WoW clone is used as a derogatory term, why is that? Because as of yet they've all been pretty lame attempts at it with the one exception of Rift. TOR is using WoW and of course other MMO's as a base template but it's doing it on a massive scale, something that hasn't been done before.
It really won't surprise me if TOR ends up to be the second coming, not despite but because of. And no, i cant stand WoW.
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.
And this is why I posted this thread. I as a "citizen" could never persuade any hater or person who simply doesn't like ToR that it will be successful. The obvious response will always be "Well, you are a fan so of course.. blah blah blah". Or there will be the ever lurking "Prove it" or "Show me the data" when stumped at logical responses.
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.
Analysts aren't paid to give favorable opinions because their REPUTATION and job depend on it. If someone was paid to say "Warhammer will be great, so will FFXIV and Shadowbane" and they flop.. he won't be working there for long or his opinions as a pro will be tacked to his chest.
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'.
I still have yet to see someone, ANYONE, post an analyst review of this game that says "I don't think this game will sell more than 1 million boxes nor will it retain more than 150K and be F2P in one year" which is what most of these clown citizens say on internet forums.
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.
Another problem is that positive analysis sells. People only hear what they wanna hear so if your marketing firm is putting out positive reports you're most likely going to sell more analysis, get more traffic to your site, ie advertising dollars. Is it right? No, but we're human after all. When you are trying to prove a point what do you do first? Look for supporting opinions or look for contradicting opinions?
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.
Them magic 8 balls are magical. I recall people saying the same about WoW. Moral of the story if you honestly can't see how or why a game would maintain millions of players, You should presume it has a chance.
:edit: this of course assumes the game it self is a solid experience, Rift being the only released, polished example that did not succeed in WoWisk numbers but still lives with more subs than most. SWTOR would be the second polished and really fuctional theme park to launch... who knows.
Everything I say is my opinion or personal preference. You may or may not find it useful to your cause but regardless I am entitled to it.
WoW clone is used as a derogatory term, why is that? Because as of yet they've all been pretty lame attempts at it with the one exception of Rift. TOR is using WoW and of course other MMO's as a base template but it's doing it on a massive scale, something that hasn't been done before.
It really won't surprise me if TOR ends up to be the second coming, not despite but because of. And no, i cant stand WoW.
I don't get this argument.
If WoW clones are generally bad, you don't like WoW, and the market is saturated with WoW clones; then why is doing a WoW-clone on a "massive scale" going to be good? Doesn't this just seem like it would be more of what hasn't worked in the past?
I seriously doubt the game will have that many subscribers. It'll sell a lot of boxes, sure, but subs... mmm... no.
Imo they'd do beter if they went B2P ANet style. They'd sell waay more boxes that way and retention rates be damned. Well it's just plain unrealistic greed on some publishers' part and they'll suffer financially for it. I'm not saying that the game is bad, far for it. It's just that its structure and what it's all about is better suited for a box-sales-with-expansions model.
Just imagine, if EA announced today that they are giving FREE LIFETIME SUBS to everyone you'd have 2x 3x more box sales. (do notice my cunning marketing pitch ) Considering that each box price = 4 months of subs... Do the math. They would need to have really high retention rates to justify such a loss in box sales.
I am interested to see how my " citizen" opinion will stack up to the " professional " one
Time will tell.
Sorry I wasnt gushing over the positive spin. Maybe someone else will and you can post a happy face too.
No problem. I was just pointing out that you as a private person can opinionize all you want (just made that word up, hehe) but that has no bearing in the 'real world' of finance or business. Example:
I was walking down the street couple years ago and I saw some people building a third Dunkin Donuts within a mile of the other two, which are already here. Now clearly to me as someone who lived here for years, I realized this was folly. They are bound to fail because we already have two Dunkin's already. There is no way they are going to be profitable.
I know that consumers can be a "fickle" bunch and stop buying Dunkin overnight and buy Starbucks or Krispy so imo, I think those people are wrong.
Guess what? All three stores are still running. My personal opinion doesn't mean crap because I don't actually have enough business expertise to stack up vs professionals who's job it is to do so.
I doubt you're an analyst which is why I said you're entitled to your "private" opinion. It doesn't have to be "rosy", lol.
Two words ... New Coke.
I've worked directly with many so-called "proffesional" analysts plenty of times in the past.... some are good, most aren't....particularly when you take them out of thier very narrow areas of expertiese.
