Originally posted by tiefighter25

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by tiefighter25

@Draron:

I just wanted to point out that the finalized Hero engine and the Aplppha protype Bioware based SWOTOR on are two different beasts. Same genus, different species, as Simtronics was quick to point out last December.

The second link is from the wiki, an up to date resource for the engine.

I'm not arguing over the population of the game itself atm, I think your misunderstanding. Just clarifying on the mega servers.

And doing a snapshot of the population at one point in time won't prove anything of the servers being "mega". If there's not enough people to fill them, there's no way to test until F2P comes.

Well in regard to the population, I did point out that several servers have already hit full capacity following hte mergers. (Along with waiting queues.) Some have explained that is because Bioware is slowly "breaking in " the new servers. Where they garnered this knowledge, I don't know and they don't say.

One would think that after closing 6 servers, the resulting population in one of the new destination servers could peak above 3,000 players to test the new meganess.

That said, the very heavy servers aren't over 3,000. If 2,500 is very heavy, what is full?

As I mentioned before, the Jung Ma server is curious indeed. Players are reporting 70-120 on fleet, both sides, and the server is reporting Standard. The same thing, but with lower populations is being reported by Gav Dragon.

To me, all data indicates that the same population is being dispersed on less servers following the merger.

I see no evidence of the server's new meganess.

Of course I could be wrong. Perhaps the new servers are being "Broken In" and the server status reporting is borked, and will find out in "the Fall?" when FTP finally arrives.

This new mega-technology, just seemed awfully convienent from EA's prespective, not very well documented, and could use further clarification.

So in the end I guess we agree to disagree. We'll find out in maybe November. I guess we can peg this up to another "Coming Soon"?

If they have made great strides in server technology and a possible new space project, one would think they would market it better. I dunno.

Just to stay a negative Nancy, I could say that the quote you are pointing to in that interview,

"PCG: Will they be cross-server at launch? Is that planned for the future?

DE: They will not be cross-server as we are coming up on a huge move to servers with massively higher population caps than we have today."

..was just an excuse to explain why they weren't making Group FInder cross-server.

The other link was Bioware saying the cap was increased, no explanation how. (And a btw, your name might be gone.)

But as you point out, all will be revealled with the FTP launch.

In green.

Come November EA will not reveal subscriptions at all.  Instead they will state that they have X number of new accounts eagerly waiting for F2P, or something like that.

Subs reported in November (snapshot of Sept 30th, 2012 - closing quarter date) will be so below the break-even point of 500k subs that there is no way EA will detail this to investors.  EA's rival, Activision-Blizzard has a clause that they include everyone who quit during the previous 30 days as subscribers .. but even if they rip Activision-Blizzard's policy I don't think this will even help SWTOR reach 500k.  Investors WANT to hear MORE than 500k lol. They don't want to hear "near" or "less".

[the rest applies to other posters]

As pointed out in other posts 500k is the break-even point to cover day-to-day costs.  1 Million subscribers was what is needed to put money back into EA and show investors a few pennies on their dollars.

This game isn't making investors happy :-P  EA might have suckered some in to their F2P model, but I'm not seeing it.  Make a good game and people will play it, and it will generate some $$

  ... make an overall fair game, inferior in some areas, and great in others .. and well if you are lucky you will get your money back.

Originally posted by Karteli

As pointed out in other posts 500k is the break-even point to cover day-to-day costs.  1 Million subscribers was what is needed to put money back into EA and show investors a few pennies on their dollars.

To be fair, that 500k goal was when they had there expectations high and before the many layoffs. We don't know how many subs is needed to be profitable now.

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by Karteli

As pointed out in other posts 500k is the break-even point to cover day-to-day costs.  1 Million subscribers was what is needed to put money back into EA and show investors a few pennies on their dollars.

To be fair, that 500k goal was when they had there expectations high and before the many layoffs. We don't know how many subs is needed to be profitable now.

To also be fair, that 500k goal might have already included an anticipated layoff of their personell.  EA likely knew ahead of time who they would let go in order to make the game break even.

In a successful game, developers just don't lay off people.  If the game is profitable you keep everyone around who made it possible .. and you use these same people to add more and more stuff.

Laying people off is a short sighted advantage. It will help short-term, but in the long term, it only decreases your companies value.

Originally posted by Karteli

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by Karteli

As pointed out in other posts 500k is the break-even point to cover day-to-day costs.  1 Million subscribers was what is needed to put money back into EA and show investors a few pennies on their dollars.

To be fair, that 500k goal was when they had there expectations high and before the many layoffs. We don't know how many subs is needed to be profitable now.

