Population shrinking, PLEASE do something

manukartofanu

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Yesterday new world released on consoles.

In Prime time 1 bar each on PS EU and even the popular zones empty af.

Feels great

Yeah but during the event it was pretty full with clearly multiple instances going on. This was taken at non-peak hours iirc



I don't think either the event population or the population 1 day after a highly anticipated new release are good examples of average population.

There are certainly a lot of labels here, which gives the impression that this is PC and there are a lot of people. But if you take a closer look, a third of the labels are someone's companions, and another third are actually mobs. Players are marked with blue labels, and there are only about 15 of them. Considering that this is an incursion and there is only one active incursion on the mirror, it's unlikely that you can draw any conclusions from this screenshot.

Elsonso

Nerouyn wrote: »

MMOs experienced a freakish gold rush after WOW's success, which seems to have completely fizzled out, but now new MMOs are beginning to spring up again.

Yes, but that is mainly being driven by Live Service greed, I think. Someone wants piles of cash to fill their pools with and live services are the golden path. MMOs are on that path, so naturally, they get investment. Not all of them succeed, The live service market demands constant player engagement to fuel the pool filling machines. Investors need engagement to be high so that when their pool is filled, they can start filling another one.

More seriously, I do think that the success of a few MMOs, maybe ESO among them, has prompted a "me too" attitude. That can lead to studios tossing their hat in the ring, or in the case of a few Korean games, the Western market ring. When enough of them fail, the studios that are just in it for the quick cash will back off and do something else.

I think ESO surprised everyone, including the people at ZOS.

Nerouyn wrote: »

I think they know what's wrong with the game and are mostly heading in the right direction. When they'll get there? Dunno.

I think they know what is wrong, and are incrementally trying different ideas to see what sticks. The ESO player population is not uniform. Not everyone wants PVP, dungeons, trials, veteran content, housing, card games, arenas, and stories, but some players want one or more of those things and may be completely disinterested in all the rest. I won't get into which of those things are more popular, simply because we don't know.

The question I have is what they are doing to minimize annoying players into leaving. They seem to do that. A lot.

Nerouyn

Elsonso wrote: »

Yes, but that is mainly being driven by Live Service greed, I think. Someone wants piles of cash to fill their pools with and live services are the golden path. MMOs are on that path, so naturally, they get investment. Not all of them succeed, The live service market demands constant player engagement to fuel the pool filling machines. Investors need engagement to be high so that when their pool is filled, they can start filling another one.

More seriously, I do think that the success of a few MMOs, maybe ESO among them, has prompted a "me too" attitude. That can lead to studios tossing their hat in the ring, or in the case of a few Korean games, the Western market ring. When enough of them fail, the studios that are just in it for the quick cash will back off and do something else.

World of Warcraft was an unparalleled and undisputed colossal success whose performance swiftly eclipsed their quite modest targets for the game.

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

Now that ESO is owned by the publicly owned Microsoft we may see subscription numbers soon. On the other hand, Microsoft would likely be even more keen to protect the Elder Scrolls IP for the sake of potential future earnings. I doubt they'd shut it down.

Elsonso wrote: »

I think they know what is wrong, and are incrementally trying different ideas to see what sticks. The ESO player population is not uniform. Not everyone wants PVP, dungeons, trials, veteran content, housing, card games, arenas, and stories, but some players want one or more of those things and may be completely disinterested in all the rest. I won't get into which of those things are more popular, simply because we don't know.

The question I have is what they are doing to minimize annoying players into leaving. They seem to do that. A lot.

Experimentation is a possibility and could be in the mix but I see a clear direction in most of their incremental baby steps which makes me think that in most cases they do know what they should have done and are moving in that direction.

But you're right. Players don't all necessarily see the same or would appreciate either that direction or what the game is on its way to that.

Personally I think they spectacularly dropped the ball on mods.

Zenimax's attempt to translate the immense value added by mods in the single player game Elder Scrolls games was to give players a barely functional UI and irritations like dreadful inventory management, and then leave it to modders to fix them.

I'm not fooled by that and I doubt anyone else is either.

What they should have done is create an online equivalent of eg. Skyrim with decently priced rentable servers and allow the full breadth of mods, with the obvious limitation of prohibiting IP infringement, so no turning the game into a Lord of The Rings fest.

Personally I wouldn't change much. Love the world and its lore. I'd play on a server which simply got rid of classes, ultimates (I don't like cooldown abilities and these are indirectly effectively that), and gave us less irritating inventory management and maybe a little more housing freedom. I'd also nix "weaving" and probably many dungeon mechanics.

But everyone with any niggling thing they don't like about the game could still enjoy and most importantly from the business's perspective pay for it, without the developers needing to settle on a single design which maximises the numbers of players pleased and minimises the number displeased.

dk_dunkirk

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Yes, but that is mainly being driven by Live Service greed, I think. Someone wants piles of cash to fill their pools with and live services are the golden path. MMOs are on that path, so naturally, they get investment. Not all of them succeed, The live service market demands constant player engagement to fuel the pool filling machines. Investors need engagement to be high so that when their pool is filled, they can start filling another one.

More seriously, I do think that the success of a few MMOs, maybe ESO among them, has prompted a "me too" attitude. That can lead to studios tossing their hat in the ring, or in the case of a few Korean games, the Western market ring. When enough of them fail, the studios that are just in it for the quick cash will back off and do something else.

World of Warcraft was an unparalleled and undisputed colossal success whose performance swiftly eclipsed their quite modest targets for the game.