We fired the last firm we had doing market analysis for us a couple years back when the product they assured us would "take off like wildfire" garnered all of 3 sales. We've been doing markedly better without thier services ever since then.
Truth is, if these "analysts" were so good, they wouldn't be shooting thier mouth's off in public....because they'd be too rich after having invested thier own money (or those of thier clients) to bother....or they would be running thier own successfull business rather then pontificating one the chances of others.
Most analysts exist because there are way too many folks out there with more money then brains willing to pay anyone that can manage to bs well enough tosound like they know what they are talking about to think for them.
I have no idea whether TOR will be successfull or not.....and if past performance is indicative of future results.... niether do any of the so called "proffesionals" that have been quoted here.
Think it's funny to see the fanbois jumping on the guy that says he thinks SWTOR will be profitable but couldn't care less what a "pro" has to say about it..
Originally posted by pharazonic Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by pharazonic It's funny because people like you OP dissed analysts when they called this game a WoW clone.
I have absolutely NO idea what you are referring to.. sorry.
I have not seen any "analyst" call this game a WoW clone. Well, they have. They've said something along the lines of how it won''t be a good game to invest in. How does that sit with you? You'd have to show me exactly what analysts have said. I doubt you've seen that.
"Divnich pegged The Old Republic's potential user base a little higher than Pachter, predicting it will attract three million subscribers by next June.
"Taking into account multiple years in service and expansion packs, $500 million in total revenue is not a far stretch. If an MMO can't be profitable at $500m in revenue, than we are all doomed."
Another analyst says ToR only needs 400K subs to break even and will pull in 1.5 million subs:
Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter:
Pachter estimated that the MMO will pull in around 1.5 million subscribers, representing around $80 million a year in profit.
"On an ongoing basis, they will split revenue from running the subscription business. My best guess is that they will attract 1.5 million subscribers paying around $15 a month, so they should generate around $270 million in revenue. If LucasArts gets 35 per cent and if EA incurs around 35 per cent operating expense, they make 30 per cent, or around $80 million per year, in profit. That's not bad."
"Most MMOs require around 250,000 subscribers to cover the direct operating expense of the server farms. Given LucasArts' revenue split, SWTOR would require around 400,000 subscribers to break even. That means they make money at 500,000 subscribers."
So whether it's 1.5 million subs or 3 million subs by June, ToR fans should disregard any of the naysayers as far as the 'doom' projections on these or any other forums. There simply isn't any factual basis to it by any PROFESSIONAL estimates.
Even Blizzard CEO Kotick has been shown wrong by both analysts about ToR's ability to make a profit.
Does anyone doubt that this game is going to turn a profit? Using basic math it isn't hard to see that if the trend continues this game is going to be a huge money maker. Making some assumptions lets have fun with math.
Development Cost: $150 million (I'm over estimating on purpose)
Box Sale Profits: per box sale $30 (understimating here)
Direct Download Profits: per DDL $50 (understimating here and not accounting for DDE
Current Pre-orders: 1 million box sales
Current Pre-orders: 500,000 DDL's (probably gross underestimate)
Pre-Order Profit : $55 million at launch.
Again, these numbers are most likely a gross underestimate of the profit per sale and the number of digital pre-orders. Even using these numbers the game could potentially recoup up to 1/3 of their development cost the minute the game releases. If Bioware only spent $100 million on development they'd recover over half of that cost. If this game launches as bigger than I'm estimating you can see how close they are going to come to recouping all of their development budget within weeks of launch just through the box/DDL sales of the game.
If I'm missing something here let me know but I don't think anyone should doubt that the game is going to make money.
Actualy,
I think your proffit per sale for box & DDL are both a bit high....but I don't have alot of experience with the really huge publishers like EA....they have alot of muscle...so who knows maybe they can get a better deal from retailers (and obviously they do run thier own digitil distribution service)
One thing you DO have to take into account though is that when you buy the product it ALSO comes with the first 30 days of the subscription..... so you have to factor in 1 months operating costs for the service as part of the overhead in the sale. If Lucas isn't taking a cut out of the sale (really surprised about that if it's true) only the subs....then EA got itself a very sweet deal. Typicaly a big name IP would also take a good chunk out of the proffit from a sale.
Most MMO's don't actualy end up making alot of the sale of the product...it's more the sub's that they live and die from....it's why so many actualy end up giving away the product for free.
