Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

The Greed, OMG the Greed

18910111214»

Comments

  • TerminalDeityTerminalDeity fairfield, OHPosts: 106Member

    There are lots of games that have just as much quality as WoW.  They just don't have ten years of history establishing a long term emotional connection with players.

    I have played a LOT of MMOs (easily ALL of the more popular ones), and NO game has ever approached the general level of quality that WoW has. You may not like it, but you cannot argue that it does not deliver an impeccably tight gameplay experience.

    Again, it may not be the game for you (it isn't for me either), but nothing else even remotely comes close to the level of quality that it delivers.

  • NotoriousXNotoriousX Grande Cache, ABPosts: 192Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    Don't be cheap. Pay some money to fund the game. Why are p2p gamers so cheap?  Spend $15 and unlock some stuff and then you don't have to pay it again. Or spend $15 a month and do a sub. Threads where people whine about money are really getting annoying.

    you know? this makes kinda sense...pay for the sith, pay for the hotbar, pay for some other stuff lets say total 20-25$? cool but thats once and done! i think its better that paying every month 15$ . Dont get me wrong ii've been on both sides of the coin and i support both sub and non-sub games. But this here kinda makes sense to me

    Tormented echoes of a fallen Eden
    I longed for her beauty
    Yet from dust, she returned
    The dream, an enigma.... silent

    image

  • VelocinoxVelocinox Old Folks Home, CAPosts: 812Member Uncommon

    Choices:

    1) Purchase a subscription

    2) Buy from the cash shop

    3) Not play

     

    Not sure how 30+ pages of discussion still hasn't come to this conclusion.

     

     

    'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.


    When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.


    No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.


    How to become a millionaire:
    Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by simplius
    Originally posted by bobdole1979
    Originally posted by simplius

    i would put it this way: the best games dont have to change business model

    they Work fine, as is, and why fix something, that isnt broken?

    and, they dont have to lure in customers , using big FREE signs

    people will gladly pay a fixed monthly fee , if they have faith in the product

    Then why did TF2 go F2P?

    Why is WoW changing its business model? 

     

    TF2 didnt deliver, apparantly

     

    It made 139 million last year.

  • bobdole1979bobdole1979 beverly hills, CAPosts: 210Member
    Originally posted by simplius
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by simplius

    i would put it this way: the best games dont have to change business model

    they Work fine, as is, and why fix something, that isnt broken?

    and, they dont have to lure in customers , using big FREE signs

    people will gladly pay a fixed monthly fee , if they have faith in the product

    I know this is a waste of time, but what evidence do you have that a fixed monthly fee is always the best fit for a "good" game, throughout the lifetime of the game?  I'm not aware of any general model that applies to all games equally.

     

    I wonder what he has to say about wow adding a cash shop. Their business model has been evolving ( IE changing ) for years. They've also been running ADs saying play warcraft for FREE!!! ( to lvl 20 )  for a long time...but then I wouldn't put it past someone here to say the largest most successful mmo isn't among the best mmos.

    yes, they are milking, that fact is a evidence for wows strength

    how many other 8 year old games, can get people to open their wallets, like that?

    yes, that ad is bad, but wow still isnt freemum..only up to lvl 20

    wow is getting OLD, and it shows. how many other 8 year old games do you play?

    EVE has adapted better, but its so much easier, to do with a small game

    Yes WOW IS FREEMIUM

    Up to level 20 the FREE part then $20 to get all the way up to level 90 with Mists of Pandarai Thats the premium part. 

     

    THUS FREEMIUM

     

    You didn't answer my question 

    What about Star Citizen?  Its a game that is not going with a tradiational pay method.  You have said if a game is good enough it can make it. 

  • cheyanecheyane Rome Posts: 3,003Member Uncommon

    The system is paying off apparently to the tune of 139 million in profits.

    image

    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

  • TeknoBugTeknoBug Calgary, ABPosts: 2,156Member


    Originally posted by simplius

    Originally posted by bobdole1979

    Originally posted by simplius i would put it this way: the best games dont have to change business model they Work fine, as is, and why fix something, that isnt broken? and, they dont have to lure in customers , using big FREE signs people will gladly pay a fixed monthly fee , if they have faith in the product
    Then why did TF2 go F2P? Why is WoW changing its business model?   
    TF2 didnt deliver, apparantly

    wow is getting old, and the market has shown signs of new times

    blizzard is milking wow for more Cash, while they can, yes they get penalty points for that too

    theyre still MILES above swtor, both in quality, AND in quantity


    TF2 was one of Valve's most popular game behind Counter-Strike before DOTA 2 came out. They were clever to turn TF2 into F2P, it rakes in MORE money.