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

Now that ESO is owned by the publicly owned Microsoft we may see subscription numbers soon. On the other hand, Microsoft would likely be even more keen to protect the Elder Scrolls IP for the sake of potential future earnings. I doubt they'd shut it down.

Elsonso wrote: »

I think they know what is wrong, and are incrementally trying different ideas to see what sticks. The ESO player population is not uniform. Not everyone wants PVP, dungeons, trials, veteran content, housing, card games, arenas, and stories, but some players want one or more of those things and may be completely disinterested in all the rest. I won't get into which of those things are more popular, simply because we don't know.

The question I have is what they are doing to minimize annoying players into leaving. They seem to do that. A lot.

Experimentation is a possibility and could be in the mix but I see a clear direction in most of their incremental baby steps which makes me think that in most cases they do know what they should have done and are moving in that direction.

But you're right. Players don't all necessarily see the same or would appreciate either that direction or what the game is on its way to that.

Personally I think they spectacularly dropped the ball on mods.

Zenimax's attempt to translate the immense value added by mods in the single player game Elder Scrolls games was to give players a barely functional UI and irritations like dreadful inventory management, and then leave it to modders to fix them.

I'm not fooled by that and I doubt anyone else is either.

What they should have done is create an online equivalent of eg. Skyrim with decently priced rentable servers and allow the full breadth of mods, with the obvious limitation of prohibiting IP infringement, so no turning the game into a Lord of The Rings fest.

Personally I wouldn't change much. Love the world and its lore. I'd play on a server which simply got rid of classes, ultimates (I don't like cooldown abilities and these are indirectly effectively that), and gave us less irritating inventory management and maybe a little more housing freedom. I'd also nix "weaving" and probably many dungeon mechanics.

But everyone with any niggling thing they don't like about the game could still enjoy and most importantly from the business's perspective pay for it, without the developers needing to settle on a single design which maximises the numbers of players pleased and minimises the number displeased.

Having been through a "merger of equals" between two Fortune 250's which became a textbook corporate raid, I've become sensitive to the side-channel signals when these things happen. At the recent anniversary event, right after the merger, it felt like Rich Lambert was making a bigger deal about how much money the game has made than would have made sense within the context of speaking to an audience of fans. It seemed to me that he was justifying their existence publicly for the sake of Bethesda's/ZOS's new Microsoft overlords. In my total "WAG" estimation, I think ESO has about 40K daily players across all platforms. WoW has literally 10 times that number. Heck, WoW Classic has twice that number alone. Now, ESO may be making lots of money, but "lots of money" isn't the goal. Companies like Microsoft are pushed by their investors to make ALL THE MONEY, and with player counts now at 2018 levels, I'm starting to worry.

i11ionward

I just played 5 BGs in a row and no one of them ended with a 500 point team winning. Each BG lasted a full 15 minutes. Everyone heals, uses shields, and almost no one dies. Terrible PVP balance. I'm not surprised that the game's population is shrinking. The gameplay team is clearly not up to the task.

Elsonso

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct. I am going to say that is more than it cost to develop and now run the game. I have no proof, but I can't see them spending anywhere close to 2 billion on this game. So. Successful. By what degree? I'd say "a lot" until something demonstrates a different answer.

Nerouyn wrote: »

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

While I doubt that there is any Skyrim money moving from Bethesda to ZOS, I will say that Skyrim players and reputation is playing a large part in the success of ESO. My guess is that the Skyrim money was spent on Fallout 76, a couple mobile games, a failed card game, and Starfield.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Having been through a "merger of equals" between two Fortune 250's which became a textbook corporate raid, I've become sensitive to the side-channel signals when these things happen. At the recent anniversary event, right after the merger, it felt like Rich Lambert was making a bigger deal about how much money the game has made than would have made sense within the context of speaking to an audience of fans. It seemed to me that he was justifying their existence publicly for the sake of Bethesda's/ZOS's new Microsoft overlords. In my total "WAG" estimation, I think ESO has about 40K daily players across all platforms. WoW has literally 10 times that number. Heck, WoW Classic has twice that number alone. Now, ESO may be making lots of money, but "lots of money" isn't the goal. Companies like Microsoft are pushed by their investors to make ALL THE MONEY, and with player counts now at 2018 levels, I'm starting to worry.

The 2 billion revenue number felt like it was part of the justification for ZOS to not be included with Tango, Arkane, Roundhouse, and Alpha Dog closures. I like that the community was able to get the number, but I don't think we were the reason for it.

As for active player numbers, my gut feeling is that players will always underestimate it. Probably by a lot. Threads like these are no where near proof of anything concrete about numbers, and usually serve to reinforce any estimates that are on the low side. Estimates on the high side tend to get the forum LOL response, as this goes against the narrative. We have no idea which are more correct.

I doubt they will ever release active player numbers. I don't recall seeing XBox revealing how many people are active on the platform, but I do recall seeing XBox Game Pass subscription numbers. My thinking is that we might eventually find out how many ESO Plus subscriptions there are. That will give a clue as to populations.

dk_dunkirk

Elsonso wrote: »

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct. I am going to say that is more than it cost to develop and now run the game. I have no proof, but I can't see them spending anywhere close to 2 billion on this game. So. Successful. By what degree? I'd say "a lot" until something demonstrates a different answer.

