Originally posted by lizardbones Some other posts on this site, plus this thread. It's just a guess, hence the "something like". There is no way to get an actual limit on the servers, or even a high or low value. Feel free to make up your own values, they'll be just as good. ** edit ** It would be more appropriate to say, "More people than a normal human can keep track of, since humans are limited to between 100 and 300 active relationships at a time". This number is called Dunbar's Number. Interestingly, this seems to hold true for Facebook friends, as well as in real life personal relationships. There are just many more people on a modern MMORPG server than any one person can keep track of.
According to the guy (Paige) who did the Top 20 server estimates, a very heavy server is around 3000, while a full a above that.
So it would, at the most, be 5000 people per server.
The point is that it's way more than a person can keep track of. The 'server community' doesn't exist, so it can't be broken. The servers would have to be much smaller or people would have to be a lot less mobile for the 'server community' to exist.
Unless we're talking about all the interactions that happen with people a player doesn't know (like buying stuff off the AH), in which case, it doesn't matter what server you're on, those interactions happen anyway.
** edit ** The first post in this thread puts the number of servers at 17, and the number of players between 150k & 300k. That's just under 10k to just under 20k per server.
It doesn't matter anyway because the numbers are completely made up. The number 3,000 is just as valid as 20,000. They don't suffer from the possibility of being proven right or wrong.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just wait till Mists of Pandaria and Guild Wars 2 comes out this summer/fall. SWTOR is in trouble.
THIS summer/fall?
HAHAHAHA
Well, I dunno about GW2. But from what I can tell, Mists of Pandaria will most certainly be out before the end of September. I suspect we'll be getting a release date announcement within the next 2 weeks.
Some other posts on this site, plus this thread. It's just a guess, hence the "something like". There is no way to get an actual limit on the servers, or even a high or low value. Feel free to make up your own values, they'll be just as good.
** edit ** It would be more appropriate to say, "More people than a normal human can keep track of, since humans are limited to between 100 and 300 active relationships at a time". This number is called Dunbar's Number. Interestingly, this seems to hold true for Facebook friends, as well as in real life personal relationships. There are just many more people on a modern MMORPG server than any one person can keep track of.
According to the guy (Paige) who did the Top 20 server estimates, a very heavy server is around 3000, while a full a above that.
So it would, at the most, be 5000 people per server.
Just wait till Mists of Pandaria and Guild Wars 2 comes out this summer/fall. SWTOR is in trouble.
THIS summer/fall?
HAHAHAHA
Well, I dunno about GW2. But from what I can tell, Mists of Pandaria will most certainly be out before the end of September. I suspect we'll be getting a release date announcement within the next 2 weeks.
Dont forget about Secret World, it will easily come in third behind GW2 and MOP but if its even half the game TOR should have been. Two games will drain tor of end game RAIDers, GW2 will take very pvper in the game easily. Only the truly dedicated will be left before the end.
Originally posted by Sukiyaki Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SumterSideOriginally posted by lizardbones Some other posts on this site, plus this thread. It's just a guess, hence the "something like". There is no way to get an actual limit on the servers, or even a high or low value. Feel free to make up your own values, they'll be just as good. ** edit ** It would be more appropriate to say, "More people than a normal human can keep track of, since humans are limited to between 100 and 300 active relationships at a time". This number is called Dunbar's Number. Interestingly, this seems to hold true for Facebook friends, as well as in real life personal relationships. There are just many more people on a modern MMORPG server than any one person can keep track of.
According to the guy (Paige) who did the Top 20 server estimates, a very heavy server is around 3000, while a full a above that.So it would, at the most, be 5000 people per server. The point is that it's way more than a person can keep track of. The 'server community' doesn't exist, so it can't be broken. The servers would have to be much smaller or people would have to be a lot less mobile for the 'server community' to exist. Unless we're talking about all the interactions that happen with people a player doesn't know (like buying stuff off the AH), in which case, it doesn't matter what server you're on, those interactions happen anyway. ** edit ** The first post in this thread puts the number of servers at 17, and the number of players between 150k & 300k. That's just under 10k to just under 20k per server. It doesn't matter anyway because the numbers are completely made up. The number 3,000 is just as valid as 20,000. They don't suffer from the possibility of being proven right or wrong. First of it helps when one does understand or doesnt deliberate keep spinning the context when talking about numbers. Like when you likely talked about active accounts/player per server(10.000) and someone denies it claiming the number would be much lower but then goes on citing some CCU data(3000) which is simply something different than you where talking about. Its one of the many reasons why simple arguments like these can grow to 3-5 pages when people dont even know what they are talking about. Unfortunatel not everyone notices when the other party is mixing something up and both parties argue against two different things, which might not even contradict each other or any be wrong of them..
Back to the numbers, in fact the "numbers" are well known or at least specified with an error margin of +-150 CCU. They where even hyped recently but shunned when rabid hater realized they werent as bad as they thought. In fact the number he cited was not a "made up" number, but sampled ones and the ones I was just refering to. He most apparently just didnt know he recited a CCU value, not player playing on a server in general, as in active accounts/user.
Paiges calculations are a good point. His results or anyones who did the same is exactly what would be required to make calculations for active user from swtorstatus.com in first place. It is pretty much the opposite of what the OP/others been doing here with swtorstatus.com data
How you usually calculate active accounts from swtorstatus:
Step 1: Track the CCU, at least 1 server, no major events.
Step 2: Compare results to swtorstatus -> Evaluate concrete values/ranges each of the labels low/standard/high/full represents.
Step 3. You might use only peak or all swtorstatus.com results of each server and calculate the total min and max CCU at peak or average for all server together.
Step 4. You make extrapolations from PCU or ACU width historical knowledge about ACU/PCU relation to actice accounts/user. Respect events like expansion releases or free trials etc
Step 5. Explain your calculations rationaly
What Paige did.
Step 1: Track the CCU, at least 1 server, at least 1 week with no major events. Average them.
Step 2: Compare results to swtorstatus -> Calculate the concrete values/ranges (of online user) each of the labels low/standard/high/full represent.
Step 3. Produce several statements about single server, top server, all server etc ACU, CCU etc server based on your calculations. (He didnt care much about active accounts and stopped here as it was enough)
Step 5. Explain your calculations rationaly
Step 6. Realize you data is always victim to changes of EA on the population requirements -> Repeat CCU tracking.