To also be fair, that 500k goal might have already included an anticipated layoff of their personell.  EA likely knew ahead of time who they would let go in order to make the game break even.

 There's a quote floating around how Bioware said it expects to keep there 500 man staff after the launch of the game, but can't find it atm. All that comes up is news over the two heads of Bioware leaving. But they didn't plan on layoffs.

In a successful game, developers just don't lay off people.  If the game is profitable you keep everyone around who made it possible .. and you use these same people to add more and more stuff.

 True, but the game wasn't a successful launch, hence the layoffs. We can make safe bet they layed off enough people so that they can keep up monthly costs, thus not needing the 500k for profits. That's the reason for layoffs, no? Cut the fat, so to speak.

Laying people off is a short sighted advantage. It will help short-term, but in the long term, it only decreases your companies value.

True Hopefully they can fill the team out again once F2P comes.

I think it is a fair assumption that 500k to break even assumed "some size of team" smaller than on day 1 - so some downsizing built in - but larger than it is now. And my assumption is that EA will want the cost of the team to be covered from the subscription revenue - income from F2P would then go towards recovering the investment. 

I think it is also a reasonable assumption that the population has continued to fall. There is simply no "buzz". The main forum activity, for example, is painfully slow. Sites have closed. Player surveys, Torstatus, XFire, further server mergers (May be wrong but I am assuming here that the mega server architecture, whatever that is, isn't active yet).

 Older games with sub-250k subs made more of an impact. As Karteli suggets however I would not be surprised if we (edit) "do not " get a new number for subs from EA.

Originally posted by Zecktorin

Even tho they did server mergers remember these servers hold MANY MANY more players than the old ones use to. 

Do you really believe that statement?  Did server hardware just drastically change in the last year and I miss the announcement?  Oh wait, you want to think that EA/Bioware first used really old servers that were made back in 2000 for the game launch, and now they upgraded to the 2012 servers......Seriously?  Obviously they used top-line servers at launch.  

Yeah, you keep the faith that the game population hasn't dropped by at least 75%.  That whole massive layoff thing at EA/Bioware, totally unrelated I'm sure.....laugh.

Originally posted by SuperXero89

If it's not a success then it must be a failure.

 

That has always been the mindset of the mmorpg.com forums.

There is more to it than that thinking with SWTOR. Even Blind Freddy can see that SWTOR is a failure!

SWTOR starts as a success and sells 2 million copies with people all understanding that it costs $15 monthly fee, and with the intent to play for years, yet they don't and now it is under 500K subs. There are mass layofff, then the game goes F2P from P2P. Then servers merge from about 200 to 20. Then the main guys behind the game then bail, including "The Doctors" who not only leaves Bioware but retire from game creation altogether. That is what makes it a failure.

The Secret World I consider neither a success or a failure. It started with average amount of players, and generally keeps people entertained, and not quitting on mass or foaming at the mouth with disappointment!

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by Karteli

As pointed out in other posts 500k is the break-even point to cover day-to-day costs.  1 Million subscribers was what is needed to put money back into EA and show investors a few pennies on their dollars.

To be fair, that 500k goal was when they had there expectations high and before the many layoffs. We don't know how many subs is needed to be profitable now.

It is still 500K according to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19077238 as posted on 1st Aug, following the F2P announcement and the layoffs

The President of EA Labels Frank Gibeau said the Star Wars game would still break even so long as it maintained 500,000 subscribers, but admitted that its current performance was "not good enough".

Originally posted by superniceguy

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by Karteli

As pointed out in other posts 500k is the break-even point to cover day-to-day costs.  1 Million subscribers was what is needed to put money back into EA and show investors a few pennies on their dollars.

To be fair, that 500k goal was when they had there expectations high and before the many layoffs. We don't know how many subs is needed to be profitable now.

It is still 500K according to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19077238 as posted on 1st Aug, following the F2P announcement and the layoffs

The President of EA Labels Frank Gibeau said the Star Wars game would still break even so long as it maintained 500,000 subscribers, but admitted that its current performance was "not good enough".

 

As of the 31st of July it was "well above" 500k. It may not be now. And the reason for thinking this is how EA worded the sub numbers: between 500k and 1M. That is a huge margin probably because of the 6 month subscribers coming up for renewal in August / September. EA's projection must have been that many would decide not to - pushing the number towards 500k sometime post 31st July.