Nerouyn wrote: »

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

While I doubt that there is any Skyrim money moving from Bethesda to ZOS, I will say that Skyrim players and reputation is playing a large part in the success of ESO. My guess is that the Skyrim money was spent on Fallout 76, a couple mobile games, a failed card game, and Starfield.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Having been through a "merger of equals" between two Fortune 250's which became a textbook corporate raid, I've become sensitive to the side-channel signals when these things happen. At the recent anniversary event, right after the merger, it felt like Rich Lambert was making a bigger deal about how much money the game has made than would have made sense within the context of speaking to an audience of fans. It seemed to me that he was justifying their existence publicly for the sake of Bethesda's/ZOS's new Microsoft overlords. In my total "WAG" estimation, I think ESO has about 40K daily players across all platforms. WoW has literally 10 times that number. Heck, WoW Classic has twice that number alone. Now, ESO may be making lots of money, but "lots of money" isn't the goal. Companies like Microsoft are pushed by their investors to make ALL THE MONEY, and with player counts now at 2018 levels, I'm starting to worry.

The 2 billion revenue number felt like it was part of the justification for ZOS to not be included with Tango, Arkane, Roundhouse, and Alpha Dog closures. I like that the community was able to get the number, but I don't think we were the reason for it.

As for active player numbers, my gut feeling is that players will always underestimate it. Probably by a lot. Threads like these are no where near proof of anything concrete about numbers, and usually serve to reinforce any estimates that are on the low side. Estimates on the high side tend to get the forum LOL response, as this goes against the narrative. We have no idea which are more correct.

I doubt they will ever release active player numbers. I don't recall seeing XBox revealing how many people are active on the platform, but I do recall seeing XBox Game Pass subscription numbers. My thinking is that we might eventually find out how many ESO Plus subscriptions there are. That will give a clue as to populations.

Well, looking over this list (which I know people will argue about, but bear with me), it would seem that ESO has a much higher player count than a lot of other games that people are actively talking about and don't seem to be on the bubble, so maybe I'm correcting myself here.

https://mmo-population.com/list

MedicInTheWild

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct. I am going to say that is more than it cost to develop and now run the game. I have no proof, but I can't see them spending anywhere close to 2 billion on this game. So. Successful. By what degree? I'd say "a lot" until something demonstrates a different answer.

Nerouyn wrote: »

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

While I doubt that there is any Skyrim money moving from Bethesda to ZOS, I will say that Skyrim players and reputation is playing a large part in the success of ESO. My guess is that the Skyrim money was spent on Fallout 76, a couple mobile games, a failed card game, and Starfield.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Having been through a "merger of equals" between two Fortune 250's which became a textbook corporate raid, I've become sensitive to the side-channel signals when these things happen. At the recent anniversary event, right after the merger, it felt like Rich Lambert was making a bigger deal about how much money the game has made than would have made sense within the context of speaking to an audience of fans. It seemed to me that he was justifying their existence publicly for the sake of Bethesda's/ZOS's new Microsoft overlords. In my total "WAG" estimation, I think ESO has about 40K daily players across all platforms. WoW has literally 10 times that number. Heck, WoW Classic has twice that number alone. Now, ESO may be making lots of money, but "lots of money" isn't the goal. Companies like Microsoft are pushed by their investors to make ALL THE MONEY, and with player counts now at 2018 levels, I'm starting to worry.

The 2 billion revenue number felt like it was part of the justification for ZOS to not be included with Tango, Arkane, Roundhouse, and Alpha Dog closures. I like that the community was able to get the number, but I don't think we were the reason for it.

As for active player numbers, my gut feeling is that players will always underestimate it. Probably by a lot. Threads like these are no where near proof of anything concrete about numbers, and usually serve to reinforce any estimates that are on the low side. Estimates on the high side tend to get the forum LOL response, as this goes against the narrative. We have no idea which are more correct.

I doubt they will ever release active player numbers. I don't recall seeing XBox revealing how many people are active on the platform, but I do recall seeing XBox Game Pass subscription numbers. My thinking is that we might eventually find out how many ESO Plus subscriptions there are. That will give a clue as to populations.

Well, looking over this list (which I know people will argue about, but bear with me), it would seem that ESO has a much higher player count than a lot of other games that people are actively talking about and don't seem to be on the bubble, so maybe I'm correcting myself here.

https://mmo-population.com/list

Great insight as i did not know this existed, But just look at the loss since the major performance issues started. I feel they would pay outside help to help fix the problem rather than let this game die. The forums show the want for this game to succeed. I know I may talk *** myself but I just want this game to work, I have only recently started a leave from this game, when it was just PVP I could at least get pissed off and go do trials but now, seems I get wiped a good bit due to the lag spikes. Id rather have a pause in content or reduced graphics or something to help performance. I have not bought Crowns in almost a year, and I know ive seen they cant fix it if you dont support them but I have spent thousands on this game just being one person and it only seem to get worse over time. I think until they focus on server performance and less on stuff to sell they will never fix this game. I hate seeing that new crowns sotre items never stop coming and no improvement, and I know they are different departments but I mean, maybe shift priorities or staff correctly..........

Elsonso

MedicInTheWild wrote: »

Great insight as i did not know this existed, But just look at the loss since the major performance issues started. I feel they would pay outside help to help fix the problem rather than let this game die. The forums show the want for this game to succeed. I know I may talk *** myself but I just want this game to work, I have only recently started a leave from this game, when it was just PVP I could at least get pissed off and go do trials but now, seems I get wiped a good bit due to the lag spikes. Id rather have a pause in content or reduced graphics or something to help performance. I have not bought Crowns in almost a year, and I know ive seen they cant fix it if you dont support them but I have spent thousands on this game just being one person and it only seem to get worse over time. I think until they focus on server performance and less on stuff to sell they will never fix this game. I hate seeing that new crowns sotre items never stop coming and no improvement, and I know they are different departments but I mean, maybe shift priorities or staff correctly..........