Step 7. Find that new "destination" server use different tables than "origin" server and require double(1000) the active user number as before(500) just to reach Standard. Similar results yet unspecific results for other labels -> Redo your calculations.
What OP did.
Step 1: Look at swtorstatus -> Fudge the statistics and rename labels to make them appear worse.
Step 2. Make up "active user" number of your desire that suits your agenda.
Step 3. Recite swtorstatus.com as "objective data from unbiased 3rd party" and pretend you acclaimed result was calculated from these statistic.
Step 3. Recite alternative claims and interpretations about alternative cases and claim they'd support the result of calculations you never made, to distract from that very fact.
Step 4. Continue to feign ignorance.
I understand your point, but I'm not even talking about the number of players per server, just referencing the fact that there are more players per server than any human keep track of. This is in response to the idea that Bioware is breaking server communities by having people transfer servers.
Any number of active relationships over 300 is more than humans can keep track of. It doesn't matter if the servers house 3,000 people or 30,000 people. The only people that matter are the people you know. If you are a SWToR player, you're going to follow the people you know to whatever server they go to. If you don't, then you're the one that's broken your own little community, not Bioware. By the same token, if your little community chooses to not hold together, it wasn't strong enough to begin with. Start a new little community on a new server...you'll have thousands of people to choose from.
I still agree that it would have been a better move on Bioware's part to first merge servers, then allow people to transfer around. I understand why they didn't...the name changes would be a nightmare, but still, it's what I would have done. Actually, I would never have had individual servers in the first place but whatever...I didn't score more than a hundred million dollars to make a game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
They broke even? Or "roughly even"? Have they announced breaking even on TOR and now making a profit? EA is good at shrouding the truth in mists of vagueness when things don't go as expected, but I haven't seen anything official to even hint at a profit on TOR. Anything with concrete financial numbers regarding TOR seems to dissappear almost as fast as they appear, EA legal team FTW no doubt.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Originally posted by MadDemon64 Originally posted by aesperusOriginally posted by FennrisTo the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
This is silly. If this were Economics 101, we'd know how much they spent on the game and how much money they're getting for the game. We don't know either one of these values so knowing whether or not the game is profitable is impossible. They might not even be paying the game off...they might have run the costs out assuming that the game would make X amount of money for 5 years or something. In that case, they could make more money than they originally spent, but still fail. We have no idea what they really did because they haven't told us.
It's just as silly as going into long, involved explanations on how many players there are per server with no more information than the arbitrary label each server gives itself describing the player population. I'm surprised nobody has brought up XFire numbers to complete the Trifecta of Silly.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Looks like the investors play EA games more than EA does.
"Firstly, there's Star Wars: The Old Republic. EA's stock price went into decline after The Old Republic's launch, and hasn't recovered yet - and that timing is unlikely to be a coincidence. Expectations among investors for SWTOR were extremely high, given the game's much-publicised high development costs (which probably make it the most expensive game project ever), the strength of the Star Wars license, the track record of developer Bioware and, crucially, the tantalising possibility of building an ongoing MMO revenue stream for EA which would match the one enjoyed by rival Activision Blizzard from World of Warcraft. While it would be unfair to characterise SWTOR as a complete failure, it has certainly not been a success on the level which EA or its investors would have wanted. The game has lost 400,000 subscribers since February, and it seems inevitable that the company will be forced into an embarrassing (but probably commercially sensible) transition to a free-to-play model sooner rather than later."
Is it fail when the whole company is worth half what it was before TOR launched or is that just a coincidence? Where is all the great profit from TOR? It's sure not showing in the stock price.
No, I'm not just trolling a haters will hate crap. Reality is reality and that reality is the company is currently failing with no signs yet of recovery.
Looks like the investors play EA games more than EA does.
"Firstly, there's Star Wars: The Old Republic. EA's stock price went into decline after The Old Republic's launch, and hasn't recovered yet - and that timing is unlikely to be a coincidence. Expectations among investors for SWTOR were extremely high, given the game's much-publicised high development costs (which probably make it the most expensive game project ever), the strength of the Star Wars license, the track record of developer Bioware and, crucially, the tantalising possibility of building an ongoing MMO revenue stream for EA which would match the one enjoyed by rival Activision Blizzard from World of Warcraft. While it would be unfair to characterise SWTOR as a complete failure, it has certainly not been a success on the level which EA or its investors would have wanted. The game has lost 400,000 subscribers since February, and it seems inevitable that the company will be forced into an embarrassing (but probably commercially sensible) transition to a free-to-play model sooner rather than later."
Is it fail when the whole company is worth half what it was before TOR launched or is that just a coincidence? Where is all the great profit from TOR? It's sure not showing in the stock price.
No, I'm not just trolling a haters will hate crap. Reality is reality and that reality is the company is currently failing with no signs yet of recovery.
I'm with you. But you'll get folks defending SWTOR telling your that EA's decline and SWTOR aren't related because EA is such a large company.
It's funny because before and shortly after SWTOR came out there were several articles talking about how SWTOR was such a big gamble for EA, and even financial publications like Forbes took notice. Back then, no one seemed to dispute the fact that SWTOR would, for better or worse, have a large impact on EA.
But now that SWTOR has been out for six months, dropped precipitously in subs, and EA's stock has plummeted the entire time, we have a bunch of people saying that SWTOR's recent struggles have nothing at all to do with EA's financial woes. Yeah right .
Looks like the investors play EA games more than EA does."Firstly, there's Star Wars: The Old Republic. EA's stock price went into decline after The Old Republic's launch, and hasn't recovered yet - and that timing is unlikely to be a coincidence. Expectations among investors for SWTOR were extremely high, given the game's much-publicised high development costs (which probably make it the most expensive game project ever), the strength of the Star Wars license, the track record of developer Bioware and, crucially, the tantalising possibility of building an ongoing MMO revenue stream for EA which would match the one enjoyed by rival Activision Blizzard from World of Warcraft. While it would be unfair to characterise SWTOR as a complete failure, it has certainly not been a success on the level which EA or its investors would have wanted. The game has lost 400,000 subscribers since February, and it seems inevitable that the company will be forced into an embarrassing (but probably commercially sensible) transition to a free-to-play model sooner rather than later."Is it fail when the whole company is worth half what it was before TOR launched or is that just a coincidence? Where is all the great profit from TOR? It's sure not showing in the stock price.No, I'm not just trolling a haters will hate crap. Reality is reality and that reality is the company is currently failing with no signs yet of recovery.
