Originally posted by demarc01 Originally posted by channel84 I'm betting those analyst didn't try out the beta. Retention rate is gonna be a big issue unless they can do content update as fast as rift.
^^
This,
Excellent!
I don't want gaming analysts who job it is to determine numbers and interpret data to tell me the lightsaber colors can or can't be changed.
I'd rather save that for the jaded players. From analysts, I want sound, reasonable advice on how they think a game will do overall.. not if Joe doesn't like how Sith Warrior's armor looks like.
First of all, 250k subscribers to offset server costs? Either those servers are made of pure gold or management for that part of the operation defecates into pure gold bowls.
Secondly, no chance in hell SWTOR will have 1.5 mil permanent subscribers 6 month down the road. 600k - likely, which will make it financially successful, still.
This is, of course, just a pathetic opinion of a pathetic citizen, but we'll see who's right.
Precisely.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet on what professional who make money to do this say vs what a "pathetic citizen" says. That's the point of the thread.
Wouldn't you? /shrug
Actually, in clinical trials, it's been shown that, in fields such as economics, betting etc, the crowd is more likely (53% for the crowd compared to 47% for an analyst) to be correct on something the analyst is supposedly an expert in.
I don't get what's to debate here. They are using market trends coupled with the current sales numbers of TOR preorders to generate a calculated prediction of how well TOR will do in the future. It's objective, it's based on math, not based on how well they liked the beta.
This doesn't mean they'll be right, but it doesn't really matter. Right now TOR doesn't have any real competition in the MMO market. When that changes the numbers will probably change along with it. Personally I think predicting for June of next year is kind of a distant figure to predict, as there are other factors in the MMO market that haven't made their impact yet, but likely will before June comes around.
Either way, that's what the current trend says about TOR. Given the current amount of preorders sold, I'd say it's a fairly good estimate.
Originally posted by OgreRaper I will be shocked beyond belief if TOR reaches 3 mil. I don't care what the preorder numbers are, I don't see a high retention rate for this game.
Again, you don't seem to grasp what the whole picture is. ToR doesn't NEED a high retention rate and others are missing that point as well. If they do sell 3 million or even 1.5 million, they don't have to retain that many, lol.
ToR only needs 400K to break even. EA says if they get 500K then they are "substantially profitable".
So some real numbers for you:
If they sell 3 million, they only need to retain 13.5%. Which means roughly 14 out of 100 people have to sub.
If they sell 1.5 million, they only need to retain 26.5%. Which means roughly 27 out of 100 people have to sub.
I'm done trying to deal with haters, I know that this game will hold subs and I will LOL a year down the line at all the haters because of this, I posted a few times that I am willing to make a real money bet to anyone in the World that Swtor will have over 1 million subs a year out and none of the haters had the balls to put there money where there mouth is.
I'm betting those analyst didn't try out the beta. Retention rate is gonna be a big issue unless they can do content update as fast as rift.
^^
This,
Excellent!
I don't want gaming analysts who job it is to determine numbers and interpret data to tell me the lightsaber colors can or can't be changed.
I'd rather save that for the jaded players. From analysts, I want sound, reasonable advice on how they think a game will do overall.. not if Joe doesn't like how Sith Warrior's armor looks like.
I should be clear, the part of the post my reply was aimed at was the retention rate comment. I'm some at least *some* of the Analyst's logged into the game, but thats irrelivent. They would be looking at feedback from other source's, hopefully independant source's rather than Bioware's feedback forms taken from the in game pop-ups we got all weekend.
If the *analysts* are basing thier projections on feedback given to Bioware thats a mistake, since most of the people getting into the game (Via-beta) knew what they were getting into ahead of time and had a good idea what to expect. The fan's that buy this game based on it being star wars and have never played an MMO probably have no clue about the beta process and dont read these sites to have access to things like the open weekend. Thier opinions when they get in may be vastly different.
A good Analyst can look at all information source's and take into account Bias .. are the sources cited good Analysts? Dunno.