Either way the number wasn't good enough as mentioned. And as for "it will make a profit if it keeps 500k subs ..... in an absolute sense yes but not really. Frank Gibeau is assuming that they have reduced their costs below 500k subs (reasonable) and that they can hold onto 500k subs for a far longer period of time than originally planned - probably 5+ years  - and that interest rates don't rise and that that many people want to pay a premium sub despite a F2P option and ...and..... and that EA/LA choose to renew the IP and .... He is, as the saying goes, pushing the boat out. Sure it is possible to row across the Atlantic.... survive a parachute jump in which the chute fails to open ... and as it stands SWTOR making a profit (i.e. recovering its development costs rather than day-to-day) is probably less likely.

NB. Most info is available at: http://investor.ea.com/

Originally posted by tiefighter25

I've already stated why I thought the Mega servers aren't Mega.

Of the 20 remaining servers, the 3 Australian servers, and the 1 RP-PVP server have negligible populations.

Assuming all the planets lined up and the 16 servers all hit 3,000 players,

(the previous cap before MEGA, the new cap has been heit on several occasions, leading me to believe it is still 3,000 MEGA or not.)

16 servers x 3,000= 48 thousand max concurrent population.

Several people keep pointing out that the MEGA servers are real because they will be needed for the influx of new FTP players.

I ask you this, many believe that the HERO engine canot handle populatons over 3,000 even with phasing. (Consider for a moment that WoW's servers max cap is 4,000-8,000) How would the new Mega technology address this?

The new Popilation Test Server (All US East coast charcters were available to play on 1 server in theorey, but the server was never tested for load. No one played on it.)

What makes you think that Bioware won't just open servers as needed form there stash of 200 unused servers when the game goes FTP?

The 220 servers Bioware initially invested in has a max concurrent population of 220 x 3,000=6,600,000 players.

Those servers do not require Mega vaporware, and are tried and tested.

People say I'm overly negative (perhaps I am , I know the ban hammer.) But I'm not screaming the game sucks, I just point out that sometimes EA goes into extreme spin mode, and I'm not willing or able to play along with it.

Anyone remember this thread? http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/334472/page/1

I can't believe the people who predicted f2p in 1 year were correct. I can't believe the hype some bought into either. 

If we base success or failure on what the fans expected the numbers to be like, I think it is safe to call it a failure. I don't know the SWTOR is a failure financially, but it is by no means the market-share beast that it was intended to be. 

Originally posted by tiefighter25

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by tiefighter25

@Draron:

I just wanted to point out that the finalized Hero engine and the Aplppha protype Bioware based SWOTOR on are two different beasts. Same genus, different species, as Simtronics was quick to point out last December.

The second link is from the wiki, an up to date resource for the engine.

I'm not arguing over the population of the game itself atm, I think your misunderstanding. Just clarifying on the mega servers.

And doing a snapshot of the population at one point in time won't prove anything of the servers being "mega". If there's not enough people to fill them, there's no way to test until F2P comes.

Well in regard to the population, I did point out that several servers have already hit full capacity following hte mergers. (Along with waiting queues.) Some have explained that is because Bioware is slowly "breaking in " the new servers. Where they garnered this knowledge, I don't know and they don't say.

One would think that after closing 6 servers, the resulting population in one of the new destination servers could peak above 3,000 players to test the new meganess.

That said, the very heavy servers aren't over 3,000. If 2,500 is very heavy, what is full?

As I mentioned before, the Jung Ma server is curious indeed. Players are reporting 70-120 on fleet, both sides, and the server is reporting Standard. The same thing, but with lower populations is being reported by Gav Dragon.

To me, all data indicates that the same population is being dispersed on less servers following the merger.

I see no evidence of the server's new meganess.

Of course I could be wrong. Perhaps the new servers are being "Broken In" and the server status reporting is borked, and will find out in "the Fall?" when FTP finally arrives.

This new mega-technology, just seemed awfully convienent from EA's prespective, not very well documented, and could use further clarification.

So in the end I guess we agree to disagree. We'll find out in maybe November. I guess we can peg this up to another "Coming Soon"?

If they have made great strides in server technology and a possible new space project, one would think they would market it better. I dunno.

Just to stay a negative Nancy, I could say that the quote you are pointing to in that interview,

"PCG: Will they be cross-server at launch? Is that planned for the future?

DE: They will not be cross-server as we are coming up on a huge move to servers with massively higher population caps than we have today."

..was just an excuse to explain why they weren't making Group FInder cross-server.

The other link was Bioware saying the cap was increased, no explanation how. (And a btw, your name might be gone.)

But as you point out, all will be revealled with the FTP launch.

nobody knows whats the cap is. could be 3k , could be 30k. DCUO when lanched the f2p had 1mill active accs and had only 2 servers

I can say SWTOR is a failure in Bioware's expectations/financially. But entertainment wise, I'd say no. 