I'm with you. But you'll get folks defending SWTOR telling your that EA's decline and SWTOR aren't related because EA is such a large company.
It's funny because before and shortly after SWTOR came out there were several articles talking about how SWTOR was such a big gamble for EA, and even financial publications like Forbes took notice. Back then, no one seemed to dispute the fact that SWTOR would, for better or worse, have a large impact on EA.
But now that SWTOR has been out for six months, dropped precipitously in subs, and EA's stock has plummeted the entire time, we have a bunch of people saying that SWTOR's recent struggles have nothing at all to do with EA's financial woes. Yeah right .
I wanted to come up with a counter point or some sort of argument here but there are literally Wall Street Trader Gamers who both manage EA's stock and play their games who said the stock was worth less because of the players SWToR lost by March. EA's stock woes can be directly attributed to SWToR's recent performance.
** edit ** It just seems like such a dumb thing to literally bank your companies future on one product when you have many products...dozens even.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
How about: No.
Now that you have done Economics 101, it is time for Business 101.
The big, huge (missing) factor involved here, is called Opportunity Cost.
Opportunity cost, is loosely defined as the cost or allocation in time, money, or other resources of doing one project as opposed to another. The cost of not taking "the other path" if you will.
The people that laid down the $200 mil for 6+ years were expecting a big return on their investment, if not WoW numbers, then something comparable. Why? Because otherwise, they would have put all that money into different projects to generate much better returns. And for a lump of cash as large as $200 mil+, ther are a LOT of things they'd rather have done than just "break even".
In the investment/busniess world, "break even" is a loser, when effort and opportunity cost are in there.
And for a game as large in cost as TOR, even "marginally profitable" is still a loser, because all the people that got all the investors to lay down that cash with them (EA) now look like idiots for not being able to deliver results, when for all intents and purposes, budget was no object. And EA still could not deliver the "big win" that was promised.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
How about: No.
Now that you have done Economics 101, it is time for Business 101.
The big, huge (missing) factor involved here, is called Opportunity Cost.
Opportunity cost, is loosely defined as the cost or allocation in time, money, or other resources of doing one project as opposed to another. The cost of not taking "the other path" if you will.
The people that laid down the $200 mil for 6+ years were expecting a big return on their investment, if not WoW numbers, then something comparable. Why? Because otherwise, they would have put all that money into different projects to generate much better returns. And for a lump of cash as large as $200 mil+, ther are a LOT of things they'd rather have done than just "break even".
In the investment/busniess world, "break even" is a loser, when effort and opportunity cost are in there.
And for a game as large in cost as TOR, even "marginally profitable" is still a loser, because all the people that got all the investors to lay down that cash with them (EA) now look like idiots for not being able to deliver results, when for all intents and purposes, budget was no object. And EA still could not deliver the "big win" that was promised.
Someone who gets it ^.
As the old addage goes: "Time is money." To spend 6+ years of time, to get a marginal return on investment is concidered a VERY poor investment. If you were to put money into stock, and 6 years later that stock has given you a 1-2% increase since you first bought it. It's time to buy new stock, lol.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
How about: No.
Now that you have done Economics 101, it is time for Business 101.
The big, huge (missing) factor involved here, is called Opportunity Cost.
Opportunity cost, is loosely defined as the cost or allocation in time, money, or other resources of doing one project as opposed to another. The cost of not taking "the other path" if you will.
The people that laid down the $200 mil for 6+ years were expecting a big return on their investment, if not WoW numbers, then something comparable. Why? Because otherwise, they would have put all that money into different projects to generate much better returns. And for a lump of cash as large as $200 mil+, ther are a LOT of things they'd rather have done than just "break even".
In the investment/busniess world, "break even" is a loser, when effort and opportunity cost are in there.
And for a game as large in cost as TOR, even "marginally profitable" is still a loser, because all the people that got all the investors to lay down that cash with them (EA) now look like idiots for not being able to deliver results, when for all intents and purposes, budget was no object. And EA still could not deliver the "big win" that was promised.
Someone who clearly has done economics 101 (I remember opportunity cost from my very first lecture) - good post here for all the SWTOR fanboys to take note of
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
How about: No.
Now that you have done Economics 101, it is time for Business 101.
The big, huge (missing) factor involved here, is called Opportunity Cost.
Opportunity cost, is loosely defined as the cost or allocation in time, money, or other resources of doing one project as opposed to another. The cost of not taking "the other path" if you will.
The people that laid down the $200 mil for 6+ years were expecting a big return on their investment, if not WoW numbers, then something comparable. Why? Because otherwise, they would have put all that money into different projects to generate much better returns. And for a lump of cash as large as $200 mil+, ther are a LOT of things they'd rather have done than just "break even".
In the investment/busniess world, "break even" is a loser, when effort and opportunity cost are in there.
And for a game as large in cost as TOR, even "marginally profitable" is still a loser, because all the people that got all the investors to lay down that cash with them (EA) now look like idiots for not being able to deliver results, when for all intents and purposes, budget was no object. And EA still could not deliver the "big win" that was promised.
^
Harsh reality of a dead bang spot on assessment/explanation.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
If you're going to throw "Economics 101" in somebody's face then you would do well to mention both the relevant underlying assumption of microeconomic theory -- that firms are profit-maximizing entiities -- as well as the fundamental concept of opportunity cost: the value of everything forgone by choosing to produce option A instead of devoting those resources to produce a better (or next-best) option B.
In Econ 101 the real "cost of production," the very term you use, includes opportunity cost. Relevant chapter of an econ textbook:
We're not aware of the real total expenditure on TOR, but it's almost a certainty that multiple single-player games could have been made with the same resources. Many have even described TOR as several single-player game experiences tied together with MMO functionality. Bioware's own single-player games have enjoyed a lot of success, with sales across all platforms totalling several million for each. All three Mass Effect games and at least the first Dragon Age title have outsold TOR with the latest known figures. In addition, because these single-player games likely would have had a shorter development cycle, the profits could have been reinvested in other projects in the same timeframe.
