Elracor Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) So much wrong in your post.. reread what I linked.. http://www.swtorstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/top-10-superdata.jpg Please tell me where it says based on micro transactions.... hint its doesn't it was world wide just like yours does. So we used the same source and they put out 2 different numbers.. well then that would mean that this source it unreliable. It states Free to Play earnings in the title. That implies microtransactions as that is mainly how the Free to Play concept generates an income. Looking at microtransactions is also why World of Warcraft is on the list at all. It is clearly not total revenue as otherwise WoW would top the list by miles, their result of $213million is exclusively what they earned from their microtransaction services (pets, mounts, changing name/faction/server/race/appearence). Edited March 12, 2015 by MFollin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) It states Free to Play earnings in the title. That implies microtransactions as that is mainly how the Free to Play concept generates an income. Looking at microtransactions is also why World of Warcraft is on the list at all. It is clearly not total revenue as otherwise WoW would top the list by miles, their result of $213million is exclusively what they earned from their microtransaction services (pets, mounts, changing name/faction/server/race/appearence). /sigh... Point is that it doesn't say micro transactions... which you jumped all over me on. But it is a good point on why PW isn't listed up there. 500+ million and the bulk of that is through there Z-Store and micro transactions. Given they do not release individual game income amounts they couldn't list PW. Though I did notice you ignored the rest of the post Who knows maybe EA will get sued by the UK and EU and there total F2P system will have to change... Edited March 12, 2015 by Happy_Puppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elracor Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) /sigh... Point is that it doesn't say micro transactions... which you jumped all over me on. But it is a good point on why PW isn't listed up there. 500+ million and the bulk of that is through there Z-Store and micro transactions. Given they do not release individual game income amounts they couldn't list PW. Though I did notice you ignored the rest of the post Who knows maybe EA will get sued by the UK and EU and there total F2P system will have to change... You do realize I'm not the same poster as the one you quoted previously (Ghisallo)? I only commented on part of your post as that part was extraordinarily stupid, and I'm sure Ghisallo or Ratajack will comment on the other parts. You're grasping at straws at best here and the rest of the time you're just spamming lies. Edited March 12, 2015 by MFollin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) /sigh... Point is that it doesn't say micro transactions... which you jumped all over me on. But it is a good point on why PW isn't listed up there. 500+ million and the bulk of that is through there Z-Store and micro transactions. Given they do not release individual game income amounts they couldn't list PW. Though I did notice you ignored the rest of the post Who knows maybe EA will get sued by the UK and EU and there total F2P system will have to change... First it says "F2P earnings on the top.". Second the two charts are by the same source, Super Data Research, from the same time frame. (You missed that didn't you?) If you look you see " f2p earnings" on the one and then top earning subscription games on the other. Additionally in EVERY article that talks about the "f2p earnings" they say "cartel market" is the source of the revenue. Here is the quote from Super Data Research noted in the articles showing the lone chart you are hanging your hat on.. Despite its chronic subscriber loss, World of Warcraft managed to generate $213 million in micro-transaction sales in 2013. Similarly, Star Wars: The Old Republic earned $139 million in additional revenues, In the fine print of the later (165 million) chart... Again from the same source stating the 165 million is from the grand total of micro-transations,, sales and subscription fees. As such we have Star wars, per the source you are using as well, saying they made 139 million off the cartel market and then an additional 26 million from subscriptions, games sales etc. The two charts were from two topics illustrating two different things. 