Population shrinking, PLEASE do something

spartaxoxo

Steam Charts can show what is happening on Steam. It's not a representative sample, especially of console. So, it has limitations. You can make a pretty reasonably educated guess when Steam shows something happening that's highly likely true of all platforms, or we have no reason to believe would be different e.g. Chapter releases lead to more people logging. And then there are things that may be specific to Steam e.g. technical issues with Steam, a competing game launched on Steam, etc.


Given the freezing/crashing issues and lack of new content which are problems that negatively impact populations as a general video game rule, it's likely that what's happening on Steam is also happening everywhere.

dk_dunkirk

OtarTheMad wrote: »

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.

This is a straight application of plain, old statistics. I'm not going to post the math here, but it's way, way more than enough data to extrapolate to the general population.

Do you know how many people are polled in an average national presidential election poll? Usually around 1500-3000. That's enough data to accurately predict (within the usual margin of error, around 3%) how the entire country of 330 million people will vote.

If you assume a gargantuan number of active ESO players across PCNA, PCEU, PS, and Xbox -- say 100,000 people -- and you plug the standard 5% margin of error into the sample size calculation formula, you would only need to poll 383 people to predict the behavior of the entire population. 383!

There are about 10,000 players represented on the average daily player count in the Steam graph. If you run the calculation "backwards" with that many samples, you can predict behavior of 100,000 people within less than 1%.

So, please, everyone, stop discounting the Steam chart. I know it's a thing around here, but it's absolutely statistically valid to show the general trend of the active population count.

Wing

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

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.

This is a straight application of plain, old statistics. I'm not going to post the math here, but it's way, way more than enough data to extrapolate to the general population.

Do you know how many people are polled in an average national presidential election poll? Usually around 1500-3000. That's enough data to accurately predict (within the usual margin of error, around 3%) how the entire country of 330 million people will vote.

If you assume a gargantuan number of active ESO players across PCNA, PCEU, PS, and Xbox -- say 100,000 people -- and you plug the standard 5% margin of error into the sample size calculation formula, you would only need to poll 383 people to predict the behavior of the entire population. 383!

There are about 10,000 players represented on the average daily player count in the Steam graph. If you run the calculation "backwards" with that many samples, you can predict behavior of 100,000 people within less than 1%.

So, please, everyone, stop discounting the Steam chart. I know it's a thing around here, but it's absolutely statistically valid to show the general trend of the active population count.

but they don't like what it says, so it needs to be discounted. . .

Nerouyn

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

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.

Having followed the game since early in development that sounds more like business as usual to me. They've always been sock stuffing. And it's something many MMO developers do.

Elsonso wrote: »

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct.

I'd still call this sock stuffing to some extent. Otherwise why never publish player numbers?

$2 billion in revenue over 10 years is probably a healthier result than most MMOs achieved and yes, probably exceeds development and maintenance cost.

Though it would be easy to underestimate those. That's an average of $200 million per year and while the development cost was never revealed, average MMOs of the time tended to be in the $50-$100 million range, and ESOs has been estimated by some to be close to $300 million.

Ongoing maintenance costs also shouldn't be underestimated. Blizzard revealed WoW's yearly spend on customer support in its early days was about $50 million. Even accounting for fewer players, ZO's spend would be significant, and of course, the game has more than a few developers to pay as well.

Also remember that Microsoft paid $7.5 billion for Bethesda. Business valuation isn't an exact science but it's safe to assume that the bulk of that valuation belongs to the single player games and other ventures like TV.

To reiterate, I think ESO's success has been middling compared to the single player games and sock-stuffed by ZO but for the sake of protecting the brand, it was never at risk of going under like other MMOs.

Microsoft will be just as motivated to keep it afloat. Or maybe even more so and also potentially more willing to be ruthless (with game changes / improvements) in the face of fresh competition like the Dune and second Lord of the Rings MMOs.

dk_dunkirk

Nerouyn wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

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.

Having followed the game since early in development that sounds more like business as usual to me. They've always been sock stuffing. And it's something many MMO developers do.

Elsonso wrote: »

Going by the "2 billion" number, I think they think that it is a success. They are likely correct.

I'd still call this sock stuffing to some extent. Otherwise why never publish player numbers?

$2 billion in revenue over 10 years is probably a healthier result than most MMOs achieved and yes, probably exceeds development and maintenance cost.

Though it would be easy to underestimate those. That's an average of $200 million per year and while the development cost was never revealed, average MMOs of the time tended to be in the $50-$100 million range, and ESOs has been estimated by some to be close to $300 million.

