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

If they are remotely near 500,000 it will be the same as last time (and remember they don't have to say anything unless a sharehold asks).

Which is completely sensible from EA's point of view.


I think they'll say nothing or repeat what they said last time, and then we'll see an announcement next quarter of "active accounts" with F2P, which I would hope will be well over 1,000,000 by then (with the new model SWTOR should at least doubt "active accounts")...... who knows it could even be back up over 2,000,000 (although that wouldn't likely be the same revenue stream as 2m subscription accounts).

What you wrote there is pure speculation and opinion presented as fact, I'm afriad.

You and I have no idea how valid that 500,000 number is as of this moment, all we know is it was valid when they said it (and may or may not be now).

A hypothesis can be anything. I hypothesize (predict) that tomorrow the sun will rise and be blue. Then we see the results tomorrow. That's science, even if it's in it's simplest terms so you understand.

Subscription expectations are the same thing. Saying, 'I expect this game to have 4 million subs by 2013.' IS a hypothesis. That can be tested and proven or disproven. In this case it has been disproven.

In order to get an idea on the why we then compare the results with other examples. Numbers without context have no meaning. Only by presenting a context can you arrive at a comparison and ultimately a conclusion.

Please stop derailing the thread.

You can measure the colour of the sun and it's movement emprically, you cannot emprically measure expectation (you can emprically measure sales however) - I dunno how disagreeing with that is "derailing" as its pretty relevent to what you are basically saying here.

Or are people only allowed to say things you happen to agree with?






For example, you can emprically measure sales, and say that expectation may have had some part in the scale of those sales.

But you can't say that expectation was the cause of poor retention because there's simply far too many factors involved and no way to emprically determine expectations role in that.

I'm shocked here. I expected a more intelligent debate. Trying to say that an expectation that is empirically based on a condition such as a subscription number over time can't be empirically measured is nonsense.

I am willing to hold your hand and walk you through the logical connections needed in order to understand the topic. In the end you'll have a better grasp on this or at least it will help someone else that is capable of logical deduction.

First stop it with the semanticist nonsense. In this case when I say expectations, I am referring to the sales numbers or subscription numbers based expectations. That is clear.

To consider this game a failure one has to have a predetermined expectation for success. This is empirical and can be measured. Many people use WoW as the measuring stick for everything, including one of the people that posted their own emotional rant earlier in this thread. Now we have a baseline for comparison.

WoW has measurable subscription numbers. SWTOR has measurable subscription numbers. We can use these to draw a comparison between them. Additionally there are other games in which we can use their data to show the context of the discussion.

Empirically it can be stated if SWTOR is compared to WoW based on subscriptions at the 1 year mark then WoW has the higher numbers of subscriptions. That is a fact.

Given the data in the post on the first page, SWTOR's retention numbers (even accounting for the range given by EA) can be measured against other MMO's that have released in the last 4 years. That is a fact.

From the data we can make factual statements about what the data shows, as I did in the conclusions section. Additionally we can expand upon those numbers and make extrapolations. Those are opinions based on data.

Now that you understand what we are discussing here we can continue.

OP, thank you.
this thank you is not only for the research and time involved, but for the realistic and practical comparisons.

Very interesting read and it confirms what Ive been saying since the beginning of the "decline"

People compare this game with a WoW (which had no rivals in their beginning years) or an EVE (which is something different all together)

I think the game is doing good subwise but things like planets keep people apart. During peak hours my server has 2-3 instances on the fleet on either side and scattered around the planets so if thats any indication I think we're doing great

No, it's not speculation. They cut their workforce signficantly in June in light of declining subscriptions...meaning they cut their operations cost significantly as well. When you cut your operations cost in a business, you change the profit break even point downward in your P&L.

The only thing that would be speculation is if I tried to tell you what their new break even subscription count would be. Which is completely pointless anyway since the move to Freemium gives them a totally different revenue curve and thus a new profit break even point.

You are the one speculating (inaccurately) that the break even point remains 500K subs given the public announcment and clear evidence in the public domain that they laid off a lot of staff in response to declining populations..... to remain a profitable business line at a lower subscription point.

About the cutting staff.. you do realize that after a games completion a lot of people simply arent needed anymore right? There is no need for a few hundred devs etc or dozens of QA people

Terrible post OP!!! No doom and gloom, no TORtanic reference. I mean you dind't even mention once how stun locking Operatives caused all those unsubs!!