156 réponses à ce sujet

[kbct]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

And in the conference call, they stated that they had 2 million games sold, and 1.7 million subscribers. That's not a prediction, that's a statement of fact at the time. Lying about that WOULD be fraud.

Now, making a predictive statement about where the game will be in 6 months is just a guess and they can overestimate that and be covered by the "not a lie, just a guess" clause.

Agreed. Politicians do it all the time. They make optimistic predictions that rarely come true.

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

And in the conference call, they stated that they had 2 million games sold, and 1.7 million subscribers. That's not a prediction, that's a statement of fact at the time. Lying about that WOULD be fraud.

Now, making a predictive statement about where the game will be in 6 months is just a guess and they can overestimate that and be covered by the "not a lie, just a guess" clause.

Those were the numbers at the time. Not the numbers they were aiming for. That also shows a very early bleed off of 300k subscribers and not sure how many are still on the free trial period at that point either..

I was talking about the AIMS for TOR not what they ended up with. You could get that number with the SW IP at a fraction of what EA paid for TOR.

My point exactly.

[Father_Jerusalem]

kbct wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

And in the conference call, they stated that they had 2 million games sold, and 1.7 million subscribers. That's not a prediction, that's a statement of fact at the time. Lying about that WOULD be fraud.

Now, making a predictive statement about where the game will be in 6 months is just a guess and they can overestimate that and be covered by the "not a lie, just a guess" clause.

Agreed. Politicians do it all the time. They make optimistic predictions that rarely come true.

"Rarely"? I think you're giving them too much credit.

[AkiKishi]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
As you said, predictions aren't lies if they turn out wrong. You'd have to prove that their predictions are dishonest (i.e. lies) for BobSmith to be correct. Good luck with that.

If those are figures then they are not predictions. What I was talking about were what they really expected from TOR vs what they actually got.

Did they invest all that money to end up with a subscriber base below 2 million ? 

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...



Those were the numbers at the time. Not the numbers they were aiming for. That also shows a very early bleed off of 300k subscribers and not sure how many are still on the free trial period at that point either..

I was talking about the AIMS for TOR not what they ended up with. You could get that number with the SW IP at a fraction of what EA paid for TOR.

My point exactly.

Those were BETTER than the numbers they were  aiming for. EA was aiming for a launch that would make the game profitable. That's at 500,000-1,000,000 users. They, themselves, said that TOR launched FAR better than they could have even hoped for. And where you say "bleed off of 300k subscribers", I - and EA, BioWare, and every gaming site out there - says "85% retention rate" which is UNHEARD of for a launch.

And clearly, no, you cannot get those numbers simply by having the Star Wars IP. Just ask Galaxies. Oh... you can't, they shut down their servers, and never had the success that TOR has had in only four months.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 17 avril 2012 - 07:01 .

[kbct]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

kbct wrote...

Agreed. Politicians do it all the time. They make optimistic predictions that rarely come true.

"Rarely"? I think you're giving them too much credit.

Nice.

[hoorayforicecream]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Those were the numbers at the time. Not the numbers they were aiming for. That also shows a very early bleed off of 300k subscribers and not sure how many are still on the free trial period at that point either..

70% of wow's trial players drop out. Not everyone who buys a game will stick with it. This is neither abnormal, nor a bad thing. 85% conversion rate is actually pretty impressive.

According to Eric Heimburg (former lead engineer at Turbine), "Even new AAA boxed games that have no trial mode — which means that you’ve already paid $50 just to play — often fail to keep 30% of their players for 4 or more hours."

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 17 avril 2012 - 07:04 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
As you said, predictions aren't lies if they turn out wrong. You'd have to prove that their predictions are dishonest (i.e. lies) for BobSmith to be correct. Good luck with that.

If those are figures then they are not predictions. What I was talking about were what they really expected from TOR vs what they actually got.

Did they invest all that money to end up with a subscriber base below 2 million ? 

Considering that's around twice what they need in order to return a profit? Yes. Yes they did.

[thunderhawk862002]

So umm.... are we going to continue talking about TOR or go back to talking about Broken Steel type fix for ME3?

[SalsaDMA]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

And in the conference call, they stated that they had 2 million games sold, and 1.7 million subscribers. That's not a prediction, that's a statement of fact at the time. Lying about that WOULD be fraud.

Now, making a predictive statement about where the game will be in 6 months is just a guess and they can overestimate that and be covered by the "not a lie, just a guess" clause.

I reckon me and my friends were among those numbers he stated back then.

None of us play now.

The problem with using early numbers for MMO's is that they give zero visibility of real longevity. For me, I was fed up after the first free month and one sub-month. My friends stayed a month more or so I think. The game is/was (I wouldn't know at the present time if they actually took heart to the critique back then, but given their responses back then, I seriously doubt it) litterally dead at end level.