1 the over all Subscription based line up for 2013 and 2. How just the micron transaction model alone is shaping up in the same time frame. As SWTOR is a hybrid it falls into both studies due to its performance that year. So again... You are wrong because you are cherry picking data with the expressed purpose of trying to prove a preconceived theory. They call this "confirmation bias." Edited March 12, 2015 by Ghisallo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elracor Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) No it wasn't given the one I link never said micro transaction you ****.. nor did the parent article. http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2014/10/swtor-revenues-climb-over-100-million-for-2014.html So I went by what the article said... Sadly for you, the article expects the reader to have just a tiny bit of intelligence to understand what Free-to-play earnings is, and that is obviously too much for you to handle. Edited March 12, 2015 by MFollin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 First it says "F2P earnings on the top.". Second the two charts are by the same source, Super Data Research, from the same time frame. (You missed that didn't you?) If you look you see " f2p earnings" on the one and then top earning subscription games on the other. Additionally in EVERY article that talks about the "f2p earnings" they say "cartel market" is the source of the revenue. Here is the quote from Super Data Research noted in the articles showing the lone chart you are hanging your hat on.. In the fine print of the later (165 million) chart... Again from the same source stating the 165 million is from the grand total of micro-transations,, sales and subscription fees. As such we have Star wars, per the source you are using as well, saying they made 139 million off the cartel market and then an additional 26 million from subscriptions, games sales etc. So again... You are wrong. If you want to continue to myopically cherry pick data to make yourself feel free but in your continued insistence in doing so you are only making yourself look foolish. No I did not miss that.. I was reading the parent article.. It did not state micro transactions. You mean just like you did with your UK article... as the whole article had to do with non-free to play games adding micro transactions. "Although this would only apply to the UK the OFT is already speaking to international regulators about the issue. Back in February publisher EA caused controversy amongst gamers when an exec implied that all its future games would feature microtransactions and that, ‘consumers are enjoying that way of the business’. He later clarified that he was only talking about mobile and web games. Just weeks later EA courted further controversy for smartphone game Real Racing 3, which featured some of the most restrictive microtransactions yet and received a critical drubbing as a result." A quote from your so called scam article.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Sadly for you, the article expects the reader to have just a tiny bit of intelligence to understand what Free-to-play earnings is, and that is obviously too much for you to handle. Well thing is if you show just a little attention to detail and read the entire article you see it is referring to micro transactions. Problem is doing this means a preconceived theory is at a minimum inconvenienced. The theory he is trying to put forward is that true f2p (which has never existed) by some miracle will mean more money. It doesn't. Every example of a successful AAA game with micro transactions has some mechanism to get you to pay them. Whether its gated content, subscriber benefits, faster acquisition of and/or better gear. They all do it. The difference is some games are better at conning the players into thinking otherwise. At least EA is honest about it and that is the issue in the EU. Its not that the game isn't exactly free... The regulators are having issues with lack of transparency on the issue and like their model or not SWTOR is pretty transparent when it comes to their model. Edited March 12, 2015 by Ghisallo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FerkWork Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Dang dude it's imprssive how you keep going day after day. It's like a 1 man crusade up in here. I think even the OP gave up on this thread long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 No I did not miss that.. I was reading the parent article.. It did not state micro transactions. You mean just like you did with your UK article... as the whole article had to do with non-free to play games adding micro transactions. "Although this would only apply to the UK the OFT is already speaking to international regulators about the issue. Back in February publisher EA caused controversy amongst gamers when an exec implied that all its future games would feature microtransactions and that, ‘consumers are enjoying that way of the business’. He later clarified that he was only talking about mobile and web games. Just weeks later EA courted further controversy for smartphone game Real Racing 3, which featured some of the most restrictive microtransactions yet and received a critical drubbing as a result." A quote from your so called scam article.... I like how you so transparently ignored the quote from the charts source specifically stating the chart is regarding micro-transactions and instead go to bits of subjective views on f2p models. You have done nothing but move goal posts, avoiding the fact you were wrong about what revenue types the charts were referring to and going to parts of an article referring only to subjective views and opinions. If you want to debate subjective views and opinions of f2p that's fine. However so far when it comes to objective data supporting your point you have claimed people are wrong and have been proven wrong yourself. Rather than avoiding and rather cknowledging your errors in terms of the fact GW2 was losing money in 2013 as opposed to the same leriod in 2012 and the issues with your