The list exists but it is total players. Turnstile numbers for people who purchased the game, so to speak. As such, I am on that list for multiple games, almost all of which I haven't logged even a minute in over the last year.

I don't think they are going to do anything about performance, which apparently needs some core engine changes. They tried. They failed. I doubt they will try again. I dunno if it is cheaper to throw faster CPUs at it every couple years and calling it good 'nuff.

spartaxoxo

manukartofanu wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Yesterday new world released on consoles.

In Prime time 1 bar each on PS EU and even the popular zones empty af.

Feels great

Yeah but during the event it was pretty full with clearly multiple instances going on. This was taken at non-peak hours iirc



I don't think either the event population or the population 1 day after a highly anticipated new release are good examples of average population.

There are certainly a lot of labels here, which gives the impression that this is PC and there are a lot of people. But if you take a closer look, a third of the labels are someone's companions, and another third are actually mobs. Players are marked with blue labels, and there are only about 15 of them. Considering that this is an incursion and there is only one active incursion on the mirror, it's unlikely that you can draw any conclusions from this screenshot.

You can tell it's not PC by the skills (square, triangle, and circle are very famously PlayStation buttons) and by clicking on my name where it clearly states I'm on PlayStation. I also gave a description. The instance was full and it was off-peak hours during an event. I know it was full because I asked some guild mates for help shortly after this, and a couple of them ended up in a different instance. So they had to travel to player and ride back.

fizzylu

i11ionward wrote: »

I just played 5 BGs in a row and no one of them ended with a 500 point team winning. Each BG lasted a full 15 minutes. Everyone heals, uses shields, and almost no one dies. Terrible PVP balance. I'm not surprised that the game's population is shrinking. The gameplay team is clearly not up to the task.

Don't worry~ the new BGs with powerups and "you die once you die permanently" rules will fix that no problem! Hahahaha.... haaaaa.

alternatelder

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct. I am going to say that is more than it cost to develop and now run the game. I have no proof, but I can't see them spending anywhere close to 2 billion on this game. So. Successful. By what degree? I'd say "a lot" until something demonstrates a different answer.

Nerouyn wrote: »

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

While I doubt that there is any Skyrim money moving from Bethesda to ZOS, I will say that Skyrim players and reputation is playing a large part in the success of ESO. My guess is that the Skyrim money was spent on Fallout 76, a couple mobile games, a failed card game, and Starfield.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Having been through a "merger of equals" between two Fortune 250's which became a textbook corporate raid, I've become sensitive to the side-channel signals when these things happen. At the recent anniversary event, right after the merger, it felt like Rich Lambert was making a bigger deal about how much money the game has made than would have made sense within the context of speaking to an audience of fans. It seemed to me that he was justifying their existence publicly for the sake of Bethesda's/ZOS's new Microsoft overlords. In my total "WAG" estimation, I think ESO has about 40K daily players across all platforms. WoW has literally 10 times that number. Heck, WoW Classic has twice that number alone. Now, ESO may be making lots of money, but "lots of money" isn't the goal. Companies like Microsoft are pushed by their investors to make ALL THE MONEY, and with player counts now at 2018 levels, I'm starting to worry.

The 2 billion revenue number felt like it was part of the justification for ZOS to not be included with Tango, Arkane, Roundhouse, and Alpha Dog closures. I like that the community was able to get the number, but I don't think we were the reason for it.

As for active player numbers, my gut feeling is that players will always underestimate it. Probably by a lot. Threads like these are no where near proof of anything concrete about numbers, and usually serve to reinforce any estimates that are on the low side. Estimates on the high side tend to get the forum LOL response, as this goes against the narrative. We have no idea which are more correct.

I doubt they will ever release active player numbers. I don't recall seeing XBox revealing how many people are active on the platform, but I do recall seeing XBox Game Pass subscription numbers. My thinking is that we might eventually find out how many ESO Plus subscriptions there are. That will give a clue as to populations.

Well, looking over this list (which I know people will argue about, but bear with me), it would seem that ESO has a much higher player count than a lot of other games that people are actively talking about and don't seem to be on the bubble, so maybe I'm correcting myself here.

https://mmo-population.com/list

You really should read the fine print on how "accurate" they are.

It's not accurate at all.

https://mmo-population.com/about/

There's even another site that supposedly has player counts but it's based on registered players to that site and they count each character a registered player adds to their profile. No official counts are even public.

Elsonso

alternatelder wrote: »

You really should read the fine print on how "accurate" they are.

Well, we know the ESO number is reasonably accurate as this is pretty close to what ZOS has said (24 million last January). That is probably where they got it. Possibly low at this point. As for the rest of them... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



edit: sentence order matters

manukartofanu

spartaxoxo wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Yesterday new world released on consoles.

In Prime time 1 bar each on PS EU and even the popular zones empty af.

Feels great

Yeah but during the event it was pretty full with clearly multiple instances going on. This was taken at non-peak hours iirc



I don't think either the event population or the population 1 day after a highly anticipated new release are good examples of average population.