However, even factoring in the above it LOOKS like EA stands to do very well off initial sales. The only really big question is, how well will they do on retention? Frankly, I don't think anyone really has a good handle on that yet....as it really depends upon what the EXPECTATIONS of those buyers are.
For games that were horribly unpolished or had huge technical problems at launch it's easy to predict that they won't retain well. For games that are reasonably polished and technicaly sound (from everytrhing I've heard about TOR beta it is, haven't played it myself though) that's much harder to predict....because you don't really know what buyers were expecting when they made the purchase.....and you don't know what their expectations will continue to be once the "brand new shiny" of a new game wears off and they get a few weeks/months in. For games that are heavly marketed/hyped (and I do think TOR falls into that category) there is a real danger that retention doesn't match up well with sales.... but honestly only time will tell.
Right now, what I see people (on both sides) doing is pretty much calling the game before the first pitch has even been thrown.
Originally posted by jensen_34 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. There are specialities. Trying to use what analysts have said about mortgages are not the same as using what analysts who are gaming industry experts have said. Apples and oranges.
Of course anyone can be wrong about anything, but its far easier to judge what a game will do than what a whole economy will do.
Negative analysis sells just as well. Suppose you were looking to buy EA stock (or dump it). If the rating said ToR was going to get only 100k subs, wouldn't you benefit from that intel? That information is just as valuable as positive review.
WoW clone is used as a derogatory term, why is that? Because as of yet they've all been pretty lame attempts at it with the one exception of Rift. TOR is using WoW and of course other MMO's as a base template but it's doing it on a massive scale, something that hasn't been done before.
It really won't surprise me if TOR ends up to be the second coming, not despite but because of. And no, i cant stand WoW.
I don't get this argument.
If WoW clones are generally bad, you don't like WoW, and the market is saturated with WoW clones; then why is doing a WoW-clone on a "massive scale" going to be good? Doesn't this just seem like it would be more of what hasn't worked in the past?
What i like doesn't matter, what matters is the masses.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Two words ... New Coke. I've worked directly with many so-called "proffesional" analysts plenty of times in the past.... some are good, most aren't....particularly when you take them out of thier very narrow areas of expertiese.We fired the last firm we had doing market analysis for us a couple years back when the product they assured us would "take off like wildfire"...
Exactly, and this is what I said about the analysts here. If they were consistently wrong, they'd be out of a job. But that's one company you dealt with. I'm assuming your company hired another and their info was right, or else you wouldn't still be in business. Of course any ONE person or ONE company can be wrong.
But considering it's a vice president of an analyst company along with several other analysts from OTHER firms on record in print as saying ToR will do very well, I'd tend to take the gaming analyst's words as an industry over any doubts.
"Divnich pegged The Old Republic's potential user base a little higher than Pachter, predicting it will attract three million subscribers by next June.
"Taking into account multiple years in service and expansion packs, $500 million in total revenue is not a far stretch. If an MMO can't be profitable at $500m in revenue, than we are all doomed."
Another analyst says ToR only needs 400K subs to break even and will pull in 1.5 million subs:
Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter:
Pachter estimated that the MMO will pull in around 1.5 million subscribers, representing around $80 million a year in profit.
"On an ongoing basis, they will split revenue from running the subscription business. My best guess is that they will attract 1.5 million subscribers paying around $15 a month, so they should generate around $270 million in revenue. If LucasArts gets 35 per cent and if EA incurs around 35 per cent operating expense, they make 30 per cent, or around $80 million per year, in profit. That's not bad."
"Most MMOs require around 250,000 subscribers to cover the direct operating expense of the server farms. Given LucasArts' revenue split, SWTOR would require around 400,000 subscribers to break even. That means they make money at 500,000 subscribers."
So whether it's 1.5 million subs or 3 million subs by June, ToR fans should disregard any of the naysayers as far as the 'doom' projections on these or any other forums. There simply isn't any factual basis to it by any PROFESSIONAL estimates.
Even Blizzard CEO Kotick has been shown wrong by both analysts about ToR's ability to make a profit.
Does anyone doubt that this game is going to turn a profit? Using basic math it isn't hard to see that if the trend continues this game is going to be a huge money maker. Making some assumptions lets have fun with math.
Development Cost: $150 million (I'm over estimating on purpose)
Box Sale Profits: per box sale $30 (understimating here)
Direct Download Profits: per DDL $50 (understimating here and not accounting for DDE
Current Pre-orders: 1 million box sales
Current Pre-orders: 500,000 DDL's (probably gross underestimate)
Pre-Order Profit : $55 million at launch.
