with and by F2P/preferred players, then maybe that doesn't matter to you. But a lot of content is effectively unnaccessible without a subscription, and if that happens to be the content you care about, you want subscription numbers to be going up, not down.

 

My Dude, You Know TOO MUCH about this stuff.......GO OUTSIDE or Something.

[lochylindsay]

I get faster ques in SWTOR then I ever did in WoW........PvP, PvE and Starfighter

[Mortelus]

Possible, but unlikely. What people seem to forget is that it is quick and easy to make cartel market stuff. Thinking that making an OPs or FP is the same as making a couple of new outfits for the CM is pretty asinine. Of course the CM will get more updates - it's the 5 minute ham sandwich I make for lunch. The new FPs and OPs are the meatloaf I eat for dinner (which of course takes a lot more time and effort to make). As mentioned, subs allow developers to get a relatively reasonable income estimate from month to month. They do not bring stability, however. The only sub based game with a relatively stable player base. WoW's playerbase has not been stable for years, and there has not been a single MMO released in the last 3-4 years that can say any different.

 

Looking at the road map, it looks like we are getting quite a bit of non-CM content. And since the move to F2P over a year ago, we have gotten a bit of content already. People really need to get out of the Stone Age and realize that subscriptions are not the end all and be all of the MMO any more. Times have changed and just like gaming graphics, the industry and the business models have grown and changed along with it. There are many misconceptions about F2P that people can't just let go because of their own prejudices. Yes, there are still examples of "bad" F2P out there - but there are bad "subs" out there as well, not to mention the successful examples of both. The only thing subscriptions guarantee the playerbase in today's gaming market is that you will have a monthly bill to pay.

 

In the end, investors don't care about sub numbers either (at least those who are not die hard MMO gamers, which would be the vast majority of investors). Sub numbers mean nothing to them because they are not investing in a single game, they are investing in a company that (if it's smart) has a diversified portfolio, so their only concern would be "is the company making money" and "is the company meeting projections" (and that doesn't mean projections in sub numbers). Heck even sub numbers aren't a guarantee of a stable income source for the dev because a subscription can be cancelled at any time. Ultimately, sub numbers are only usable for bragging rights by the devs (if they are good) and for straw man arguments by the playerbase.

 

Of course it is simpler and quicker to make CM stuff, it's mostly re-skins and makes them more profit.

 

To say investors don't care about subs it a bit off though. "Here Investor A, we have 2'000'000" signed for the next six months which generates X amount of profit for us. Would you like to invest with us?" Says company A.

 

"No wait investor A, I have this company which is generating X amount per month from fluff sales" Says Company B.

 

"Ok so what are your projected margins for the next six months?" Asks Investor A.

 

"Not sure but looking back on what we have done over the last 6 months we predict X amount"

 

Which one would you rather invest in, definite numbers or projected numbers based upon history?

 

And in reality, I think all developers would rather have paid subscriptions upfront if they could. But like you say, the world has changed and most people like to try before they buy nowadays. Which is understandable.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Mortelus

[branmakmuffin]

With a steady and predictable income (subs) more long term planned content can be added. Without that you'll just get re-skins and a few CM updates.

Yeah, hardly any new adventuring content since they added the F2P option.

[Arkerus]

Yeah, hardly any new adventuring content since they added the F2P option.

 

Its almost like we only got cartel market skins...

 

Oh wait. No we didn't.

[NoFishing]

Yeah, hardly any new adventuring content since they added the F2P option.

 

I know you are being sarcastic, but going a year or more without a new operation is a new low in the pace of PvE development in this game.

[SammuelSK]

I know you are being sarcastic, but going a year or more without a new operation is a new low in the pace of PvE development in this game.

 

This x100. Its NiM content of **** we've already done to death for the forseeable future, with a proper new raid only coming in what amounts to nearly a year from the release DF/DP.

[hadoken]

I know you are being sarcastic, but going a year or more without a new operation is a new low in the pace of PvE development in this game.

 

Their operation release schedule is rather shameful. A new difficulty on an existing raid is not new content, no matter how they try to spin it.

[Cidanel]

Oy, so much wrong here. First, EA does not break out financial results by game.

 

The 1.059 million was "primarily driven by Star Wars: The Old Republic and FIFA 13 Ultimate Team, as well as Battlefield 3 Premium subscriptions." NOT purely from SWTOR as you just claimed.

 

Looking at Q1 FY14, that 35% was "led by sustained growth in FIFA Ultimate Team, as well as Star Wars: The Old Republic, and FIFA Online 3". That does NOT say that SWTOR revenue went up 35%, only that it went up by some amount. The same report says subscription revenue fell 25% YoY, and ONLY makes mention of SWTOR in that section. Plus it is worth noting that that is the quarter that included the release of RoTHC, which was released at the beginning of Q1 FY2014, so that would have been a naturally good quarter for SWTOR in any case.

 

But the main problem I have with your post is that both of those reports are now completely ancient. Look at the reports that are not 6 months old or more, like Q3 FY14, which says:

 

"extra-content and PC free-to-play ... up 15% over the prior year, led by continued growth in FIFA Ultimate Team, FIFA Online 3, and Star Wars: The Old Republic"

 

and also

 

"And finally, subscriptions, ... down 16% over the same period last year. This was driven by a decline in POGO subscription and advertising revenue, and a decline in Star Wars: The Old Republic subscription revenue, as the free-to-play offering continues to grow."

 

I'm sorry, but the messaging is clear. Subscriptions are down year-over-year, and more and more of this game's revenue comes from the cartel market.

 

If everything that you want to do in the game can be done with and by F2P/preferred players, then maybe that doesn't matter to you. But a lot of content is effectively unnaccessible without a subscription, and if that happens to be the content you care about, you want subscription numbers to be going up, not down.

 

You can absolutely make assumptions about games by cross referencing year end financial reports with earnings calls. The message is very clear. Subscriptions are down a bit, but the game is doing better than ever from a financial point of view, which is nothing but good news. I couldn't care less if the game does well with subscriptions or with selling to F2P. I care that EA makes enough money that the game keeps going, and the message that it will keep going is abundantly clear.

 

I am also not sure what you mean by saying both of those reports are 'ancient'. Looking at historical financial trends is one of the best ways to predict the future of a company. What person in their right mind ignores financial statements just because they are backward looking?

 

Their SEC filings make it clear. Operational costs have been streamlined, subscription revenue is down, but that has been more than offset by profits gained from F2P players, a trend that the entire MMO industry is following. This isn't the death of SWTOR, this is SWTOR adapting to a marketplace that favors F2P over subscriptions. That is the future of all MMOs, not subscription based models.

 

I personally have a subscription, but over time more and more content will become available to F2P players. That again, is the direction the entire industry is moving. It isn't 2005 any more, subscription based models simply aren't going to be competitive going forward.