Originally posted by Phry Just using what figures that EA has provided themselves along with the additional statement about it not even being in the top 5 revenue generating games, in their catalogue. on the other hand, can you provide any figures that might refute the claim? because i really doubt anyone can.
Well, provide the numbers then...should not be difficult.
Also, until you provide them, there is nothing to refute on my end...
It will be interesting to see what the sub numbers are at the end of this month considering the free 30 days should be worn off. That just leaves the monthly subs and folks like me stupid enough to buy a 6 month sub, and my time does not run out until August because of the 30 days they tacked on.
At the end of August should be the real numbers coming out unless they tack on more free days. After that it is only the die hard folks who are playing because it is a star wars IP. That coupled with several new games comming out.
I for one and headed down to gamestop to pick up max payne 3.
Welcome to the real world, where MMORPG are not the center of the universe? Unless it behaved like WoW (which is no longer possible), not being in EA's top ten was inevitable. It's profitable. Which means they'll continue development on it. Once it's no longer profitable, they'll axe it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just using what figures that EA has provided themselves along with the additional statement about it not even being in the top 5 revenue generating games, in their catalogue. on the other hand, can you provide any figures that might refute the claim? because i really doubt anyone can.
Well, provide the numbers then...should not be difficult.
Also, until you provide them, there is nothing to refute on my end...
Well if your saying you don't believe EA's own figures... well i can't say i blame you, they probably are a bit dodgy.. but.. as they are all we have to work with until their next statement.. i really don't see how, short of hacking into their database, how more accurate data could be obtained.
Just using what figures that EA has provided themselves along with the additional statement about it not even being in the top 5 revenue generating games, in their catalogue. on the other hand, can you provide any figures that might refute the claim? because i really doubt anyone can.
Well, provide the numbers then...should not be difficult.
Also, until you provide them, there is nothing to refute on my end...
1,7 million box sold, box price $60 of which EA gets about $40 of win (rough estimate). So that's around $70m. 4 months of subs (first was free) with a cost of $15. Average paying subs number... shall we say 1,5 million? That's $90 million, total of $160 million. CE boxes hardly make significant change here.
Now the costs, generally accepted number is $200 million for development, marketing etc. Running costs take... well, quite a bit: wages, servers (180 servers?), more marketing etc. And then there is LA, what is their share? Not a small number, that's damn sure.
With declining sub numbers (D3 and GW2 certainly don't help here), SWTOR is lucky to break even any time soon, nevermind turn a profit.
And when an investor looks the timescale of this project, several years, then financially this looks horrible for any game. For a Star Wars title, an IP known by half the world? Take a wild guess.
A lot of guesstimate here, but I doubt it's a huge leap from reality.
Originally posted by Phry Well if your saying you don't believe EA's own figures...
I am not saying I do not believe EA numbers, I am asking for numbers you did not provide yet.
Originally posted by busdriver 1,7 million box sold, box price $60 of which EA gets about $40 of win (rough estimate). So that's around $70m. 4 months of subs (first was free) with a cost of $15. Average paying subs number... shall we say 1,5 million? That's $90 million, total of $160 million. CE boxes hardly make significant change here.Now the costs, generally accepted number is $200 million for development, marketing etc. Running costs take... well, quite a bit: wages, servers (180 servers?), more marketing etc. And then there is LA, what is their share? Not a small number, that's damn sure.With declining sub numbers (D3 and GW2 certainly don't help here), SWTOR is lucky to break even any time soon, nevermind turn a profit.And when an investor looks the timescale of this project, several years, then financially this looks horrible for any game. For a Star Wars title, an IP known by half the world? Take a wild guess.A lot of guesstimate here, but I doubt it's a huge leap from reality.Ok, start refuting.
While it is true I asked for numbers, I did not ask for numbers pulled out of your nose tho...
I haven't played SW:TOR b/c it didn't appeal to me.
However, no gaming community deserves this. My mouth was literally gaping when I read that article. This is the most disgusting thing I've ever read by a publisher regarding their product.
SW:TOR community, you have MY support and my best wishes. Stay strong and don't let a toolbag in a suit stop you from playing what you love.