    World of Tanks has made a shit ton of money too.

    image
    image

  • TeknoBugTeknoBug Calgary, ABPosts: 2,156Member


    Originally posted by simplius
    Originally posted by DamonVile Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by simplius i would put it this way: the best games dont have to change business model they Work fine, as is, and why fix something, that isnt broken? and, they dont have to lure in customers , using big FREE signs people will gladly pay a fixed monthly fee , if they have faith in the product
    I know this is a waste of time, but what evidence do you have that a fixed monthly fee is always the best fit for a "good" game, throughout the lifetime of the game?  I'm not aware of any general model that applies to all games equally.  
    I wonder what he has to say about wow adding a cash shop. Their business model has been evolving ( IE changing ) for years. They've also been running ADs saying play warcraft for FREE!!! ( to lvl 20 )  for a long time...but then I wouldn't put it past someone here to say the largest most successful mmo isn't among the best mmos.
    yes, they are milking, that fact is a evidence for wows strength

    how many other 8 year old games, can get people to open their wallets, like that?

    yes, that ad is bad, but wow still isnt freemum..only up to lvl 20

    wow is getting OLD, and it shows. how many other 8 year old games do you play?

    EVE has adapted better, but its so much easier, to do with a small game



    To be quite blunt, I would have still been subbing to City of Heroes (and yes even buying something from their cash shop) if NCSoft hadn't shut it down, but NCSoft wanted to push existing players to Guild Wars 2.

    image
    image

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Puyallup, WAPosts: 2,198Member
    Originally posted by TerminalDeity

    I have played a LOT of MMOs (easily ALL of the more popular ones), and NO game has ever approached the general level of quality that WoW has. You may not like it, but you cannot argue that it does not deliver an impeccably tight gameplay experience.

    Again, it may not be the game for you (it isn't for me either), but nothing else even remotely comes close to the level of quality that it delivers.

    I just don't agree.  I find WoW consistently mediocre and boring.  Is it polished?  Yes, always has been.  But it's not polished gold, it's polished pyrite.  The only time I ever enjoyed it was back at the start of vanilla, when it was impressive not because it's quality was so high, but because it was being compared to other MMOs with such low quality.  I admit Alterac Valley was a thing of beauty.  But then they completed gutted it, throwing away the one thing they truly did well.  

    Compared to single player RPGs, it has always been a substantially below average experience.

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  • alexhpy98721alexhpy98721 bucharestPosts: 250Member

    While i have always been a subscriber - at launch and again now when i came back - i have many preferred players in my guild that are doing pretty much everything i do, from raiding to PvP.... and they play for free minus some initial cost for some upgrades.

    I think its a good deal... and if you don`t like F2P because its greedy you can just pay the standard sub and have everything unlocked and if you want even more - like more GTN slots etc you can get it with the Cartel Coins they give you, 500 a month, or buy them from the GTN...

  • simpliussimplius nakskovPosts: 1,043Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bobdole1979
    Originally posted by simplius
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by simplius

    i would put it this way: the best games dont have to change business model

    they Work fine, as is, and why fix something, that isnt broken?

    and, they dont have to lure in customers , using big FREE signs

    people will gladly pay a fixed monthly fee , if they have faith in the product

    I know this is a waste of time, but what evidence do you have that a fixed monthly fee is always the best fit for a "good" game, throughout the lifetime of the game?  I'm not aware of any general model that applies to all games equally.

     

    I wonder what he has to say about wow adding a cash shop. Their business model has been evolving ( IE changing ) for years. They've also been running ADs saying play warcraft for FREE!!! ( to lvl 20 )  for a long time...but then I wouldn't put it past someone here to say the largest most successful mmo isn't among the best mmos.

    yes, they are milking, that fact is a evidence for wows strength

    how many other 8 year old games, can get people to open their wallets, like that?

    yes, that ad is bad, but wow still isnt freemum..only up to lvl 20

    wow is getting OLD, and it shows. how many other 8 year old games do you play?

