SWTOR revenue down...the causes?

[Reno_Tarshil]

Here's what $60 gets from Blizzard:

 

Warlords of Draenor features:

 

New continent of Draenor (7 zones, 1 PvP zone)

Build and upgrade your Garrison

A level 90 character boost (<-- hate that)

New player character models

7 new Dungeons and 2 new Raids

A Heroic version of Upper Blackrock Spire

New World Bosses

New Challenge modes

New World PvP Zone

New Scenarios

Level cap raised to 100

New class talents and permanent ability bonuses

 

*********************

 

I'm not sure EA / Bioware can justify attempting to keep DF / DP relevant with a DPS nerf while the # 1 MMORPG releases all of the above.

Refined quest system with hundreds of new quests

. . . and more!

 

Why are you acting like that's all we are getting with our 20 Dollars?

[Lotharofxev]

Why are you acting like that's all we are getting with our 20 Dollars?

 

Because this is not my first rodeo with EA / Bioware.

[Reno_Tarshil]

Because this is not my first rodeo with EA / Bioware.

 

So them saying Level 60. 2 new Ops, 2 new fps, 4 new HM, 2 new planets, a class story quest is all imaginary?

[Horacio]

Apparently, I am part of the problem. Although, I buy a crapton of cartel items second hand off the GTN so I also create demand for people to purchase CC, use them on cartel items, and sell them for in game currency. There is no shortage of packs or hypercrates on the GTN at a given time.

 

I don't think a few people who have posted are clear on the difference between revenues and profits. Spending more money on development has no direct impact on revenues. Profits, yes and that would be a more interesting figure to learn considering the amount of work put into Strongholds and now SoR. I wonder how much went into Galactic Starfighter which does not enjoy much popularity (although I kinda like it sometimes)

 

Timing is critical here. If the data preceeds the release of Strongholds, its less valuable as an indicator of future health of the game because I suspect there wa a significant uptick in revenues at that point. People are buying cartel items, there are tons of Constables and Gatekeepers etc crates on the GTN and I've gone through ...well, alot of them.

 

However the game has performed financially since then, it was encouraging enough to go full speed ahead on the expansion - which thus far looks immensely superior to Makeb and all that nonsense.

 

TLDR: I'm not concerned. Game is fine. There will be ups and downs including Wow's WoD release but they are still supporting it and for the near term, seem like they are fgoing to conitnue to do so.

[Oyranos]

60 euros versus 17 euros... but again, I would prefer a 60 euro expansion for swtor giving me the above.

 

1) Brand new revamp character creator, be who ever you want, the way u want it.

2) 2 new planets (alderaan size)

3) racing arena in 3 different planets - visit each planet stadium to get started

4) built and paint your own racing cart and modify it the way you want it!

5) companion dungeons with a new implementation of companion tir gears (4 of them for each faction)

6) new stories for the companions

7) a new system of picking up companions after 60, pick the one you like most from the 2 new planets.

8) 2 ops, 4 new flashpoints, 2 new pvp areas

9) a conquest planet, including the 2 new pvp areas with heavy artillery and pve zones exclusive for conquest guild battles.

10) 2 new races . (jawas and voss or ewoks, or whatever).

11) lvl increase up to 70 with new stories for each class.

12) New stronghold interactive decorations packs.

13) 2 new season events. (1 for stronghold related and 1 for the new content/planets)

 

I would pay for that 60 euros.

 

Just a question, wow now gets strongholds? Do they also have companions, beyond warlocks? I have to play wow more than 6 years. As far as I know, wow removes all tokens now... they focus on crafting?

Edited November 9, 2014 by Oyranos

[LordArtemis]

Apparently, I am part of the problem. Although, I buy a crapton of cartel items second hand off the GTN so I also create demand for people to purchase CC, use them on cartel items, and sell them for in game currency. There is no shortage of packs or hypercrates on the GTN at a given time.

 

I would like to see things added to the CM that would encourage you to engage in RMT. If you are a part of the problem, you are certainly not representative of the largest problem, but rather represent, IMO, an untapped resource.

 

The main problem that I have is folks that complain about F2P and then only spend money on their sub. Those are the folks I take issue with.

[Lotharofxev]

The main problem that I have is folks that complain about F2P and then only spend money on their sub. Those are the folks I take issue with.

 

Riiight. So the issue isn't the hundreds of thousands who play for free - but rather those who actually do pay $15/month.

[LordArtemis]

Riiight. So the issue isn't the hundreds of thousands who play for free - but rather those who actually do pay $15/month.

 

Your making assumptions. I am explaining the point I made, the specific comment that "If you don't like F2P and you refuse to pay more than 15 dollars a month you are part of the problem".