The best suggestion to people that reached max level: Make a new alt. This was even said by their own support line, which should give a hint with a baseball bat about how little there actually was to do in the game. Add the problems of pocketing the community into a plethora of isolated chat channels without a way to communicate cross channels, and the game starts feeling dead too.

Most of the time when I was questing, I rarely met other people. It wasn't as bad on empire side as republic side, though, cause there it was a veritable ghost town; on a 'full' server, nonetheless.

The game had too many issues as far as lastability and serious bugs, coupled with supprt from hell to be able to retent their subs.

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
As you said, predictions aren't lies if they turn out wrong. You'd have to prove that their predictions are dishonest (i.e. lies) for BobSmith to be correct. Good luck with that.

If those are figures then they are not predictions. What I was talking about were what they really expected from TOR vs what they actually got.

Did they invest all that money to end up with a subscriber base below 2 million ? 

Considering that's around twice what they need in order to return a profit? Yes. Yes they did.

And thats where the problem lies. Even if TOR is making a profit it does not matter because it's not making enough of profit.

Any idea how much of TOR pie Lucas Arts gets? 

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
As you said, predictions aren't lies if they turn out wrong. You'd have to prove that their predictions are dishonest (i.e. lies) for BobSmith to be correct. Good luck with that.

If those are figures then they are not predictions. What I was talking about were what they really expected from TOR vs what they actually got.

Did they invest all that money to end up with a subscriber base below 2 million ? 

Considering that's around twice what they need in order to return a profit? Yes. Yes they did.

And thats where the problem lies. Even if TOR is making a profit it does not matter because it's not making enough of profit.

Any idea how much of TOR pie Lucas Arts gets? 

If it's "enough" of a profit for EA, that's what matters, and THEY'RE the ones who said that it only needs between 500,000-1,000,000 subscribers to be profitable. So no offense, but I'll go with what they're saying.

[Father_Jerusalem]

SalsaDMA wrote...



I reckon me and my friends were among those numbers he stated back then.

None of us play now.

Uh, congratulations? I brought in three people after the conference call to play because I kept telling them how good of a game it was and how much potential is there, and they're still playing.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 17 avril 2012 - 07:09 .

[hoorayforicecream]

BobSmith101 wrote...

And thats where the problem lies. Even if TOR is making a profit it does not matter because it's not making enough of profit.

Citation needed.

[SalsaDMA]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
As you said, predictions aren't lies if they turn out wrong. You'd have to prove that their predictions are dishonest (i.e. lies) for BobSmith to be correct. Good luck with that.

If those are figures then they are not predictions. What I was talking about were what they really expected from TOR vs what they actually got.

Did they invest all that money to end up with a subscriber base below 2 million ? 

Considering that's around twice what they need in order to return a profit? Yes. Yes they did.

I think you are having too much faith in EA's desire to merely make games people play. If an IP doesn't turn up a very good profit, it's not interesting enough to venture more into. The 'problem' from the suits point of view, is that you could have used those resources into potentially producing even more profit rather than just a minor to decent profit.

ToR also already made 'come back to us!' ploys, with extra free time for returning customers. Which WOULD be a rather strange thing to do if they DIDN'T have issues with people leaving.

[AkiKishi]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

And thats where the problem lies. Even if TOR is making a profit it does not matter because it's not making enough of profit.

Citation needed.

Oh I don't know... What about EA's stock price and loss reports ?

[hoorayforicecream]

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

And thats where the problem lies. Even if TOR is making a profit it does not matter because it's not making enough of profit.

Citation needed.

Oh I don't know... What about EA's stock price and loss reports ?

Are you serious?

Market analysts have been attempting to establish a direct correlation between any events and stock prices for decades, and you've solved it where they couldn't, huh?

Alright, I'll bite. Where on the loss reports does it show SWTOR? Please provide links.

[AkiKishi]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

And thats where the problem lies. Even if TOR is making a profit it does not matter because it's not making enough of profit.

Citation needed.

Oh I don't know... What about EA's stock price and loss reports ?

Are you serious?

Market analysts have been attempting to establish a direct correlation between any events and stock prices for decades, and you've solved it where they couldn't, huh?

Alright, I'll bite. Where on the loss reports does it show SWTOR? Please provide links.

Ok I'll spell it out for you. EA can't get by on minor hits.

[hoorayforicecream]

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

And thats where the problem lies. Even if TOR is making a profit it does not matter because it's not making enough of profit.

Citation needed.

Oh I don't know... What about EA's stock price and loss reports ?

Are you serious?

Market analysts have been attempting to establish a direct correlation between any events and stock prices for decades, and you've solved it where they couldn't, huh?

Alright, I'll bite. Where on the loss reports does it show SWTOR? Please provide links.