Bottom line, why bother with all the hate / love thread's and the projection threads etc. Wait 6 months and see /shrug
Paid, no, but analysts are human and their "professional" opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. Just look back at S&P's ratings for mortgage backed securities in 2006, 2007, 2008. Hmm those guys are still in business.
I'm not sure you understand. Analysts are like.. lawyers or doctors or any other professional field.
I don't get what's to debate here. They are using market trends coupled with the current sales numbers of TOR preorders to generate a calculated prediction of how well TOR will do in the future. It's objective, it's based on math, not based on how well they liked the beta.
Exactly. Their predictions on the number of box sales might have some merit but retention rates... Imo they're waaay off. They have no real way of predicting it except by "hunch" and my hunch is that their hunch is dead wrong.
No matter what you do/say you are never going to convince the "haters" that this game isn't going to F2P in a year.
The only real way to settle things is to view what the professionals, who's job it is to monitor the industry, trends and financial side of running a mmo think... not what 'developers' think, or 'fans/haters' think, or even rival companies like WoW's Kotick think.
The only way to rebut any argument is to go with what professionals say and honestly, we've seen quite a few analysts saying already that TOR will be very successful and profitable beyond 'break even'.
You would think this would work, but often times people sitll don't give a damn haha... and I wouldn't agree with it being the "only way", but definitely a good one.
Originally posted by ArEf Actually, in clinical trials, it's been shown that, in fields such as economics, betting etc, the crowd is more likely (53% for the crowd compared to 47% for an analyst) to be correct on something the analyst is supposedly an expert in.
I doubt that would hold up vs the gaming analysts. Usually these things are pretty spot on as far as sales projections and such. Gaming analysts probably score a much higher mark because the audience is easily trackable through sales and pre-orders; most other analysts depend on other variables that are unknown such as natural disasters affecting crops or wars to political instability. Gaming doesn't have that.. it lives in a fishbowl.
Even when Warhammer was first launched, all the WAR fans said it was going to do one million and beat WoW.
But then there was this analyst guy, see.... He didn't play the WAR beta either. He just looked at sales and read surveys and reports and he said that WAR would probably sell around 2 million boxes and settle around 250k-300k subs.
Well, that exact thing happened as far as subs; eight or nine months later EA announced they had... 300K to stockholders and had sold 1.2 copies in the first month. The only thing that kept Warhammer from retaining the rest of those subs was Mythic's inability to fix all it's laggy, buggy, broken, boring and FOTM PvP and PvE play. If they had done that eight or nine months later, they would have kept right on pace.
That's pretty damn accurate for a analyst guy who doesn't play betas.
ToR has no such problems like that by anyone's critic. The biggest gripe from people is "Hurr Durr.. it's a single player", which according to those who like it, doesn't make the game any worse. ToR doesn't have huge gaping technical gamebreaking flaws like WaR so people are likely to resub if they like it now.
Actually, in clinical trials, it's been shown that, in fields such as economics, betting etc, the crowd is more likely (53% for the crowd compared to 47% for an analyst) to be correct on something the analyst is supposedly an expert in.
I doubt that would hold up vs the gaming analysts. Usually these things are pretty spot on as far as sales projections and such. Gaming analysts probably score a much higher mark because the audience is easily trackable through sales and pre-orders; most other analysts depend on other variables that are unknown such as natural disasters affecting crops or wars to political instability. Gaming doesn't have that.. it lives in a fishbowl.
Even when Warhammer was first launched, all the WAR fans said it was going to do one million and beat WoW.
But then there was this analyst guy, see.... He didn't play the WAR beta either. He just looked at sales and read surveys and reports and he said that WAR would probably sell around 2 million boxes and settle around 250k-300k subs.
Well, that exact thing happened as far as subs; eight or nine months later EA announced they had... 300K to stockholders and had sold 1.2 copies in the first month. The only thing that kept Warhammer from retaining the rest of those subs was Mythic's inability to fix all it's laggy, buggy, broken, boring and FOTM PvP and PvE play. If they had done that eight or nine months later, they would have kept right on pace.