For comparison, $60 * 3 games * 3 million (conservatively) copies sold = $540 million in gross revenue generated by three hypothetical single-player RPGs that could have been made with the resources spent on TOR. With those same resources TOR has generated approximately $60 * 3 million copies + $15/month subscription * 7 months * average number of subscribers (let's say a million) = $285 million in gross revenue. Special edition sales will roughly be balanced out by sale prices in the months after release for both options.
TOR also has some operating expenditures that single-player games don't have, so it continues to accrue additional costs that could have been spent elsewhere as well. TOR's subscriptions will enable it to slowly close the gap, but now with what appears to be maybe half a million subscribers it's only doing so at a rate of maybe $7.5 million a month. At that rate it will take nearly three more years for TOR to catch up with just the initial box revenue generated by those three hypothetical titles, let alone the fact that more titles could have been made in that timeframe with the reinvested profits from the single-player games and the resources still being spent on TOR. Some ground would be made up with an expansion, but that will also include costs that could have contributed to other development.
The additional revenue "not made" by making an MMO instead of the multiple single-player game alternative is part of TOR's opportunity cost. EA could have decided to use those resources in other ways too of course. The financial resources could have been thrown into a high-yield financial account which at this point might even have been making them more than $7.5 million in "interest" a month ETA: after six years of compounding interest. No joke.
From an Econ 101 perspective the decision to make TOR can still be (is) terrible, even if the dollar value in the financial report is positive and EA management claims to be thrilled with the way TOR is going.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
If you're going to throw "Economics 101" in somebody's face then you would do well to mention both the relevant underlying assumption of microeconomic theory -- that firms are profit-maximizing entiities -- as well as the fundamental concept of opportunity cost: the value of everything forgone by choosing to produce option A instead of devoting those resources to produce a better (or next-best) option B.
In Econ 101 the real "cost of production," the very term you use, includes opportunity cost. Relevant chapter of an econ textbook:
For comparison, $60 * 3 games * 3 million (conservatively) copies sold = $540 million in gross revenue generated by three hypothetical single-player RPGs that could have been made with the resources spent on TOR. With those same resources TOR has generated approximately $60 * 3 million copies + $15/month subscription * 7 months * average number of subscribers (let's say a million) = $285 million in gross revenue. Special edition sales will roughly be balanced out by sale prices in the months after release for both options.
Just to be fair, your $60 figure is off. Retailers sell the game(s) for $60 they make X% mark up when THEY sell it to the end user for $60.00. I have no idea what the profit margins are for the retailers but clealry they make enough to warrant selling them.
I do wish I could get some of the people who believe publishers get 100% of the sale price: I have a product for you, please make it, distribute it, sell lit and pay all taxes on it and give me 100% of the sale price.
Anyway:
EA have not announced how many copies of the game they sold - to Amazon, Best Buy, Wal-Mart etc. How much they got for these copies will depend on the deals they made: 10EU, £7, $15 - whatever. (The game cost less than $60 in Europe).
EA announced 2.1M through sales at the start of Feb. There was some discussion about whether this was end-Dec or the start of Feb. To me the press release suggested start Feb but no matter.
EA also announced that they had 1.7M 'subscribers' - a subscriber being defined as per Blizzard's definition of monthly sub or in their paid 30 days.
At the start of Mar JR, at a conference, gave additional info about the Feb 1.7M number saying that majority meant just about half of the 1.7M - or c. 850k - were monthly subscribers.
So the status at the start of Feb was:
1.3M announced Dec 23rd.
2.1M through sales; 850k in their free 30 days, 850k signed up as subscribers; 400k gone (I'm ignoring any unopened boxes). The 850k + 400k gone is around the 1.3M announced in Dec so this suggests a good initial conversion rate of about 70%.
Start of March JR gave out the 1.7M figure again but didn't define how the number was arrived at; lots of strange words.
Start of May EA announced 1.3M 'somethings' - they did not define what the 1.3M were and the number was after the start of the 30 day trial so they may not all have been subscribers by the 'standard definition'.
EA have also said that they need 500k subscribers to break even and 1M subs for 'a period of time' to 'make a profit but nothing to write home about'. Articles / analysts put the timefrane as 1-2 years depending on actual sales and marketing costs. JR also said subsequently that they had been looking at a 1.2M figure - and hence 1.3M was good.
So based on EA's own data they have not yet made a profit and all the signs, within the first 6 months, are that the game is floundering and in huge trouble: the extensive free trials, weekends, huge number of friend passes, huge server merges, talk of f2p, the staff cuts despite earlier talk of keeping the team together etc.
I can't wait for this to be true. It would prove players perfer a more open sandbox type game over a linear themepark, as SWTOR had the same base if not larger then SWG, and yet SWTOR failed way sooner.
No, it wouldn't prove that at all. It would only prove that people don't like SWTOR. WoW proves people like linear themepark games already.
SWTOR can't be too far off their last announced numbers because EA have shareholders and lying to your shareholders is a very bad thing to do and will get you into a lot of trouble. Sure, they probably do have less than 1.3 subs at this point and possibly under 1 mil - but to think they only have 200-300k is just, well some dude talking out his ass.
Of course it does. SWG and SWTOR are both MMOs targeting star wars fans and MMO fans, neither was perfect, niether had perfect starts and both had some questionable design choices but one that had sandbox features lasted 7 years till it was forced closed by LA, while another the other one that was about as themepark as it is possible to be is on a course to tank with in two years. IMO, it pretty clearly one of these game designchoices was a winner and one wasn't.
you have to take the times we're playing in too. During SWG you had only a handful of choices, today you're drowning in them. What held on for a while then put in the sea of options today would likely have fallen apart just as fast if not faster. Not saying one is better than another, you can't make a themeparker love sandbox and you can't make a sandboxer love themepark, trying to is just folly. Saying Sandbox clearly is superior because it lasted 7 years, I would counter saying Themepark is clearly superior as WoW has held on far more profitable and for longer...and every game since seems to be themepark.
I would wager at the peak of WoW, Blizzard made more money off their game in one year than SWG made during all 7.