Ongoing maintenance costs also shouldn't be underestimated. Blizzard revealed WoW's yearly spend on customer support in its early days was about $50 million. Even accounting for fewer players, ZO's spend would be significant, and of course, the game has more than a few developers to pay as well.

Also remember that Microsoft paid $7.5 billion for Bethesda. Business valuation isn't an exact science but it's safe to assume that the bulk of that valuation belongs to the single player games and other ventures like TV.

To reiterate, I think ESO's success has been middling compared to the single player games and sock-stuffed by ZO but for the sake of protecting the brand, it was never at risk of going under like other MMOs.

Microsoft will be just as motivated to keep it afloat. Or maybe even more so and also potentially more willing to be ruthless (with game changes / improvements) in the face of fresh competition like the Dune and second Lord of the Rings MMOs.

Agreed on the sock stuffing. You bring up the acquisition cost, which is a good point. Zenimax Media made about $500M the year they were acquired, making the purchase cost about a 15x multiplier, which is very high for this sort of thing. Since then, they've closed 4 studios in the stable, making their reliance on the ones that remain that much more important to recoup their investment. Starfield for Bethesda has... underperformed, and ESO for ZOS is looking like it needs some serious love.

Elsonso

manukartofanu wrote: »

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.

I have had no need to update any of my addons for those changes.

manukartofanu

Elsonso wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

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.

I have had no need to update any of my addons for those changes.

what does it mean that you don't work with these things, and your add-ons don't have translations into other languages, if there is any user interface at all, nothing more

LPapirius

Elsonso wrote: »

manukartofanu wrote: »

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.

I have had no need to update any of my addons for those changes.

Which add ons did you write and maintain? According to your signature you play on Xbox and have your PC/EU account lined out as though you cancelled that account.

Elsonso

Nerouyn wrote: »

Though it would be easy to underestimate those. That's an average of $200 million per year and while the development cost was never revealed, average MMOs of the time tended to be in the $50-$100 million range, and ESOs has been estimated by some to be close to $300 million.

I spent the evening trying to find the reference, and did not find what I was looking for. I distinctly recall Firor making a humorous comment that if he had spent $200 million on ESO he would have been in trouble. I expect it was close to $100 million, but that is obviously a guess.

I am pretty sure the expense was over estimated in the gaming press. Experts seemed to use the infusion of 300 million that Zenimax Media got and assumed that was primarily for ZOS. Maybe some of it did end up in ESO, but apparently not as much as has been reported. On top of that, the expense has been inflated over time. I saw one person say that it was $500 million, which is absurd.

MISTFORMBZZZ

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Steam Charts can show what is happening on Steam. It's not a representative sample, especially of console. So, it has limitations. You can make a pretty reasonably educated guess when Steam shows something happening that's highly likely true of all platforms, or we have no reason to believe would be different e.g. Chapter releases lead to more people logging. And then there are things that may be specific to Steam e.g. technical issues with Steam, a competing game launched on Steam, etc.


Given the freezing/crashing issues and lack of new content which are problems that negatively impact populations as a general video game rule, it's likely that what's happening on Steam is also happening everywhere.

this tbh^

Nerouyn

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Agreed on the sock stuffing. You bring up the acquisition cost, which is a good point. Zenimax Media made about $500M the year they were acquired, making the purchase cost about a 15x multiplier, which is very high for this sort of thing. Since then, they've closed 4 studios in the stable, making their reliance on the ones that remain that much more important to recoup their investment. Starfield for Bethesda has... underperformed, and ESO for ZOS is looking like it needs some serious love.

Poor old Starfield. I actually kind of like it but I'm coming to it from the perspective of a burned out ESO player.

Looping through NG 10 times to max my powers is tedious as hell before I can properly start playing the game (because important things like ships and bases don't carry over) but nothing compared to ESO's never-ending daily writs and events.

I think Starfield compares unfavorably to No Man's Sky in too many respects, and Bethesda probably spent a lot of time trying and failing to replicate its procedural generation and seamless space-to-ground flight.

So it gets smashed for not building much on game design compared to Fallout 4.

I'm only now getting a chance to play it and looking forward to it. I'm about half way through the NG loops. If its base and ship building are as good as they look then ESO might move into my pause pile.

Elsonso wrote: »

I spent the evening trying to find the reference, and did not find what I was looking for. I distinctly recall Firor making a humorous comment that if he had spent $200 million on ESO he would have been in trouble. I expect it was close to $100 million, but that is obviously a guess.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that he did say that, Firor is canny with his words.