There are certainly a lot of labels here, which gives the impression that this is PC and there are a lot of people. But if you take a closer look, a third of the labels are someone's companions, and another third are actually mobs. Players are marked with blue labels, and there are only about 15 of them. Considering that this is an incursion and there is only one active incursion on the mirror, it's unlikely that you can draw any conclusions from this screenshot.

You can tell it's not PC by the skills (square, triangle, and circle are very famously PlayStation buttons) and by clicking on my name where it clearly states I'm on PlayStation. I also gave a description. The instance was full and it was off-peak hours during an event. I know it was full because I asked some guild mates for help shortly after this, and a couple of them ended up in a different instance. So they had to travel to player and ride back.

During an event, off-peak hours depend on many factors and don't function the same way as on regular days. Honestly, I’m not sure if we can really trust the term "off-peak". For example, 2 PM on a regular event day might be considered off-peak, but 2 PM on the last day of the event could be the biggest peak of the entire event.

Also, the presence of multiple instances (or "mirrors") in a location is not an indicator of the location's population density. We don’t really know how, when, or why these instances are created, and we don't know when or how they are removed either. But from my own experience, I can say that many mirrors in a place like West Wield were created during peak hours, and they often stayed up overnight. Because of this, it often felt like there were fewer people in the game than there actually were. If you spread 1,000 people across 4 instances, each player might feel like the locations are packed. But if you spread the same number across 20 mirrors, it can start to feel like the world is almost empty.

And that's why you can’t draw conclusions from your screenshot about whether the location was filled during off-peak hours. There were 15 people there. I suspect none of us would say that having 15 people in a location makes it "pretty full". We don’t know how many more people were in that same location at the same time, nor do we know how many instances were created or how many people were in each. It's all just our personal impressions, which are heavily influenced by where each of us was and when. For instance, you were on an incursion and ran into some group farming activity, while someone else in the exact same mirror might have been waiting half an hour for anyone to show up at a world boss and saw no one. Because of this, you have different experiences and different conclusions.

MISTFORMBZZZ

spartaxoxo wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Yesterday new world released on consoles.

In Prime time 1 bar each on PS EU and even the popular zones empty af.

Feels great

Yeah but during the event it was pretty full with clearly multiple instances going on. This was taken at non-peak hours iirc



I don't think either the event population or the population 1 day after a highly anticipated new release are good examples of average population.

There are certainly a lot of labels here, which gives the impression that this is PC and there are a lot of people. But if you take a closer look, a third of the labels are someone's companions, and another third are actually mobs. Players are marked with blue labels, and there are only about 15 of them. Considering that this is an incursion and there is only one active incursion on the mirror, it's unlikely that you can draw any conclusions from this screenshot.

You can tell it's not PC by the skills (square, triangle, and circle are very famously PlayStation buttons) and by clicking on my name where it clearly states I'm on PlayStation. I also gave a description. The instance was full and it was off-peak hours during an event. I know it was full because I asked some guild mates for help shortly after this, and a couple of them ended up in a different instance. So they had to travel to player and ride back.

Yes youre right, i seen the @'s and thought its PC.

I know PS NA is fine..

Im from PS EU and there is the screenshot with 6 people in Belkarth and 0 bars from.

Not arguing about NA being in a well better place then EU, thats why i think there should be crossplay betwen the consoles.

spartaxoxo

manukartofanu wrote: »

During an event, off-peak hours depend on many factors and don't function the same way as on regular days. Honestly, I’m not sure if we can really trust the term "off-peak". For example, 2 PM on a regular event day might be considered off-peak, but 2 PM on the last day of the event could be the biggest peak of the entire event.

It's the exact same measurements people are using to say the game is losing players. I don't think we get to say an example of an empty instance shows the decline in the playerbase. But, a full instance doesn't show anything because the number of players in an instance is not a reliable source. Either it works for both or neither.

Events are easily a time when the game has more players than usual. It's blatant. Likewise, the game tends to lose players when a big new game drops in the middle of a content draught. Neither are good metrics to go by IMO

Arrow312

Tbf you cant compare NA to EU. E.g. X EU was the last server with the upgrade so many players quit or went to NA. Most of them wouldnt return to EU. the NA server has more Players.

X EU looked often like @MISTFORMBZZZ decribed PS EU.

So i left after 8,5 years X EU and switched to PC EU because there was to less Pop on X EU. After I switched to PC it started with the Ping Spikes and random DCs. Now i left ESO behind me, because of the performance issues and other reasons like my friends left, PvE Open World is boring, Trials same like pvp my friends left the game.

spartaxoxo

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Yesterday new world released on consoles.

In Prime time 1 bar each on PS EU and even the popular zones empty af.

Feels great

Yeah but during the event it was pretty full with clearly multiple instances going on. This was taken at non-peak hours iirc



I don't think either the event population or the population 1 day after a highly anticipated new release are good examples of average population.

There are certainly a lot of labels here, which gives the impression that this is PC and there are a lot of people. But if you take a closer look, a third of the labels are someone's companions, and another third are actually mobs. Players are marked with blue labels, and there are only about 15 of them. Considering that this is an incursion and there is only one active incursion on the mirror, it's unlikely that you can draw any conclusions from this screenshot.

You can tell it's not PC by the skills (square, triangle, and circle are very famously PlayStation buttons) and by clicking on my name where it clearly states I'm on PlayStation. I also gave a description. The instance was full and it was off-peak hours during an event. I know it was full because I asked some guild mates for help shortly after this, and a couple of them ended up in a different instance. So they had to travel to player and ride back.

Yes youre right, i seen the @'s and thought its PC.

