SWTOR $1 million decrease in subscription

[Eshvara]

Well I guess thats a Star Wars thing, people seem to come to this game for RP. I have a friend in a RP guild on Progenitor and when i see what they are doing when playing swtor i just shake my head. Imagine a room in the Coruscant senate tower with a big table and chairs, there you see around 40 people sitting and standing and RPing. Its crazy!! They are not the only ones, those people are the majority in the game.

 

They dont visit swtor forums, but tor-fashion to see how to dress for the event or occasion. The game has raiders, but it mainly has such people.

 

Yeah, it's funny how active the progenitor is with people doing nothing of what the game offers. I guess that's just what rp'rs do, chat!

When I was levelling on Tyhthon for my DvL event there were like 20 people pretending to be real padawans in training with others being masters and everything.

 

It's an odd sight to say the least. But then I'm not an rp fan.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Eshvara

[DarthDymond]

Well I guess thats a Star Wars thing, people seem to come to this game for RP. I have a friend in a RP guild on Progenitor and when i see what they are doing when playing swtor i just shake my head. Imagine a room in the Coruscant senate tower with a big table and chairs, there you see around 40 people sitting and standing and RPing. Its crazy!! They are not the only ones, those people are the majority in the game.

 

They dont visit swtor forums, but tor-fashion to see how to dress for the event or occasion. The game has raiders, but it mainly has such people.

I think actual RPers are probably a minority of the population on par with dedicated PVPers - if there is a majority of (remaining) players it's probably those who are here to play through the solo-able story. Which is probably why BW made the ongoing solo story the centerpiece of the forthcoming and most recent expansions.

 

If I were to wrap the evolution of SWTOR in a nice, neat, radically oversimplified narrative, it would be this:

 

 

• When SWTOR launched, it had an influx of players from three main sources:
  (1) Star Wars fans who saw a new Star Wars game;
  (2) Fans of KOTOR who were looking for this game to be KOTOR 3, 4, 5, 6... etc., all rolled into one as BW claimed it would be;
  (3) MMO fans who were looking for a shiney new MMO, perhaps one with a sci-fi / Star Wars coating in particular.
  
• Most of Group (3) left, first in a mass exodus in the first six months when SWTOR didn't launch with enough endgame to satisfy them right out the gate, then more gradually as the "traditional MMO content" BW was able to provide failed to keep them interested for long.
  
• The remaining players, on balance, appear to BW to be primarily comprised of the remaining Group (2) players, and remaining Group (1) players who are more likely to spend their time on the solo story game than the other content.
  
• Now, BW is mainly focusing its resources on providing Group (2) with what that Group initially wanted to keep them around, and hoping it will keep a chunk of Group (1) around, too. Beyond that they'll throw an occasional bone to keep around some of the last remnants of Group (3), or in a half-hearted attempt to lure some back, but not much.
  

Edited November 16, 2016 by DarthDymond

[Damask_Rose]

Sure, I was questioning the way how we got this HUGE majority (it was probably majority even during the rich times, but not that big)

 

It's a matter of cause and effect. It seems like Bioware looks at the effects without factoring in the causes.

 

Back in the day, before we had groupfinder and server transfers, people had trouble getting groups, so not much group content was done. People who wanted group content left in frustration. That turned into a snowball rolling downhill. The more group content players left, the harder it got to get groups on rapidly depopulating servers for those who stayed.

 

At that time I was on a relatively healthy pvp server. Pvp had its matchmaking so it was easier to get into warzones. The big pvp concern at the time was getting ranked started. The day before ranked was supposed to go live, it was announced that it wouldn't after all. My server dropped 2/3s of its population overnight. When ranked finally launched they announced it would only be 4 man death matches and not the 8 man objecteive pvp that most preferred. That resulted in another big shed of dedicated pvpers.

 

TL;DR Story players got to this huge majority because Bioware drove large numbers of group players & pvp players away by their slow responses to critical issues, poor descisions & lack of new content in those nitches.

