The layoffs have me confused more then anything else. Help?

EA did come up with SWTOR's cost late last year: 80 million US dollars spent in development, 20 million US dollars earmarked for marketing.

That's also why Bioware Austin and the SWtOR team aren't hiring any new people AT ALL.

I think that Consumer affairs needs to investigate the refund issue on subscriptions, why should a company get months of income when the consumer was not happy and quit, In my view it should be illegal and im not sure why this hasnt been adressed first time subscriptions came into picture, a consumer should be aloud to cancel a subscription and get a refund.

Yeah, that's why they emphasized SWtOR's long-term profitability and their plans to focus on SWtOR development to increase its potential to generate revenue over the long-term in their shareholders' reports.

Consider the possibility that your speculation is being blinded by your personal preferences for the game. You've overemphasized SWtOR, overemphasized negative data over positive, and have apparently ignored all other shareholder information. Frankly, you're coming off more as either a clueless investor or a disgruntled unsub posing as an investor.

Well, like I said, we aren't at the point of net downsizing yet. If that were the case, Bioware Austin wouldn't be hiring at the same time it was doing layoffs. Though I think Warhammer Online just ran its course. Compared to SWG (my old stomping ground. I still shudder with dread when I hear "Smedley"), it had a pretty good run.

Now, if you want to know what a dying MMORPG looks like, look at SWG. That thing was a nightmare.

I read sopposdly they are already looking to replace Reid, not cut his position completely. Now I liked Reid but maybe their just looking for people to blame and again are replacing some figures as well as firing. I also read there were 800 freaking people total working on things at least somewhat related to swtor so even 200 firings isnt that huge depending on who it was.

Is there no way this good be good news? I want to make sure before I open my vodka

Point is, downsizing doesn't usually mix layoffs with "Now Hiring" postings.

You do realize that the shareholders can take EA to court for fraud if they misrepresent things to the shareholders, right?

Like I said (about fifty times, apparently), the 1.3 million is primarily made up of people with ACTIVE PAYING SUBSCRIPTIONS. If you've got something other than a gut feeling that this isn't true, I'm all ears. Until then, I'll go with the actual numbers and the shareholders' info.

And just what are you trying to say? "Technically true but realistically 'seemed to be untrue'"? Could you elaborate on this & provide examples?

By the way, I didn't see any discussion of "casual" versus "hardcore" players in the shareholders' materials. Where are you quoting from in the shareholders' reports/press releases?

Yeah, like any of it is believable when EA flat out DENIED that layoffs we coming only a couple of months ago.

Also, the 1000 layoffs are between now and Sept. 30, 2012. Want to bet that they are not done with BW Austin yet.

Apology accepted, though it's not that difficult. You can either use the "quote" button in the formatting options, or just copy/paste the tags auto-generated by the 'quote' button in the forum if you want to keep the links to the original posts (what I'm doing, basically).

No appology was offered but you are welcome and thankyou for the instructions but I am more used to having people do that sort of thing for me

That might not be a bad idea. Like I said, my main problem was how the complaining seems to be negatively affecting other uses for the forum. It's pretty much become a place to either come complain, read complaints, reply to complaints, etc. I'd like to discuss potential future features for the game, developments for later patches, etc, but it's tough to do that without the thread careening off into the topics of whether or not SWtOR is dying, whether or not server populations are too low, how EA sucks, etc. Whatever's currently being done, it isn't enough and I doubt they'd continue to let this go on without changing their policy. I'm just hoping that they don't implement one that ends up censoring/deleting all complaints or outright banning anyone who doesn't have a paying subscription, which may end up being the case. I saw my suggestion as a decent middle-ground. That's all.