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
As I and many others have said forever.. there will never be another micheal jordan.. and there will never be another world of warcraft.. its not because the games cant make another "wow" its just the timing is different.. wow was perfect timing..Blizzard had NO idea it would work out the way it did.. it just worked. There is no real formula. I dont think its fair to us as consumers that we are forced to play wow over and over again.. no matter the ip every game since warcraft went mmo has been warcraft since it went mmo.
devs are too focused on re-making wow when they should be focused on making their own game.
I think there can be another game that's as successful as WoW, but making another WoW clone like they've been doing all these years is not going to do it. If people want to play WoW, they'll play WoW. I hope Blizzard is aware of that while they're creating Titan.
"SWTOR is not a priority for development" Or in other words: "It seems to not be going as well as we hoped so we can just say the game doesn't really matter if tanks. We've got the money from your game box purchases out of you so we no longer care how you feel." Standard EA behavior really.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Well if your saying you don't believe EA's own figures...
I am not saying I do not believe EA numbers, I am asking for numbers you did not provide yet.
Originally posted by busdriver
1,7 million box sold, box price $60 of which EA gets about $40 of win (rough estimate). So that's around $70m. 4 months of subs (first was free) with a cost of $15. Average paying subs number... shall we say 1,5 million? That's $90 million, total of $160 million. CE boxes hardly make significant change here.
Now the costs, generally accepted number is $200 million for development, marketing etc. Running costs take... well, quite a bit: wages, servers (180 servers?), more marketing etc. And then there is LA, what is their share? Not a small number, that's damn sure.
With declining sub numbers (D3 and GW2 certainly don't help here), SWTOR is lucky to break even any time soon, nevermind turn a profit.
And when an investor looks the timescale of this project, several years, then financially this looks horrible for any game. For a Star Wars title, an IP known by half the world? Take a wild guess.
A lot of guesstimate here, but I doubt it's a huge leap from reality.
Ok, start refuting.
While it is true I asked for numbers, I did not ask for numbers pulled out of your nose tho...
Excellent comeback good sir, when in trouble deny everything.
For the slim chance of you pulling your head out of your ass, explain where did I go horribly wrong?
Well if your saying you don't believe EA's own figures...
I am not saying I do not believe EA numbers, I am asking for numbers you did not provide yet.
Originally posted by busdriver
1,7 million box sold, box price $60 of which EA gets about $40 of win (rough estimate). So that's around $70m. 4 months of subs (first was free) with a cost of $15. Average paying subs number... shall we say 1,5 million? That's $90 million, total of $160 million. CE boxes hardly make significant change here.
Now the costs, generally accepted number is $200 million for development, marketing etc. Running costs take... well, quite a bit: wages, servers (180 servers?), more marketing etc. And then there is LA, what is their share? Not a small number, that's damn sure.
With declining sub numbers (D3 and GW2 certainly don't help here), SWTOR is lucky to break even any time soon, nevermind turn a profit.
And when an investor looks the timescale of this project, several years, then financially this looks horrible for any game. For a Star Wars title, an IP known by half the world? Take a wild guess.
A lot of guesstimate here, but I doubt it's a huge leap from reality.
Ok, start refuting.
While it is true I asked for numbers, I did not ask for numbers pulled out of your nose tho...
im guessing you missed the bit where they said that they had a 400k loss in playerbase numbers, and that active accounts were currently only 1.3m .. though what proportion of those were free/reactivated ones for the promotion of patch 1.2 i really don't know, and their not saying.. but.. whatever, if you werent aware of those figures you probably didnt want to know anyway. It was hardly a secret after all, it was even widely publicised.. and given the number of boxes sold and the fact its a subbed game, would it really not be in the top 5 revenue generating games for EA if it actually had 1.5m paying subs.. which as you mentioned already is quite a bit of 'revenue' generation right there. That its barely in the Top 10 means that things are probably worse than their letting on..
What EA have said is 2.4M copies sold at the conference call in early May. They didn't say through sales but did when they announced 2.1M at the conference call in early Feb. They may have sold more to retailers. Analysts estimates were for $60M profit on 2M sales - so at 2.4M that would be, maybe, $66M. EA also provided some info on the ratio of Origin to box sales as well which seemed to support the analyst assessment (more profit on Origin sales, less on boxes etc.)
What it cost? Well one way of thinking about this is to take the data that EA provided (search on EA investors and you will get all the transcripts etc.) which was: 500k to break even, 1M to make a profit but nothing to write home about. They also said, in Feb, that they would not have made the investment if they had expected sub 1M subs - and they were talking about the long haul, subs being the key etc. The analysts reckon 1M for maybe 2 years before it repays its costs - depends on sub level, advertising, free months etc.