That's pretty damn accurate for a analyst guy who doesn't play betas.
ToR has no such problems like that by anyone's critic. The biggest gripe from people is "Hurr Durr.. it's a single player", which according to those who like it, doesn't make the game any worse. ToR doesn't have huge gaping technical gamebreaking flaws like WaR so people are likely to resub if they like it now.
Yes, because those analysts with their degrees in economics don't compare with these random guys who claim to be game analysts!
Originally posted by demarc01 Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by demarc01
Originally posted by channel84 I'm betting those analyst didn't try out the beta. Retention rate is gonna be a big issue unless they can do content update as fast as rift.
^^
This,
Excellent!
I don't want gaming analysts who job it is to determine numbers and interpret data to tell me the lightsaber colors can or can't be changed.
I'd rather save that for the jaded players. From analysts, I want sound, reasonable advice on how they think a game will do overall.. not if Joe doesn't like how Sith Warrior's armor looks like.
I should be clear, the part of the post my reply was aimed at was the retention rate comment.
Since you are addressing ONLY the retention rates, let me direct you to post #57 in the thread so you can see actual retention needs for ToR.
You'll find the number needed (based on total sales in either 1.5 or 3 million) to be rather low each way.
I will not be playing but i predicted 5+ million peak at some point.I do not think the game has any lasting power so i believe it will hit 5 million alot sooner maybe even before that 3 mil june prediction.
I only played two weekends,but i played a lot and really got deep into the games structure,that is when i saw it will not not last long.Most people will do the race to level cap thing,to feel they got their money's worth,buit after that unless your into a steady feed of pvp in the game,i just can't see players sticking around.
IF Bioware invests a lot of money and effort into the game after launch and updates many of it's weak systems,then it could be a strong game for many years,but i believe that this won't happen and the way they designed the game ,won't allow it to be any better,so it is what it is and will remain that way.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by ArEf Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by ArEf
Actually, in clinical trials, it's been shown that, in fields such as economics, betting etc, the crowd is more likely (53% for the crowd compared to 47% for an analyst) to be correct on something the analyst is supposedly an expert in.
I doubt that would hold up vs the gaming analysts. Usually these things are pretty spot on as far as sales projections and such. Gaming analysts probably score a much higher mark because the audience is easily trackable through sales and pre-orders; most other analysts depend on other variables that are unknown such as natural disasters affecting crops or wars to political instability. Gaming doesn't have that.. it lives in a fishbowl. Even when Warhammer was first launched, all the WAR fans said it was going to do one million and beat WoW.
But then there was this analyst guy, see.... He didn't play the WAR beta either. He just looked at sales and read surveys and reports and he said that WAR would probably sell around 2 million boxes and settle around 250k-300k subs.
Well, that exact thing happened as far as subs; eight or nine months later EA announced they had... 300K to stockholders and had sold 1.2 copies in the first month. The only thing that kept Warhammer from retaining the rest of those subs was Mythic's inability to fix all it's laggy, buggy, broken, boring and FOTM PvP and PvE play. If they had done that eight or nine months later, they would have kept right on pace. That's pretty damn accurate for a analyst guy who doesn't play betas. ToR has no such problems like that by anyone's critic. The biggest gripe from people is "Hurr Durr.. it's a single player", which according to those who like it, doesn't make the game any worse. ToR doesn't have huge gaping technical gamebreaking flaws like WaR so people are likely to resub if they like it now. Yes, because those analysts with their degrees in economics don't compare with these random guys who claim to be game analysts!
When looking at empirical data and determining outcomes, the random guys can't even begin to understand why one thing is popular when they clearly don't like it, despite all the data and evidence of a survey, poll or research.
They suffer from a "since I don't like it, it's going to fail" mentality rather than looking at low server trends, how often a game is running sales to stay afloat (hello Rift!), or just the exact complaint most people have about a game.. the most important of which is "it's just boring", which is hardly the most common complaint vs TOR.