I think any comparison between the two games is pointless at this junction but they both have proven their failures and successes. The real judge will be if Ea/Bioware can salvage enough subs to keep the game going for even a few years. All i hear from friends still playing is the populations are still declineing and that there still isn't much endgame to play.
I do find it funny that when you consider the fact that LA closed SWG down as what I can only see as a way to keep all their dedicated fans in one MMO might not have been profitable for them. I know all my old guildies that went from SWG to SWtor have either quit or the few that remain are one bad nerf or one more disappointing patch away from it.
I think instead of following swg or following with the themeparks design they should have setup their own path. Alot of the features that could have really been something turned into disasters and all the work they showed themselves doing to make the worlds great seem pointless when you leave in 10 or less levels and never really have a reason to go back besides maybe one quest from your professions story.
Makes me really wonder if they had given SWG this much money and staff along with today better computers and larger audience just how well or worse it might have done.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
If you're going to throw "Economics 101" in somebody's face then you would do well to mention both the relevant underlying assumption of microeconomic theory -- that firms are profit-maximizing entiities -- as well as the fundamental concept of opportunity cost: the value of everything forgone by choosing to produce option A instead of devoting those resources to produce a better (or next-best) option B.
In Econ 101 the real "cost of production," the very term you use, includes opportunity cost. Relevant chapter of an econ textbook:
For comparison, $60 * 3 games * 3 million (conservatively) copies sold = $540 million in gross revenue generated by three hypothetical single-player RPGs that could have been made with the resources spent on TOR. With those same resources TOR has generated approximately $60 * 3 million copies + $15/month subscription * 7 months * average number of subscribers (let's say a million) = $285 million in gross revenue. Special edition sales will roughly be balanced out by sale prices in the months after release for both options.
Just to be fair, your $60 figure is off. Retailers sell the game(s) for $60 they make X% mark up when THEY sell it to the end user for $60.00. I have no idea what the profit margins are for the retailers but clealry they make enough to warrant selling them.
Yes, retailers do make a % off of each game. We could adjust the numbers for both games - estimating 10% for each game.
($60 - (10% of $60)) * 3 games * 1 million per game = $162 million
($60 - (10% of $60)) * 3 million copies + $15/month subscription * 5 months (removing the free 30 days for both the boxed copy and the one given out around april) * 900k mil avg subs = $213.3 mil
Two different changes to this:
1.) I changed both formulas to reflect 3 million games sold.
2.) I changed the number of months subs have been paying.
3.) I changed the number of avg subs to reflect the "free month" times that took place during higher numbers.
I could guess more numbers out of my rear to reflect the average cost per month on a sub (purchased at a store where the retailer gets a cut, multi month plans, etc).
I could speculate costs associated with maintaining the servers, staff employed to handle questions and problems with the additional billing and problems associated with games, and the additional beancounters to handle the monthly subs directly.
So back to Econ 101 for everybody: we are guessing possible revenue based on sales and subs, but revenue does not equal profit. So, unless someone can provide semi-accurate numbers on production costs for large-scale games along with maintenance costs on servers capable of hosting such a large MMO, the picture won't be complete enough to make an educated guess on which could be profitable.
I wanted to come up with a counter point or some sort of argument here but there are literally Wall Street Trader Gamers who both manage EA's stock and play their games who said the stock was worth less because of the players SWToR lost by March. EA's stock woes can be directly attributed to SWToR's recent performance.
** edit ** It just seems like such a dumb thing to literally bank your companies future on one product when you have many products...dozens even.
I agree. With all the titles EA has under their belt it doesn't make much sense to "shoot the moon" like this.
To the people calling SWTOR a financial failure/flop: where are you getting your numbers from?
The game isn't as successful as 1 or 2 other MMOs, yes, and it doesn't do what many players on forums like these seem to "need". But those factors do not a "flop" make, right?
It's been generally viewed as a poor investment. Is that enough fail for you?
When you take the most expensive MMO 'ever' to make, and roughly break even, that is not a success. On any lvl.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
If you're going to throw "Economics 101" in somebody's face then you would do well to mention both the relevant underlying assumption of microeconomic theory -- that firms are profit-maximizing entiities -- as well as the fundamental concept of opportunity cost: the value of everything forgone by choosing to produce option A instead of devoting those resources to produce a better (or next-best) option B.
In Econ 101 the real "cost of production," the very term you use, includes opportunity cost. Relevant chapter of an econ textbook:
For comparison, $60 * 3 games * 3 million (conservatively) copies sold = $540 million in gross revenue generated by three hypothetical single-player RPGs that could have been made with the resources spent on TOR. With those same resources TOR has generated approximately $60 * 3 million copies + $15/month subscription * 7 months * average number of subscribers (let's say a million) = $285 million in gross revenue. Special edition sales will roughly be balanced out by sale prices in the months after release for both options.
Just to be fair, your $60 figure is off. Retailers sell the game(s) for $60 they make X% mark up when THEY sell it to the end user for $60.00. I have no idea what the profit margins are for the retailers but clealry they make enough to warrant selling them.
Yes, retailers do make a % off of each game. We could adjust the numbers for both games - estimating 10% for each game.
($60 - (10% of $60)) * 3 games * 1 million per game = $162 million
($60 - (10% of $60)) * 3 million copies + $15/month subscription * 5 months (removing the free 30 days for both the boxed copy and the one given out around april) * 900k mil avg subs = $213.3 mil
Two different changes to this:
1.) I changed both formulas to reflect 3 million games sold.
2.) I changed the number of months subs have been paying.
3.) I changed the number of avg subs to reflect the "free month" times that took place during higher numbers.
I could guess more numbers out of my rear to reflect the average cost per month on a sub (purchased at a store where the retailer gets a cut, multi month plans, etc).
I could speculate costs associated with maintaining the servers, staff employed to handle questions and problems with the additional billing and problems associated with games, and the additional beancounters to handle the monthly subs directly.
So back to Econ 101 for everybody: we are guessing possible revenue based on sales and subs, but revenue does not equal profit. So, unless someone can provide semi-accurate numbers on production costs for large-scale games along with maintenance costs on servers capable of hosting such a large MMO, the picture won't be complete enough to make an educated guess on which could be profitable.