Assessments for what it actually cost are varied and depend whether you are looking at what it cost Bioware - which includes the time before they were taken over; what it cost EA i.e. cost since takeover + a chunk of the $620M cash they paid for Bioware/Pandemic or the cost to EA shareholders - who picked up an extra $240M in stock options.
Looking at just the EA cost you can easily get to $150M. Assume a headcount - 100 equivalent fulltime heads in year 1 rising to 400 maybe in year 5 - WAR had 430 at launch by way of comparison and reports for SWTOR suggest a huge number of people being involved. Multiply the headcount by $100k to cover wages, taxes,medical, dental and all expenses - software licences, servers, marketing budget - yes absurdly low but it makes the sums easy - and you will get a big number. Add in a chunkk of the $620M - 13 games published so say $50M and you have $200M without breaking a sweat.
CLIF NOTES: EA/Bioware does not view this game as a top 5 revenue gainer and as such they will be devoting most of their attention elsewhere.
Originally posted by TpainT
What a dumb thing for EA to announce.
I'm not play SWToR, nor do I like it, but I agree that it's a VERY DUMB announcement of EA/BioWare to make. With that, I think if they keep SWToR 'interesting' by adding (small) updates and content every couple of months, SWToR might be more a money-maker than any of the other in their top-5 is now. But I bet that EA/BioWare looks at boxed-sales only, and if that's true, then SWToR indeed has peaked already...
"SWTOR not a priority for development" roughly translates to "Abandon ship! Flee fools!! Flee for your lives!"
I find it amusing how EA suits fail to understand what they got there. They are in possession of the Star Wars IP and MMO rights. There is no higher priority in gaming nor a higher money-maker if done correctly. They should scrap SWTOR altogether, and rebuild from scratch, the right way, after doing a bit research what makes SW one of the most popular IP's in the history. But, considering EA's reputation and what Lucas himself did to his own baby, I don't care anymore. It's just funny to watch, it's exactly what I have been talking about in past year
Originally posted by gervaise1 What it cost? Well one way of thinking about this is to take the data that EA provided (search on EA investors and you will get all the transcripts etc.) which was: 500k to break even, 1M to make a profit but nothing to write home about.
For the slim chance of you pulling your head out of your ass, explain where did I go horribly wrong?
Even a guess needs to have some foundation, your sale numbers have none, your revenue guess has none, nor has the development and marketing costs.
Originally posted by Phry
whatever, if you werent aware of those figures you probably didnt want to know anyway.
I am aware of those "figures" but they are not saying much and to make any implication from there would be silly...
It is very reasonable to expect population(subscribers and concurrent users) drop after release, no wonder there either.
What does it make it? Nothing as there is no data available to make a bigger picture.
Sales numbers come from EA earnings call earlier this year, Google is your friend. 2m sold copies with 1,7m subs highest, which means that 300k boxes were left on shelves, or that 300k people just didn't bother playing the game they just bought. Which one you think is more propable?
$40 out of $60 is a very reasonable estimate if you count what retailers take, manufacture, logistics etc.
The $200 million is a widely accepted estimate, I have seen other estimates go as high as $500 million.
It's fucking funny that you still haven't come up with a one single argument against our numbers, besides worthless 'la-la-la-can't-hear-you-la-la-la' bulshit.
In early February EA announced 2M through sales - so to customers not to retailers and 1.7M subs as per the industry standard definition. So no 300k on shelves (could be more but EA will have got something for them).
In early May they announced 2.4M sales - didn't see them specify through sales but I would assume it was - and 1.3M subscribers; no definition of what a subscriber was either - the 30 days free could make it tricky.
This information is available in the transcripts and prepared comments on the EA investor page - search on EA investor. This should be your first port of call thereby avoiding all the errors and mistakes that you (can) find in articles.
Originally posted by busdriver Which one you think is more propable?
Neither, as both your numbers and conclusions are wrong.
1) I do not recall detailed sale numbers were ever officially published(worldwide digital+retailers).
Again, provide links to back up your claims if you have the source.
2) If you sell 2M copies, they are not left on shelves, they are sold...
I am not the one to bring arguments, it is your responsibility when you make a claim to have arguments and evidence to back it up as well as reasoning.