The most common complaint you read is:
1. It's single player.. I wanna play a MMO. This despite hardly any of them passing level 10 and grouping for things like Esseles or The Hammer, Or even taking into account any other MMO that they've played levels 1-10 as a "mmo" instead of a single player. (who groups during levels 1-10 of ANY mmo really?)
I will be shocked beyond belief if TOR reaches 3 mil. I don't care what the preorder numbers are, I don't see a high retention rate for this game.
By what reasoning? If you go off and blast TOR for gameplay elements that are similar to WoWs (catering to casuals, easy-mode, low barrier to entry, etc). Your logic is flawed. There seems to be this really wierd sense of logic that pervades these discussions that postulates that WoW is successful despite its gameplay. WoW is successful in part becuase of its gameplay not in spite of. You just aren't the target audience. Your entitled to your opinion but if you hate this gameplay type (Themepark catering to casuals) its a little silly to pretend you know the mind of the target audience enough to predict the titles success or failure.
I don't understand why people get so wrapped up with the profitability of a game considering the only ones making a profit are the shareholders. So WoW has 10 million subscribers... does it equate to a game that's worth 10 million dollars? I've played games for free for years that I've found to be more fun and entertaining than some of these for-profit games out there.
So just what has profitability have to do with anything? If it's in the green, you're going to play it more than if it's in the red? What if Bill Gates donated 2 million to the game to adjust it's profit margin... does the game get better overnight because the shareholders are a little fatter?
People need to stop worrying about or speculating about the success/failure of a game. If it lasts it lasts, if not, it doesn't. You're savvy enough to know when it's time for you to leave... don't need a slide rule to figure that one out. If your that worried about wasting your money, open up an IRA and deposit what you would have spent on subs into the IRA. You'd be amazed at how much $15 a month really is when you blindy spend it for 7 years straight without even thinking about it.
I'm betting those analyst didn't try out the beta. Retention rate is gonna be a big issue unless they can do content update as fast as rift.
^^
This,
Excellent!
I don't want gaming analysts who job it is to determine numbers and interpret data to tell me the lightsaber colors can or can't be changed.
I'd rather save that for the jaded players. From analysts, I want sound, reasonable advice on how they think a game will do overall.. not if Joe doesn't like how Sith Warrior's armor looks like.
I should be clear, the part of the post my reply was aimed at was the retention rate comment.
Since you are addressing ONLY the retention rates, let me direct you to post #57 in the thread so you can see actual retention needs for ToR.
You'll find the number needed (based on total sales in either 1.5 or 3 million) to be rather low each way.
I'm already aware of the *required* retention rates to make this game profitable, its been discussed in the past on this and other forums.
My comment is that retention rates for this type of game, Themepark, are based on content. Sandboxes can afford to release content at much slower rates due to the nature of the game, sandboxes give you tools to do as you please, themeparks are very guided so unless there is something to guide you towards .. they fail in keeping people interested.
Now ToR will be like every other MMO release, it'll sell alot more boxes than subs, some people just wont like the game. Nothing wrong with that. As I previously mentioned the game is not (IMO) flawed in any major way and it does *what it says on the box*. Its a well done themepark game.
Now ignoring the people who leave initially, this always happens, retention then becomes heavily based on content due to the nature of the game. AFAIK the end game content is *adaquate* not stunning but enough there to keep people (People who like the game) amused for a period of time. After that time, its all about content updates. If Bioware fail in this it does not matter how good the base game is, because of its heavy themepark nature, people will leave when they have consumed all the content.
Hence my summation - that retention rates will dpened on how good Bioware is at adding new content in a timly maner.
Now analysts will know this and I hope that thier predictions are based on Biowares roadmap for TOR and not speculation about how they handled DLC's for games such as DA .. which is a whole different pool of sharks.