 

Either your comment is an attempt at a twist to try and demean my opinion, or you simply did not review the thread.

 

I speak of monetization, rates of conversion and ARPPU on a constant basis. Any suggestion to the contrary is ludicrous.

 

This post here has the information you seek, as far as where I see folks fall as far as revenue concerns.

Edited November 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

Silly banter aside, I would like to thank Oyranos, LyraineAlei, Damask_Rose and anyone else I missed for posting what would convince you to spend a bit more.

 

I would like to see more examples from folks.

[annabethchase]

Silly banter aside, I would like to thank Oyranos, LyraineAlei, Damask_Rose and anyone else I missed for posting what would convince you to spend a bit more.

 

I would like to see more examples from folks.

 

Boxed scope content is what would get me to spend more. But I'm a subscriber and already invest $100's a year in the game.

 

Your point is all over the place. Please define what this thead is about

1) the loss of revenue in July to September 2014 vs. 2013 (aka that silly casino clicker update was the worst update ever)

2) the potential to get f2p and non-paying prefereds to pay a little

3) turning subscribers into white whales

 

Please pick one.

[LordArtemis]

Boxed scope content is what would get me to spend more. But I'm a subscriber and already invest $100's a year in the game.

 

Your point is all over the place. Please define what this thead is about

1) the loss of revenue in July to September 2014 vs. 2013 (aka that silly casino clicker update was the worst update ever)

2) the potential to get f2p and non-paying prefereds to pay a little

3) turning subscribers into white whales

 

Please pick one.

 

Fair enough. Here you go.

 

Feel free to discuss your opinions on the OP, or join in on what you would like to see in the CM. Your welcome to do either or none if you wish.

Edited November 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[annabethchase]

Fair enough. Here you go.

 

Feel free to discuss your opinions on the OP, or join in on what you would like to see in the CM. Your welcome to do either or none if you wish.

 

Do you even read my posts? I was one of the very tiny handful of people to address your original post. I actually agree it's time to do similar things to what you said.

 

But your massive number of followup posts have had very little to do with the original post, and frankly nothing to do with the linked reports.

[LordArtemis]

Do you even read my posts? I was one of the very tiny handful of people to address your original post. I actually agree it's time to do similar things to what you said.

 

But your massive number of followup posts have had very little to do with the original post, and frankly nothing to do with the linked reports.

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

First, my apologies. Second, yes. I saw your posts. Thank you.

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7788228#post7788228

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7788484#post7788484

 

I especially appreciate the first one. I should have thanked you as well, sorry I left your name out.

 

And I also apologize for the derailment. I have been trying to respond to folks as they post.

[Drake_Hound]

It happens with every expansion and major change to the game.

People do not see the need to gear or level, since reset is coming.

 

One of the reason am still sub but not playing.

It is not alarming trend to worry about, well for EA it is offcourse cause it is all about $$$$.

But the major change in discipline and things MMO crowd abhor change to a well known system.

 

But this and coupled with a reset of gear and a new level race.

Makes people weary to invest in a uncertain future.

Especially those who came from wow refreshed to find a old system here.

Now am not blaiming discipline cause welldone it can be a break trough everybody need.

DEV and Community . Aside nitpicking changes, the gear reset and race always put people off.

 

It is same as investments longterm you expect stability by now, instead of turmoil gamble.

Would revenus have not declined if they didn't announce discpline probaly not.

Cause preexpansion blue always scares off people, this aside from MMO crowd has not turned into the best of community, gear race always brings certain selfisheness or greed.

Once that greed spots there is no use to commit for now, people drop off.

 

Expansion first 3 months will either show people interest or lack of interest in the future of this product.

[Jandi]

Silly banter aside, I would like to thank Oyranos, LyraineAlei, Damask_Rose and anyone else I missed for posting what would convince you to spend a bit more.

 

I would like to see more examples from folks.

 

I personally refuse to spend CC on gamble boxes and therefore simply make the creds to buy the items I want instead. I have however spent some cash on CC to unlock stuff legacy wide. New customization options is something I would also pay CC for. Give me Lekku wraps, new Miraluka masks that aren't designed for males and look oversized for females or new species and I'll happily spend CC.

 

With so many capped chars and every crafting, I can make so much creds in a day that buying hypercrates would simply be retarded, since 99% of the items in them I've had no interest for.

 

The moment they start selling stats is the moment I stop spending any money however.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Jandi

[Mixcoatl]

I know that gaming sites like to pile on and and grab one small piece of a financial statement to form their opinion on a game(or games), but it's not always that simple. You just can't paint a picture about the financial success or failure of one small part of a large company based on a snippet or blurb.