[peter_plankskull]

Imagine youre working at Bioware (and suck at playing swtor ) and you see the numbers in front of you:

 

500 people do operations

500 people do PVP

50 people do GSF

50 000 people are leveling characters

 

what would you next steps be as for the game content? Since majority of the people are leveling toons or in other words "doing the story" that is what you should give the people! After SoR there was no content. People either left or leveled toons out of boredom! We were 10 ppl in our guild at that time and from those 7 leveled toons out of boredem, played the stories, did different choices etc.

 

So thats why the game is going that direction. The 1050 people cant shout louder than the 50k ppl

 

Biased metrics!!!

 

Of course when operations and GSF haven't gotten content in two years or more, and with bugs running rampant along with terrible class balance, not many people are going to play them. Of course story is going to trump other numbers since its the main focus receiving not only the main focus of content, but sometimes being the only source of content for months on end.

[curulz]

It's a matter of cause and effect. It seems like Bioware looks at the effects without factoring in the causes.

 

TL;DR Story players got to this huge majority because Bioware drove large numbers of group players & pvp players away by their slow responses to critical issues, poor descisions & lack of new content in those nitches.

 

Bingo!

Edited November 16, 2016 by curulz

[Jadescythe]

The game isn't shutting down tomorrow, even if half the subs left, so that doesn't mean much...

 

Note: I think you misunderstood the $1 million loss... How do you know that SWGOH didn't gain $10 million and SWTOR lost $11 million? That would be a $1 million loss, but a massive drop for SWTOR.

 

It specifically stated that their gains were offset by a $1 million loss, not that they had a net loss. They had a net gain as a company, but did have some areas that went down, specifically naming SWTOR. At most, SWTOR lost $1 million, but since they didn't attribute it entirely to SWTOR it had to be $999,999.00 or less, most likely significantly less.

[PlasmaJohn]

It specifically stated that their gains were offset by a $1 million loss, not that they had a net loss. They had a net gain as a company, but did have some areas that went down, specifically naming SWTOR. At most, SWTOR lost $1 million, but since they didn't attribute it entirely to SWTOR it had to be $999,999.00 or less, most likely significantly less.

What other games does EA have that are subscription based? Regardless it's easy to infer that since they were the ones called out they're at least responsible for half of the shrinkage. So somewhere between 500k and 1M.

 

Their prospects aren't great. All their potential audience knows is that they're getting a sequel to a weak story with a promise to talk about possible playable content plans. Anybody that cares about end-game will take one look at the CXP disaster and laugh.

 

Unless they do a serious rethink they're headed for another mention.

[Jadescythe]

What other games does EA have that are subscription based? Regardless it's easy to infer that since they were the ones called out they're at least responsible for half of the shrinkage. So somewhere between 500k and 1M.

 

Their prospects aren't great. All their potential audience knows is that they're getting a sequel to a weak story with a promise to talk about possible playable content plans. Anybody that cares about end-game will take one look at the CXP disaster and laugh.

 

Unless they do a serious rethink they're headed for another mention.

 

Not really related to my post. I was merely pointing out to the person I replied to that there was no way that SWTOR could have lost more than $1 million based on the language in the report. But honestly, if they lost a million dollars in sub revenue, that would be 20k+ subscribers lost in a game with ~400k subscribers.

[Alssaran]

The terminology was still correct, even in the context it was used.

 

The terminology was incorrectly used because he is trying to construct factual evidence for his theory.

 

An economic loss would be the difference between the projected/gross return and the planned investment into the product. If you still turn a profit with the same amount of investment, you haven't lost money. Your revenue/profit has decreased. The terminology is important for economic forecasts, and the two words are not synonymous in economic plans and predictions.

 

If EA would have lost money on SWTOR, that's what the report would state.

 

A loss of money is losing out on money you already had or could have had if you had done other things resulting in a reasonably sure income - not gaining an investment to offset the cost of the project, outright losing money you already had, or you opted to make 30,000$ with the option to go for 35,000$. Those 5,000$ would be defined as an economic loss.

 

A decrease in revenue is still defined as being able to turn a profit.

 

You can defend TUX all you want, but it still doesn't make his desired statement and opportunity true. Those definitions are very important factors in financial plans and business discussions. He is trying to construct this as a matter of EA losing money on the project, and thus calls into question the validity of design decisions made during the past two quarters. He completely leaves out the fact that a decrease of 1 million does not mean the company is losing money on SWTOR as a project, but rather makes a net gain from the CM. That's why (in this case) it is very important to get the semantics clear. It's the concept TUX is using that does in no way hold up to scrutiny.