Bioware has no proven track record of content updates for an active MMO ... this is where my concern is and why I tell people that if they approach the game as good value for 3-4 months rather than the next big thing they wont be dissapointed. If Bioware fails at content updates they got thier 4 months all good. If bioware makes good then its even better. Guess I am a half empty kinda guy /shrug.
Another professional with a crystal ball, I wouldn't bet on any of 'em. 3 million subs by June, WoW will tremble, or not. Predictions will be predictions. We'll see in June by how far they he was wrong.
Right because they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to break even. This is an mmorpg they turn a profit and I mean for the price they paid for this game, they better turn a huge profit over 3 years or more or this game is an official failure
Keep moving the goalposts further back, there you go.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Another professional with a crystal ball, I wouldn't bet on any of 'em. 3 million subs by June, WoW will tremble, or not. Predictions will be predictions. We'll see in June by how far they he was wrong.
I'll take the word of a professional analyst over that of a "quaking in his boots" Blizzard employee.
Originally posted by pmiles I don't understand why people get so wrapped up with the profitability of a game considering the only ones making a profit are the shareholders.
Really?
You don't understand that the more profitable a game is, the more that company can develop newer assets for those people to continue enjoying the game vs a game that isn't profitable and cannot add any new content ala Warhammer because the company can't justify it?
Originally posted by demarc01 Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by demarc01
Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by demarc01
Originally posted by channel84 I'm betting those analyst didn't try out the beta. Retention rate is gonna be a big issue unless they can do content update as fast as rift.
^^
This,
Excellent!
I don't want gaming analysts who job it is to determine numbers and interpret data to tell me the lightsaber colors can or can't be changed.
I'd rather save that for the jaded players. From analysts, I want sound, reasonable advice on how they think a game will do overall.. not if Joe doesn't like how Sith Warrior's armor looks like.
I should be clear, the part of the post my reply was aimed at was the retention rate comment.
Since you are addressing ONLY the retention rates, let me direct you to post #57 in the thread so you can see actual retention needs for ToR.
You'll find the number needed (based on total sales in either 1.5 or 3 million) to be rather low each way.
Hence my summation - that retention rates will dpened on how good Bioware is at adding new content in a timly maner.
Which, given the projections of at least an $80 million yearly profit by professional analysts, doesn't seem like much of a problem. The money will be there and the content doesn't seem overly complicated as many hat.. err.. critics say.
Many of them claim it's so simple and transparent like WoW, that it requires little effort. Given that, your worries shouldn't be that serious
But joking aside, it's when games can't afford to add new content or when they have glaring problems with an engine (WAR/DCUO) or mechanics that simply can't be fixed (FFXIV) that gets them in trouble. That's when they go into the maintainence modes which isn't ToR's problem.
Comments
I will be shocked beyond belief if TOR reaches 3 mil. I don't care what the preorder numbers are, I don't see a high retention rate for this game.
^^
This,
Excellent!
I don't want gaming analysts who job it is to determine numbers and interpret data to tell me the lightsaber colors can or can't be changed.
I'd rather save that for the jaded players. From analysts, I want sound, reasonable advice on how they think a game will do overall.. not if Joe doesn't like how Sith Warrior's armor looks like.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Actually, in clinical trials, it's been shown that, in fields such as economics, betting etc, the crowd is more likely (53% for the crowd compared to 47% for an analyst) to be correct on something the analyst is supposedly an expert in.
Add me on Steam!
Me and a Friend are Bad At Games
I don't get what's to debate here. They are using market trends coupled with the current sales numbers of TOR preorders to generate a calculated prediction of how well TOR will do in the future. It's objective, it's based on math, not based on how well they liked the beta.
This doesn't mean they'll be right, but it doesn't really matter. Right now TOR doesn't have any real competition in the MMO market. When that changes the numbers will probably change along with it. Personally I think predicting for June of next year is kind of a distant figure to predict, as there are other factors in the MMO market that haven't made their impact yet, but likely will before June comes around.
Either way, that's what the current trend says about TOR. Given the current amount of preorders sold, I'd say it's a fairly good estimate.
character models and animations in this game is just terrible.. why anyone would want to play this ahead of games like Tera or Gw2 is beyond me...