avoidance (or misunderstanding) of the difference between f2p revenue and total revenue for a subscription/f2p hybrid game may be a good first first step to reestablishing some level of credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Please show were where it says one time micro transactions.. ill post the whole thing... if you show me those word "micro transactions" ill drop it. Superdata research released yet another report looking at the most popular Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) games. In the past, the same firm had published information relating to the top 10 PC games by free-to-play earnings for 2013 which set SWToR at no.8 with $139 million right behind World Of Warcraft with $213 million. This report, in addition to others, signaled a come-back for Bioware’s first attempt at MMOs and was source of excitement for fans of the game. The latest report released covers January to September 2014 and looks at the top 10 MMOs by revenue for the year. While SWToR didn’t make the top 10, it still remains at a respectable no.12 with $106 million in revenue, right behind Elder Scrolls Online with $111 Million. Keeping in mind that Shadow of Revan is yet to be released, one would expect to see a significant increase over the last 3 months of the year. Financial performance for a title is certainly a good indicator of its health. The trend of good news seem to be continuing for SWToR and that’s a great development. Reading through the recent information released, Bioware is speeding up development of new content and has renewed confidence on the title’s success after some initial bumps on the road that lead to the Free-to-Play change. The future is starting to look a little bit brighter for SWToR fans… Wow... Non-sequitur... I say this because the previous articles where for FY 2013 and you pull out one for 2014. That said here is the issue... In the 2013 chart Super Data called it the F2p chart, then in Super Data's analysis they specified micro-transactions (the quote I included that also referenced WoW...that was a direct quote from the Original source, Super Data Research explaining their chart). Also In you own article it says... ....top 10 PC games by free-to-play earningsfor 2013 which set SWToR at no.8 with $139 million[ right behind World Of Warcraft with $213 million. See that underlined bit "BY free-to-play earnings". That is straight up telling you it is not including box sales and subscriptions and only the earnings that are part of micro-transactions... but again don't take my word for it...go to the quote I posted about how Super Data themselves called it " micro-transaction" revenue. You are getting things confused because you are trying to defend a subjective position. Super Data makes money off of doing detailed market analysis. Part of that is by figuring out total revenue and where that revenue is derived from etc. So they will say "okay WoW and SWTOR are hybrid games. They made X from micro transactions in one article and Y from all sources combined" in another article.. Only by doing a detailed analysis like this can they ever hope to justify the fees they charge for a copy of their full market analysis report ( They charge over 2 grand for a complete report. All the stuff we have access too are the highlights on their blog) Edited March 12, 2015 by Ghisallo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Wow... Non-sequitur... I say this because the previous articles where for FY 2013 and you pull out one for 2014. its says on the chart 2013 you ******* as I already tried to explain there is a difference between fiscal and physical years when it comes to business. That said here is the issue... In the 2013 chart Super Data called it the F2p chart, then in Super Data's analysis they specified micro-transactions (the quote I included that also referenced WoW...that was a direct quote from the Original source, Super Data Research explaining their chart). Also In you own article it says... See that underlined bit "BY free-to-play earnings". That is straight up telling you it is not including box sales and subscriptions and only the earnings that are part of micro-transactions... but again don't take my word for it...go to the quote I posted about how Super Data themselves called it " micro-transaction" revenue. the chart listed is from then and does not say micro-tranactions, the article never one time says micro transactions You are getting things confused because you are trying to defend a subjective position. Super Data makes money off of doing detailed market analysis. Part of that is by figuring out total revenue and where that revenue is derived from etc. So they will say "okay WoW and SWTOR are hybrid games. They made X from micro transactions in one article and Y from all sources combined.". They aren't about defending one over they other (and they better not be... They charge over 2 grand for a complete report.) I'm not getting it confused we are just arguing different sides of the same coin... its also why I stated that we have no idea what PW income reports are and Super Data doesn't know as they do not release break downs of there games. The problem with this type of argument, is its very subjective.. total accounts, total subs, life time accounts created, active accounts.. its all subjective to