If the budget was $300 million and he only spent $200, then he'd have "been in trouble".

ZO never revealed the development cost. Most MMOs with big budgets proudly flag that. Since most are made by publicly owned companies and need to report detailed financials, a BIG budget sets BIG expectations and draws more eyes from potential players.

ESO had the single player games and especially Skyrim for drawing eyes and setting expectations. The only real benefit to not advertising the budget would be to not give anyone an easy line against which to benchmark success / lack thereof, if they were expecting lower than predicted player counts.

ESO has always been controversial among TES fans for things like classes and needing to pvp if you want max skill points. TES games are loved by many precisely for their open and unrestricted character development systems. The only real limitations in them is that you can't simultaneously be a vampire and werewolf.

I've followed MMOs for a few decades now.

Individual tastes aside, ESO's base game is huge, filled to the wazoo and beyond with excellent voice acting, and objectively better than most of the competition.

That had to cost a lot of money.

For example, Funcom's The Secret World's final budget came in at $80 million. It's a much smaller game than ESO.

Elsonso

Nerouyn wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

I spent the evening trying to find the reference, and did not find what I was looking for. I distinctly recall Firor making a humorous comment that if he had spent $200 million on ESO he would have been in trouble. I expect it was close to $100 million, but that is obviously a guess.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that he did say that, Firor is canny with his words.

If the budget was $300 million and he only spent $200, then he'd have "been in trouble".

I doubt that. The vibe was that $200 million was well above what it cost.

SkaiFaith

On XBOX EU I am seeing Guild Traders' Spots in towns without any guild taking them for weeks. I think this points to a bad health of population since I don't remember seeing this before, and I'm almost 8 years playing now.

I can see the many potential issues in crossplay between consoles and PC, and I imagine unifying XBOX EU and NA would be harder physically, while merging XBOX EU and PS EU would be more difficult business-wise, but I think ANY form of crossplay feels needed at this point, at least for XBOX EU and PS EU.

[snip]
[edited for baiting]

AzuraFan

SkaiFaith wrote: »

On XBOX EU I am seeing Guild Traders' Spots in towns without any guild taking them for weeks. I think this points to a bad health of population since I don't remember seeing this before, and I'm almost 8 years playing now.

I can see the many potential issues in crossplay between consoles and PC, and I imagine unifying XBOX EU and NA would be harder physically, while merging XBOX EU and PS EU would be more difficult business-wise, but I think ANY form of crossplay feels needed at this point, at least for XBOX EU and PS EU.

I just saw that for the first time yesterday on PC/NA. Empty guild trader stalls, though I'm not sure if they were usually filled (this was in Betnikh).

Would crossplay be enough? It would initially boost the population, but if players are steadily bleeding away, that boost might only be temporary, after a lot of work by ZOS.

I'm not sure why fewer players are playing, but I doubt there will be one answer to fix it. Different players are leaving for different reasons. There seem to be more and more reasons as time goes on.

MaraxusTheOrc

I stopped subbing to ESO because the community seems to have accepted, no encouraged, the silent speed running through dungeons with fake tanks and fake healers. Feels like the game’s community has gone in a more selfish direction, so I’d prefer to spend my time in other games.

It doesn’t help that the year of Gold Road has felt more content sparse than usual.

MISTFORMBZZZ

I

SkaiFaith wrote: »

On XBOX EU I am seeing Guild Traders' Spots in towns without any guild taking them for weeks. I think this points to a bad health of population since I don't remember seeing this before, and I'm almost 8 years playing now.

I can see the many potential issues in crossplay between consoles and PC, and I imagine unifying XBOX EU and NA would be harder physically, while merging XBOX EU and PS EU would be more difficult business-wise, but I think ANY form of crossplay feels needed at this point, at least for XBOX EU and PS EU.

Even if they would only merge xbox eu and ps eu it would be a big difference in population.

PS EU is the same level dead.

And the message that crossplay is a thing, would bring many players back

Amottica

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Stridig wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

twev wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Warhawke_80 wrote: »

The PVP game just doesn't offer Zenimax any return...so don't look for them to put a lot of time or money into it...

Have you even been to Cyrodiil? You will find a higher percentage of radiant mounts, arms packs, polymorphs, and whatnot there than anywhere else in the game. And PvPers have some of the best, most expensively decorated houses you will find.