Once you provide them, there is "something" that can be discussed, refuted or acknowledged. So far you just pull numbers out of nowhere and make baseless assumptions.
It's business, and its no longer about 'making the best game" but managing franchises. The cost to produce and maintain is high on swtor, and, as we ave alrady seen, they are going to limit those costs.
There's a graph somewhere, that shows the optimal profit for the minimum amount of resources. Business focused companies are going to hit that sweet spot. If the sub rate doesn't dip below 700k or 800k , i'm sure they will make and keep enough to stay in the top ten while reducing a good 20% of the staff and server costs.
EA announced through sales - to customers - of 2.1M in early Feb and 'sales' - in context probably through sales - of 2.4M.
Sales to retailers are, as mentioned above, still sales but do not count in the subscriber number.
EA will indeed get paid by the retailer. Not $60 as some posters mistakenly assume however. Based on what Funcom said they got for AoC (in their reports) it is probably around 20%. As EA are also the distributor, EA Distribution will get some as well. So Amazon pay EA $20 (or $25 whatever) - EA Bioware get $15, EA Distribution get $5. What the actual amounts are depend on who has the stronger bargaining position of course.
Neither, as both your numbers and conclusions are wrong.
1) I do not recall detailed sale numbers were ever officially published(worldwide digital+retailers).
Again, provide links to back up your claims if you have the source.
2) If you sell 2M copies, they are not left on shelves, they are sold...
I am not the one to bring arguments, it is your responsibility when you make a claim to have arguments and evidence to back it up as well as reasoning.
Once you provide them, there is "something" that can be discussed, refuted or acknowledged. So far you just pull numbers out of nowhere and make baseless assumptions.
"Let me offer some metrics on purchase and subscription that will help you understand this business. As John stated, we have sold through two million units of the game since December. We currently have a little over 1.7 million active subscribers. The rest have either not started playing yet or have opted out."
You can find the report also from EA Investor Relations site, but it needs for you to register. Didn't want to do that.
It's the oldest trick in the book for game companies to announce the number that went to retailers. The real number is much closer to that of active subs (at the time of the announcement, in this case february). I have no clue how different retailers and game companies share the losses from unsold boxes, feel free to enlighten me. But yes, there was an error in my numbers, I didn't count those that bought the game after february. With the already declining subs and hype, I doubt it was a big number however.
Like I've said many times now, my numbers are in many cases rough estimates. But mere guesses they are not.
Can't wait to read your next 'no ur wrong cuz I say so' argument.
Comments
Well, provide the numbers then...should not be difficult.
Also, until you provide them, there is nothing to refute on my end...
It will be interesting to see what the sub numbers are at the end of this month considering the free 30 days should be worn off. That just leaves the monthly subs and folks like me stupid enough to buy a 6 month sub, and my time does not run out until August because of the 30 days they tacked on.
At the end of August should be the real numbers coming out unless they tack on more free days. After that it is only the die hard folks who are playing because it is a star wars IP. That coupled with several new games comming out.
I for one and headed down to gamestop to pick up max payne 3.
Love how the na sayers where burned at the stake for calling this game junk..... Oh the irony from the mouth of EA
Welcome to the real world, where MMORPG are not the center of the universe? Unless it behaved like WoW (which is no longer possible), not being in EA's top ten was inevitable. It's profitable. Which means they'll continue development on it. Once it's no longer profitable, they'll axe it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well if your saying you don't believe EA's own figures... well i can't say i blame you, they probably are a bit dodgy.. but.. as they are all we have to work with until their next statement.. i really don't see how, short of hacking into their database, how more accurate data could be obtained.
1,7 million box sold, box price $60 of which EA gets about $40 of win (rough estimate). So that's around $70m. 4 months of subs (first was free) with a cost of $15. Average paying subs number... shall we say 1,5 million? That's $90 million, total of $160 million. CE boxes hardly make significant change here.
Now the costs, generally accepted number is $200 million for development, marketing etc. Running costs take... well, quite a bit: wages, servers (180 servers?), more marketing etc. And then there is LA, what is their share? Not a small number, that's damn sure.
With declining sub numbers (D3 and GW2 certainly don't help here), SWTOR is lucky to break even any time soon, nevermind turn a profit.
