EA to Release Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2012 Results on May 7, 2012

Said evidence is used to establish a behavior. Here's a hypothetical, and my last attempt at helping you to understand this before I go to bed:

One player has 29 days left on her account; she recently joined the game, but has decided to wait it out before deciding to sign up for a recurring subscription plan (she "cancelled" right after signing up). She's currently playing on free time, and despite having her card information on file will not make a decision about subscribing until there's 2 days left on the account.

A different player has 29 days left on his account; he just finished cancelling his subscription and has no desire or intent to return either in the 29 days remaining or afterward. He won't be back, even when BioWare hands him 30 days for free (see Stephen Reid's comments about who qualifies).

Another player has 29 days left on his account; he's currently signed up for a recurring monthly subscription. He's gung-ho and plans to be here for a while.

What's the difference between these three players for BioWare? I'll give you a hint: there is no difference. They're all "subscribers" simply because they have time left on their accounts.

This doesn't affect me.

*goes back to my own life*

People like to think that it all revolves around SWTOR and it doesn't. EA as a whole has issues, poor economy, some consistently unsuccessful franchises ie... Need for Speed, Madden next to Sims one of their primo moneymakers wasn't as good as it's been other years. BioWare is still BioWare and one subsidiary can't really dramatically change the parent company's shortcomings and ME3 as successful as it is only bumped EA stock up like 50cents. .

I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you cite some examples of other companies doing this?

What? That they do indeed include accounts which are "cancelled" but have time remaining in their subscription numbers? I posted such evidence earlier in the thread, but I'll repost it here for you:



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ea-...story_featstor

I compared the two stock prices and how you would do with investments in both companies. My original reply was in specific reference to the posting of this quarters earnings / stock prices and has nothing in specific to do with SWTOR.

EA has had poorer stock prices since November in comparison to other companies and over the last 10 years prices are down overall. The same isn't true for other companies (like activision) who are only down 12ish% instead of 40% or who have seen a net growth over the last 10 years instead of a 50% decline.

I can't imagine the 10 year 50% decline has anything to do with SWTOR since it wasn't even on the radar then. What it does tell me though is overall there has been some level of mismanagement in the company, as although the overall market is depressed in terms of stock prices, other companies are fairing far better than AE, that's a fact.

I'm stating that they can--and do--include "non-paying" accounts in their subscription totals. This means they can count people (like those who posted above) who have decided to quit the game, but have time remaining on their account, in their subscriber totals.

Their 1.7 million subscribers isn't actually 1.7 million subscribers. It'd more accurately be stated as 1.7 million people who have time on their accounts--playing or not.

The link and quote I posted provides a clear example of them doing this.

What? That they do indeed include accounts which are "cancelled" but have time remaining in their subscription numbers? I posted such evidence earlier in the thread, but I'll repost it here for you:



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ea-...story_featstor