ZOS absolutely IS hurting themselves by neglecting PvPers. There would be so many more players if they raised the population caps. And more players if there weren't so many crashes, lags, and stuck in combat type bugs. That's 100% on them. So if the PvP community isn't bringing in enough money to satisfy ZOS' bottom line, well, that's not on us.

A great many people in Cyrodiil are also in PvE. Regardless of that, the revenue from radiant mounts is not directly tied to PvP, as there are no direct revenue drivers for PvP like there are for PvE, so their comments are correct. More to the point, the only new addition to PvP on live servers is BGs.

They were part of a previous chapter and early BG players had to play to access it like we have to for new PvE content. Zenimax moved it to the base game. If they thought they could have made revenue off it we all know they would have made everyone continue to pay to access it.

If we have to pay to play PvP or our access was limited if we did not pay then we would see more done in that area of the game.

However, this has little to do with the shrinking population of the game since PvE is the major focus for most players here.

My opinion is that, while "PvE is the major focus for most players here", the PvE/PvP ratio would be [A LOT] closer if PvP actually worked the way it was supposed to.

edited to add emphasis on [A LOT].

It could very be, but we can only speculate. Maybe the new PvP model will be popular, and we will see.

Unlikely. I have primarily played in Cyrodiil for several years (outside of events and gear grinding) and I don't know anyone who was hoping for anything battleground related. Maybe there are some out there, but so far the excitement level seems low.

As for PvP in ESO, there are many people who like BGs. Many prefer the more competitive design of an instanced match and fixed-sized teams. The XvX vs. the XvXvX we have had is likely more desirable. If they designed the BGs correctly, then they will draw some interest, but probably still in the context of the interest PvP in ESO draws.

Just like many like both PvE and PvP, many like the more casual PvP that AvA/WvW provides, while others prefer the more competitive PvP of a BG, and some like both.

BG's ARE NOT more competitive than Cyrodiil. Cyrodiil is the end game PvP experience in ESO. Very few hard core PvP players ever touch battlegrounds. We want the competition of big open world PvP, not scaled down arena sized PvP with a 4 person group limitation.

I never said all hardcore PvP players avoid Cyrodiil.

I find it odd that a PvP game in which a handful of players can turn an entire map and keep it that way for hours because the other teams are empty can be considered competitive. Since BGs are intended to have set team sizes, though filling vacancies is not perfect, it is considered competitive PvP.

Yes, Cyrodiil is designed to feel competitive, but since I can go in and run the map when the other teams are sleeping, skewing the score in my alliance's favor, it is not truly competitive.

BTW this is why esports are small team battles, not open-world stuff.

Parasaurolophus

I think ZoS will make the base game a free-to-play game. It would be a logical step.

Amottica

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Steam Charts can show what is happening on Steam. It's not a representative sample, especially of console. So, it has limitations. You can make a pretty reasonably educated guess when Steam shows something happening that's highly likely true of all platforms, or we have no reason to believe would be different e.g. Chapter releases lead to more people logging. And then there are things that may be specific to Steam e.g. technical issues with Steam, a competing game launched on Steam, etc.


Given the freezing/crashing issues and lack of new content which are problems that negatively impact populations as a general video game rule, it's likely that what's happening on Steam is also happening everywhere.

Yes, the Steam information is limited, but it is our best information. It is good at showing trends and better at comparing a month to the same month the previous year due to seasonal changes such as summertime and major content releases.

and it does show, as you alluded to, a decline in players since content release slowed. I found a recent comment from Kevin that they were listening to our comments on getting less content when that should have been obvious. Also, the bank is telling them that it is not a good idea.

Amottica

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think ZoS will make the base game a free-to-play game. It would be a logical step.

The base game costs 20 USD and is often on sale for about half that. Someone unwilling to spend that small amount is less likely to spend anything on the game. More players mean more cost, but the revenue increase is negligible. When Zenimax abandoned the P2P model, they knew this, which is why they chose the B2P model.

Auldwulfe

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.

Not every single human being answers every poll -- but they are used to get a general idea.
Since Steam doesn't differentiate in any real way, in any country, or with any group... it does act as a decent form of a poll.

Auldwulfe

Nerouyn

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I think ZoS will make the base game a free-to-play game. It would be a logical step.

Even a low cost and a credit card requirement offer at least some protection against industrial espionage.

No I've not peeked over the shoulder of anyone playing ESO specifically for the benefit of another business but a few times during events I've had cause to wonder if some of the toxic behaviour I've seen could be financially motivated rather than just someone trolling for personal kicks.