Again, these numbers are most likely a gross underestimate of the profit per sale and the number of digital pre-orders. Even using these numbers the game could potentially recoup up to 1/3 of their development cost the minute the game releases. If Bioware only spent $100 million on development they'd recover over half of that cost. If this game launches as bigger than I'm estimating you can see how close they are going to come to recouping all of their development budget within weeks of launch just through the box/DDL sales of the game.
If I'm missing something here let me know but I don't think anyone should doubt that the game is going to make money.
Actualy,
I think your proffit per sale for box & DDL are both a bit high....but I don't have alot of experience with the really huge publishers like EA....they have alot of muscle...so who knows maybe they can get a better deal from retailers (and obviously they do run thier own digitil distribution service)
One thing you DO have to take into account though is that when you buy the product it ALSO comes with the first 30 days of the subscription..... so you have to factor in 1 months operating costs for the service as part of the overhead in the sale. If Lucas isn't taking a cut out of the sale (really surprised about that if it's true) only the subs....then EA got itself a very sweet deal. Typicaly a big name IP would also take a good chunk out of the proffit from a sale.
Most MMO's don't actualy end up making alot of the sale of the product...it's more the sub's that they live and die from....it's why so many actualy end up giving away the product for free.
However, even factoring in the above it LOOKS like EA stands to do very well off initial sales. The only really big question is, how well will they do on retention? Frankly, I don't think anyone really has a good handle on that yet....as it really depends upon what the EXPECTATIONS of those buyers are.
For games that were horribly unpolished or had huge technical problems at launch it's easy to predict that they won't retain well. For games that are reasonably polished and technicaly sound (from everytrhing I've heard about TOR beta it is, haven't played it myself though) that's much harder to predict....because you don't really know what buyers were expecting when they made the purchase.....and you don't know what their expectations will continue to be once the "brand new shiny" of a new game wears off and they get a few weeks/months in. For games that are heavly marketed/hyped (and I do think TOR falls into that category) there is a real danger that retention doesn't match up well with sales.... but honestly only time will tell.
Right now, what I see people (on both sides) doing is pretty much calling the game before the first pitch has even been thrown.
You brought up some really good points and as someone else mentioned, the initial investment cost is probably not figured into the game's profitability/profit since that could be considered R&D and written off. As you stated, the real test for how profitable the game ends up will be on the monthly subs/retention. Also, it does appear that EA got a sweet deal because if the article is true, then EA keeps all proceeds from the box sales etc. until their investment is recouped if I read that correctly.
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.
I'm betting you didn't read the link, but are doing what several others here are doing.. just giving opinions based on nothing in the article.
In case you didn't read it (which is my bet), here it is:
Following Activision boss Bobby Kotick's suggestion earlier this week that EA's game is unlikely to turn a significant profit thanks to its licensing agreement with LucasArts, Eurogamer canvassed opinion from a number of industry commentators about the publisher's chances.
The consensus? LucasArts will earn plenty from the deal but both parties should see a healthy return.
"Based upon user commentary and consumer surveys, the profit potential for The Old Republic is high. We see little risk of failure for The Old Republic," he told Eurogamer.
You are correct they don't play the beta. That's called "objectivity". If they play and dont/or do like it, it could skew their opinions like yours was.
So, they simply rely on data. Reams and reams of data, about what actual beta players and others who did thought.
Apparently, the info they got from most people is encouraging enough to come out with predictions they don't even think are risky to state. These predictions are actually rather ho-hum; as if they are playing it safe, not going out on some limb.
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.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Right now, what I see people (on both sides) doing is pretty much calling the game before the first pitch has even been thrown.
I think that's the point, lol. You're getting it. It's called "speculation" on the internets.
Besides, we are talking about what analysts say most people feel about the game, which they then make their predictions off of.
They don't actually go PLAY ToR and then say "I think this game will sell 3 million boxes and have 500k subs", hehe.
I'm guessing half of analysts don't game any more than half of oddmakers actually play the sports they make book on, but that doesn't keep them from recognizing a sure thing when it comes over the wire.
Right, be sure to listen to paid spokespeople about products !
And be sure to listen to paid analysts about profits !
And of course never doubt a politician !