company reports that are designed to show themselves in the best light. the FACTS are all the games that have been brought up have active player bases from SWTOR to STO to GW2.. that's about all we can say. All other things are subjective.. Edited March 12, 2015 by Happy_Puppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I like how you so transparently ignored the quote from the charts source specifically stating the chart is regarding micro-transactions and instead go to bits of subjective views on f2p models. You have done nothing but move goal posts, avoiding the fact you were wrong about what revenue types the charts were referring to and going to parts of an article referring only to subjective views and opinions. If you want to debate subjective views and opinions of f2p that's fine. However so far when it comes to objective data supporting your point you have claimed people are wrong and have been proven wrong yourself. Rather than avoiding and rather cknowledging your errors in terms of the fact GW2 was losing money in 2013 as opposed to the same leriod in 2012 and the issues with your avoidance (or misunderstanding) of the difference between f2p revenue and total revenue for a subscription/f2p hybrid game may be a good first first step to reestablishing some level of credibility. Good lord... Its not subjective... they out right said why there was a investigation and it was do to EA saying that ALL there games were to have micro transactions.. and then EA came back with saying they meant only there online games. The issue was like if you bought Battle Field 4 and you wanted to play online you had to pay a monthly fee even though on the box it doesn't say that. That's the type of issue they were dealing witih. GW2 is not losing money.. losing money mean negative income.. they are not operating in the RED /facepalm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrr_hypernova Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 ah the forums where the true TOR pvp takes place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 ah the forums where the true TOR pvp takes place... LoL... good one.. Well there isn't much to do after you do your dailies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Good lord... Its not subjective... they out right said why there was a investigation and it was do to EA saying that ALL there games were to have micro transactions.. and then EA came back with saying they meant only there online games. The issue was like if you bought Battle Field 4 and you wanted to play online you had to pay a monthly fee even though on the box it doesn't say that. That's the type of issue they were dealing witih. GW2 is not losing money.. losing money mean negative income.. they are not operating in the RED /facepalm First the quotes you included were NOT directly related to the investigation... the objective actions taken in the UK are A LOT more complicated and involved everyone from Google to Microsoft as well. Secondly I never said that GW 2 was entering a deficit...what I said was that they lost money when compared to the revenue of the prior year.... They went down to 32 million from over 100 million in the same period the year before. This is considered a "loss". As for the money made by SWTOR in 2013... 139 million in micro...165 total... Of course what it means is subjective. Hell go back to when I first posted the numbers... I said it was subjective... That it becomes a " it all depends on your point of view" argument. Here is why I posted them. In 2013 they were firmly in the top 10. In 2011 they are just outside the top 10. In either case they rank higher than GW2 and STO. So if you are going to simply use total revenue as the metric of whose model is more successful...one must say SWTOR's is more successful. Now you can try to argue that even it it does make more money, it is not as player friendly...no problem. If you could find out how much annually each game took to run (which we can't saddly) you could maybe argue that even though it makes more gross profit it's net is lower. The only reason I posted the data was because you said there was NO data that one could use to say that GW2 or STO were/are failing in comparison to SWTOR. My point was only to say there was data that would allow someone to make the argument...not that said argument was 100% fact. Where we go with the data is indeed subjective. I said this from the beginning. Instead of accepting my "it all depends on your point of view" point, which miraculously you are making now, you then went on for how many pages trying to prove the numbers I posted as being wrong. The numbers themselves are clearly correct and now you are trying to change avoid that fact by changing directions yet again. Edited March 12, 2015 by Ghisallo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Oh and BTW.... Despite its chronic subscriber loss, World of Warcraft managed to generate $213 million in micro-transaction sales in 2013. Similarly, Star Wars: The Old Republic earned $139 million in additional revenues, This is From Super Data's explanation of the chart... It is in the http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2014/01/swtors-cartel-market-rakes-in-139-million-dollars-in-2013.html article. So yes the article not only says it but says... "Here’s a