[Jadescythe]

A decrease in revenue is still defined as being able to turn a profit.

 

I have no doubt that SWTOR is still bringing in a profit, but I don't believe this quote is correct. Revenue is simply the amount of money you generated. Profit is determined by whether or not your revenue exceeds your expenses. You could increase revenue and still not be profitable if it did not increase enough to pass your expenses. But I'm sure SWTOR is bringing in more than enough money on hypercrates to stay afloat.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Information about 5.0 is also rather late and of course the "pre-order" rewards, Shae Vizla in particular didn't start till after the close of the quarter we are discussing. It's still unknown what 5.0 will or will not do, but I suspect that the story continuation by itself will bring a bunch of people to sub at least for a month or two.

 

Which is why I use torstatus to track trends. It's a fairly good gauge on what's going on game wise I've found. It's a shame we can't see back beyond 12 months though so it's a bit of using the ole memory for what things were like but I do know we are seeing a much smaller boost that we did heading into 4.0 ( we hit heavy server statuses back then ) - heck the boost is less than DvL which should be concerning in of itself.

 

In saying that Torstatus is players not subs.

 

What's interesting there is that the people resubbing for the expansion, including the pre-order rewards will now be wholly in the same quarter.

 

True but my point was the timing when comparing YoY. This year we have October-November with much lower numbers than last year so the boost of December would be more comparable to the last October/mid-November period last year.

 

Point is we won't be able to tell of Q3 earnings how well the expansion did compared to 4.0 - that's if they say anything at all of course.

 

Quarter 4 will be interesting to see how many people stick around this time. Personally I think three things are key there:

 

1) How good is the story

2) The livestream in January

3) How will GC and Uprisings turn out

 

I personally see January seeing a slump as people ( such as myself ) have their KotET sub but don't renew beyond that. I've seen uprisings, I don't like the gearing concept what so ever and they are removing players for me to run pug content with ( my main area of enjoyment ) in removing preferred/f2p making it harder than ever to get a group.

 

Jan announcements may be great but I still won't resub until the content is nearly here.

 

I hope the story will be better than KotFE but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Even if it is it's a 1 shot now - nothing we know of to follow up if it's heading to group focus so it's not a reason to keep subbing.

 

The livestream should hail in a new era for group content, but will it?

 

They seem to very carefully change their wording to imply we won't see operations imo. In saying that doesn't mean we won't see something better ( always a fan of the concept of mini ops personally with an ongoing story arc which uprisings are not - they are more mini flashpoints ).

 

I have reasons to be wary of GC and once I try it out I will find out if it's what I feared or if it's actually ok. Also not holding my breath there.

 

I already know it's not for me with the content we have left. If there were new fresh content to go in conjunction I'd give it a go sure but meh to repeating the same stuff in a more grindy manner.

Edited November 16, 2016 by MeNaCe-NZ

[MeNaCe-NZ]

It specifically stated that their gains were offset by a $1 million loss, not that they had a net loss. They had a net gain as a company, but did have some areas that went down, specifically naming SWTOR. At most, SWTOR lost $1 million, but since they didn't attribute it entirely to SWTOR it had to be $999,999.00 or less, most likely significantly less.

 

That's not true at all because they aren't talking about any one specific game but an area of their business.

 

Thus SWToR could have last year made 30 million, this year made 20 million but another game or a new game could have made up the 9 million loss in revenue SWToR generated there to make the overall loss in subscription revenue $1 million.

 

There is nothing to state that SWToR subscription revenue loss HAS to be $999,999.00 or less.

[TUXs]

You can defend TUX all you want, but it still doesn't make his desired statement and opportunity true. Those definitions are very important factors in financial plans and business discussions. He is trying to construct this as a matter of EA losing money on the project, and thus calls into question the validity of design decisions made during the past two quarters. He completely leaves out the fact that a decrease of 1 million does not mean the company is losing money on SWTOR as a project, but rather makes a net gain from the CM. That's why (in this case) it is very important to get the semantics clear. It's the concept TUX is using that does in no way hold up to scrutiny.

Except I didn't say it...EA did.