They of course ALL know better than anyone else,and the results always show it :P
After all, ALL those happy owners of enron stock who listened to the industry geniuses,the companies spokespersons, etc... all "blessing" the day they did so cant be wrong :P
And all those who invested in failcom,becuase their conan MMO was gonna make a mint,and those "in the know" told them so....
And of course lets not forget all the other MMOs predicted to set the world on fire with their outstanding sales and profits :P
Originally posted by Pilnkplonk Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by jensen_34
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. Not really... Not really at all. Yes, really. Quite the case.
Analyst generally is a term for an individual of whom or which the primary function is a deep examination of a specific, limited area and may mean:
Accounting analyst, an accounting analyst evaluates and interprets public company financial statements Business analyst, an employee who examines the needs and concerns of clients and stakeholders to determine where potential problems and opportunities lie, known also as a Business Systems Analyst in business Chemical analyst, a person who performs chemical experiments and analyses Color analyst, an individual who, as against a play-by-play announcer, provides analysis and commentary in sports broadcasting Cost analyst, an employee who analyzes business operations to determine which courses of action are most efficacious in business Financial analyst, an individual who analyzes securities and business equity in economics and finance Handwriting analyst, a person who analyzes a persons characteristics and does personality assessment through handwriting Industry analyst, an individual who performs market research on segments of specific industries toward the identification of trends in business and finance Institutional Research Analyst, an individual who analyzes data gathered for an educational institute Intelligence analyst, an individual who performs Intelligence analysis Marketing analyst, a marketing analyst analyzes price, customer, competitor and economic data to help a company know where its been and where it should go Medical analyst, a person who can interpret medical data for specific analytical purposes Patent analyst, in the field of intellectual property an individual who performs patent and non-patent literature searches to determine the patentability of an invention in the military community Psychoanalyst, a practitioner who acts to facilitate understanding of a patient's unconscious mind Public analyst, a duly qualified chemist appointed by a local authority in the United Kingdom Public policy analyst Quantitative analyst applies mathematical techniques to investment banking, especially in the fields of risk management, trading and financial derivatives Systems analyst or Information analyst, an individual who analyzes technical design and functional design for development of new software in computer science Web metrics Analyst, an individual who examines trends and patterns in the use and expansion of the World Wide Web in webometrics An analyst in mathematics, an individual who focuses in the area of mathematical analysis Analyst (software) (or AnalystQS), a mass spectrometry software Analyst (journal), a chemistry journal.
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,
As I've said in previous posts, the game is fine. Its nothing super special but it is a well rounded stable themepark MMO. Bottom line on retention will be how fast they can supply more content. Sandboxes can afford to supply content at a slower pace due to the nature of the gaming experiance, Themeparks cant.
Rift does throw out content, but to me most of it was rehashed crap. After the third *world event* - ie 3rd set of dailys involving collection of tokens of X type by doing daily quests etc I grew bored and left.
If Bioware can push out reasonably good (MMO players will settle for reasonably good) content at a reasonable rate, the game will retain and build subs. If it cant, the game will bleed subs after 2-4 mo's.
I'm hoping they can supply the content but realistically I pre-ordered with the mindset that it was worth the price to me if I got 3-4 mo's out of the game ... if people pre-order with that in mind they wont be dissapointed (IMO) if however your getting the game with the mindset that it is the *next big thing* and will last you years, I'd suggest you cancel that pre-order and wait before making a purchase.
The days of an MMO lasting us years just seem to have past by ... EQ I played for 5 years, DaoC for 4 years .. WoW on and off for the last 5 years .. all the others I've been lucky to get 5-6 mo's from (And I've played most) Just seems to be a sign of the times
Comments
Well, they have. They've said something along the lines of how it won''t be a good game to invest in.
How does that sit with you?
"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
I need to take this advice more.
WoW clone is used as a derogatory term, why is that? Because as of yet they've all been pretty lame attempts at it with the one exception of Rift. TOR is using WoW and of course other MMO's as a base template but it's doing it on a massive scale, something that hasn't been done before.
It really won't surprise me if TOR ends up to be the second coming, not despite but because of. And no, i cant stand WoW.
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.
Another problem is that positive analysis sells. People only hear what they wanna hear so if your marketing firm is putting out positive reports you're most likely going to sell more analysis, get more traffic to your site, ie advertising dollars. Is it right? No, but we're human after all. When you are trying to prove a point what do you do first? Look for supporting opinions or look for contradicting opinions?
35% christ ! Lucas Arts is going to mint.
