Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

SWTOR subs dip from 1.7 Million to 1.3

11011121416

Comments

  • pharazonicpharazonic Member Posts: 860

    Originally posted by Kuinn

    EA is lying, they actually dont have 1.3 mil subs at the moment, they have 1.7 mil subs.

    They had 1.7 at the end of last quarter. They have 1.3 at the end of this one. They just released in a whole lot of other countries so the numbers might go up for next quarter.  Whether it will be a true growth (number of people joining is larger than number of people leaving) is yet to be seen. 

     

    From the way subscription based MMOs worked, I highly doubt SWTOR will see any growth henceforth. 

    "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

    I need to take this advice more.

  • iceman00iceman00 Member Posts: 1,363

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by spookytooth

    then my question to you would be is it worth the $200million? If you were the boss of EA and you knew then what is known now would you sign off on this game? It occurs to me that noone invests 200m just to peak at 1.7million subs and then watch it slowly drop. The risk/reward doesnt seem to be there. Other companies have cloned WoW for a lot less money.

    With the breakeven point being at ~500k subscribers?

    And the game has 1.3mm subscribers now?

    Abso-fuckin-lutely!

    Your arbitrary definition of "risk vs. reward" is pretty inconsequential if the game is making a healthy profit.

    For that matter, you're the one gamer in the world even calling ToR a "risk".  Everyone else's cry has been that it's the exact opposite of a risk and that's why they hate the game and want to see it fail.

    Except if you look at the way EA's stock has plummetted, especially since the release of TOR, I don't think you'd be calling it a "healthy profit."

    And actually, you really don't understand what people don't like.  We don't like the fact that Bioware made essentially a WoW clone, that much is true.

    What he is talking about is investor risk/reward.  In other words, maximizing the investors profit margins, not anyone else's.  And the question becomes:  what's the payoff for investing in a game that is bleeding subs pretty fast, and the devs really don't seem to have a clue with how to fix it.  (1.2 only confirmed this.)  That isn't an "arbitrary definition."  It is the classic mechanic behind all decisions to invest money.

    You are confusing "risk" in the sense of innovating in the game world, to risk in investing and maximizing profits.  While in some cases they are similiar, this case proves right here they are not so.

  • iceman00iceman00 Member Posts: 1,363

    Originally posted by kcypher2000

    Originally posted by Wickedjelly

    Originally posted by kcypher2000

    Intersting leap in logic there kiddo but any real mmo veteran is used to findings groups on general chat and played mmos YEARS before dungeon finders and queues were ever thought up. 

    Yeah no shit. Seeing how I've been playing since EQ I'm well aware. Feel free to keep making assumptions and being wrong as seems to be your m.o.

    Times have changed and so has the community. Not to mention the games. If you were such a "hallowed veteran" you would think you would have noticed.

    I did notice that it turned most mmos into queue fests where people wait around capitals and have become scared of interacting with others.  Btw am i making you angry?  Cause you seem to be getting rather upset.   I am really finding it hard to believe you were born when EQ was around considering how upset you are getting over a small debate on a game. 

    Gotta love when trolls project.  People disagree with him, mock him, so they are "mad."

    They also think that what makes everyone else's arguments so effective is they hurl around insults, not realizing there's a huge difference between someone with an actual argument who likes to belittle the opposition, and someone who God regretted giving fingers to type.

    If you can't troll properly, let your betters do it for you.

  • TyvolusNextTyvolusNext Member Posts: 192

    Originally posted by Myria

    Originally posted by GamerFun

    The game is dying [...]

    1.3 million paying customers, making it easily the second largest western MMO, is... Dying?

    Because, you know, it's not like newly released MMOs typically lose subscribers after a few months.

     the game is losing subs...and quite a bit of them.  Spin it any way you need to, so as you can sleep better at night.

  • iceman00iceman00 Member Posts: 1,363

    Originally posted by jacklo

    Originally posted by Tayah

    http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1855246619x0x566984/c10f605c-3487-488e-ad86-b5bb74fe2408/Q4_FY12_Script.pdf

    "Star Wars: The Old Republic now has 1.3 million subscribers, with a much higher mix of

    ongoing credit card consumers, but on a lower absolute number of subs."