 

You could also gleam from the information provided that due to deferred payments, the current financial figure for EA's online game segment may look a little worse than it should:

 

At September 30, 2014 , deferred net revenue associated with sales of online-enabled games increased by $230 million as compared to June 30, 2014, directly decreasing the amount of reported net revenue during the three months ended September 30, 2014 . At September 30, 2013 , deferred net revenue associated with sales of online-enabled games increased by $345 million as compared to June 30, 2013, directly decreasing the amount of reported net revenue during the three months ended September 30, 2013 . Disregarding the impact of the deferred net revenue, reported net revenue would have increased by approximately $180 million , or 17 percent , during the three months ended September 30, 2014 as compared to the three months ended September 30, 2013 .

 

Meaning EA has money contractually obligated to them from outside contractors tied to their online games division that has not yet been fulfilled.

[Lotharofxev]

At the end of the day BW / EA has to decide if the hybrid model works for them, or if they plan to go pure P2P. Quite frankly I hate being nickle and dimed to death. Subscription worked for me in EQ, it worked for me in DAOC, RIFT and WoW. It works here. I don't care about aesthetics to the extent of others and that includes SHs and all the eye candy that comes with them.

 

Comes down to cost analysis. $15/month (or whatever) gives me X, Y and Z content and access. If the parent company drops subscriptions and now charges me MORE than $15/month for the same C & A, I'm gone. Quite frankly I think this "expansion" will be a determining factor for many (See DPS thread as to why) insofar as to whether they stay and play or check out SoR then bail after a month. And I'm one of the many.

[LordArtemis]

I personally refuse to spend CC on gamble boxes and therefore simply make the creds to buy the items I want instead. I have however spent some cash on CC to unlock stuff legacy wide. New customization options is something I would also pay CC for. Give me Lekku wraps, new Miraluka masks that aren't designed for males and look oversized for females or new species and I'll happily spend CC.

 

With so many capped chars and every crafting, I can make so much creds in a day that buying hypercrates would simply be retarded, since 99% of the items in them I've had no interest for.

 

The moment they start selling stats is the moment I sell my account however.

 

Thank you. I appreciate the information.

[LordArtemis]

At the end of the day BW / EA has to decide if the hybrid model works for them, or if they plan to go pure P2P. Quite frankly I hate being nickle and dimed to death. Subscription worked for me in EQ, it worked for me in DAOC, RIFT and WoW. It works here. I don't care about aesthetics to the extent of others and that includes SHs and all the eye candy that comes with them.

 

Comes down to cost analysis. $15/month (or whatever) gives me X, Y and Z content and access. If the parent company drops subscriptions and now charges me MORE than $15/month for the same C & A, I'm gone. Quite frankly I think this "expansion" will be a determining factor for many (See DPS thread as to why) insofar as to whether they stay and play or check out SoR then bail after a month. And I'm one of the many.

 

There isnt anything that could be added to the market that would interest you?

[Lotharofxev]

There isnt anything that could be added to the market that would interest you?

 

Sure. As I've said multiple times, they should put EVERYTHING up for sale. But I don't play for the CM.

[LordArtemis]

Sure. As I've said multiple times, they should put EVERYTHING up for sale. But I don't play for the CM.

 

Ah, fair enough. You have said that, sorry I forgot.

 

And I understand. I don't expect folks to dive deep into the CM...I would simply like to hear ways that players might consider spending a bit on the market if they do not normally do so.

 

I figured it is better for other folks to post their lists instead of me posting my own.

[AlaricSevGirl]

I think I pretty clearly enumerated the whys and hows. It is clear you oppose any kind of measures to increase F2P participation, as you and I have had this discussion in the past.

 

As I indicated earlier, and correctly so I might add, subscribers are NOT providing the proper level of revenue. Revenue should rise, not fall substantially as it has. That is always the preferred goal.

 

Content droughts can cause a lack of interest naturally, but so can a lack of desirable consumables in the CM.

 

If someone does not like the idea of F2P but yet only pays 15 a month, IMO they are part of the problem.

 

And you believe that F2P players are providing income to the game. No, they aren't. Income is coming from the subscribers and I'll say this, BW needs to rethink their packs. Income is down because the pack drops are screwed up and people are becoming much smarter when it comes to buying them. BW wants money, they need to give us more value for it.

[LordArtemis]

And you believe that F2P players are providing income to the game. No, they aren't.

 

I very clearly did not say that.

 

I said the proper level of revenue, for the sake of this discussion, as in avoiding revenue loss. AND I clearly stated that there needs to be more things that subs would be willing to spend money on.

 

Income is coming from the subscribers and I'll say this, BW needs to rethink their packs. Income is down because the pack drops are screwed up and people are becoming much smarter when it comes to buying them. BW wants money, they need to give us more value for it.