Your probably a bit off with your numbers still. I own a manufactuing buisiness and our best selling product is sold to wholesalers, for 2.83 (or less depending upon quantity ordered) who resale for 4.00-4.25. The product then goes to contractors who mark up the product again about another 20%-25%+. The consumer ends up paying around 5.31 or more time it all is said and done with.
Your 10% is a bit low in the equation dept. The standard retail markups I see every day are more like 75% to 100%. I would guess that a 60.00 box nets EA somewhere around the 30.00-35.00 mark. And it was disclosed that TOR sold 2.4 million boxes, 1.7 subs at launch, 1.3 subs at the 4 month mark, and now with only 26 servers, (the same exact amount that SWG had), probably the best guesstimate is SWG's 300K subs at it's heyday.
Comments
THIS summer/fall?
HAHAHAHA
The point is that it's way more than a person can keep track of. The 'server community' doesn't exist, so it can't be broken. The servers would have to be much smaller or people would have to be a lot less mobile for the 'server community' to exist.
Unless we're talking about all the interactions that happen with people a player doesn't know (like buying stuff off the AH), in which case, it doesn't matter what server you're on, those interactions happen anyway.
** edit **
The first post in this thread puts the number of servers at 17, and the number of players between 150k & 300k. That's just under 10k to just under 20k per server.
It doesn't matter anyway because the numbers are completely made up. The number 3,000 is just as valid as 20,000. They don't suffer from the possibility of being proven right or wrong.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well, I dunno about GW2. But from what I can tell, Mists of Pandaria will most certainly be out before the end of September. I suspect we'll be getting a release date announcement within the next 2 weeks.
Paige is not a guy, she is a lady.
Dont forget about Secret World, it will easily come in third behind GW2 and MOP but if its even half the game TOR should have been. Two games will drain tor of end game RAIDers, GW2 will take very pvper in the game easily. Only the truly dedicated will be left before the end.
The point is that it's way more than a person can keep track of. The 'server community' doesn't exist, so it can't be broken. The servers would have to be much smaller or people would have to be a lot less mobile for the 'server community' to exist. Unless we're talking about all the interactions that happen with people a player doesn't know (like buying stuff off the AH), in which case, it doesn't matter what server you're on, those interactions happen anyway. ** edit ** The first post in this thread puts the number of servers at 17, and the number of players between 150k & 300k. That's just under 10k to just under 20k per server. It doesn't matter anyway because the numbers are completely made up. The number 3,000 is just as valid as 20,000. They don't suffer from the possibility of being proven right or wrong.
First of it helps when one does understand or doesnt deliberate keep spinning the context when talking about numbers. Like when you likely talked about active accounts/player per server(10.000) and someone denies it claiming the number would be much lower but then goes on citing some CCU data(3000) which is simply something different than you where talking about. Its one of the many reasons why simple arguments like these can grow to 3-5 pages when people dont even know what they are talking about. Unfortunatel not everyone notices when the other party is mixing something up and both parties argue against two different things, which might not even contradict each other or any be wrong of them..
Back to the numbers, in fact the "numbers" are well known or at least specified with an error margin of +-150 CCU. They where even hyped recently but shunned when rabid hater realized they werent as bad as they thought. In fact the number he cited was not a "made up" number, but sampled ones and the ones I was just refering to. He most apparently just didnt know he recited a CCU value, not player playing on a server in general, as in active accounts/user.
Paiges calculations are a good point. His results or anyones who did the same is exactly what would be required to make calculations for active user from swtorstatus.com in first place. It is pretty much the opposite of what the OP/others been doing here with swtorstatus.com data
How you usually calculate active accounts from swtorstatus:
Step 1: Track the CCU, at least 1 server, no major events.
Step 2: Compare results to swtorstatus -> Evaluate concrete values/ranges each of the labels low/standard/high/full represents.
Step 3. You might use only peak or all swtorstatus.com results of each server and calculate the total min and max CCU at peak or average for all server together.
Step 4. You make extrapolations from PCU or ACU width historical knowledge about ACU/PCU relation to actice accounts/user. Respect events like expansion releases or free trials etc
Step 5. Explain your calculations rationaly
What Paige did.
Step 1: Track the CCU, at least 1 server, at least 1 week with no major events. Average them.
Step 2: Compare results to swtorstatus -> Calculate the concrete values/ranges (of online user) each of the labels low/standard/high/full represent.
Step 3. Produce several statements about single server, top server, all server etc ACU, CCU etc server based on your calculations. (He didnt care much about active accounts and stopped here as it was enough)
Step 5. Explain your calculations rationaly
Step 6. Realize you data is always victim to changes of EA on the population requirements -> Repeat CCU tracking.
Step 7. Find that new "destination" server use different tables than "origin" server and require double(1000) the active user number as before(500) just to reach Standard. Similar results yet unspecific results for other labels -> Redo your calculations.
What OP did.
Step 1: Look at swtorstatus -> Fudge the statistics and rename labels to make them appear worse.
Step 2. Make up "active user" number of your desire that suits your agenda.
Step 3. Recite swtorstatus.com as "objective data from unbiased 3rd party" and pretend you acclaimed result was calculated from these statistic.
Step 3. Recite alternative claims and interpretations about alternative cases and claim they'd support the result of calculations you never made, to distract from that very fact.
Step 4. Continue to feign ignorance.
I understand your point, but I'm not even talking about the number of players per server, just referencing the fact that there are more players per server than any human keep track of. This is in response to the idea that Bioware is breaking server communities by having people transfer servers.
Any number of active relationships over 300 is more than humans can keep track of. It doesn't matter if the servers house 3,000 people or 30,000 people. The only people that matter are the people you know. If you are a SWToR player, you're going to follow the people you know to whatever server they go to. If you don't, then you're the one that's broken your own little community, not Bioware. By the same token, if your little community chooses to not hold together, it wasn't strong enough to begin with. Start a new little community on a new server...you'll have thousands of people to choose from.
I still agree that it would have been a better move on Bioware's part to first merge servers, then allow people to transfer around. I understand why they didn't...the name changes would be a nightmare, but still, it's what I would have done. Actually, I would never have had individual servers in the first place but whatever...I didn't score more than a hundred million dollars to make a game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
They broke even? Or "roughly even"? Have they announced breaking even on TOR and now making a profit? EA is good at shrouding the truth in mists of vagueness when things don't go as expected, but I haven't seen anything official to even hint at a profit on TOR. Anything with concrete financial numbers regarding TOR seems to dissappear almost as fast as they appear, EA legal team FTW no doubt.