     

    "Let me provide you with an update on Star Wars:

    Through the end of the quarter, approximately 2.4 million units have sold through. In our last

    call we indicated that we had 1.7 million active subscribers, and as of the end of April we now

    have 1.3 million, with a substantial portion of the decrease due to casual and trial players

    cycling out of the subscriber base, driving up the overall percentage of paying subscribers.

    We have already launched a number of initiatives designed to grow subscriptions. The initial

    responses have been positive and we are encouraged by the gaming community’s reaction."

     

    Considering they sold 2.4 million units and now have 1.3 million "active subscribers", they lost 48% of players in 4 months.

    The wording is very clever but it does draw a distinction between "active subscribers" and "paying subscribers", which suggests that not all of the current 1.3 million subs are actually paying.

    To say they are "encouraged by the gaming community's reaction" shows how out of touch they are.

    I don't think they could have been any more ambiguous with their report.

    Even then not neccessarily.  The 2.4 (as far as I'm aware) was the initial boxes sold to retailers.  Did all of them sell by that point they released the claim?

    In the end, nobody knows the exact numbers.  We can just know the trends.

  • iceman00iceman00 Member Posts: 1,363

    Originally posted by Robsolf

    Originally posted by Wickedjelly

    Originally posted by Robsolf

    Originally posted by Wickedjelly

    Originally posted by Robsolf

    Not exactly the 80% drop the haters were predicting...

    Oh well.  They have Tera, and soon will have GW2 and Secret World to bet against, now.

    That's funny. About the only number I remember seeing hammered again and again at 80% was the people saying the game had an 80% retention rate from the days many a magical number was pulled from poster's asses in relation to this game.

    I would remember such claims if they were common, because I would have agreed with them.  My opinion has always been that it would have about the same retention rate as Rift, on a larger scale.  Growth from launch is not something I'd see from any MMO, as WoW has always been an exception and not a rule, and Eve started with few subs and has grown gradually, like any well groomed alternative.

     You must be joking. You can remember the haters but not the others? It was common as hell to the point it became a running joke around here by other posters like me when they touted it because their logic for it made no sense whatsoever.

    Rather selective memory you got there.

    ...and what do you mean you would have agreed? Are you nuts? 80% retention is unheard of in this market. Think about what 80% retention actually means. You're treating it like new players never come into play. That isn't how it works.

    Even in an MMO, new players after the first few months drop a great deal from launch.  And they too will either not like the game, or like it but not stay indefinitely, the latter being people that could return when new content is developed.  Even at 80% retention, there comes a point where subs will start dropping as fewer and fewer new players appear to take the place of those that quit.   

     

    Maybe maybe not.  A game that grows and maintains an 80% retention rate, I don't even think WoW in it's prime had that.  Quite simply a game that had an 80% retention rate within the first year, in addition to being replaced with even modest growth, would be a developers dream.  If a game has 80% retention rate, that is going to generate insane word of mouth. 

    So while you are theoretically correct, the curve on that is pretty darn long.

  • KhinRuniteKhinRunite Member Posts: 879

    Originally posted by iceman00

    Originally posted by kcypher2000


    Originally posted by Wickedjelly


    Originally posted by kcypher2000

    Intersting leap in logic there kiddo but any real mmo veteran is used to findings groups on general chat and played mmos YEARS before dungeon finders and queues were ever thought up. 

    Yeah no shit. Seeing how I've been playing since EQ I'm well aware. Feel free to keep making assumptions and being wrong as seems to be your m.o.

    Times have changed and so has the community. Not to mention the games. If you were such a "hallowed veteran" you would think you would have noticed.

    I did notice that it turned most mmos into queue fests where people wait around capitals and have become scared of interacting with others.  Btw am i making you angry?  Cause you seem to be getting rather upset.   I am really finding it hard to believe you were born when EQ was around considering how upset you are getting over a small debate on a game. 

    Gotta love when trolls project.  People disagree with him, mock him, so they are "mad."

    They also think that what makes everyone else's arguments so effective is they hurl around insults, not realizing there's a huge difference between someone with an actual argument who likes to belittle the opposition, and someone who God regretted giving fingers to type.

    If you can't troll properly, let your betters do it for you.

    Now where's that "Ooooooh!" picture of a cat....

  • iceman00iceman00 Member Posts: 1,363

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by MosesZD

    Actually, it's not.   So, while EA said it, they didn't put on proof of their claims and the evidence suggests that World of Tanks has twice the unique-player log-ins of SWTOR and that League of Legends is clearly the #1 MMO in the West, having three-times the unique-logins of WoW. 