"$1 million or 1 percent decrease in subscription net revenue primarily due to Star Wars: The Old Republic."

What concept are you thinking I'm using? I'm pointing out EXACTLY what EA told investors. No concept...just a quote.

[TUXs]

That's not true at all because they aren't talking about any one specific game but an area of their business.

 

Thus SWToR could have last year made 30 million, this year made 20 million but another game or a new game could have made up the 9 million loss in revenue SWToR generated there to make the overall loss in subscription revenue $1 million.

 

There is nothing to state that SWToR subscription revenue loss HAS to be $999,999.00 or less.

EXCELLENT point!!! We have no idea what to read from that report other than SWTOR is the primary reason they lost a million dollars in revenue. Being called out by name is not a good sign imo.

[Lium]

TL;DR Story players got to this huge majority because Bioware drove large numbers of group players & pvp players away by their slow responses to critical issues, poor descisions & lack of new content in those nitches.

How much of this is actually true, though?

 

I ask because even Blizzard has said that the majority of their players in WoW, play solo. That's an industry-wide trend, not just something happening in SWTOR. Players nowadays want a largely singular experience with the ability to play with their friends if they want to. Hardcore raiders and hardcore PvPers are almost always the minority.

[PlasmaJohn]

I ask because even Blizzard has said that the majority of their players in WoW, play solo.

Link? I think there's some missing context there. It would be a lot more believable if they meant most players engage in solo content much more than most players are exclusively solo. Particularly since Blizzard continues to pump out group content.

 

It's all about the root cause analysis.

[Jadescythe]

That's not true at all because they aren't talking about any one specific game but an area of their business.

 

Thus SWToR could have last year made 30 million, this year made 20 million but another game or a new game could have made up the 9 million loss in revenue SWToR generated there to make the overall loss in subscription revenue $1 million.

 

There is nothing to state that SWToR subscription revenue loss HAS to be $999,999.00 or less.

 

After reading straight from the report, your point is well taken. It doesn't list anything specific around other subscription revenues increasing or not, so it is possible that SWTOR could have lost more than $1 million in subscription revenue.

[dr_mike]

That can't be right. Subscriptions must be up. Just look at all the new posters without avatars we have here in the forums.

 

Link? I think there's some missing context there. It would be a lot more believable if they meant most players engage in solo content much more than most players are exclusively solo. Particularly since Blizzard continues to pump out group content.

 

I would like to see a reference as well. I few of my soccer moms play with their kids. You got me curious.

Edited November 18, 2016 by dr_mike

[SithKoriandr]

Link? I think there's some missing context there. It would be a lot more believable if they meant most players engage in solo content much more than most players are exclusively solo. Particularly since Blizzard continues to pump out group content.

 

It's all about the root cause analysis.

 

I can believe it. For all those on the forums who whine and whine for more group content, a lot of times they're the ones who whine and whine when the group content fails.

 

Of course, I've known some who may not be good at that group content themselves, so when they play the group content, they're the ones who suck and they're basically whining that they're not being carried and it's everyone else's fault.

 

So, two group of people whining. That leads to others just going "Meh, screw it, I'll stay solo." or they'll stick to the easier group content (FPs).

[CrazyCT]

Another post rubbing it's eyes in the sunlight, asking what year it is

[masterceil]

Another post rubbing it's eyes in the sunlight, asking what year it is

 

For a hater ;x

[Anzel]

From EA's Quarterly Report: "$1 million or 1 percent decrease in subscription net revenue primarily due to Star Wars: The Old Republic."

 

But RNG is exciting!!!!

[AdharaKyleth]

It still seems like a pretty good game... To me at least.

[TUXs]

It still seems like a pretty good game... To me at least.

It is. Most of us have just been complaining for 5+ years so it's habit now

 

Like any game, it has its issues, so don't let the whining get to you...we're all here because we enjoy it too.

[Kurj]

/shrug. I love the game and don't want it to die, but I assume they will keep it running on maintenance mode as long as it turns a profit. The only real concern I have is that the playerbase has reduced to the point they can't fund healthy development, because I'm assuming EA is not going to go negative to invest in the game - whatever future content we get, I think it is solely funded by whatever revenue stream the game currently has.