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
Since when is Tuesday a direction?
Actually, it does. If it manages to cover the costs of production, then it is a success. If it more than covers the cost of production, it is an even better success. If it does not cover the costs of production, then it is not a success.
Since you have admitted that SWTOR sold enough copies to cover the costs of production, then you have admitted that the game is a success. It is not as successful as WoW, but since more money was not spent in creating SWTOR than was recovered through sales, then it was successful.
Economics 101.
This is silly. If this were Economics 101, we'd know how much they spent on the game and how much money they're getting for the game. We don't know either one of these values so knowing whether or not the game is profitable is impossible. They might not even be paying the game off...they might have run the costs out assuming that the game would make X amount of money for 5 years or something. In that case, they could make more money than they originally spent, but still fail. We have no idea what they really did because they haven't told us.
It's just as silly as going into long, involved explanations on how many players there are per server with no more information than the arbitrary label each server gives itself describing the player population. I'm surprised nobody has brought up XFire numbers to complete the Trifecta of Silly.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Paragus1
Enough said about EA and SWTOR.
Looks like the investors play EA games more than EA does.
"Firstly, there's Star Wars: The Old Republic. EA's stock price went into decline after The Old Republic's launch, and hasn't recovered yet - and that timing is unlikely to be a coincidence. Expectations among investors for SWTOR were extremely high, given the game's much-publicised high development costs (which probably make it the most expensive game project ever), the strength of the Star Wars license, the track record of developer Bioware and, crucially, the tantalising possibility of building an ongoing MMO revenue stream for EA which would match the one enjoyed by rival Activision Blizzard from World of Warcraft. While it would be unfair to characterise SWTOR as a complete failure, it has certainly not been a success on the level which EA or its investors would have wanted. The game has lost 400,000 subscribers since February, and it seems inevitable that the company will be forced into an embarrassing (but probably commercially sensible) transition to a free-to-play model sooner rather than later."
Is it fail when the whole company is worth half what it was before TOR launched or is that just a coincidence? Where is all the great profit from TOR? It's sure not showing in the stock price.
No, I'm not just trolling a haters will hate crap. Reality is reality and that reality is the company is currently failing with no signs yet of recovery.
I'm with you. But you'll get folks defending SWTOR telling your that EA's decline and SWTOR aren't related because EA is such a large company.
It's funny because before and shortly after SWTOR came out there were several articles talking about how SWTOR was such a big gamble for EA, and even financial publications like Forbes took notice. Back then, no one seemed to dispute the fact that SWTOR would, for better or worse, have a large impact on EA.
But now that SWTOR has been out for six months, dropped precipitously in subs, and EA's stock has plummeted the entire time, we have a bunch of people saying that SWTOR's recent struggles have nothing at all to do with EA's financial woes. Yeah right
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I wanted to come up with a counter point or some sort of argument here but there are literally Wall Street Trader Gamers who both manage EA's stock and play their games who said the stock was worth less because of the players SWToR lost by March. EA's stock woes can be directly attributed to SWToR's recent performance.
** edit **
It just seems like such a dumb thing to literally bank your companies future on one product when you have many products...dozens even.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
How about: No.
Now that you have done Economics 101, it is time for Business 101.
The big, huge (missing) factor involved here, is called Opportunity Cost.
Opportunity cost, is loosely defined as the cost or allocation in time, money, or other resources of doing one project as opposed to another. The cost of not taking "the other path" if you will.
The people that laid down the $200 mil for 6+ years were expecting a big return on their investment, if not WoW numbers, then something comparable. Why? Because otherwise, they would have put all that money into different projects to generate much better returns. And for a lump of cash as large as $200 mil+, ther are a LOT of things they'd rather have done than just "break even".
In the investment/busniess world, "break even" is a loser, when effort and opportunity cost are in there.
And for a game as large in cost as TOR, even "marginally profitable" is still a loser, because all the people that got all the investors to lay down that cash with them (EA) now look like idiots for not being able to deliver results, when for all intents and purposes, budget was no object. And EA still could not deliver the "big win" that was promised.
Someone who gets it ^.
As the old addage goes: "Time is money." To spend 6+ years of time, to get a marginal return on investment is concidered a VERY poor investment. If you were to put money into stock, and 6 years later that stock has given you a 1-2% increase since you first bought it. It's time to buy new stock, lol.
Someone who clearly has done economics 101 (I remember opportunity cost from my very first lecture) - good post here for all the SWTOR fanboys to take note of
^
Harsh reality of a dead bang spot on assessment/explanation.
If you're going to throw "Economics 101" in somebody's face then you would do well to mention both the relevant underlying assumption of microeconomic theory -- that firms are profit-maximizing entiities -- as well as the fundamental concept of opportunity cost: the value of everything forgone by choosing to produce option A instead of devoting those resources to produce a better (or next-best) option B.
In Econ 101 the real "cost of production," the very term you use, includes opportunity cost. Relevant chapter of an econ textbook:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10324747/7-How-Firms-Make-Decisions-Profit-Maximization
We're not aware of the real total expenditure on TOR, but it's almost a certainty that multiple single-player games could have been made with the same resources. Many have even described TOR as several single-player game experiences tied together with MMO functionality. Bioware's own single-player games have enjoyed a lot of success, with sales across all platforms totalling several million for each. All three Mass Effect games and at least the first Dragon Age title have outsold TOR with the latest known figures. In addition, because these single-player games likely would have had a shorter development cycle, the profits could have been reinvested in other projects in the same timeframe.
For comparison, $60 * 3 games * 3 million (conservatively) copies sold = $540 million in gross revenue generated by three hypothetical single-player RPGs that could have been made with the resources spent on TOR. With those same resources TOR has generated approximately $60 * 3 million copies + $15/month subscription * 7 months * average number of subscribers (let's say a million) = $285 million in gross revenue. Special edition sales will roughly be balanced out by sale prices in the months after release for both options.