Again, you don't seem to grasp what the whole picture is. ToR doesn't NEED a high retention rate and others are missing that point as well. If they do sell 3 million or even 1.5 million, they don't have to retain that many, lol.
ToR only needs 400K to break even. EA says if they get 500K then they are "substantially profitable".
So some real numbers for you:
If they sell 3 million, they only need to retain 13.5%. Which means roughly 14 out of 100 people have to sub.
If they sell 1.5 million, they only need to retain 26.5%. Which means roughly 27 out of 100 people have to sub.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I'm done trying to deal with haters, I know that this game will hold subs and I will LOL a year down the line at all the haters because of this, I posted a few times that I am willing to make a real money bet to anyone in the World that Swtor will have over 1 million subs a year out and none of the haters had the balls to put there money where there mouth is.
I should be clear, the part of the post my reply was aimed at was the retention rate comment. I'm some at least *some* of the Analyst's logged into the game, but thats irrelivent. They would be looking at feedback from other source's, hopefully independant source's rather than Bioware's feedback forms taken from the in game pop-ups we got all weekend.
If the *analysts* are basing thier projections on feedback given to Bioware thats a mistake, since most of the people getting into the game (Via-beta) knew what they were getting into ahead of time and had a good idea what to expect. The fan's that buy this game based on it being star wars and have never played an MMO probably have no clue about the beta process and dont read these sites to have access to things like the open weekend. Thier opinions when they get in may be vastly different.
A good Analyst can look at all information source's and take into account Bias .. are the sources cited good Analysts? Dunno.
Bottom line, why bother with all the hate / love thread's and the projection threads etc. Wait 6 months and see /shrug
Nope, not even close.
Exactly. Their predictions on the number of box sales might have some merit but retention rates... Imo they're waaay off. They have no real way of predicting it except by "hunch" and my hunch is that their hunch is dead wrong.
You would think this would work, but often times people sitll don't give a damn
haha... and I wouldn't agree with it being the "only way", but definitely a good one.
I doubt that would hold up vs the gaming analysts. Usually these things are pretty spot on as far as sales projections and such. Gaming analysts probably score a much higher mark because the audience is easily trackable through sales and pre-orders; most other analysts depend on other variables that are unknown such as natural disasters affecting crops or wars to political instability. Gaming doesn't have that.. it lives in a fishbowl.
Even when Warhammer was first launched, all the WAR fans said it was going to do one million and beat WoW.
But then there was this analyst guy, see.... He didn't play the WAR beta either. He just looked at sales and read surveys and reports and he said that WAR would probably sell around 2 million boxes and settle around 250k-300k subs.
Well, that exact thing happened as far as subs; eight or nine months later EA announced they had... 300K to stockholders and had sold 1.2 copies in the first month. The only thing that kept Warhammer from retaining the rest of those subs was Mythic's inability to fix all it's laggy, buggy, broken, boring and FOTM PvP and PvE play. If they had done that eight or nine months later, they would have kept right on pace.
That's pretty damn accurate for a analyst guy who doesn't play betas.
ToR has no such problems like that by anyone's critic. The biggest gripe from people is "Hurr Durr.. it's a single player", which according to those who like it, doesn't make the game any worse. ToR doesn't have huge gaping technical gamebreaking flaws like WaR so people are likely to resub if they like it now.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Yes, because those analysts with their degrees in economics don't compare with these random guys who claim to be game analysts!
Add me on Steam!
Me and a Friend are Bad At Games
^^
This,
Excellent!
I don't want gaming analysts who job it is to determine numbers and interpret data to tell me the lightsaber colors can or can't be changed.
I'd rather save that for the jaded players. From analysts, I want sound, reasonable advice on how they think a game will do overall.. not if Joe doesn't like how Sith Warrior's armor looks like.
I should be clear, the part of the post my reply was aimed at was the retention rate comment.