Ok I'll spell it out for you. EA can't get by on minor hits.

Hey look, a deflection. Still waiting for the citation you said you'd provide. Loss reports and stock price correlation to SWTOR, like you said. Links please?

Edit: Just to hammer the point home... Ford had record profits for 2010 and still lost 12% in their stock price. Market price is only loosely correlated to actual performance.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 17 avril 2012 - 07:24 .

[AkiKishi]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

And thats where the problem lies. Even if TOR is making a profit it does not matter because it's not making enough of profit.

Citation needed.

Oh I don't know... What about EA's stock price and loss reports ?

Are you serious?

Market analysts have been attempting to establish a direct correlation between any events and stock prices for decades, and you've solved it where they couldn't, huh?

Alright, I'll bite. Where on the loss reports does it show SWTOR? Please provide links.

Ok I'll spell it out for you. EA can't get by on minor hits.

Hey look, a deflection. Still waiting for the citation you said you'd provide. Loss reports and stock price correlation to SWTOR, like you said. Links please?

That was never what I said. The point was always TOR was not enough for what EA needed end of story.

Same with ME3 sales are ok but they are not what EA needed. EA needed Skyrims 3.4 million in two days.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 avril 2012 - 07:26 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...


That was never what I said. The point was always TOR was not enough for what EA needed end of story.

Same with ME3 sales are ok but they are not what EA needed. EA needed Skyrims 3.4 million in two days.

Did you get a new job as head of accounting for EA? If so, congratulations!

If not, then you simply don't know what's going on inside EA, and everything you're saying is incredibly speculative at BEST.

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


That was never what I said. The point was always TOR was not enough for what EA needed end of story.

Same with ME3 sales are ok but they are not what EA needed. EA needed Skyrims 3.4 million in two days.

Did you get a new job as head of accounting for EA? If so, congratulations!

If not, then you simply don't know what's going on inside EA, and everything you're saying is incredibly speculative at BEST.

My employer has a level of debt EA can only have in nightmares

Everything is speculation but it's not baseless.  Ask anyone at EA if they would have liked TOR to have 4-6 million subscribers and ME3 to be pushing 6-8 million sales by now. Think any of them will say no ?

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 avril 2012 - 07:33 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


That was never what I said. The point was always TOR was not enough for what EA needed end of story.

Same with ME3 sales are ok but they are not what EA needed. EA needed Skyrims 3.4 million in two days.

Did you get a new job as head of accounting for EA? If so, congratulations!

If not, then you simply don't know what's going on inside EA, and everything you're saying is incredibly speculative at BEST.

My employer has a level of debt EA can only have in nightmares

Everything is speculation but it's not baseless.  Ask anyone at EA if they would have liked TOR to have 4-6 million subscribers and ME3 to be pushing 6-8 million sales by now. Think any of them will say no ?

If you asked me if I'd LIKE a unicorn that ****s diamonds, I'm going to say yes too. But that's not exactly realistic. Expecting those numbers would be expecting UNPRECEDENTED success, things that no MMO has ever done before, and 4 times the amount of games that ME2 sold in the same period. That's not exactly realistic, is it?

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

If you asked me if I'd LIKE a unicorn that ****s diamonds, I'm going to say yes too. But that's not exactly realistic. Expecting those numbers would be expecting UNPRECEDENTED success, things that no MMO has ever done before, and 4 times the amount of games that ME2 sold in the same period. That's not exactly realistic, is it?

Dunno ask the Doc (don't know which one) who said Bioware should be shifting 10 million units in an interview.

If Skyrim can shift 3.4 million in two days why can't Biowares flag title shift that in a month?

If TOR was everything they made it out to be why could it not steal WoW's user base like WoW stole EverQuests?

You can't claim to be premier league and expect to be judged by league 1 standards.
 

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

If you asked me if I'd LIKE a unicorn that ****s diamonds, I'm going to say yes too. But that's not exactly realistic. Expecting those numbers would be expecting UNPRECEDENTED success, things that no MMO has ever done before, and 4 times the amount of games that ME2 sold in the same period. That's not exactly realistic, is it?

Dunno ask the Doc (don't know which one) who said Bioware should be shifting 10 million units in an interview.

If Skyrim can shift 3.4 million in two days why can't Biowares flag title shift that in a month?

If TOR was everything they made it out to be why could it not steal WoW's user base like WoW stole EverQuests?

You can't claim to be premier league and expect to be judged by league 1 standards.
 

Because BioWare's NEVER sold ANYTHING like what Skyrim sold. No RPG has. And WoW is FAR more entrenched and established than EQ ever was. People will always play WoW, and they will continue playing it regardless of what other games they play. Are there TOR players that still play WoW? Absolutely, the days of exclusivity in games is long LONG over.