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

My assumption is that this is based on the dev team saying that 500,000 is the minimum subscriber based to break even on the game, in the same post it was said they they are under 1 mil but well above 500,000. This seem to exactly match the OPs current estimate:
He said he used the most recent update available, you can't fault him for that especially when he says he will update it with better numbers when they are announced.

A source: http://www.forcejunkies.com/tag/500k-subscriptions/

This is exactly what I am presenting. When you analyze something you give the data you are using to base your conclusions upon.

The data itself and the conclusions with the 1. and 2. numbers points are the absolute facts that I'm using as framework for discussion taken directly from the data shown.

Everything else that is typed is my interpretation of the data which is a standard model when presenting something like this.

From the data we can form a view of WHY the market has been experiencing a downward trend in each release since 2008 now that the trend has been established.

Specifically this can also be used a reference for talking about the health of the game compared to the market rather than guessing that the game will shut down next year based on feeling and conjecture.

It's odd that back when game companies actually released real subscriber numbers the king of them all, EQ used to report numbers around 150k. The game world sure seemed far more populated than any game today does and EQ's world dwarfed the sizes of today's MMO's. Most dungeons had more people in them than entire zones do nowadays. They also had dozens of servers.

Success and failure are all relative to expectations and initial development cost.

The "failure" of TOR isn't that it is losing money or barely breaking even, it is that it was designed as, marketed as, and sold as a "WoW killer". It's not even remotely close to that, in execution or in numbers. It's target for success is far higher than an "indie" game because it has an enormous budget, a hefty license fee/percentage, and sky-high expectations. The hit/fail line is far higher for TOR than something like Secret World for instance, in exactly the same way that CoH was a big hit despite never achieving close to EQ or WoW numbers.

Actually the numbers are completely fabricated and/or highly tweaked by the companies involved. They make money based on the popularity of their product so they will make every effort to inflate those numbers. It's the same reason sports teams paper their attendance figures. If you manufacture a false demand for your product, you can sell tickets for more money than you can if everyone knows the building is always half empty.

it was never designed, marketed or sold as a "WoW killer" ... in fact the Devs stated numerous times that while those numbers would be nice it wasn't what they were expecting and they never once touted it as aiming to top WoW... the only people who hailed and hyped it as a "WoW killer" were idiot fans

To stimulate debate after viewing how other MMO's with high profile publishers fared since 2008 (Tabula Rasa didn't make the 2008 cut off thought it would reflect what the others showed) I'll ask these questions.

Was it fair to expect these things based on the IP alone?

Is this a reflection on the games or the industry?

Does the fact that a new game is now competing against others with 4+ years of developed content play a bigger role than we acknowledge?

Given the initial sales then drop of of these titles has the MMO sub base become nomadic?

Feel free to debate these points.

Good questions., I fear it may take the topic off topic, but...it's your thread

I DO feel the Star Wars IP alone is reason enough to expect success. Star Wars is a marketing gold mine. It may be dipping from it's historical highs, but it's still king of IPs imo.

The failure of games (not specifically SWTOR) is due to the games themselves, the market is clearly still there. It seems we're stuck in games trying to do one of several things -
a) Copy W0Ws themepark idea (dumbing down the game for casuals)
b) Copy W0Ws theme (knights and ogres and wizards)
c) Avoid W0W and go completely another direction (Tabula Rasa and APB come to mind)
None of these do what W0W did at the time. W0W took a look at the existing MMOs, copied the good and improved much of the bad. Nothing "innovative", they just did it right from the start.

New games ARE competing against 4+ year old games. Many features of existing MMOs are there because players requested them. Study of existing positives of competing MMO's needs to play a KEY role in early development...and sadly, it doesn't seem to. Competition is fierce. MMOs succeed because players invest time into their character(s). Things like appearance and individualism are very important for allowing players to feel 'unique' in an online world. Look at how casually SWTOR wiped players 1st names...that was a horrible idea!

The trend of failing games (reduced retention) is simply a reflection on the games themselves. IF the MMO market were in decline, we wouldn't see players buying the initial boxes, then returning to other games. People are simply finding more enjoyment in games like Skyrim or Borderlands 2 than they are in recent MMOs. Expectations are higher than they ever have been for new MMOs...they generally get ONE shot at hooking a player. 1st impressions are everything in the current market and releasing a game that can't even adjust something as basic as window placement, of the 2 windows, was a horrible decision.

The market is clearly there. 2.47 million copies of the game sold more than supports that opinion.

No it wasn't fair to expect huge numbers for TOR based on the IP. Star Wars is long past its prime and any inherent value in it was almost destroyed by the prequels.

Yes the base has become nomadic but that, IMO, is because the games have gradually excised most of what distinguished an MMO from solo games. MMO's used to compete with other MMO's, now they are competing with solo PC games and console games because they have almost become those.

Say what you will about the quality of TOR, I think it's pretty decent, but it is not an MMO. When you can solo level easily from 1-50 then that "MMO" is no longer just competing with WoW, EQ, GW or whatever, it is also competing with every single solo game on the market. The strategy of designing games to compete with the solo and console markets is killing the MMO business. They might get an initial wave of players on release, but it is unsustainable because solo and console gamers rarely stick with any game more than a couple of months at best.

That's exactly why I posed this. If I asked those questions without any data here to frame our expectations of the market place the answers wouldn't have had the correct context to formulate an educated opinion.

I think of it not as derailment but evolution. I posted the data now we talk about it