Compared to a majority of the MMO's launched the past few years, even 10 months out it's held onto it's sub base better than WAR, FFXIV, AoC, Rift, etc. I'm not going to argue with anyone over why it's a good game or not as that's purely opinion, but there's reason for having 500k-1mil subs this far out.

The Star Wars setting may have helped, but it's not the sole reason. Look at SWG, after it received a specific update it's subs plummeted and was barely keeping up 50k subscriptions before it was shut down. Most people play games for there own merit, not setting.

Originally posted by Draron

I can say SWTOR is a failure in Bioware's expectations/financially. But entertainment wise, I'd say no. 

Compared to a majority of the MMO's launched the past few years, even 10 months out it's held onto it's sub base better than WAR, FFXIV, AoC, Rift, etc. I'm not going to argue with anyone over why it's a good game or not as that's purely opinion, but there's reason for having 500k-1mil subs this far out.

The Star Wars setting may have helped, but it's not the sole reason. Look at SWG, after it received a specific update it's subs plummeted and was barely keeping up 50k subscriptions before it was shut down. Most people play games for there own merit, not setting.

So you’re saying that it has held it subs better then Rift? A game that is still P2P with no F2P even being discussed, and that has an expansion on the way. 

SWTOR sold over 2 million copies and publicly stated they had over 1.7 million subs.

http://torwars.com/2012/02/02/two-million-copies-of-swtor-sold-1-7-million-subscriptions/

TOR at 10 months: http://www.swtor.com/free

Rift at most (if I’m remembering right claim 1.2 million copies sold.) Although, I can't find that number and they have never released sub numbers, either way these number are still far less than SWTOR.

Here was Rift at 10 months : http://ca.reuters.com/article/idCATRE80I19K20120119

So, again you’re saying that a game that lost over a million subs in less than a year is doing a good job holding onto them?

I would also like to add that 500k-1mill subs at this point is being pretty generous.

Dosen't matter how much you roll your 8-ball SWTOR is an epic fail.

Is it dead? no

Do people still play it? yes

The thing is, It's Star Wars, It's Bioware sure these two things should make an epic game, but sadly they took the cheesy fanboy route and made a game worth 10mill dollar but using 200 million dollars.

Just beacuse a game has players dosent make it a success.

Originally posted by f0dell54

Originally posted by Draron

I can say SWTOR is a failure in Bioware's expectations/financially. But entertainment wise, I'd say no. 

Compared to a majority of the MMO's launched the past few years, even 10 months out it's held onto it's sub base better than WAR, FFXIV, AoC, Rift, etc. I'm not going to argue with anyone over why it's a good game or not as that's purely opinion, but there's reason for having 500k-1mil subs this far out.

The Star Wars setting may have helped, but it's not the sole reason. Look at SWG, after it received a specific update it's subs plummeted and was barely keeping up 50k subscriptions before it was shut down. Most people play games for there own merit, not setting.

 

So you’re saying that it has held it subs better then Rift? A game that is still P2P with no F2P even being discussed, and that has an expansion on the way. 

SWTOR sold over 2 million copies and publicly stated they had over 1.7 million subs.

http://torwars.com/2012/02/02/two-million-copies-of-swtor-sold-1-7-million-subscriptions/

TOR at 10 months: http://www.swtor.com/free

Rift at most (if I’m remembering right claim 1.2 million copies sold.) Although, I can't find that number and they have never released sub numbers, either way these number are still far less than SWTOR.

Here was Rift at 10 months : http://ca.reuters.com/article/idCATRE80I19K20120119

So, again you’re saying that a game that lost over a million subs in less than a year is doing a good job holding onto them?

I would also like to add that 500k-1mill subs at this point is being pretty generous.

Rift lost there subs faster than SWTOR percentage wise. http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png Going by that chart, Rift lost more than half of it's subsriptions 5 months in. SWTOR kept more than half that far after launch.

I won't make up anything to make SWTOR look better, I'm no fanboi. In fact I'd say I'm the opposite. I stayed away from the game for a good half year after it launched purely on the hate it was getting. After playing it a few months, I have to say a lot of it (not all) is just unfounded.

And Trion did hint at F2P. They were questioned on an alternate payment option since it's becoming prevelant in other games, and they replied with they're busy on the expansion and not to look forward to anything like that until they're well after the launch and hands are free.

Originally posted by Torgrim

Dosen't matter how much you roll your 8-ball SWTOR is an epic fail.