Them magic 8 balls are magical. I recall people saying the same about WoW. Moral of the story if you honestly can't see how or why a game would maintain millions of players, You should presume it has a chance.
:edit: this of course assumes the game it self is a solid experience, Rift being the only released, polished example that did not succeed in WoWisk numbers but still lives with more subs than most. SWTOR would be the second polished and really fuctional theme park to launch... who knows.
Everything I say is my opinion or personal preference. You may or may not find it useful to your cause but regardless I am entitled to it.
I don't get this argument.
If WoW clones are generally bad, you don't like WoW, and the market is saturated with WoW clones; then why is doing a WoW-clone on a "massive scale" going to be good? Doesn't this just seem like it would be more of what hasn't worked in the past?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I seriously doubt the game will have that many subscribers. It'll sell a lot of boxes, sure, but subs... mmm... no.
Imo they'd do beter if they went B2P ANet style. They'd sell waay more boxes that way and retention rates be damned. Well it's just plain unrealistic greed on some publishers' part and they'll suffer financially for it. I'm not saying that the game is bad, far for it. It's just that its structure and what it's all about is better suited for a box-sales-with-expansions model.
Just imagine, if EA announced today that they are giving FREE LIFETIME SUBS to everyone you'd have 2x 3x more box sales. (do notice my cunning marketing pitch
) Considering that each box price = 4 months of subs... Do the math. They would need to have really high retention rates to justify such a loss in box sales.
But as I said, greed might be their downfall.
Two words ... New Coke.
I've worked directly with many so-called "proffesional" analysts plenty of times in the past.... some are good, most aren't....particularly when you take them out of thier very narrow areas of expertiese.
We fired the last firm we had doing market analysis for us a couple years back when the product they assured us would "take off like wildfire" garnered all of 3 sales. We've been doing markedly better without thier services ever since then.
Truth is, if these "analysts" were so good, they wouldn't be shooting thier mouth's off in public....because they'd be too rich after having invested thier own money (or those of thier clients) to bother....or they would be running thier own successfull business rather then pontificating one the chances of others.
Most analysts exist because there are way too many folks out there with more money then brains willing to pay anyone that can manage to bs well enough tosound like they know what they are talking about to think for them.
I have no idea whether TOR will be successfull or not.....and if past performance is indicative of future results.... niether do any of the so called "proffesionals" that have been quoted here.
hahahhaa
pro mmorpg gamer predicts this game will end up like rift or even worse warhammer online..
im not even an analyst!
Amazing this thread..
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.
I have absolutely NO idea what you are referring to.. sorry.
I have not seen any "analyst" call this game a WoW clone.
Well, they have. They've said something along the lines of how it won''t be a good game to invest in.
How does that sit with you?
You'd have to show me exactly what analysts have said. I doubt you've seen that.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Actualy,
I think your proffit per sale for box & DDL are both a bit high....but I don't have alot of experience with the really huge publishers like EA....they have alot of muscle...so who knows maybe they can get a better deal from retailers (and obviously they do run thier own digitil distribution service)
One thing you DO have to take into account though is that when you buy the product it ALSO comes with the first 30 days of the subscription..... so you have to factor in 1 months operating costs for the service as part of the overhead in the sale. If Lucas isn't taking a cut out of the sale (really surprised about that if it's true) only the subs....then EA got itself a very sweet deal. Typicaly a big name IP would also take a good chunk out of the proffit from a sale.
Most MMO's don't actualy end up making alot of the sale of the product...it's more the sub's that they live and die from....it's why so many actualy end up giving away the product for free.
However, even factoring in the above it LOOKS like EA stands to do very well off initial sales. The only really big question is, how well will they do on retention? Frankly, I don't think anyone really has a good handle on that yet....as it really depends upon what the EXPECTATIONS of those buyers are.
For games that were horribly unpolished or had huge technical problems at launch it's easy to predict that they won't retain well. For games that are reasonably polished and technicaly sound (from everytrhing I've heard about TOR beta it is, haven't played it myself though) that's much harder to predict....because you don't really know what buyers were expecting when they made the purchase.....and you don't know what their expectations will continue to be once the "brand new shiny" of a new game wears off and they get a few weeks/months in. For games that are heavly marketed/hyped (and I do think TOR falls into that category) there is a real danger that retention doesn't match up well with sales.... but honestly only time will tell.