    EVE has adapted better, but its so much easier, to do with a small game

    Yes WOW IS FREEMIUM

    Up to level 20 the FREE part then $20 to get all the way up to level 90 with Mists of Pandarai Thats the premium part. 

     

    THUS FREEMIUM

     

    You didn't answer my question 

    What about Star Citizen?  Its a game that is not going with a tradiational pay method.  You have said if a game is good enough it can make it. 

    if you want to call wow a freemium game, go ahead

    lvl 20 shouldnt take more , than a couple of days, at most

    a 2 day freemium game...yup

    star Citizen is a strange mixture, i dont know enough about it , to predict anything

    except, that it will have a lot of competition

  • bobdole1979bobdole1979 beverly hills, CAPosts: 210Member
    Originally posted by simplius
    Originally posted by bobdole1979
    Originally posted by simplius
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by simplius

    i would put it this way: the best games dont have to change business model

    they Work fine, as is, and why fix something, that isnt broken?

    and, they dont have to lure in customers , using big FREE signs

    people will gladly pay a fixed monthly fee , if they have faith in the product

    I know this is a waste of time, but what evidence do you have that a fixed monthly fee is always the best fit for a "good" game, throughout the lifetime of the game?  I'm not aware of any general model that applies to all games equally.

     

    I wonder what he has to say about wow adding a cash shop. Their business model has been evolving ( IE changing ) for years. They've also been running ADs saying play warcraft for FREE!!! ( to lvl 20 )  for a long time...but then I wouldn't put it past someone here to say the largest most successful mmo isn't among the best mmos.

    yes, they are milking, that fact is a evidence for wows strength

    how many other 8 year old games, can get people to open their wallets, like that?

    yes, that ad is bad, but wow still isnt freemum..only up to lvl 20

    wow is getting OLD, and it shows. how many other 8 year old games do you play?

    EVE has adapted better, but its so much easier, to do with a small game

    Yes WOW IS FREEMIUM

    Up to level 20 the FREE part then $20 to get all the way up to level 90 with Mists of Pandarai Thats the premium part. 

     

    THUS FREEMIUM

     

    You didn't answer my question 

    What about Star Citizen?  Its a game that is not going with a tradiational pay method.  You have said if a game is good enough it can make it. 

    if you want to call wow a freemium game, go ahead

    lvl 20 shouldnt take more , than a couple of days, at most

    a 2 day freemium game...yup

    star Citizen is a strange mixture, i dont know enough about it , to predict anything

    except, that it will have a lot of competition

    you don't even understand what a Freemimum is do you?  It doesn't matter how long the free trial is.

     

    Ok this I want to hear how will Star Citizen have a lot of competion?

  • simpliussimplius nakskovPosts: 1,043Member Uncommon

    by your definition, almost EVERY game on the market would be freemium, then

    star Citizen isnt the first mmo, and it isnt the first Space mmo , either

    they wiill have to share the market with EVE, STO , star conflict, and the new ELITE

    if that isnt a lot of competition, then what is?

    and, the new swtor numbers say , just around 400k subs

    very far from your claimed million, isnt it?

  • bobdole1979bobdole1979 beverly hills, CAPosts: 210Member
    Originally posted by simplius

    by your definition, almost EVERY game on the market would be freemium, then

    star Citizen isnt the first mmo, and it isnt the first Space mmo , either

    they wiill have to share the market with EVE, STO , star conflict, and the new ELITE

    if that isnt a lot of competition, then what is?

    and, the new swtor numbers say , just around 400k subs

    very far from your claimed million, isnt it?

    only games that have a sort of trial but yes those would be freemium.  HENCE THE TERM  FREE- allows you to try part of the product for FREE  and PREMIUM - if you want all of it you have to pay. 

    There are many different ways to present your freemium model

     

    facepalm.  You have no idea what Star Citizen is do you?

     

    I never claimed SWTOR had 1 million subs.  