Since you are addressing ONLY the retention rates, let me direct you to post #57 in the thread so you can see actual retention needs for ToR.
You'll find the number needed (based on total sales in either 1.5 or 3 million) to be rather low each way.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I will not be playing but i predicted 5+ million peak at some point.I do not think the game has any lasting power so i believe it will hit 5 million alot sooner maybe even before that 3 mil june prediction.
I only played two weekends,but i played a lot and really got deep into the games structure,that is when i saw it will not not last long.Most people will do the race to level cap thing,to feel they got their money's worth,buit after that unless your into a steady feed of pvp in the game,i just can't see players sticking around.
IF Bioware invests a lot of money and effort into the game after launch and updates many of it's weak systems,then it could be a strong game for many years,but i believe that this won't happen and the way they designed the game ,won't allow it to be any better,so it is what it is and will remain that way.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I doubt that would hold up vs the gaming analysts. Usually these things are pretty spot on as far as sales projections and such. Gaming analysts probably score a much higher mark because the audience is easily trackable through sales and pre-orders; most other analysts depend on other variables that are unknown such as natural disasters affecting crops or wars to political instability. Gaming doesn't have that.. it lives in a fishbowl.
Even when Warhammer was first launched, all the WAR fans said it was going to do one million and beat WoW.
But then there was this analyst guy, see.... He didn't play the WAR beta either. He just looked at sales and read surveys and reports and he said that WAR would probably sell around 2 million boxes and settle around 250k-300k subs.
Well, that exact thing happened as far as subs; eight or nine months later EA announced they had... 300K to stockholders and had sold 1.2 copies in the first month. The only thing that kept Warhammer from retaining the rest of those subs was Mythic's inability to fix all it's laggy, buggy, broken, boring and FOTM PvP and PvE play. If they had done that eight or nine months later, they would have kept right on pace.
That's pretty damn accurate for a analyst guy who doesn't play betas.
ToR has no such problems like that by anyone's critic. The biggest gripe from people is "Hurr Durr.. it's a single player", which according to those who like it, doesn't make the game any worse. ToR doesn't have huge gaping technical gamebreaking flaws like WaR so people are likely to resub if they like it now.
Yes, because those analysts with their degrees in economics don't compare with these random guys who claim to be game analysts!
When looking at empirical data and determining outcomes, the random guys can't even begin to understand why one thing is popular when they clearly don't like it, despite all the data and evidence of a survey, poll or research.
They suffer from a "since I don't like it, it's going to fail" mentality rather than looking at low server trends, how often a game is running sales to stay afloat (hello Rift!), or just the exact complaint most people have about a game.. the most important of which is "it's just boring", which is hardly the most common complaint vs TOR.
The most common complaint you read is:
1. It's single player.. I wanna play a MMO. This despite hardly any of them passing level 10 and grouping for things like Esseles or The Hammer, Or even taking into account any other MMO that they've played levels 1-10 as a "mmo" instead of a single player. (who groups during levels 1-10 of ANY mmo really?)
"TO MICHAEL!"
By what reasoning? If you go off and blast TOR for gameplay elements that are similar to WoWs (catering to casuals, easy-mode, low barrier to entry, etc). Your logic is flawed. There seems to be this really wierd sense of logic that pervades these discussions that postulates that WoW is successful despite its gameplay. WoW is successful in part becuase of its gameplay not in spite of. You just aren't the target audience. Your entitled to your opinion but if you hate this gameplay type (Themepark catering to casuals) its a little silly to pretend you know the mind of the target audience enough to predict the titles success or failure.
I don't understand why people get so wrapped up with the profitability of a game considering the only ones making a profit are the shareholders. So WoW has 10 million subscribers... does it equate to a game that's worth 10 million dollars? I've played games for free for years that I've found to be more fun and entertaining than some of these for-profit games out there.
So just what has profitability have to do with anything? If it's in the green, you're going to play it more than if it's in the red? What if Bill Gates donated 2 million to the game to adjust it's profit margin... does the game get better overnight because the shareholders are a little fatter?