Is it dead? no

Do people still play it? yes

The thing is, It's Star Wars, It's Bioware sure these two things should make an epic game, but sadly they took the cheesy fanboy route and made a game worth 10mill dollar but using 200 million dollars.

Just beacuse a game has players dosent make it a success.

Obviously if people play it they're having fun.  I played GW2/WoW/FFXI/FFXIV/Rift/etc (still plan to play GW2 casually) but I see myself putting more time into SWTOR because I'm having more fun in it than other games. But I'm not calling those games fail or claiming they took the "cheesy fanboy route". 

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by f0dell54

Originally posted by Draron

I can say SWTOR is a failure in Bioware's expectations/financially. But entertainment wise, I'd say no. 

Compared to a majority of the MMO's launched the past few years, even 10 months out it's held onto it's sub base better than WAR, FFXIV, AoC, Rift, etc. I'm not going to argue with anyone over why it's a good game or not as that's purely opinion, but there's reason for having 500k-1mil subs this far out.

The Star Wars setting may have helped, but it's not the sole reason. Look at SWG, after it received a specific update it's subs plummeted and was barely keeping up 50k subscriptions before it was shut down. Most people play games for there own merit, not setting.

 

So you’re saying that it has held it subs better then Rift? A game that is still P2P with no F2P even being discussed, and that has an expansion on the way. 

SWTOR sold over 2 million copies and publicly stated they had over 1.7 million subs.

http://torwars.com/2012/02/02/two-million-copies-of-swtor-sold-1-7-million-subscriptions/

TOR at 10 months: http://www.swtor.com/free

Rift at most (if I’m remembering right claim 1.2 million copies sold.) Although, I can't find that number and they have never released sub numbers, either way these number are still far less than SWTOR.

Here was Rift at 10 months : http://ca.reuters.com/article/idCATRE80I19K20120119

So, again you’re saying that a game that lost over a million subs in less than a year is doing a good job holding onto them?

I would also like to add that 500k-1mill subs at this point is being pretty generous.

Rift lost there subs faster than SWTOR percentage wise. http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png Going by that chart, Rift lost more than half of it's subsriptions 5 months in. SWTOR kept more than half that far after launch.

I won't make up anything to make SWTOR look better, I'm no fanboi. In fact I'd say I'm the opposite. I stayed away from the game for a good half year after it launched purely on the hate it was getting. After playing it a few months, I have to say a lot of it (not all) is just unfounded.

And Trion did hint at F2P. They were questioned on an alternate payment option since it's becoming prevelant in other games, and they replied with they're busy on the expansion and not to look forward to anything like that until they're well after the launch and hands are free.

The problem is with investment versus return, I can't begin to speculate what either game spent in development, but we do know that costs on SWTOR were very high due to the tremendous amount of voice acting. I could develop a game and lose more than 80% of my customers and still be profitable if I make back more than my investment, and be highly profitiable if I can retain that 20% for a sustained period of time. 

I don't know if SWTOR made back their initial investment, but I don't think they made the kind of profits they were expecting, and that's problematic in and of itself if that is the case. 

Originally posted by Leoghan

The problem is with investment versus return, I can't begin to speculate what either game spent in development, but we do know that costs on SWTOR were very high due to the tremendous amount of voice acting. I could develop a game and lose more than 80% of my customers and still be profitable if I make back more than my investment, and be highly profitiable if I can retain that 20% for a sustained period of time. 

I don't know if SWTOR made back their initial investment, but I don't think they made the kind of profits they were expecting, and that's problematic in and of itself if that is the case. 

Hence why I agreed earlier that SWTOR was a fail financially. I only linked sub numbers to prove it didn't lose it's players as fast as other big MMO's released the last few months/years, so obviously people are enjoying themselves to keep playing.

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by Leoghan

The problem is with investment versus return, I can't begin to speculate what either game spent in development, but we do know that costs on SWTOR were very high due to the tremendous amount of voice acting. I could develop a game and lose more than 80% of my customers and still be profitable if I make back more than my investment, and be highly profitiable if I can retain that 20% for a sustained period of time. 

I don't know if SWTOR made back their initial investment, but I don't think they made the kind of profits they were expecting, and that's problematic in and of itself if that is the case. 

Hence why I agreed earlier that SWTOR was a fail financially. I only linked sub numbers to prove it didn't lose it's players as fast as other big MMO's released the last few months/years, so obviously people are enjoying themselves to keep playing.

Oh I'm sure there are people still enjoying the game, I've enjoy some of my experiences with it. But that can be said for a number of games, SWG, Vanguard, STO.