    Wow, you just claimed WoT and LoL were MMOs.

    Yeah wasn't sure what to make of that.  WoT is basically just an honordueling skirmish game, and LoL is a dueling skirmish game without the honor on any of the players.  But, it does offer some pretty compelling gameplay for those who like that sorta thing.  Yet certainly isn't an MMO, or a persistent world game for that matter.

  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,749

    Originally posted by Drakxii

    Originally posted by Vorthanion

    Don't forget, they plan on hitting the Asian market, so the numbers game can change in an instant.

    I always heard that SW doesn't sell well in asian, but that just what I heard.

    The same rumors flew around about WoW.  How could a casual non-anime american made game make it in the hardcore grinding, anime loving Asian market.  You just never know, do you.

    image
  • iceman00iceman00 Member Posts: 1,363

    Originally posted by jason_webb

    Originally posted by Distopia

    Multiplying 1 mil by 15 a month, for 3 months is 45,000,000 and they have had more subs than that, that's not even including 2mil units sold at varying prices starting at $60. That's a crap ton of money in the first few months. For the health of the service that's pretty darn good.

    This math never adds up as you have to take into account the massive costs of developing the game in the first place before it made any money at all ($150m - $200m if you take wiki seriously), which would mean that it would be massively surprising if it was anywhere near covering half of that cost yet, let alone making any money. Add to that support costs before and since release and the fact that share holders will be expecting a huge share of the pie as well and you have EA execs now pondering the reality of cutting their losses and running.

    I was one of the victims of EA's MMO thinking a long long time ago when they cut Earth & Beyond which although in a different time and at a fraction of the subs we are talking about here, hadn't made anywhere near the percentage of loss that this game has and after a little investigation of the facts had actually made a profit, all be it a small one, but they dumped it anyway as it wasn't the 1m sub game they wanted.

    The harsh truth is that if this doesn't hold up to EA's expactations they will just dump it and move to whatever they consider to be their next shining jewel, loyal players be damned :(

    I think it's also a lesson about the staggering costs of big-name games today.  Even hit games drive a company bankrupt.  (Twisted Metal anyone?)  It's why even though ME3 had a "good" launch, it wasn't as good as they expected, and why they could end up taking a loss on the game, even though it had "75 perfect reviews" (I lol'ed at that bit of middle finger to their critics marketing)

    Is also why you are seeing things like crowd-sourcing for indie games.  The crowd-sourcing model is a symptom of a greater disease.

  • iceman00iceman00 Member Posts: 1,363

    Originally posted by darkbamy

    ok so swtor maybe failing....did you ever see SWG after the NGE...it had the same effect

     

    so ya aslong as it is star wars im gonna like it

    There won't be anything in gaming history that will rival what the NGE did.  Hell, they lost near 40% of their playerbase in one day.  By the end of the month, a relatively populated game (outside of what WoW) had become a literal ghost town on all but one or two servers.

  • DeeweDeewe Member UncommonPosts: 1,980

    Originally posted by Wickedjelly

    Originally posted by RefMinor


    Originally posted by gervaise1


    Originally posted by niceguy3978


    Originally posted by Teala

    We all know the free month give away and waht not is the only reason theyare saying they have 1. whatever subs.    Idoubt they have even 500k real subs at the moment and how many of those are 6 month subs that don't even play any longer?

    The subs were as of 3/31 they gave away the free month in april.

    What EA said in their prepared statement was:


    Let me provide you with an update on Star Wars:


    Through the end of the quarter, approximately 2.4 million units have sold through. In our last


    call we indicated that we had 1.7 million active subscribers, and as of the end of April we ow


    have 1.3 million, with a substantial portion of the decrease due to casual and trial players


    cycling out of the subscriber base, driving up the overall percentage of paying subscribers.


     


    So the 1.3M is at the end of April. Anyone know what a trial player who is also a subscriber is? Or how many of the 1.3M are on a free 30 days?


     


    (Saves people checking the link above.)

     

    Yep, the 1.3m at the end of April includes everyone who they gave a free month to whether they wanted it or not.

     So the Wall Street Journal did get it wrong then? That's interesting. That makes their number a hell of a lot worse then if that truly is the case.

    Just noticed the part in red/italic: it means the 1.7 and 1.3 millions subs includes the trials ones so players in their first month.