I know PS NA is fine..

Im from PS EU and there is the screenshot with 6 people in Belkarth and 0 bars from.

Not arguing about NA being in a well better place then EU, thats why i think there should be crossplay betwen the consoles.

It doesn't seem like XBOX EU is faring much better. I wonder if we'll ever get crossplay. It seems some PS players in the EU like going to PSNA during the morning. I sometimes see them in zone chat when I have insomnia and am up at the wee hours of the morning for NA.

ADarklore

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, not going to read through 24 pages... but one thing I've noticed, is the decline in AddOn updates. For those of us on PC, it is common to have frequent updates and improvements to AddOns... but over the past few months, those updates have become very few and far between. After a major Update, a few will post updates, but right now, the majority of my AddOns that I use and had always been frequently updated for years, have gone without updates, even after Gold Road. Definitely not a good sign.

Elsonso

ADarklore wrote: »

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, not going to read through 24 pages... but one thing I've noticed, is the decline in AddOn updates. For those of us on PC, it is common to have frequent updates and improvements to AddOns... but over the past few months, those updates have become very few and far between. After a major Update, a few will post updates, but right now, the majority of my AddOns that I use and had always been frequently updated for years, have gone without updates, even after Gold Road. Definitely not a good sign.

Depends on what you consider to be a good sign. If ZOS is not breaking addons, they don't need to be updated. Even if they say they are out of date, they might not be. That is a good thing.

I own and maintain a whole bunch of addons, most of which are not released to the public. The ONLY thing that I have been doing to "maintain" a lot of them for the better part of two years is changing the addon api version in the addon text file. Takes 10 minutes because I have a script that does it for me. For those that are available from the ESOUI website, I don't usually upload new versions every update.

Like with any game, modders and addon authors come and go. ZOS does not break addons as much as other games break mods, so that is a good thing.

manukartofanu

spartaxoxo wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

During an event, off-peak hours depend on many factors and don't function the same way as on regular days. Honestly, I’m not sure if we can really trust the term "off-peak". For example, 2 PM on a regular event day might be considered off-peak, but 2 PM on the last day of the event could be the biggest peak of the entire event.

It's the exact same measurements people are using to say the game is losing players. I don't think we get to say an example of an empty instance shows the decline in the playerbase. But, a full instance doesn't show anything because the number of players in an instance is not a reliable source. Either it works for both or neither.

Events are easily a time when the game has more players than usual. It's blatant. Likewise, the game tends to lose players when a big new game drops in the middle of a content draught. Neither are good metrics to go by IMO

Of course, it works both ways. Arguments such as my friends list, my guild, the location and place I’ve been to, and many others provide purely subjective experiences. More or less objective factors when discussing the player count could be things like the market, random dungeons and trial search, battlegrounds and cyrodiil—types of activities where we are forced to be grouped with random people or are definitely not in one of the many instances (mirrors). Even there, there are nuances, but at least there's something to discuss.

manukartofanu

Elsonso wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, not going to read through 24 pages... but one thing I've noticed, is the decline in AddOn updates. For those of us on PC, it is common to have frequent updates and improvements to AddOns... but over the past few months, those updates have become very few and far between. After a major Update, a few will post updates, but right now, the majority of my AddOns that I use and had always been frequently updated for years, have gone without updates, even after Gold Road. Definitely not a good sign.

Depends on what you consider to be a good sign. If ZOS is not breaking addons, they don't need to be updated. Even if they say they are out of date, they might not be. That is a good thing.

I own and maintain a whole bunch of addons, most of which are not released to the public. The ONLY thing that I have been doing to "maintain" a lot of them for the better part of two years is changing the addon api version in the addon text file. Takes 10 minutes because I have a script that does it for me. For those that are available from the ESOUI website, I don't usually upload new versions every update.

Like with any game, modders and addon authors come and go. ZOS does not break addons as much as other games break mods, so that is a good thing.

The last couple of updates brought a lot of changes, including to the API. There was a complete rework of how guild history is handled, as well as mail functionality and font changes. This affected all addons that have any kind of interface.

manukartofanu

ADarklore wrote: »

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, not going to read through 24 pages... but one thing I've noticed, is the decline in AddOn updates. For those of us on PC, it is common to have frequent updates and improvements to AddOns... but over the past few months, those updates have become very few and far between. After a major Update, a few will post updates, but right now, the majority of my AddOns that I use and had always been frequently updated for years, have gone without updates, even after Gold Road. Definitely not a good sign.

It seems like you're using add-ons whose creators have stopped playing. That's normal; creators aren't obligated to maintain add-ons forever or hand them over to someone else for support. Out of all the add-ons I was using before Gold Road, I only had to drop Bandits.

xylena_lazarow

PvP has been dead lately because one group dominates the server and everyone else logs out. Sometimes it's a ball group, sometimes it's a zerg raid, either way it's one group painting the whole map one color. All 3 factions.

This is a game for randoms, not a team esport.

dk_dunkirk

alternatelder wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct. I am going to say that is more than it cost to develop and now run the game. I have no proof, but I can't see them spending anywhere close to 2 billion on this game. So. Successful. By what degree? I'd say "a lot" until something demonstrates a different answer.