     

    See this is where you fail at reading comprehension 

     

    I SAID SWTOR HAS 1 MILLION ACTIVE PLAYERS making the second largest western MMO

  • catlanacatlana Houston, TXPosts: 1,677Member
    Originally posted by simplius

    by your definition, almost EVERY game on the market would be freemium, then

    star Citizen isnt the first mmo, and it isnt the first Space mmo , either

    they wiill have to share the market with EVE, STO , star conflict, and the new ELITE

    if that isnt a lot of competition, then what is?

    and, the new swtor numbers say , just around 400k subs

    very far from your claimed million, isnt it?

    Umm, where are you getting your numbers from. EA subscription revenue was down last quarter but still totaled $66 million for the quarter. EA does not count much in the subscription area. Club Pogo, UO, and Star Wars are the majors that I know of that are counted in the subscription area.  

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Puyallup, WAPosts: 2,198Member
    Originally posted by catlana

    Umm, where are you getting your numbers from. EA subscription revenue was down last quarter but still totaled $66 million for the quarter. EA does not count much in the subscription area. Club Pogo, UO, and Star Wars are the majors that I know of that are counted in the subscription area.  

    I thought 66 million was the number for the year.  You might want to check the report again.

    EDIT: My mistake, just looked, you were right.

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Posts: 2,084Member Uncommon
    The $66M is for tbe quarter. It is for subs and other revenue sources for a whole bunch of games. From memory it was higher than $66 prior to the lainch of SWTOR

    As expected. F2P was available for all of Oct to Dec 2013; in the same period in 2012 SWTOR was basically only F2P in Dec. And the CFO did say with last August"s resultd that subs had dropped 25 per cent since the launch of F2P and a further fall was announced last Nov.

    Next quarter the number will be up by say 25M due to BF4- which is being reported quarterly unlike BF3. Unlikely swtor will be mentioned.

    The 1M number refers to a couple of posters who reported that the cmmunity manager last c. Oct that swtor had 1m unique visitors inthe month and that 10m had tried it. What this months number is after new console launches and Christmas titlrs and how you compare numbers that are a blend of sub and F2P .....
  • MachinationMachination New York, NYPosts: 65Member

    It's still a subscription-based game.

    The option is there to play free. If you don't want to pay the people that don't work for free, then don't. 

  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Posts: 2,084Member Uncommon
    gervaise1

    The $66M is for tbe quarter. It is for subs and other revenue sources for a whole bunch of games. From memory it was higher than $66 prior to the lainch of SWTOR

    As expected. F2P was available for all of Oct to Dec 2013; in the same period in 2012 SWTOR was basically only F2P in Dec. And the CFO did say with last August"s resultd that subs had dropped 25 per cent since the launch of F2P and a further fall was announced last Nov.

    Next quarter the number will be up by say 25M due to BF4- which is being reported quarterly unlike BF3. Unlikely swtor will be mentioned.

    The 1M number refers to a couple of posters who reported that the cmmunity manager said last
    c. Oct that swtor had 1m unique visitors in thr month and that 10m had tried it. What this months number is after new console launches and Christmas titlrs and how you compare numbers that are a blend of sub and F2P .....

     

    PS I have decided that when Ohlsen said largest he meant 2nd largest ever announced - since he also said at the same time that subs were growing. And EA keep saying that subs are falling. Not that numbers matter that much in a F2P game Free Wotlds 20M, Clone Wars10m being two more F2P games beong closed. EA closing some more as well of course - another loss being announced.
  • catlanacatlana Houston, TXPosts: 1,677Member
    Originally posted by gervaise1
    The $66M is for tbe quarter. It is for subs and other revenue sources for a whole bunch of games. From memory it was higher than $66 prior to the lainch of SWTOR As expected. F2P was available for all of Oct to Dec 2013; in the same period in 2012 SWTOR was basically only F2P in Dec. And the CFO did say with last August"s resultd that subs had dropped 25 per cent since the launch of F2P and a further fall was announced last Nov. Next quarter the number will be up by say 25M due to BF4- which is being reported quarterly unlike BF3. Unlikely swtor will be mentioned. The 1M number refers to a couple of posters who reported that the cmmunity manager last c. Oct that swtor had 1m unique visitors inthe month and that 10m had tried it. What this months number is after new console launches and Christmas titlrs and how you compare numbers that are a blend of sub and F2P .....

    Actually, FiFA / Madden/ Battlefield DLC as well as the Star Wars cash shop were part of the $213 million digital net revenue for the Quarter. The digital net revenue is a smoking hot $741 million for year over year. This amount includes zero subscriptions. This amount is up 27% YOY.