 

That is accurate and fair IMO.

Edited November 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Vandicus]

I know that gaming sites like to pile on and and grab one small piece of a financial statement to form their opinion on a game(or games), but it's not always that simple. You just can't paint a picture about the financial success or failure of one small part of a large company based on a snippet or blurb.

 

You could also gleam from the information provided that due to deferred payments, the current financial figure for EA's online game segment may look a little worse than it should:

 

 

 

Meaning EA has money contractually obligated to them from outside contractors tied to their online games division that has not yet been fulfilled.

 

SoR revenue from pre-orders should be deferred to next period(or at least should be according to conventional accounting).

 

A portion of subscription fees should be deferred to the next period or next two periods(depending on length), but this kind of rolls along as they're renewed. To some degree the performance in the period just past reflects the interest in the game for the prior 2 periods.

 

I'm not sure how they'd account for purchases of CC that aren't immediately spent(although I assume the period to period change in unspent is relatively immaterial so that should pretty much wash out). I could see them justifying anything from 0 deferral of revenue to treating it like gift cards.

 

 

Businesses can do well in spite of bad practices and do poorly in spite of good practices. Its tempting to take results and conclude they're a direct result of certain decisions(as activist investors are so fond of doing; don't get me wrong they can certainly find flaws in the way a business conducts itself, but even in companies that perform well you can find flaws, its just a lot harder to dislodge management there), but that's a poor way to do analysis.

 

To address LA's suggestions more directly.

Arbitrarily attributing revenue changes to any single particular practice is a poor method to analyze business practices.

 

There are quite a few things we don't know about their revenue for the period.

Is there a material change in reported revenue due to an attempt at smoothing?

Is revenue below or above expectations?(decreased revenue for the project could've been well in line with their expectations given market conditions such as competition)

If revenue did not meet expectations for the period, what segments of their revenue were underperforming or delivering superior performance?

Are any of these differences material in size?

 

Missing this kind of data makes it difficult to attribute revenue changes to any of their current practices.

 

To address your suggestions individually(and independent of supposing that the revenue decrease was a result of existing practices):

 

1. CM items appear inflated in price because they charge a exclusivity premium(which is related to their repeatedly retiring purchase options from the market). This is more thoroughly addressed when discussing point 4 below.

 

Adding more convenience options in the CM would increase revenue. It'd cost more than what it costs to develop cosmetics, as the convenience options require more diverse changes to the game, but some resources may be underutilized anyways(like QA testing; though the Shadow Realms team is allegedly absorbing a lot of the Austin team's excess capacity already). This does have the possibility of being beneficial.

 

 

2. Biggest reason to have f2pers and preferred is churn, second biggest is to populate the game. Your suggestion trades off subscriber revenue(in the long-term and recurring segment of the community) for more fresh subscriber revenue. Functionally, your suggestion is little different from a life-time subscription option(a one-time payment), which while having debatable benefits for a business(good if you don't expect to be able to maintain your current subscriber base, bad if you expect to keep it relatively stable), has inevitable long-term consequences for the community.

 

Because it front-loads revenue(which is independent of future content) by sacrificing future revenue(which depends on the continuous release of content), this continuously decreases the incentive to develop new content or listen to community feedback(the reason gamers object to games having a lifetime-subscription option).

 

3. Packs are generally the best way to deliver cosmetics(and often-times other desirable items). Direct sales methods really don't outperform it. The way they've set it up so that you can acquire items through intermediaries(the GTN) allows them to collect whatever small upside their might be on direct sales as well.

 

4. Maintaining too large of a sales catalog rapidly loses its benefit. 200,000 possible options has very little benefit to a consumer over 200 possible options, which has a small benefit to the consumer over 50 possible options(a simplification, but useful for explanation) . Losing the additional revenue from continuously having a large offering is most likely more than offset by the additional exclusivity premium that they attach to available items.

 

LA's suggestions aren't novel, and for the most part are already widely understood. The practices being employed are generally held to be superior to the ones that were suggested(within context).

 

The suggestion that remains which could be seen as viable is to expand the operations of the CM(to cover the development of additional convenience features to be put up for sale).

 

However, we don't know how much such a project would return, nor do we know what the other projects that EA, or more likely the management of this segment, have available to them.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Vandicus

[LordArtemis]

LA's suggestions aren't novel, and for the most part are already widely understood. The practices being employed are generally held to be superior to the ones that were suggested(within context).

 

The suggestion that remains which could be seen as viable is to expand the operations of the CM(to cover the development of additional convenience features to be put up for sale).

 

However, we don't know how much such a project would return, nor do we know what the other projects that EA, or more likely the management of this segment, have available to them.

 

A fair point.