Nerouyn wrote: »

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

While I doubt that there is any Skyrim money moving from Bethesda to ZOS, I will say that Skyrim players and reputation is playing a large part in the success of ESO. My guess is that the Skyrim money was spent on Fallout 76, a couple mobile games, a failed card game, and Starfield.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Having been through a "merger of equals" between two Fortune 250's which became a textbook corporate raid, I've become sensitive to the side-channel signals when these things happen. At the recent anniversary event, right after the merger, it felt like Rich Lambert was making a bigger deal about how much money the game has made than would have made sense within the context of speaking to an audience of fans. It seemed to me that he was justifying their existence publicly for the sake of Bethesda's/ZOS's new Microsoft overlords. In my total "WAG" estimation, I think ESO has about 40K daily players across all platforms. WoW has literally 10 times that number. Heck, WoW Classic has twice that number alone. Now, ESO may be making lots of money, but "lots of money" isn't the goal. Companies like Microsoft are pushed by their investors to make ALL THE MONEY, and with player counts now at 2018 levels, I'm starting to worry.

The 2 billion revenue number felt like it was part of the justification for ZOS to not be included with Tango, Arkane, Roundhouse, and Alpha Dog closures. I like that the community was able to get the number, but I don't think we were the reason for it.

As for active player numbers, my gut feeling is that players will always underestimate it. Probably by a lot. Threads like these are no where near proof of anything concrete about numbers, and usually serve to reinforce any estimates that are on the low side. Estimates on the high side tend to get the forum LOL response, as this goes against the narrative. We have no idea which are more correct.

I doubt they will ever release active player numbers. I don't recall seeing XBox revealing how many people are active on the platform, but I do recall seeing XBox Game Pass subscription numbers. My thinking is that we might eventually find out how many ESO Plus subscriptions there are. That will give a clue as to populations.

Well, looking over this list (which I know people will argue about, but bear with me), it would seem that ESO has a much higher player count than a lot of other games that people are actively talking about and don't seem to be on the bubble, so maybe I'm correcting myself here.

https://mmo-population.com/list

You really should read the fine print on how "accurate" they are.

It's not accurate at all.

https://mmo-population.com/about/

There's even another site that supposedly has player counts but it's based on registered players to that site and they count each character a registered player adds to their profile. No official counts are even public.

Yeah, I know, but it's something.



Again, I refer to the Steam chart for the game, and again, yes, I know people want to argue about this reference too, but it's statistically applicable to the entire game population. It clearly shows the general trend of player count in the game, regardless of the magnitude of the numbers. The networking problems started on May 7th, and you can see that there has been a steady decline since then.

OtarTheMad

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct. I am going to say that is more than it cost to develop and now run the game. I have no proof, but I can't see them spending anywhere close to 2 billion on this game. So. Successful. By what degree? I'd say "a lot" until something demonstrates a different answer.

Nerouyn wrote: »

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

While I doubt that there is any Skyrim money moving from Bethesda to ZOS, I will say that Skyrim players and reputation is playing a large part in the success of ESO. My guess is that the Skyrim money was spent on Fallout 76, a couple mobile games, a failed card game, and Starfield.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Having been through a "merger of equals" between two Fortune 250's which became a textbook corporate raid, I've become sensitive to the side-channel signals when these things happen. At the recent anniversary event, right after the merger, it felt like Rich Lambert was making a bigger deal about how much money the game has made than would have made sense within the context of speaking to an audience of fans. It seemed to me that he was justifying their existence publicly for the sake of Bethesda's/ZOS's new Microsoft overlords. In my total "WAG" estimation, I think ESO has about 40K daily players across all platforms. WoW has literally 10 times that number. Heck, WoW Classic has twice that number alone. Now, ESO may be making lots of money, but "lots of money" isn't the goal. Companies like Microsoft are pushed by their investors to make ALL THE MONEY, and with player counts now at 2018 levels, I'm starting to worry.

The 2 billion revenue number felt like it was part of the justification for ZOS to not be included with Tango, Arkane, Roundhouse, and Alpha Dog closures. I like that the community was able to get the number, but I don't think we were the reason for it.

As for active player numbers, my gut feeling is that players will always underestimate it. Probably by a lot. Threads like these are no where near proof of anything concrete about numbers, and usually serve to reinforce any estimates that are on the low side. Estimates on the high side tend to get the forum LOL response, as this goes against the narrative. We have no idea which are more correct.

I doubt they will ever release active player numbers. I don't recall seeing XBox revealing how many people are active on the platform, but I do recall seeing XBox Game Pass subscription numbers. My thinking is that we might eventually find out how many ESO Plus subscriptions there are. That will give a clue as to populations.

Well, looking over this list (which I know people will argue about, but bear with me), it would seem that ESO has a much higher player count than a lot of other games that people are actively talking about and don't seem to be on the bubble, so maybe I'm correcting myself here.

https://mmo-population.com/list

You really should read the fine print on how "accurate" they are.

It's not accurate at all.

https://mmo-population.com/about/

There's even another site that supposedly has player counts but it's based on registered players to that site and they count each character a registered player adds to their profile. No official counts are even public.

Yeah, I know, but it's something.



Again, I refer to the Steam chart for the game, and again, yes, I know people want to argue about this reference too, but it's statistically applicable to the entire game population. It clearly shows the general trend of player count in the game, regardless of the magnitude of the numbers. The networking problems started on May 7th, and you can see that there has been a steady decline since then.

Not everyone uses Steam though so unless those numbers take into account players who launch via the .exe file or the official launcher or maybe even epic if that’s still a thing it just does not tell the entire story.