And I was simply pointing out that your suggestion was rather ill thought out as you were seeking privileges over other customers that have paid the same as you for the product

Read the threads on the first page and tell me if you find any without off-topic complaints or doomsday predictions. Considering how many QFT responses after promoting that idea, I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way. In game, the general wisdom (judging by comments in the general chat) seems to be "stay off the forums, it's nothing but trolls". Doing nothing isn't going to make or break the experience (IIRC, Blizzard's had the same problem with the WoW forums for years and they're still doing fine), but I feel it's something that should be addressed. Call it my equivalent of unsub whining. :-P

Yes there is an awful lot of unmitigated garbage being posted at both ends of the spectrum but hey, welcome to the internet

"In the real world"? In the real world, you can't just magically change payment models on a whim, and it's harder to make customized responses to each individual customer than to have one universal response. The company's more likely to go with the option that takes less time, less money, and leaves fewer chances for an error to creep into the accounts (so long as that option doesn't cost them a significant amount in potential customers, i.e. people who would refuse to play because they wouldn't get a refund for unused game time in the event of a cancellation). On top of that, this method allows them to keep the revenue from the unused game time anyway (a far more likely motivation than either your or my idea), so you have even more financial motivation for them to stick to this model.

This whole point is purely about how you choose to spin it. It can certainly be technically spun how you have chosen to do so, but if you put that analysis to me as a risk manager I would bark you off my trading floor and then attempt to get you a job at the current Hedgey that is at the top of my **** list

I'm afraid I don't have that, but the subscriber report goes out of its way to specify the difference between "trial and casual players cycling out of the subscriber base." I'm specifically referring to this exchange here, where a representative from BMO Capital Markets (an investment banking firm) asked specific questions about swtor.



The bolded section indicates that the measurement they're referring to are the currently paying subscribers. There's also this summary earlier in the report:



The language above seems to indicate that the active, paying subscriptions are categorized differently from trials and free time offers. The 1.3 million seems to be primarily composed of these paying subs. You're technically correct that the 1.3 million probably includes subscribers who have cancelled and still have game time. However, the point of contention has to do with just HOW MUCH of the 1.3 million is composed of trials & cancelled subs, which the material seems to indicate is low. However, without additional actions by EA that would indicate trouble (no, the 200 layoffs in the midst of restructuring and "how hiring" adverts on the main page don't indicate trouble. It'd be troubling if there was an overall net reduction in employees, large server shutdowns, cancellations of content updates (the artificial limbs from SWG spring to mind).) and the rather large margin of subscribers they'd have to lose before they were in any kind of trouble, it's hard to conclude that they're in serious trouble.

Thankyou, I was looking for the part in bold nothing more

Now, it's completely possible that I'm entirely off the mark, but the shareholders' info doesn't strike me as the kind of spin a company would employ when they're in serious trouble. At best, it isn't yielding its maximum potential revenue and they're explaining how they plan to change that over the next few years. If it were in trouble, they'd be emphasizing spin about how they need to downsize it to a more "profitable" level or reduce costs. If SWtOR's in serious trouble, the language they're using would probably be misleading enough that shareholders could potentially bring suit against EA's board of directors for misleading investors (violating their fiduciary duties as agents of the shareholders, if you want to get into the legalese). That's why I read the above as "it's not as profitable as it could be, but we're working on it" rather than "it's a sinking ship, and we're going to do whatever we can to save it".

You have very good presentational skills and perhaps you are using this whole process as some form of contribution to your course work, what I am trying to bring to your attention is that just because you can assimilate a whole bunch of materials (most of these crafted to sell ideas/projects to mug investors) and make them look pretty, it does not mean that the somewhat naive spin that you attach to said materials is either pretty or believeable

I mainly wanted to reply to statements you made that had value. If I reply to the insults, then it'd just escalate to the point that all we did was insult each other, and that's the last thing this forum needs.

At no stage have I commented on any of your assertions because I found them irrelevant both as a subscriber of the game or if I were to be trading tech stocks (EMG sov and corp debt is my field). I was only ever pointing out that your attitude regarding forum posting privileges was undemocratic at best and (dons tinfoil hat)could be interpreted as quite fascistic. Also that you were completely incorrectly representing the makeup of the 1.3m subs

Yeah, it's a shame we don't allow more colorful language at least SOMEWHERE in these forums. I have a killer Gunnery Sergeant Hartman impression. :-P