     

    In short they have even way less paying subs than that.

     

  • jtcgsjtcgs Member Posts: 1,777

    Seriously people, no company in the history of MMORPGs gave out 30 free days without being in trouble in terms of retaining players...there is no debate.

    Its well past time to take the blinders off.

    Its well past time blinding defending the game even IF you think its a good game.

    Its well past time realizing that your so called good game would have been far better if you had stopped attacking everyone and anyone mentioning what was wrong with it and SUPPORTED THEM instead.

    Companies wont listen to what players are demanding unless those players work together, not against each other. You guys sure had no isses complaing about the original cooldown artwork change...and how long did it take them to change it? Less than 2 WEEKS!

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • spizzspizz Member UncommonPosts: 1,971

    1.3 million subscriber ? ......

     

     

    * the free 30 days are still running

    * trial players are included

    * only recently they added a huge new market with east europe and middle east:

     --> around 40 new countries opened to the market  in April

     

    The decline of subs seems to be a trend currently, depending also on the new countries recently added to the market but at the end a part of the new players will react similar. Actually the decline of subscribtion has beend predicted and isnt really surprising.

  • Sabic133Sabic133 Member UncommonPosts: 46

    Originally posted by Fratman

    Bioware/EA basically spent 200 million dollars to barely hold the spot for 2nd best mmo for a few months until GW2 comes out. Ouch.

    The worst part will actually be 2-3 years from now when games like Titan and WOD completely put the nail in the coffin of themepark grinders like SWTOR. 

    Has there ever been a game developed with less foresight and respect for its playerbase? Bioware actually thought people were going to spend the next 5 years or more grinding out purples in their WoW clone. It boggles the mind that no one on their development team spoke up and pointed out what a bad idea it would be to release a game like this in 2011.

    Haha, it would be comical if blizzard hit the market with a deep sandbox MMO next, then remained at the top of the MMO market for the next decade.  

    1.2 mil is about what I expected after the 1.7 announcement.  The game just doesn't have anything to do once you finish the quests and raids.  

  • Bushi13Bushi13 Member Posts: 123

    EVen if it is a cash sink they still got more money than most of game studios to support SWTOR untill it become something descent that a lot of player would want to play.

    If GW2 is not to fast to publish they might actually get a nice player base.

    With that amount of money the rest is all bull****

    Diablow 3, it sucks ...

  • XenostalkerXenostalker Member Posts: 6

    I'm not surpised at the number drops that keep popping up everywhere.

    I was like the 8th or something person to level cap on my server and even began raiding... the game is just completely terrible. Quit before my 1st month ran out. The only gimmick I really enjoyed was having your own ship to travel around in.

    Also, Huttball was an absolute blast but the crappy UI and ability queue system (a monstrosity to MMOs, one of the worst implementations of all time for the genre) made it less appealing after x amount of games (I want to stun the target now not 3 seconds later; and this is all coming from a powerful PC and network, not to mention the issue was pretty common on the forums).

    Well.... digression aside, the developers nailed up the coffin before it was even released. Why release an unfinished game? Legacy system - nope (was this not a highlight at some point?). Guild banks - nope. Reactive UI - nope. Enjoyable PvP - didn't last (Illum, anyone?). I'm pretty sure there are dozens of things I am missing but I'll just end it there. Was let down, really wanted a SWTOR universe that worked - not to mention the PvP theme was perfect, being a PvP junkie myself.

    I doubt SWTOR will hold up with TSW and GW2 on the horizon, especially since their head count includes oddities such as trial accounts and free playtime.

  • SolisArithSolisArith Member Posts: 10

    now don't get me wrong.  I've never played TOR so i'm not able to make any judgements about it.  Except i guess the fact that i watched vids on the gameplay and was turned off by the auto attack / whack-a-mole skill system in star wars  (i'd so play if the game was more action driven)

    anyways i digress sorry.  but the previous poster made a point i totally agree on.  "Why release an unfinished game?".  Of course the constant reply to this from the forums is "it's just been released wait for the next patch" which laughably enough is the follow up to "It's Open Beta wait til release" and "It's closed beta wait for Open Beta". 