People need to stop worrying about or speculating about the success/failure of a game. If it lasts it lasts, if not, it doesn't. You're savvy enough to know when it's time for you to leave... don't need a slide rule to figure that one out. If your that worried about wasting your money, open up an IRA and deposit what you would have spent on subs into the IRA. You'd be amazed at how much $15 a month really is when you blindy spend it for 7 years straight without even thinking about it.
I'm already aware of the *required* retention rates to make this game profitable, its been discussed in the past on this and other forums.
My comment is that retention rates for this type of game, Themepark, are based on content. Sandboxes can afford to release content at much slower rates due to the nature of the game, sandboxes give you tools to do as you please, themeparks are very guided so unless there is something to guide you towards .. they fail in keeping people interested.
Now ToR will be like every other MMO release, it'll sell alot more boxes than subs, some people just wont like the game. Nothing wrong with that. As I previously mentioned the game is not (IMO) flawed in any major way and it does *what it says on the box*. Its a well done themepark game.
Now ignoring the people who leave initially, this always happens, retention then becomes heavily based on content due to the nature of the game. AFAIK the end game content is *adaquate* not stunning but enough there to keep people (People who like the game) amused for a period of time. After that time, its all about content updates. If Bioware fail in this it does not matter how good the base game is, because of its heavy themepark nature, people will leave when they have consumed all the content.
Hence my summation - that retention rates will dpened on how good Bioware is at adding new content in a timly maner.
Now analysts will know this and I hope that thier predictions are based on Biowares roadmap for TOR and not speculation about how they handled DLC's for games such as DA .. which is a whole different pool of sharks.
Bioware has no proven track record of content updates for an active MMO ... this is where my concern is and why I tell people that if they approach the game as good value for 3-4 months rather than the next big thing they wont be dissapointed. If Bioware fails at content updates they got thier 4 months all good. If bioware makes good then its even better. Guess I am a half empty kinda guy /shrug.
Another professional with a crystal ball, I wouldn't bet on any of 'em. 3 million subs by June, WoW will tremble, or not. Predictions will be predictions. We'll see in June by how far they he was wrong.
Keep moving the goalposts further back, there you go.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I'll take the word of a professional analyst over that of a "quaking in his boots" Blizzard employee.
Really?
You don't understand that the more profitable a game is, the more that company can develop newer assets for those people to continue enjoying the game vs a game that isn't profitable and cannot add any new content ala Warhammer because the company can't justify it?
"TO MICHAEL!"
EA owned Origin before UO was ever released.
EA has always owned UO.
EA acquired Origin in like 1994 and UO was released in 98 I think? 97 maybe?
Having facts straight usually helps a person with their argument.
^^
This,
Excellent!
I don't want gaming analysts who job it is to determine numbers and interpret data to tell me the lightsaber colors can or can't be changed.
I'd rather save that for the jaded players. From analysts, I want sound, reasonable advice on how they think a game will do overall.. not if Joe doesn't like how Sith Warrior's armor looks like.
I should be clear, the part of the post my reply was aimed at was the retention rate comment.
Since you are addressing ONLY the retention rates, let me direct you to post #57 in the thread so you can see actual retention needs for ToR.
You'll find the number needed (based on total sales in either 1.5 or 3 million) to be rather low each way.
Hence my summation - that retention rates will dpened on how good Bioware is at adding new content in a timly maner.
Which, given the projections of at least an $80 million yearly profit by professional analysts, doesn't seem like much of a problem. The money will be there and the content doesn't seem overly complicated as many hat.. err.. critics say.
Many of them claim it's so simple and transparent like WoW, that it requires little effort. Given that, your worries shouldn't be that serious
But joking aside, it's when games can't afford to add new content or when they have glaring problems with an engine (WAR/DCUO) or mechanics that simply can't be fixed (FFXIV) that gets them in trouble. That's when they go into the maintainence modes which isn't ToR's problem.
"TO MICHAEL!"