quote from the article:" before it when referring to Super Data's publication. Are you sure you are reading these articles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Oh and BTW.... This is From Super Data's explanation of the chart... It is in the http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2014/01/swtors-cartel-market-rakes-in-139-million-dollars-in-2013.html article. So yes the article not only says it but says... "Here’s a quote from the article:" before it when referring to Super Data's publication. Are you sure you are reading these articles? /sigh.. the article I linked.. was everything it said.. so again where does it say it.. it does not. That was the article I read and linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 First the quotes you included were NOT directly related to the investigation... the objective actions taken in the UK are A LOT more complicated and involved everyone from Google to Microsoft as well. Secondly I never said that GW 2 was entering a deficit...what I said was that they lost money when compared to the revenue of the prior year.... They went down to 32 million from over 100 million in the same period the year before. This is considered a "loss". As for the money made by SWTOR in 2013... 139 million in micro...165 total... Of course what it means is subjective. Hell go back to when I first posted the numbers... I said it was subjective... That it becomes a " it all depends on your point of view" argument. Here is why I posted them. In 2013 they were firmly in the top 10. In 2011 they are just outside the top 10. In either case they rank higher than GW2 and STO. So if you are going to simply use total revenue as the metric of whose model is more successful...one must say SWTOR's is more successful. Now you can try to argue that even it it does make more money, it is not as player friendly...no problem. If you could find out how much annually each game took to run (which we can't saddly) you could maybe argue that even though it makes more gross profit it's net is lower. The only reason I posted the data was because you said there was NO data that one could use to say that GW2 or STO were/are failing in comparison to SWTOR. My point was only to say there was data that would allow someone to make the argument...not that said argument was 100% fact. Where we go with the data is indeed subjective. I said this from the beginning. Instead of accepting my "it all depends on your point of view" point, which miraculously you are making now, you then went on for how many pages trying to prove the numbers I posted as being wrong. The numbers themselves are clearly correct and now you are trying to change avoid that fact by changing directions yet again. No the amount of income wasn't what really started this it was the number of accounts as PW does not release what there games make so you CAN NOT use income as a test on what is better given you only have 50% of the information. The total accounts vs life time accounts vs active accounts is totally subjective. Both companies fluff there numbers. The problem with F2P like STO vs F2P model like SWTOR is that SWTOR do to its restrictions forces people to invest more money where as STO gives much more for free. So you could have a issue with STO having 2.5 million accounts active while SWTOR only has 2 million but given how the games are structured SWTOR could make more income with less active subs. We just do not have hard numbers to make a 100% claim on any of it. As I said the only real FACT is that both games have relatively large player bases... compared to EVE which is considered a successful MMO but has a fraction of active players compared to STO or SWTOR or GW2. As far as GW2 it did not take a loss.. your using the wrong terminology. It took in less revenue then the year before but its a buy to play game. It doesn't have subs to lose.. the only way it can lose revenue is that its operation costs are greater then its in take for the year. AS its a totally different business model. Its like trying to compare a car rental company to a car dealership. Given that though they have shown much greater support for there product then EA has. they have done more in content in a year then SWTOR has in 3 years. Though that's a different issue.. that goes under what the heck is EA doing with SWTOR's revenue as it doesn't appear to be reinvesting it back in to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilvius Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 ESO is turning in to a B2P with micro transactions you are right in that regard. But its not like GW2.. GW2 is pretty close to only cosmetic with a few qul sprinkled in and was built to be a B2P game. ESO is turning into one mainly do to the console part. This was do in part to criticism in having to pay for gold or plus sub from Microsoft and sony and then ESO charge another 15 a month on top of that. From what I have read its a hybrid B2P/micro transaction game. As for as SWTOR.. there is no reason for it to change to a B2P... ESO tanked hard and fast.. they almost became another APO story.. so this is a way to recover and start fresh with them changing there business model for the console crowd. Well your right about SWTOR making more money then GW2. /sigh... I really don't know what I want with