    Maybe there are more than a few of us that don't think it's appropriate annymore for a company to charge top shelf prices (80 ish dollars for a box at release, more for collectors etc) for a game that isn't even finished or at least what some would deam (*sp) an acceptable level of completion for the developement cycle.  (who remembers STO releasing and the Klingons having no story arc to cap) 

    Perhaps gamers, as some have said before, are older now, expect more from a company and "It will get better X" (asking me to fork out another 3 months in subs for the game to get better) just doesn't cut it anymore when vying for our hard or not so hard earned dollar.

     

    Oh and don't forget d3 is out in 7 days w00t.  Sorry saw mostly references to GW2.  got my pre order nom nom nom nom.

     

     

  • ElikalElikal Member UncommonPosts: 7,912

    So essentially Daniel Erickson, who said a week ago SWTOR had actually gotten more subs, was lying.

    Surprise!

    People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert

  • daltaniousdaltanious Member UncommonPosts: 2,381

    Originally posted by JohnShields

    I quit playing less than a month after release. Unfortunately I'm still subbed because my 6 year old loves to play it. I keep threatning him that I'll delete it and cancel the sub if he's bad... and oddly enough he keeps doing better after that. : I just cant get rid of TOR.

    Playing since day 1, sometimes 1 hour per day time schedule permitting, but usually 4 hours at least, sometimes 18 hours strait. Still enjoying a lot and guess will be attracted for at least few months before I will do some detour to Rift or Wow. Ad then back. Best game ever and of all times.

    Btw, I'm not 6 years old, im close to 50.

  • erictlewiserictlewis Member UncommonPosts: 3,022

    Well I paid for a 6 month sub. I was like in 6 months they should be able to show us what they can do.  So far I have 4 empire toons to 50.  At that it just becomes a gear grind/check. My sub expires in August due to the fact they tagged on an extra 30 days.

    I will say this, as an swg vet this feels like NGE V1.2.   I quit swg because of the nge and its really to bad thats all we got. Heck even Kotor was better than this game.

    It was fun to play the first couple of alts but after all that and the story line its just linear questing, and it becomes very boring.  It is no wonder subs are going down.

    The past few weeks I only logged in an hour or so, and that is in prime time and hardly nobody is online. I know its 2:45am CST I just logged into game there were 4 folks on the fleet lol this most certainly not prime time hours,  I could not sleep do to my oldest child be a dirt bag, and in need of an attitude adjustment.

    You can add this star wars game to the long list of other star wars games that just did not do justice to the brand.

  • AtmaDarkwolfAtmaDarkwolf Member UncommonPosts: 353

    I wonder, if u don't like the game, why are you spending so much energy 'reporting' how it fails.

     

    Most people know SWTOR has failed. They made a great single player game and tried to crowbar it into a mmo, bad idea, being bioware, chances are they won't learn, but OTHER companies wil(I Freaking hope, lookin at you TESO and zenimax/bethesda)

     

    So why waste the energy. Let it die and feel that pride swell in your chest, but to come to forums and plant the 'Imatroll' flag on your immaginary hill.

     

    Go hype in the games u like, or help people, just don't get why people waste so much energy on this.

     

    (Don't get me wrong, I can understand people who LIKE something and watch it get destryoed complaining, voicing concerns, etc, but to not 'be intrested' in a product and keep declaring how much it fails while never having actually PAID for, or WANT to pay for the product? It makes no sense.)

  • PrecusorPrecusor Member UncommonPosts: 3,589

    nm

  • noncleynoncley Member UncommonPosts: 718

    So EA still think people are stupid enough not to know the difference between 'active accounts' and 'paying subscribers'?

    It's exactly this mentality that has led to the creation of such a short-term, dead-end game.

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504

    Originally posted by iceman00

    Except if you look at the way EA's stock has plummetted, especially since the release of TOR, I don't think you'd be calling it a "healthy profit."

    And actually, you really don't understand what people don't like.  We don't like the fact that Bioware made essentially a WoW clone, that much is true.

    What he is talking about is investor risk/reward.  In other words, maximizing the investors profit margins, not anyone else's.  And the question becomes:  what's the payoff for investing in a game that is bleeding subs pretty fast, and the devs really don't seem to have a clue with how to fix it.  (1.2 only confirmed this.)  That isn't an "arbitrary definition."  It is the classic mechanic behind all decisions to invest money.

    You are confusing "risk" in the sense of innovating in the game world, to risk in investing and maximizing profits.  While in some cases they are similiar, this case proves right here they are not so.

    You act like EA's stock was purely driven by ToR, which clearly isn't true.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

Sign In or Register to comment.