Originally posted by SuperDonk

The only development from here on out will be to convert it to a free-to-play game with legacy/planet/story unlocks and purple crystals in a cash shop.

 ya, because EA has a long history of going F2P with their player starved MMOs.  If DAOC and WAR arent F2P, dont hold your breath on SWTOR.

Originally posted by TyvolusNext

Originally posted by SuperDonk

The only development from here on out will be to convert it to a free-to-play game with legacy/planet/story unlocks and purple crystals in a cash shop.

 ya, because EA has a long history of going F2P with their player starved MMOs.  If DAOC and WAR arent F2P, dont hold your breath on SWTOR.

 Yeah...but they have such a huge investment in this game and lets be honest here. I would not at all be surpsrised if they already have the infrastructure in place for a f2p transition. I mean what company in their right mind wouldn't considering how it has been proven to work for games that are losing their profitability potential?

I think you'll find EA will handle this a lot differently than they have those other two games.

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

Originally posted by TyvolusNext

Originally posted by SuperDonk

The only development from here on out will be to convert it to a free-to-play game with legacy/planet/story unlocks and purple crystals in a cash shop.

 ya, because EA has a long history of going F2P with their player starved MMOs.  If DAOC and WAR arent F2P, dont hold your breath on SWTOR.

 Yeah...but they have such a huge investment in this game and lets be honest here. I would not at all be surpsrised if they already have the infrastructure in place for a f2p transition. I mean what company in their right mind wouldn't considering how it has been proven to work for games that are lofing their profitability potential?

I think you'll find EA will handle this a lot differently than they have those other two games.

 I dont agree, but time will tell.  Although, I felt this should have been a B2P type offering from the start...so who know for sure ?   But at the end of the day, I just dont think EA knows how to handle their MMOs and they dont ever seem to learn and they make the same mistakes over and over and over.

For those having trouble with the numbers go and check out the EA investor page and look at the February report / conference call and the May report and conference call. There is also a March presentation and some press releases.

EA are legally obligated to provide "truthful" information - but as Terry Pratchett said in Unseen Academicals, truth can wear a variety of boots! And for those who say good luck at finding the following - look in the reports and use find - its very simple.

So EA press release Dec' 23rd: 1M activated subscribers. Trumpet fanfare.

EA results in Feb. Through sales - a through sale being a sale to an end user not a retailer - 2M.

Also 1.7M subscribers. When asked they defined a subscriber as 'the industry standard definition' i.e. in the 30 days included or paying a sub. The 1.7M was either 41 or 42 days after launch.

Truth was wearing fancy boots however when JR said that the majority of the 1.7M were paying subscribers because when pressed in the March conference he clarified that majority meant just over half.

On to the May results. 2.4M sold - didn't specify whether this was through sales; it probably was. 1.3M subscribers - again didn't specify industry standard definition - and given the 30 days free this number will be 'accurate' but what exactly it means ....

And the "500k to break even, 1M to be profitable but nothing to write home about" and "wouldn't have developed SWTOR if they didn't expect 1M subs" are all in the reports. (They didn't say how long they would need 1M subs but the concensus appeared to be about 2 years depending on the number of subs, sales, advertising, number of free months given away etc.)

Originally posted by ShakyMo

Originally posted by SuperDonk

The only development from here on out will be to convert it to a free-to-play game with legacy/planet/story unlocks and purple crystals in a cash shop.

that wont happen EA dont do F2P

SWTOR will end up like WAR.  Still pay a sub, have a cash shop with P2W items to "moneytize" the loyal fans, don't bother employing many CSRs and let cheats run rife, have a skeleton crew of like 3 pimply youths to reboot servers when things go wrong and fix only really really really serious bugs,  Also if stuff aint working right, remove it from the game or "depreciate" it rathr than trying to fix it.  This is the future, getting royaly EA'd.

http://wrathofheroes.warhammeronline.com/

http://iqu.com/blog/ea-evp-f2p-games-will-sell-themselves

I wonder how long their agreement with LucasArts is for? From: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/170632/EA_to_shut_down_its_Dragon_Age_social_game.php

Newsbrief: After shutting down more than a dozen of its online-enabled games earlier this year, Electronic Arts has announced that it will turn off its free-to-play browser game Dragon Age Legends this June.