this game now. I absolutely love this game! I love the setting it is in but I've been jerked around by EA that I kinda wish I didn't have to support the game by subbing anymore. Sounds like a rant but what I mean by that is that when they released Australian servers for this game, It was really awesome. Great ping for competitive PvP and PvE. The game was enjoyable and this was going to be my MMO till whenever. Now they have closed Australian servers for good, we had to be merged to a US server, I lose my characters names, I lose my legacy name, I need to pay US exchange rates to buy a sub instead of buying a game card here in Aus and most of all which really ticks me off is now I have to play with a high ping and I cannot enjoy anything as I go ranked PvP and Im to blame for the lose coz of my lousy "execution". I get strung up even if I tell my situation with ping and my predictability. I get put as public enemy number one and no one wants to PvP with me. Bloked and ignored. I could go to The Harbinger server where most other Aussies are but you know what? There are US players banking on the fact that they have a ping advantage over us and they decimate in PvP. It hurts that I can't be as good as I can be when ping plays a factor. I could pay for "battleping" service or whatever other tunneling service to improve ping but that really doesn't help. Im at the point now that I'll come back to SWTOR when a new expansion comes out to play the story, pay for 3 months and level up my toons and experience the next chaper of the story, maybe buy some stuff in CM in that 3 months and just unsub after that till next expansion. Sure, sure you know third world problems right? Thats the reason why I hoped this game would be somewhat similar to GW2 and soon ESO in the business department. Keep the Cartel Market, keep the subs and just add more benefits to subbing but lose the escrow credit restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Well your right about SWTOR making more money then GW2. /sigh... I really don't know what I want with this game now. I absolutely love this game! I love the setting it is in but I've been jerked around by EA that I kinda wish I didn't have to support the game by subbing anymore. Sounds like a rant but what I mean by that is that when they released Australian servers for this game, It was really awesome. Great ping for competitive PvP and PvE. The game was enjoyable and this was going to be my MMO till whenever. Now they have closed Australian servers for good, we had to be merged to a US server, I lose my characters names, I lose my legacy name, I need to pay US exchange rates to buy a sub instead of buying a game card here in Aus and most of all which really ticks me off is now I have to play with a high ping and I cannot enjoy anything as I go ranked PvP and Im to blame for the lose coz of my lousy "execution". I get strung up even if I tell my situation with ping and my predictability. I get put as public enemy number one and no one wants to PvP with me. Bloked and ignored. I could go to The Harbinger server where most other Aussies are but you know what? There are US players banking on the fact that they have a ping advantage over us and they decimate in PvP. It hurts that I can't be as good as I can be when ping plays a factor. I could pay for "battleping" service or whatever other tunneling service to improve ping but that really doesn't help. Im at the point now that I'll come back to SWTOR when a new expansion comes out to play the story, pay for 3 months and level up my toons and experience the next chaper of the story, maybe buy some stuff in CM in that 3 months and just unsub after that till next expansion. Sure, sure you know third world problems right? Thats the reason why I hoped this game would be somewhat similar to GW2 and soon ESO in the business department. Keep the Cartel Market, keep the subs and just add more benefits to subbing but lose the escrow credit restrictions. Ya being Aussie that's got to hurt.... But many of us had name change issues. The bulk of my toons were on a pretty dead server.. the week before free transfers started there were only 16 imps logged for the whole server on a Tuesday raid night it was that dead. When I transferred many of my names were taken.. I had to use ALT codes to get my names back same with my legacy.. which sucked as I had a original Pendragon legacy name on my server I was not thrilled I had to ALT code it when I transferred. The ping issue though.. being state side I do not have to deal with it but I have known a few Aussies and it does suck given there is no way to get around the high ping issue. Sad part is that I do not think ever you will see a pacific server. So you got a double whammy... but still it still worth supporting the game if you like it. There is not one F2P mmo that I have not at least paid something into if I decided I liked it. I feel if you get enjoyment out of it then you should invest into it. Edited March 12, 2015 by Happy_Puppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 /sigh.. the article I linked.. was everything it said.. so again where does it say it.. it does not. That was the article I read and linked. I quoted the portion from that article AND underlined it... I really don't know what more I can do in the face of your willful