And when an investor looks the timescale of this project, several years, then financially this looks horrible for any game. For a Star Wars title, an IP known by half the world? Take a wild guess.
A lot of guesstimate here, but I doubt it's a huge leap from reality.
Ok, start refuting.
I am not saying I do not believe EA numbers, I am asking for numbers you did not provide yet.
While it is true I asked for numbers, I did not ask for numbers pulled out of your nose tho...
I haven't played SW:TOR b/c it didn't appeal to me.
However, no gaming community deserves this. My mouth was literally gaping when I read that article. This is the most disgusting thing I've ever read by a publisher regarding their product.
SW:TOR community, you have MY support and my best wishes. Stay strong and don't let a toolbag in a suit stop you from playing what you love.
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
I think there can be another game that's as successful as WoW, but making another WoW clone like they've been doing all these years is not going to do it. If people want to play WoW, they'll play WoW. I hope Blizzard is aware of that while they're creating Titan.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
"SWTOR is not a priority for development" Or in other words: "It seems to not be going as well as we hoped so we can just say the game doesn't really matter if tanks. We've got the money from your game box purchases out of you so we no longer care how you feel." Standard EA behavior really.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Excellent comeback good sir, when in trouble deny everything.
For the slim chance of you pulling your head out of your ass, explain where did I go horribly wrong?
Why couldn't EA have said this before I bought copies for my family?
im guessing you missed the bit where they said that they had a 400k loss in playerbase numbers, and that active accounts were currently only 1.3m .. though what proportion of those were free/reactivated ones for the promotion of patch 1.2 i really don't know, and their not saying.. but.. whatever, if you werent aware of those figures you probably didnt want to know anyway. It was hardly a secret after all, it was even widely publicised.. and given the number of boxes sold and the fact its a subbed game, would it really not be in the top 5 revenue generating games for EA if it actually had 1.5m paying subs.. which as you mentioned already is quite a bit of 'revenue' generation right there. That its barely in the Top 10 means that things are probably worse than their letting on..
Even a guess needs to have some foundation, your sale numbers have none, your revenue guess has none, nor has the development and marketing costs.
I am aware of those "figures" but they are not saying much and to make any implication from there would be silly...
It is very reasonable to expect population(subscribers and concurrent users) drop after release, no wonder there either.
What does it make it? Nothing as there is no data available to make a bigger picture.
What EA have said is 2.4M copies sold at the conference call in early May. They didn't say through sales but did when they announced 2.1M at the conference call in early Feb. They may have sold more to retailers. Analysts estimates were for $60M profit on 2M sales - so at 2.4M that would be, maybe, $66M. EA also provided some info on the ratio of Origin to box sales as well which seemed to support the analyst assessment (more profit on Origin sales, less on boxes etc.)
What it cost? Well one way of thinking about this is to take the data that EA provided (search on EA investors and you will get all the transcripts etc.) which was: 500k to break even, 1M to make a profit but nothing to write home about. They also said, in Feb, that they would not have made the investment if they had expected sub 1M subs - and they were talking about the long haul, subs being the key etc. The analysts reckon 1M for maybe 2 years before it repays its costs - depends on sub level, advertising, free months etc.
Assessments for what it actually cost are varied and depend whether you are looking at what it cost Bioware - which includes the time before they were taken over; what it cost EA i.e. cost since takeover + a chunk of the $620M cash they paid for Bioware/Pandemic or the cost to EA shareholders - who picked up an extra $240M in stock options.
Looking at just the EA cost you can easily get to $150M. Assume a headcount - 100 equivalent fulltime heads in year 1 rising to 400 maybe in year 5 - WAR had 430 at launch by way of comparison and reports for SWTOR suggest a huge number of people being involved. Multiply the headcount by $100k to cover wages, taxes,medical, dental and all expenses - software licences, servers, marketing budget - yes absurdly low but it makes the sums easy - and you will get a big number. Add in a chunkk of the $620M - 13 games published so say $50M and you have $200M without breaking a sweat.
I'm not play SWToR, nor do I like it, but I agree that it's a VERY DUMB announcement of EA/BioWare to make. With that, I think if they keep SWToR 'interesting' by adding (small) updates and content every couple of months, SWToR might be more a money-maker than any of the other in their top-5 is now. But I bet that EA/BioWare looks at boxed-sales only, and if that's true, then SWToR indeed has peaked already...