I use the official launcher, I know of a few people who once played through Steam but due to launch issues don’t anymore… so that’s why I don’t trust Steam numbers alone. Thats just me though.

manukartofanu

OtarTheMad wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

alternatelder wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elder Scrolls Online's degree of success is unknown. As a privately owned company they have never been required to publish subscription numbers. Most MMOs are operated by publicly owned (i.e. on the stock market) companies and are legally required to regularly publicly report financial details like this.

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct. I am going to say that is more than it cost to develop and now run the game. I have no proof, but I can't see them spending anywhere close to 2 billion on this game. So. Successful. By what degree? I'd say "a lot" until something demonstrates a different answer.

Nerouyn wrote: »

I think ESO had been surviving on Skyrim money. For the sake of protecting the valuable Elder Scrolls intellectual property, Bethesda would have good motivation to keep the game alive and well supported, where other developers and MMOs would have been sold off or closed down.

While I doubt that there is any Skyrim money moving from Bethesda to ZOS, I will say that Skyrim players and reputation is playing a large part in the success of ESO. My guess is that the Skyrim money was spent on Fallout 76, a couple mobile games, a failed card game, and Starfield.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Having been through a "merger of equals" between two Fortune 250's which became a textbook corporate raid, I've become sensitive to the side-channel signals when these things happen. At the recent anniversary event, right after the merger, it felt like Rich Lambert was making a bigger deal about how much money the game has made than would have made sense within the context of speaking to an audience of fans. It seemed to me that he was justifying their existence publicly for the sake of Bethesda's/ZOS's new Microsoft overlords. In my total "WAG" estimation, I think ESO has about 40K daily players across all platforms. WoW has literally 10 times that number. Heck, WoW Classic has twice that number alone. Now, ESO may be making lots of money, but "lots of money" isn't the goal. Companies like Microsoft are pushed by their investors to make ALL THE MONEY, and with player counts now at 2018 levels, I'm starting to worry.

The 2 billion revenue number felt like it was part of the justification for ZOS to not be included with Tango, Arkane, Roundhouse, and Alpha Dog closures. I like that the community was able to get the number, but I don't think we were the reason for it.

As for active player numbers, my gut feeling is that players will always underestimate it. Probably by a lot. Threads like these are no where near proof of anything concrete about numbers, and usually serve to reinforce any estimates that are on the low side. Estimates on the high side tend to get the forum LOL response, as this goes against the narrative. We have no idea which are more correct.

I doubt they will ever release active player numbers. I don't recall seeing XBox revealing how many people are active on the platform, but I do recall seeing XBox Game Pass subscription numbers. My thinking is that we might eventually find out how many ESO Plus subscriptions there are. That will give a clue as to populations.

Well, looking over this list (which I know people will argue about, but bear with me), it would seem that ESO has a much higher player count than a lot of other games that people are actively talking about and don't seem to be on the bubble, so maybe I'm correcting myself here.

https://mmo-population.com/list

You really should read the fine print on how "accurate" they are.

It's not accurate at all.

https://mmo-population.com/about/

There's even another site that supposedly has player counts but it's based on registered players to that site and they count each character a registered player adds to their profile. No official counts are even public.

Yeah, I know, but it's something.



Again, I refer to the Steam chart for the game, and again, yes, I know people want to argue about this reference too, but it's statistically applicable to the entire game population. It clearly shows the general trend of player count in the game, regardless of the magnitude of the numbers. The networking problems started on May 7th, and you can see that there has been a steady decline since then.

Not everyone uses Steam though so unless those numbers take into account players who launch via the .exe file or the official launcher or maybe even epic if that’s still a thing it just does not tell the entire story.

I use the official launcher, I know of a few people who once played through Steam but due to launch issues don’t anymore… so that’s why I don’t trust Steam numbers alone. Thats just me though.

With this approach, you could dispute any data and any conclusions from data analysis. You could always argue that since you didn’t take every single user into account, your conclusions are invalid. Fortunately, data analysis methods work even if you don't believe in them.

Onomog

I think the point behind using Steam numbers is not to show a complete picture of population - no one is claiming that the #'s are comprehensive - but rather it is a sample size large enough to be valid for polling.

LPapirius

ADarklore wrote: »

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, not going to read through 24 pages... but one thing I've noticed, is the decline in AddOn updates. For those of us on PC, it is common to have frequent updates and improvements to AddOns... but over the past few months, those updates have become very few and far between. After a major Update, a few will post updates, but right now, the majority of my AddOns that I use and had always been frequently updated for years, have gone without updates, even after Gold Road. Definitely not a good sign.

Yep. Most of the ESO content creators have moved on. Most of the streamers left with U35 and it's been a pretty downhill slide since then. You won't see very many if any new tutorials for new content either. The guru's who used to create those videos, for free no less, have mostly all left the game too.

But don't worry. There will be the same handful of posters jumping in here shortly to tell us all that everything is fine and the population isn't shrinking.

OtarTheMad

Onomog wrote: »

I think the point behind using Steam numbers is not to show a complete picture of population - no one is claiming that the #'s are comprehensive - but rather it is a sample size large enough to be valid for polling.

I just don't think the sample size is large enough. I think the number of players who log into ESO via Steam is just a tiny corner of a very large painting. Whenever a sale goes on or a chapter or a DLC is being advertised it always leads you to the main site, not Steam. I could be wrong but while I use Steam for a lot of other games, I never did for ESO because nothing really points that way and I only know of a few who have dealt with ESO on Steam and they somehow switched to using the official launcher instead or maybe it was just using the .exe file. I think for a lot of other games, Steam is very reliable with reputation and numbers but not ESO.