EA shuts down its aging online games on a fairly regular basis, but Dragon Age Legends is still relatively young compared to other games that have gotten the axe. The title first debuted in March 2011, right around the launch of BioWare's Dragon Age II.

EA did not provide an explanation for why it has chosen to shut the game down, but noted that it will eventually offer a free downloadable version for users who want to play the social RPG without any multiplayer features.

At GDC Online 2011, BioWare San Francisco's Ethan Levy offered some insight into Dragon Age Legends' large-scale promotional efforts, and noted that the game's launch failed to meet EA's initial expectations.             

Failed to meet EA's initial expectations; I think that is certainly going to be the case for SWTOR.                      

---

Originally posted by gervaise1

And the "500k to break even, 1M to be profitable but nothing to write home about" and "wouldn't have developed SWTOR if they didn't expect 1M subs" are all in the reports. (They didn't say how long they would need 1M subs but the concensus appeared to be about 2 years depending on the number of subs, sales, advertising, number of free months given away etc.)

---

Do you mind to provide a link and quote?

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by gervaise1

And the "500k to break even, 1M to be profitable but nothing to write home about" and "wouldn't have developed SWTOR if they didn't expect 1M subs" are all in the reports. (They didn't say how long they would need 1M subs but the concensus appeared to be about 2 years depending on the number of subs, sales, advertising, number of free months given away etc.)

---

 

Do you mind to provide a link and quote?

Google is such a hard tool to use for those who wish not to find:

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1769410372x0x540332/dab48832-e802-4c78-9fe8-91a3bd6180a2/ERTS_Q3FY12_Transcript.pdf

Page 18:

John Riccitiello - Electronic Arts Inc. - CEO
That was me that made the comment a number of different times. What I basically said is 0.5 million subs, we could break even at the margin. 1 million subs would be
meaningfully profitable, but nothing to write home about. It certainly would not make us feel good about the investments to date. It would simply be a good business on
an ongoing basis.
And then, from there as we scale, the business gets to be very attractive.

---

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

Google is such a hard tool to use for those who wish not to find:

---

I was just pointing out how twisted the quote is. See the difference between what poster and articles quote and what the real quote actually is?

---

Originally posted by eyeswideopen
 

---

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by gervaise1 And the "500k to break even, 1M to be profitable but nothing to write home about" and "wouldn't have developed SWTOR if they didn't expect 1M subs" are all in the reports. (They didn't say how long they would need 1M subs but the concensus appeared to be about 2 years depending on the number of subs, sales, advertising, number of free months given away etc.)

---

  Do you mind to provide a link and quote?

---

Google is such a hard tool to use for those who wish not to find:

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1769410372x0x540332/dab48832-e802-4c78-9fe8-91a3bd6180a2/ERTS_Q3FY12_Transcript.pdf

Page 18:John Riccitiello - Electronic Arts Inc. - CEOThat was me that made the comment a number of different times. What I basically said is 0.5 million subs, we could break even at the margin. 1 million subs would bemeaningfully profitable, but nothing to write home about. It certainly would not make us feel good about the investments to date. It would simply be a good business onan ongoing basis.And then, from there as we scale, the business gets to be very attractive.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by eyeswideopen
 

---

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by gervaise1 And the "500k to break even, 1M to be profitable but nothing to write home about" and "wouldn't have developed SWTOR if they didn't expect 1M subs" are all in the reports. (They didn't say how long they would need 1M subs but the concensus appeared to be about 2 years depending on the number of subs, sales, advertising, number of free months given away etc.)

---

  Do you mind to provide a link and quote?