Right now, what I see people (on both sides) doing is pretty much calling the game before the first pitch has even been thrown.
tag
I'm not sure you understand. Analysts are like.. lawyers or doctors or any other professional field. There are specialities. Trying to use what analysts have said about mortgages are not the same as using what analysts who are gaming industry experts have said. Apples and oranges.
Of course anyone can be wrong about anything, but its far easier to judge what a game will do than what a whole economy will do.
Negative analysis sells just as well. Suppose you were looking to buy EA stock (or dump it). If the rating said ToR was going to get only 100k subs, wouldn't you benefit from that intel? That information is just as valuable as positive review.
"TO MICHAEL!"
What i like doesn't matter, what matters is the masses.
Exactly, and this is what I said about the analysts here. If they were consistently wrong, they'd be out of a job. But that's one company you dealt with. I'm assuming your company hired another and their info was right, or else you wouldn't still be in business. Of course any ONE person or ONE company can be wrong.
But considering it's a vice president of an analyst company along with several other analysts from OTHER firms on record in print as saying ToR will do very well, I'd tend to take the gaming analyst's words as an industry over any doubts.
"TO MICHAEL!"
You brought up some really good points and as someone else mentioned, the initial investment cost is probably not figured into the game's profitability/profit since that could be considered R&D and written off. As you stated, the real test for how profitable the game ends up will be on the monthly subs/retention. Also, it does appear that EA got a sweet deal because if the article is true, then EA keeps all proceeds from the box sales etc. until their investment is recouped if I read that correctly.
I'm betting you didn't read the link, but are doing what several others here are doing.. just giving opinions based on nothing in the article.
In case you didn't read it (which is my bet), here it is:
You are correct they don't play the beta. That's called "objectivity". If they play and dont/or do like it, it could skew their opinions like yours was.
So, they simply rely on data. Reams and reams of data, about what actual beta players and others who did thought.
Apparently, the info they got from most people is encouraging enough to come out with predictions they don't even think are risky to state. These predictions are actually rather ho-hum; as if they are playing it safe, not going out on some limb.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Not really... Not really at all.
I think that's the point, lol. You're getting it. It's called "speculation" on the internets.
Besides, we are talking about what analysts say most people feel about the game, which they then make their predictions off of.
They don't actually go PLAY ToR and then say "I think this game will sell 3 million boxes and have 500k subs", hehe.
I'm guessing half of analysts don't game any more than half of oddmakers actually play the sports they make book on, but that doesn't keep them from recognizing a sure thing when it comes over the wire.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Right, be sure to listen to paid spokespeople about products !
And be sure to listen to paid analysts about profits !
And of course never doubt a politician !
They of course ALL know better than anyone else,and the results always show it :P
After all, ALL those happy owners of enron stock who listened to the industry geniuses,the companies spokespersons, etc... all "blessing" the day they did so cant be wrong :P
And all those who invested in failcom,becuase their conan MMO was gonna make a mint,and those "in the know" told them so....
And of course lets not forget all the other MMOs predicted to set the world on fire with their outstanding sales and profits :P
I'm not sure you understand. Analysts are like.. lawyers or doctors or any other professional field.
Not really... Not really at all.
Yes, really. Quite the case.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I'll be 1 of those 3 million subscribers. Played the betas and love it. Finally got my crack....i'm itching for it right now.....
^^
This,
As I've said in previous posts, the game is fine. Its nothing super special but it is a well rounded stable themepark MMO. Bottom line on retention will be how fast they can supply more content. Sandboxes can afford to supply content at a slower pace due to the nature of the gaming experiance, Themeparks cant.
Rift does throw out content, but to me most of it was rehashed crap. After the third *world event* - ie 3rd set of dailys involving collection of tokens of X type by doing daily quests etc I grew bored and left.
If Bioware can push out reasonably good (MMO players will settle for reasonably good) content at a reasonable rate, the game will retain and build subs. If it cant, the game will bleed subs after 2-4 mo's.
I'm hoping they can supply the content but realistically I pre-ordered with the mindset that it was worth the price to me if I got 3-4 mo's out of the game ... if people pre-order with that in mind they wont be dissapointed (IMO) if however your getting the game with the mindset that it is the *next big thing* and will last you years, I'd suggest you cancel that pre-order and wait before making a purchase.
The days of an MMO lasting us years just seem to have past by ... EQ I played for 5 years, DaoC for 4 years .. WoW on and off for the last 5 years .. all the others I've been lucky to get 5-6 mo's from (And I've played most) Just seems to be a sign of the times