The sky isn't falling. A numbers based view.

All game sales come with a 30 day subscription Andryah.

TUXs ... I think what Tim and Andryah are trying to tell you is that box sales can't be considered because competitors data on the same isn't available. In this case Tim is using measured subscribers as the main analysis point. All the same data from SWTOR and competitors hence, apples to apples.

I agree that the box sales vs. initial subscribers would be interesting but that is another set of analysis.

What would also be interesting would be the rate of drop of in subscriptions vs. box sales but that again is not part of this analysis.

Box sales as a data point isn't valid in this case because the discussion concernes subscriptions. So think of it as starting from the point of initial subscribers and moving forward.

Your concern is valid but again not in the case of this analysis.

I suggest you use your head, and realize it's still just a guess without actual numbers from the company. We can't KNOW factual numbers without it being released by EA. All we know now is just a guess within a range of numbers.

You are missing the point. IF you want to include box sales in retention calculations for SWTOR, then you must do so for ALL other MMOs in the discussion. Otherwise... you are prosecuting apples with oranges.

I do use my head about subscription comparisons and analysis. Which is precisely why MMOdata is a credible source for COMPARISON data on subscription run rates over time. Precisely because he does not pull numbers out of his keester, he has a methodology with cross checks to insure he is creating and presenting data in a consistent manner.

Let me re-empahsize the salient point in the discussion:

1) a common source of comparison data across a range of MMOs, using a consistent methodology with cross checks in the methodology. You can read this on the web site if you care to to understand.

2) The discussion is about subscription (or active account) run rates over time, across multiple MMOs, being compared on a relative basis (not an absolute numbers basis, though there is enough public numbers from companies to independently check the validity of MMOdata.) MMOdata has a high confidence level in it's numbers and a very high confidence level in it's methodology.

Again, if you can bring me the box sale numbers LIMITED to the first year of launch for the games in the last 4 years along with a source for each I will update that. It states as much in the original post.

Exactly this. If the data exists for that comparison I'll use it. But since I am unable to locate it I can't make a statistically relevant comparison.

TUXs reread the OP, think on it for a bit and you will realize that you are making a mistake.

Tim great post, it's not an easy feat to bring objective data in this forum.

I really like this thread. I think that using actual data is the only way anyone can prove anything. All these people on the forums who ask "Will the game live past 2013" or say "This game is doomed" don't have any factual information about it.

In all common sense would EA/Bioware waste their time with a doomed game? No. No sensible company would. So with this data, and the use of common sense, people can clearly see (And all the nay sayers will argue against it) that the game is doing fine, and will continue to do fine.

This is a good counter to all the "hate" posts I see.

No he doesn't, actually. Not on many of the games he lists, and he admits that by rating his confidence on the numbers of specific games.

Using Xfire to get an estimate is pretty funny. Not knowing the true percentage of players of any game that uses the software throws that right out the window. Using 6 month old, or older, company info that states sub range, and not a specific number is barely better than using Xfire.