    Second, EA subscriptions were much, much lower prior to SWToR. The entire subscription catalogue was only $34 million for 4Q 2010 before the launch of SWToR. The subscription catalogue in the latest report is $66 million for the quarter. This amount is down 16% YOY.  

     

  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Posts: 2,084Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by catlana
    Originally posted by gervaise1
     

    Actually, FiFA / Madden/ Battlefield DLC as well as the Star Wars cash shop were part of the $213 million digital net revenue for the Quarter. The digital net revenue is a smoking hot $741 million for year over year. This amount includes zero subscriptions. This amount is up 27% YOY.

    Second, EA subscriptions were much, much lower prior to SWToR. The entire subscription catalogue was only $34 million for 4Q 2010 before the launch of SWToR. The subscription catalogue in the latest report is $66 million for the quarter. This amount is down 16% YOY.  

     

    I went and checked :) Sub revenue was higher pre-SWTOR. See below. You have to line up EA's "dates" to see it. 

     

    Understand about Battlefield DLC, 100% agree about the $213M etc etc. and sure no sub revenue in the DLC bucket. BF3 premium subs revenue however was counted in the sub bucket by EA not the DLC bucket. Everything going in in Q4. Yes I know that the premium sub is essentially just a different way of buying DLC but  you just have to accept it - think of reporting as a game, they put numbers out to investors/analysts but as far as possible they would like to hide them. Hence one analyst asking for more breakdown was told in the conference call no!

    You can check out their prepared comments for Q4 2013:  "And fourth: subscriptions ........ the significant increase is primarily due to the recognition of the $121M ... Battlefield 3's Premium Services". And you can see the spike that resulted in the numbers below. If SWTOR sub revenue dropped that quarter following the launch of f2p the decline was swamped. Going forward the BF4 premium sub revenue will be spread and reported quarterly - so next months sub/ads/other bucket will have BF4 premium subs in it. And that could be 50% of the bucket!

    Anyway making sense of EA's dates:

    The just announced results are for Q3 2014. They cover the period Oct-Dec 2013. So the quarter to look at is Q3 2012 which covered the period Oct-Dec 2011. SWTOR launched Dec 2011 with 30 days included - so no impact on the Q3 2012 quarters sub revenue). And the 4Q 2010 number was for Jan-Mar 2010.  The slide presentations on the ea investors site can be used to get at the numbers quickly - I have pulled them out for folk below.

    EA numbers for subs/ads/other revenue (on a non-GAAP basis):

    • Q3 2012, $67M (Oct-Dec 2011), The pre-SWTOR quarter
    • Q4 2012, $124M (Jan-Mar 2012), Launch, 30 days included so c. 2 months sub revenue
    • Q1 2013, $81M (Apr-Jun 2012) free time bonuses, so c. 2 months sub revenue
    • Q2 2013, $74M (July-Sept 2012) (500k - 1M, f2p announced)
    • Q3 2013, $79M (Oct-Dec 2012) f2p option launches in this quarter
    • Q4 2013, $191M - or $70M without the $121 BF3 drop. (Jan-Mar 2013)
    • Q1 2014, $61M  (April-June 2013) SWTOR blamed for year on year drop
    • Q2 2014, $62M (Jul-Sep 2013) SWTOR blamed for year on year drop
    • Q3 2014, $66M (Oct-Dec 2013) POGO and SWTOR blamed for year on year drop
    Have to be careful with the time lag as well - some of the comments you get with any results are current not past. E.g. last May they published their numbers covering Jan-Mar but talked about the post-Makeb sub numbers (just under 500k). any boost to sub revenue wouldn't be seen until the next set of results they published - in August. Which ironically was when the CFO gave out the 25% drop number. So comments and numbers sometimes have to be lined up as well. 
     
    How much of last quarters $66M stems from the $67M and how much is new stuff - SWTOR or whatever - yeah. EA in their results only compare the quarters number with the number 12 months ago. Looking at the ups and downs each quarter would be more meaningful - if we knew how much was other stuff! Launch: big +$57M, then it fell back to just $14M higher than pre-SWTOR, then $7M higher, then $12M, $3M, -$6M, -$5M, -$1M. Other stuff happening clearly.