blindness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) I quoted the portion from that article AND underlined it... I really don't know what more I can do in the face of your willful blindness. you underlined something not even from the article I linked... good lord man.. wake the hell up lol Here lets post the whole article again... Superdata research released yet another report looking at the most popular Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) games. In the past, the same firm had published information relating to the top 10 PC games by free-to-play earnings for 2013 which set SWToR at no.8 with $139 million right behind World Of Warcraft with $213 million. This report, in addition to others, signaled a come-back for Bioware’s first attempt at MMOs and was source of excitement for fans of the game. The latest report released covers January to September 2014 and looks at the top 10 MMOs by revenue for the year. While SWToR didn’t make the top 10, it still remains at a respectable no.12 with $106 million in revenue, right behind Elder Scrolls Online with $111 Million. Keeping in mind that Shadow of Revan is yet to be released, one would expect to see a significant increase over the last 3 months of the year. Financial performance for a title is certainly a good indicator of its health. The trend of good news seem to be continuing for SWToR and that’s a great development. Reading through the recent information released, Bioware is speeding up development of new content and has renewed confidence on the title’s success after some initial bumps on the road that lead to the Free-to-Play change. The future is starting to look a little bit brighter for SWToR fans… So please oh enlightened one.. show me where it says micro transactions... that you totally false underlined/quoted. Edit: the original link http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2014/10/swtor-revenues-climb-over-100-million-for-2014.html Edited March 12, 2015 by Happy_Puppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heat-Wave Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 you underlined something not even from the article I linked... good lord man.. wake the hell up lol Here lets post the whole article again... Superdata research released yet another report looking at the most popular Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) games. In the past, the same firm had published information relating to the top 10 PC games by free-to-play earnings for 2013 which set SWToR at no.8 with $139 million right behind World Of Warcraft with $213 million. This report, in addition to others, signaled a come-back for Bioware’s first attempt at MMOs and was source of excitement for fans of the game. The latest report released covers January to September 2014 and looks at the top 10 MMOs by revenue for the year. While SWToR didn’t make the top 10, it still remains at a respectable no.12 with $106 million in revenue, right behind Elder Scrolls Online with $111 Million. Keeping in mind that Shadow of Revan is yet to be released, one would expect to see a significant increase over the last 3 months of the year. Financial performance for a title is certainly a good indicator of its health. The trend of good news seem to be continuing for SWToR and that’s a great development. Reading through the recent information released, Bioware is speeding up development of new content and has renewed confidence on the title’s success after some initial bumps on the road that lead to the Free-to-Play change. The future is starting to look a little bit brighter for SWToR fans… So please oh enlightened one.. show me where it says micro transactions... that you totally false underlined/quoted. Edit: the original link http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2014/10/swtor-revenues-climb-over-100-million-for-2014.html That whole source is quite questionable... It says for 2013 World of Warcraft did $213 million of revenue. That is nuts, WoW does MUCH more than that... http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/07/19/world-of-warcraft-still-a-1b-powerhouse-even-as-subscription-mmos-decline/ WoW brings in over a billion dollars a year, it is probably 50% of the entire MMO market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy_Puppy Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 That whole source is quite questionable... It says for 2013 World of Warcraft did $213 million of revenue. That is nuts, WoW does MUCH more than that... http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/07/19/world-of-warcraft-still-a-1b-powerhouse-even-as-subscription-mmos-decline/ WoW brings in over a billion dollars a year, it is probably 50% of the entire MMO market. That's the issue.. its was only showing free to play transactions but did a horrid job relating that. It referred to SWTOR as if it was the total income when in fact its missing 30 mill from subs. So agree they worded it very badly. My point to Ghisallo was that in the article I read there they never said micro transactions in the article I linked.. then he underlines some quote from some different article and name calls that some how I'm blind to a quote that was never there in the article I linked. So I was calling him out again on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts