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

It's a fair statement I think, but I think you might be taking pause to my term of cherrypicking.

I can explain why I use that contention, and Ill attempt to make it brief, though I expect I will fail miserably.

Generally speaking you took different times in history over all MMOs listed and looked at them in the first year for those ONLY that are hybrid models.

There are two problems with doing this....First, a few games on your list were reported to have lost subs in that time frame (or a bit off depending on which game you are speaking of) based on factors other than market conditions, and in fact in some cases other games were gaining in subs. Market conditions were not, in all cases, what they are now and were favorable to some games, not so favorable to others.

The factor most cited during favorable conditions for difficulty in keeping subs was WoW more often than not. The negative trend for that particular game sometimes was also attributed to different factors than attrition by the company themselves, such as stating they lost subs because end game was not complete, or because a particular feature in the game was not implemented wisely in the game's framework and people voted with their feet.

Not every game, mind you. But quite a few on that list did not, according to the developers themselves, lose customers due to market conditions. They lost them due to poor decisions.

This skews the results a bit...its like looking at statistics for violent crime in two different states overall, basing an overall trend on that analysis, when the two states have different types of violent crime that occur for different reasons.

However...it does not invalidate the overall idea that attrition occurs. This is a well known fact for ALL games. It would be silly to say otherwise IMO.

The contention only really loses traction when used as an excuse for the losses here. Even the devs themselves have admitted that a large portion of the subscriber base seems to have left because they did not desire to pay a sub...the reasons unknown, but one could say market, another could say the product was not worth the price.

I contend both are logical. I also contend many MANY different conclusions can be drawn from the same exact data. I will not repost such arguments as they are lengthy and contested.

I will simply say this...if you contend that the only logical course of discussion is to discuss the game in the framework that it lost subs only due to market conditions and use this data for that contention I contend that there is no logic in this discussion at all as a result.

However...if you are providing this as a basis for ONE WAY of looking at the data so a logical discussion can be had on this ONE VIEWPOINT, not invalidating others, than it is bathed in logic IMO.

After all, that is the only true logical stance you can have.

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.

This is the only thing the Media will ever see regarding MMOs until WoW is dethroned.

You don't have to agree with it.

I can't change the parameters because that changes the question. The question is RECENT MMO's with these parameters. If the data was all over the place you'd have a point. It's showing the exact same things which in turn proves it is a fair question. It also allows us to debate on the WHY behind the data. That's what the debate is about.

We have to not only compare like to like, we also have to account for market saturation, economy, etc. I believe that based on these factors 2008 is a fine assessment point considering it is also the start of the collapse of the US economy.

It can conversely be argued that prior to 2008 MMO's had better retention rates on average as you have pointed out. Now the question is why?

Thylbanus:

SWG is compared to make a point about it's actual subscription numbers vs the amount of praise it receives on these forums. Additionally being a star wars game not having the numbers would seem incomplete. The rest of the compared games are not only of the same sub model but the ones that people in these forums bring up when they talk about other game play designs.

I've already discussed why Aion is not included. It is not a sub or a sub+FTP model. There is no sub at all. It is not an equal comparison in that regard. This is the same reason the GW2 will never be discussed here.

This is a discussion of SWTOR vs it's peers with the same subscription models. Not SWTOR vs all games that are MMO's though you are welcomed to start that analysis.

My goal was to look at recent launch comparisons from 2008 and newer with equal sub models for the reasons that I describe in my post which I believe accurately represent the MMO market as it exists today.

Trying to compare WoW at launch to SWTOR at launch is a useless endeavor and I hope you can understand the reasons why. Wow caught lightning in a bottle and much of this was due to the market factors existing when it was released- to say nothing of the game play itself which was certainly different at the time.

It is because things are NOT equal in this context that comparisons should be made where possible under as close to equal circumstances as you can obtain or the data has little meaning.

Exactly, you can look at the numbers, and you can tell...... not a great deal really (apart from which is bigger), because there are simply so many variables there is nothing TO test, "logically" or otherwise.

It's no more "scientific" than comparing two sit-com viewing figures and trying to work out what makes sit-coms work or not.

The figures are simple the result of a myriad of causes.

I'm saying that Andrea saying the 500,000 point is now lower is pure speculation (dressed up as fact), not that the 500,000 they repeatedly mentioned is pure speculation.

So my arguement is that RECENT is subjective in this discussion.

It is not pure speculation. Read what Frank Gibeau said in the EA Q1 FY13 Prepared Comments on July 31, 2012. He clearly states that 500k subs is a break even point for them.

Fact: 2.4 million copies sold
Fact: 1.7 million converted to subscribers
Fact: You have no idea what happend with the other 700k copies

Could be some in store, could be all in store. Could be all purchased and never paid a subscription. Could be partial purchased but never opened and partial sitting in store. The only facts are the 3 I just listed. Therefor you have to go by the 2.4 million number because you have no idea what happened.