TOR also has some operating expenditures that single-player games don't have, so it continues to accrue additional costs that could have been spent elsewhere as well. TOR's subscriptions will enable it to slowly close the gap, but now with what appears to be maybe half a million subscribers it's only doing so at a rate of maybe $7.5 million a month. At that rate it will take nearly three more years for TOR to catch up with just the initial box revenue generated by those three hypothetical titles, let alone the fact that more titles could have been made in that timeframe with the reinvested profits from the single-player games and the resources still being spent on TOR. Some ground would be made up with an expansion, but that will also include costs that could have contributed to other development.
The additional revenue "not made" by making an MMO instead of the multiple single-player game alternative is part of TOR's opportunity cost. EA could have decided to use those resources in other ways too of course. The financial resources could have been thrown into a high-yield financial account which at this point might even have been making them more than $7.5 million in "interest" a month ETA: after six years of compounding interest. No joke.
From an Econ 101 perspective the decision to make TOR can still be (is) terrible, even if the dollar value in the financial report is positive and EA management claims to be thrilled with the way TOR is going.
ETA: ARGHHH beat to it.
Just to be fair, your $60 figure is off. Retailers sell the game(s) for $60 they make X% mark up when THEY sell it to the end user for $60.00. I have no idea what the profit margins are for the retailers but clealry they make enough to warrant selling them.
I do wish I could get some of the people who believe publishers get 100% of the sale price: I have a product for you, please make it, distribute it, sell lit and pay all taxes on it and give me 100% of the sale price.
Anyway:
EA have not announced how many copies of the game they sold - to Amazon, Best Buy, Wal-Mart etc. How much they got for these copies will depend on the deals they made: 10EU, £7, $15 - whatever. (The game cost less than $60 in Europe).
EA announced 2.1M through sales at the start of Feb. There was some discussion about whether this was end-Dec or the start of Feb. To me the press release suggested start Feb but no matter.
EA also announced that they had 1.7M 'subscribers' - a subscriber being defined as per Blizzard's definition of monthly sub or in their paid 30 days.
At the start of Mar JR, at a conference, gave additional info about the Feb 1.7M number saying that majority meant just about half of the 1.7M - or c. 850k - were monthly subscribers.
So the status at the start of Feb was:
1.3M announced Dec 23rd.
2.1M through sales; 850k in their free 30 days, 850k signed up as subscribers; 400k gone (I'm ignoring any unopened boxes). The 850k + 400k gone is around the 1.3M announced in Dec so this suggests a good initial conversion rate of about 70%.
Start of March JR gave out the 1.7M figure again but didn't define how the number was arrived at; lots of strange words.
Start of May EA announced 1.3M 'somethings' - they did not define what the 1.3M were and the number was after the start of the 30 day trial so they may not all have been subscribers by the 'standard definition'.
EA have also said that they need 500k subscribers to break even and 1M subs for 'a period of time' to 'make a profit but nothing to write home about'. Articles / analysts put the timefrane as 1-2 years depending on actual sales and marketing costs. JR also said subsequently that they had been looking at a 1.2M figure - and hence 1.3M was good.
So based on EA's own data they have not yet made a profit and all the signs, within the first 6 months, are that the game is floundering and in huge trouble: the extensive free trials, weekends, huge number of friend passes, huge server merges, talk of f2p, the staff cuts despite earlier talk of keeping the team together etc.
And this is all EA data and EA actions to date.
I think any comparison between the two games is pointless at this junction but they both have proven their failures and successes. The real judge will be if Ea/Bioware can salvage enough subs to keep the game going for even a few years. All i hear from friends still playing is the populations are still declineing and that there still isn't much endgame to play.
I do find it funny that when you consider the fact that LA closed SWG down as what I can only see as a way to keep all their dedicated fans in one MMO might not have been profitable for them. I know all my old guildies that went from SWG to SWtor have either quit or the few that remain are one bad nerf or one more disappointing patch away from it.
I think instead of following swg or following with the themeparks design they should have setup their own path. Alot of the features that could have really been something turned into disasters and all the work they showed themselves doing to make the worlds great seem pointless when you leave in 10 or less levels and never really have a reason to go back besides maybe one quest from your professions story.
Makes me really wonder if they had given SWG this much money and staff along with today better computers and larger audience just how well or worse it might have done.
Yes, retailers do make a % off of each game. We could adjust the numbers for both games - estimating 10% for each game.
($60 - (10% of $60)) * 3 games * 1 million per game = $162 million
($60 - (10% of $60)) * 3 million copies + $15/month subscription * 5 months (removing the free 30 days for both the boxed copy and the one given out around april) * 900k mil avg subs = $213.3 mil
Two different changes to this:
1.) I changed both formulas to reflect 3 million games sold.
2.) I changed the number of months subs have been paying.
3.) I changed the number of avg subs to reflect the "free month" times that took place during higher numbers.
I could guess more numbers out of my rear to reflect the average cost per month on a sub (purchased at a store where the retailer gets a cut, multi month plans, etc).
I could speculate costs associated with maintaining the servers, staff employed to handle questions and problems with the additional billing and problems associated with games, and the additional beancounters to handle the monthly subs directly.
So back to Econ 101 for everybody: we are guessing possible revenue based on sales and subs, but revenue does not equal profit. So, unless someone can provide semi-accurate numbers on production costs for large-scale games along with maintenance costs on servers capable of hosting such a large MMO, the picture won't be complete enough to make an educated guess on which could be profitable.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Yes yes and the Grizzly bears with laserz are beaming their lazers at the SWOTR players for being so gullible to still play this horrid game!!! LOL
I would give you a guest pass to SWOTR, but then I wouldn't be able to find a way to live with myself afterwards....
Your probably a bit off with your numbers still. I own a manufactuing buisiness and our best selling product is sold to wholesalers, for 2.83 (or less depending upon quantity ordered) who resale for 4.00-4.25. The product then goes to contractors who mark up the product again about another 20%-25%+. The consumer ends up paying around 5.31 or more time it all is said and done with.
Your 10% is a bit low in the equation dept. The standard retail markups I see every day are more like 75% to 100%. I would guess that a 60.00 box nets EA somewhere around the 30.00-35.00 mark. And it was disclosed that TOR sold 2.4 million boxes, 1.7 subs at launch, 1.3 subs at the 4 month mark, and now with only 26 servers, (the same exact amount that SWG had), probably the best guesstimate is SWG's 300K subs at it's heyday.