*YAY* multi-quotes!
"SWTOR not a priority for development" roughly translates to "Abandon ship! Flee fools!! Flee for your lives!"
I find it amusing how EA suits fail to understand what they got there. They are in possession of the Star Wars IP and MMO rights. There is no higher priority in gaming nor a higher money-maker if done correctly. They should scrap SWTOR altogether, and rebuild from scratch, the right way, after doing a bit research what makes SW one of the most popular IP's in the history. But, considering EA's reputation and what Lucas himself did to his own baby, I don't care anymore. It's just funny to watch, it's exactly what I have been talking about in past year
My Guild Wars 2 First Beta Weekend "reviewette" : http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4944570/thread/349125#4944570
Good luck finding that quote.
Sales numbers come from EA earnings call earlier this year, Google is your friend. 2m sold copies with 1,7m subs highest, which means that 300k boxes were left on shelves, or that 300k people just didn't bother playing the game they just bought. Which one you think is more propable?
$40 out of $60 is a very reasonable estimate if you count what retailers take, manufacture, logistics etc.
The $200 million is a widely accepted estimate, I have seen other estimates go as high as $500 million.
It's fucking funny that you still haven't come up with a one single argument against our numbers, besides worthless 'la-la-la-can't-hear-you-la-la-la' bulshit.
In early February EA announced 2M through sales - so to customers not to retailers and 1.7M subs as per the industry standard definition. So no 300k on shelves (could be more but EA will have got something for them).
In early May they announced 2.4M sales - didn't see them specify through sales but I would assume it was - and 1.3M subscribers; no definition of what a subscriber was either - the 30 days free could make it tricky.
This information is available in the transcripts and prepared comments on the EA investor page - search on EA investor. This should be your first port of call thereby avoiding all the errors and mistakes that you (can) find in articles.
http://ir.ea.com/
Neither, as both your numbers and conclusions are wrong.
1) I do not recall detailed sale numbers were ever officially published(worldwide digital+retailers).
Again, provide links to back up your claims if you have the source.
2) If you sell 2M copies, they are not left on shelves, they are sold...
I am not the one to bring arguments, it is your responsibility when you make a claim to have arguments and evidence to back it up as well as reasoning.
Once you provide them, there is "something" that can be discussed, refuted or acknowledged. So far you just pull numbers out of nowhere and make baseless assumptions.
It's business, and its no longer about 'making the best game" but managing franchises. The cost to produce and maintain is high on swtor, and, as we ave alrady seen, they are going to limit those costs.
There's a graph somewhere, that shows the optimal profit for the minimum amount of resources. Business focused companies are going to hit that sweet spot. If the sub rate doesn't dip below 700k or 800k , i'm sure they will make and keep enough to stay in the top ten while reducing a good 20% of the staff and server costs.
See above.
EA announced through sales - to customers - of 2.1M in early Feb and 'sales' - in context probably through sales - of 2.4M.
Sales to retailers are, as mentioned above, still sales but do not count in the subscriber number.
EA will indeed get paid by the retailer. Not $60 as some posters mistakenly assume however. Based on what Funcom said they got for AoC (in their reports) it is probably around 20%. As EA are also the distributor, EA Distribution will get some as well. So Amazon pay EA $20 (or $25 whatever) - EA Bioware get $15, EA Distribution get $5. What the actual amounts are depend on who has the stronger bargaining position of course.
"Let me offer some metrics on purchase and subscription that will help you understand this
business. As John stated, we have sold through two million units of the game since December.
We currently have a little over 1.7 million active subscribers. The rest have either not started
playing yet or have opted out."
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1670728299x0x539144/d895626f-e715-4f00-bd50-31bf095027fd/Q3_Script_-_20_2112_1251pm.pdf
You can find the report also from EA Investor Relations site, but it needs for you to register. Didn't want to do that.
It's the oldest trick in the book for game companies to announce the number that went to retailers. The real number is much closer to that of active subs (at the time of the announcement, in this case february). I have no clue how different retailers and game companies share the losses from unsold boxes, feel free to enlighten me. But yes, there was an error in my numbers, I didn't count those that bought the game after february. With the already declining subs and hype, I doubt it was a big number however.
Like I've said many times now, my numbers are in many cases rough estimates. But mere guesses they are not.
Can't wait to read your next 'no ur wrong cuz I say so' argument.