     

     

     

  • catlanacatlana Houston, TXPosts: 1,677Member
    Originally posted by gervaise1
    Originally posted by catlana
    Originally posted by gervaise1
     

     

    I went and checked :) Sub revenue was higher pre-SWTOR. See below. You have to line up EA's "dates" to see it. 

    Understand about Battlefield DLC, 100% agree about the $213M etc etc. and sure no sub revenue in the DLC bucket. BF3 premium subs revenue however was counted in the sub bucket by EA not the DLC bucket. Everything going in in Q4. Yes I know that the premium sub is essentially just a different way of buying DLC but  you just have to accept it - think of reporting as a game, they put numbers out to investors/analysts but as far as possible they would like to hide them. Hence one analyst asking for more breakdown was told in the conference call no!

    You can check out their prepared comments for Q4 2013:  "And fourth: subscriptions ........ the significant increase is primarily due to the recognition of the $121M ... Battlefield 3's Premium Services". And you can see the spike that resulted in the numbers below. If SWTOR sub revenue dropped that quarter following the launch of f2p the decline was swamped. Going forward the BF4 premium sub revenue will be spread and reported quarterly - so next months sub/ads/other bucket will have BF4 premium subs in it. And that could be 50% of the bucket!

    Anyway making sense of EA's dates:

    The just announced results are for Q3 2014. They cover the period Oct-Dec 2013. So the quarter to look at is Q3 2012 which covered the period Oct-Dec 2011. SWTOR launched Dec 2011 with 30 days included - so no impact on the Q3 2012 quarters sub revenue). And the 4Q 2010 number was for Jan-Mar 2010.  The slide presentations on the ea investors site can be used to get at the numbers quickly - I have pulled them out for folk below.

    EA numbers for subs/ads/other revenue (on a non-GAAP basis):

    • Q3 2012, $67M (Oct-Dec 2011), The pre-SWTOR quarter
    • Q4 2012, $124M (Jan-Mar 2012), Launch, 30 days included so c. 2 months sub revenue
    • Q1 2013, $81M (Apr-Jun 2012) free time bonuses, so c. 2 months sub revenue
    • Q2 2013, $74M (July-Sept 2012) (500k - 1M, f2p announced)
    • Q3 2013, $79M (Oct-Dec 2012) f2p option launches in this quarter
    • Q4 2013, $191M - or $70M without the $121 BF3 drop. (Jan-Mar 2013)
    • Q1 2014, $61M  (April-June 2013) SWTOR blamed for year on year drop
    • Q2 2014, $62M (Jul-Sep 2013) SWTOR blamed for year on year drop
    • Q3 2014, $66M (Oct-Dec 2013) POGO and SWTOR blamed for year on year drop
    Have to be careful with the time lag as well - some of the comments you get with any results are current not past. E.g. last May they published their numbers covering Jan-Mar but talked about the post-Makeb sub numbers (just under 500k). any boost to sub revenue wouldn't be seen until the next set of results they published - in August. Which ironically was when the CFO gave out the 25% drop number. So comments and numbers sometimes have to be lined up as well. 
     
    How much of last quarters $66M stems from the $67M and how much is new stuff - SWTOR or whatever - yeah. EA in their results only compare the quarters number with the number 12 months ago. Looking at the ups and downs each quarter would be more meaningful - if we knew how much was other stuff! Launch: big +$57M, then it fell back to just $14M higher than pre-SWTOR, then $7M higher, then $12M, $3M, -$6M, -$5M, -$1M. Other stuff happening clearly.

    I knew that Warhammer Online was counted in subs but not Battlefield premium. In the comments, Battlefield 3's premium was recognized only on the release of the last dlc. So actually, 120 million is all of Battlefield 3 premium. Still, a nice number thou on top of the dlc sales.

    EA should be following suit and not recognizing Battlefield 4 premium until all dlc is out as well then thou unless they give notice that they are changing their accounting process.  Battlefield 4's dlc is behind schedule due to multiple issues. The $66 million should not include any Battlefield premium because they should not be recognizing it yet.

    Before anybody mentions anything, I doubt that Warhammer online has contributed much for a long time. 

    Still, looking over financial reports is interesting.  Have a great weekend.

18910111214»
Sign In or Register to comment.