---

Google is such a hard tool to use for those who wish not to find:

 

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1769410372x0x540332/dab48832-e802-4c78-9fe8-91a3bd6180a2/ERTS_Q3FY12_Transcript.pdf

Page 18:John Riccitiello - Electronic Arts Inc. - CEOThat was me that made the comment a number of different times. What I basically said is 0.5 million subs, we could break even at the margin. 1 million subs would bemeaningfully profitable, but nothing to write home about. It certainly would not make us feel good about the investments to date. It would simply be a good business onan ongoing basis.And then, from there as we scale, the business gets to be very attractive.

---

That was kind of dumb. I'm wondering how many subs they expected to start with if they thought a million subs on an ongoing basis was even possible. Other than releasing in China, Australia and the surrounding regions, I don't really see how that's possible.

 

they thought they were heading for wow numbers on this game like 10 mil so yea...

One million or even two would have been possible with a good game. But there's no denying that SWTOR is an underperformer for its budget and ip.

Surprisingly this news didnt make it to tor official forum, wonder how will they react if it does...

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Eyeswideopen: wrath of heroes is a separate game to war, its a MOBA not a mmo

Doesn't matter. You said EA doesn't do F2P. They do.

Oh, and  Need for Speed World, an mmo. http://world.needforspeed.com/home

Originally posted by arctarus

Surprisingly this news didnt make it to tor official forum, wonder how will they react if it does...

It did. the mods have been working overtime there lately. If you have an account, post the topic there. it'll be gone in less than five minutes.

Riccitiello has a big mouth.

Swtor was already a sinking ship before he broadcasted his non sense, now he definetly sunk it

Originally posted by lowendahl

One million or even two would have been possible with a good game. But there's no denying that SWTOR is an underperformer for its budget and ip.

Except for the part where it got almost 2 million for several months.

Originally posted by Valentina

Originally posted by lowendahl

One million or even two would have been possible with a good game. But there's no denying that SWTOR is an underperformer for its budget and ip.

Except for the part where it got almost 2 million for several months.

Just goes to show the "power" of inaccurate and candy coated reviews and advertisement.

All aboard the hype train.

Originally posted by Valentina

Originally posted by lowendahl

One million or even two would have been possible with a good game. But there's no denying that SWTOR is an underperformer for its budget and ip.

Except for the part where it got almost 2 million for several months.

Another sucker that believes the spin. EAware admits in their own investor report they count pre-paid accounts ( regardless of the fact the people who made them quit long ago ), the free time they keep throwing out like candy to keep cancelled subs alive,  and free trials on top of it all .

They even go so far as to claim they sold 2 million boxes but 300k of the people who bought them never bothered to use them ( in reality, this means they sold 2 million boxes to retailers and there are 300k of those boxes sitting on shelves ).

Learn to see through the spin.

Originally posted by Valentina

Originally posted by lowendahl

One million or even two would have been possible with a good game. But there's no denying that SWTOR is an underperformer for its budget and ip.

Except for the part where it got almost 2 million for several months.

2 million subs for several months? Care to provide a source? Your definition of several.

Now according to EA they haven't come close to 2M subs nor have they announced 1M 'recurring' subscribers.

 In Feb' they said 1.7M the majority of whom were subscribers but clarified in March that majority was just over half - so about 850k.

And whilst they repeated the 1.7M  number in the March presentation they only said that the vast majority were through their 30 days (fuzzy wording used) - maybe over 1M but they didn't say so.

And in May they announced 1.3M as at the end of April - so some of these will be on 30 days free and any sales in the new countries they launched into will be on 30 days included. 

So no evidence of 1M recurring subs - maybe they passed 1M for a month but given the language used probably not.

And it was EA themselves (in their February results presentation and conference call - links above) that said it was continuing subs that were the key for the game to be a financial success not sales.

So 2M: no. Several months: no. Underperformer at this moment in time: yes. Source: EA.