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

Realy? Three months ago is a world away? Now who is not being logical.

Yeah as I've mentioned in prior threads this is a likely closer percentage for overall retention in SWTOR.

The 50% retention use in the OP for some rather strange reason is using peak subs (which isn't a figure that can be used as absolute retention only relative retention - that is growth vs loss) and the highest possible last subsciption number which, of course, had a MASSIVE variability of 500,001 to 999,999.


Absolute retention (going from total sales to likely last subs) is something in much, much lower indeed.





Also the another flaw in the data is the "year" idea, because the OP is taking the maxium subscription number and measuring from there, he isn't measuring like for like.

Take the Rift example. His first 600,000 number comes from the peak subscription of Rift which is 6 months into Rifts life (SWTORs is closer to 3-4 months) and his last number is 17 months later, nearly 50% over the arbitary "year from peak subscription" he seems to be measuring.

His Warhammer Online figures show the same flaw, measuring from 3-4 month after Live (peak subs) to again 1 and a half years later which makes a comparrison utterly meaningless.

AoC shows the same flaws and of course has rising in numbers since it's nadir (even before F2P).

STO's data is even less meaningfull as it tracks a decline from peak subs ~3 months in to only ONE data point less than 6 months after that.



The only like for like measurement that can really apply here is a measure of TOTAL retention over the first 12 months from the Live date, something which isn't being discussed or remotely shown in this thread.

If you read what I wrote I didn't say that at all. Business is evaluated on a constant on going basis.

And you are just further proving what I said by the way.

Really? This is my sandbox, if you want to play, you play by my rules. My rules say that I win.

This is getting out of hand. This isn't an exercise in debate, it's a forum for you to profess your own greatness.

Quality not quantity

Indeed, that is what I was saying.

Read the post above, I show why your "trends" have no real meaning are fairly arbitary and frankly just plain wrong. Sorry.

Very logically and scientifically too, the data speaks for itself when you examine what you've done in your OP.

Your data is from all over the place and is NOT comparable to itself, you need to compare like with like, not like with seemingly random.

As you can see
|
V

Quote: Originally Posted by Goretzu

Also the another flaw in the data is the "year" idea, because the OP is taking the maxium subscription number and measuring from there, he isn't measuring like for like.

Take the Rift example. His first 600,000 number comes from the peak subscription of Rift which is 6 months into Rifts life (SWTORs is closer to 3-4 months) and his last number is 17 months later, nearly 50% over the arbitary "year from peak subscription" he seems to be measuring.

His Warhammer Online figures show the same flaw, measuring from 3-4 month after Live (peak subs) to again 1 and a half years later which makes a comparrison utterly meaningless.

AoC shows the same flaws and of course has rising in numbers since it's nadir (even before F2P).

STO's data is even less meaningfull as it tracks a decline from peak subs ~3 months in to only ONE data point less than 6 months after that.



The only like for like measurement that can really apply here is a measure of TOTAL retention over the first 12 months from the Live date, something which isn't being discussed or remotely shown in this thread.

I presented something that I researched myself because I was curious about it. I presented what I found, laid out the method I used, and my conclusions from them. You may disagree of course but you've made your position clear on it and continuing to push that doesn't change what I presented.

You are welcomed to do the same.

In fact I don't recall ever saying I was great and I've been as civil as possible in this thread and you are becoming more and more hostile towards me. This is a debate on things that can be quantified.

I am going to stop replying to both you and Goretzu now. Your positions are clear and do not need to be restated ad nausium.

Ok the whole statement was, "Last year we announced that the breakeven point was roughly 500,000 subscribers." So why is it OK for him to draw conclusions from last year, as a business professional in his field, and they not be pertinent only 3 months later?

I have shown above your method is wrong, or at least so inconsistant as to be meaningless.

To make these figures somewhat meaningful you need to compare like for like, i.e. the same time periods (both in length and start point), and not just cherry-pick (lenghts of time or MMORPGs).

I'm sorry you don't seem to like that, but that is what debate is all about, not just people agreeing with whatever you say.



Although at this juncture the real issue is not what SWTOR did so wrong, but hopefully what will the do right to make F2P a "success".

I didn't say you were blatant about it, like Donald Trump. But you post on a forum an open invitiation to discuss a topic of high contention. That propells this into a hot topic. "The buzz." Now you proceed to moderate the discussion, broaching it in only ways that you can win. So you in effect, cry "Look at me! I'm winning!" Like the Roman Emperors Caligula, Titus, Hadrian, Caracalla, and Commodus, you take the sands of the arena and fight against men who are constrained from fighting effectively. And when you win by design, you are the Champion of the Forum, but it means little as the opponents have no real way to win. That is why I say you profess your greatness, not with word, but action.