Auldwulfe

I've been thinking a lot over this, especially lately, as for the last 10 days or so, all I have really done is log in for my free item, done whatever endeavors were easiest, and maybe, horse maintenance for my few characters that needed it .... outside of that, the only other activity in those last 10 days has been whittling my character roster from 12 to 6. Yes, I have deleted 6 characters - all were finished, maxed out horse, etc.

The reason is simple... why bother with it? I hadn't even played one of them in 7 months... and that's because I enjoy building characters, not playing "let's swap the gear" every few months.

And honestly, I have been playing Daggerfall, Legends of Grimrock, and Wartales... I had to do some thinking as to why?
And it's because I enjoy BUILDING characters.... and exploring, etc... well, I've explored the maps here ... been in every dungeon, and so on... and my last attempt at finding something was having my guild bring me in at level 10 to do dungeons and trials... and what I found out is that, thanks to One Tamriel, and the way they did scaling.. a level 20 character can, pretty much, now approach the same damage and output as my level 50/1900 champions can.... the guild gave me buffs, and with the scaling for me being lower level, my sustain was actually higher than most of my guildmates characters.... and pretty much, the ONLY thing I couldn't match was mythics, arena weapons, or monster sets... NONE of which really make that much difference in the long run.....
My level 20 Templar is putting out 88% of the damage my champion Oakensorc does..... using crafted sets, instead of things like Sargeants Mail, and so on.... with the scaling making me a bit more effective than you would think.....

And that is it, simply... there is NO character building... you start with whatever champion points you have.... and the scaling buffs to make you able to match the level 50's in ANY place......
Honestly, at this point, I am convinced that the only reason that the game doesn't let under 50's do VET dungeons is to keep it from being so obvious to everyone how little actual character growth you really have......

You get, potentially, 45 skills to work on... but only 5 of those are useable at once, and 3 are chosen for you.... unless you decide not to have your passives (all those that say when a skill in this line is slotted, then you get it)
After Champion 1600, or so.... there is absolutely no reason to waste time with champion characters any longer... it's not THAT convenient to change dots on the champion slot bars, as they have a cooldown.... you are wasting time waiting to swap over.... or using a free armory that you then have to buy slots on, to have more than just a couple uses.... which is totally free, and definitely NOT a means of getting people to spend crowns buying up slots to save gold.......

And it's not like those champion levels are all that ..... they can't let them be actually substantial, else a level 20 would get smashed in Cyrodiil by those Champions all the time... and we can't allow that.....

And, if you do finally find a set mix that actually does something other than the exact same mediocre damage that EVERY character from level 10 to 50/3600 is able to do.... it gets nerfed into oblivion.

And the worst part is that we have all been conditioned to actually think it is normal .... new armor comes out, and you get 30 plus threads of "this needs a nerf".... because some person's sacred cow build is now threatened, and rather than adapt, they scream.

The game feels as though it starts mediocre... you never grow, or gain, and anything you work on gets nerfed to oblivion because the player base is conditioned to not want to grow past the current spot.... I have seen people ask that, instead of calling for nerfs, why can't we ask for improvements, or buffs to the 500 plus sets that are not really being used, as they were already nerfed back into the mud.... and the answer is always .... "it's overperforming, it needs a nerf".. rather than "it spotlights the weakness of other sets, they need improvement".

I'd LOVE to see a champion slot added to each skill line - where for 40 or even 50 points, you can unlock a level of passive that does NOT, now, require a skill... yes, with 3 class skill lines, that would be 750 champion points... but what else are you doing with them? It would give a feeling of growth, and open up massive player options for creating a build that suits them...
And before the people start crying about how it will allow people to only pick the best skills.... it's already happening with hybridization... but, NOW, if I wanted to, say, focus a DK ALL into the fire line, and build a fire mage.... I am not being penalized for not having my other class passives.... and since NONE of the skills are really all that more powerful than others, at a certain point, it would encourage people to make their own builds without the constant fear of "did I miss a passive line?" or taking some skills just to keep a passive .....

In the end, though, we need some type of growth... even if it is just 2 health for every champion point... or similar... SOME reason to bother grinding and grinding away, like it is a job ...... I'd love to actually have to work at it... can I do this with X class.. but, honestly, since so much is on sets, rather than the class choices.... it really doesn't matter. It's one of the reasons we see all those videos of the "1 Bar Xclass - all of them use the same sets, the same weapons, the same mythics, and even the same CP .... the ONLY thing that is different is the cosmetic outfit worn, and what color their ground effects are....

Auldwulfe

MISTFORMBZZZ

Im not sure if its allowed to post stuff like this here, to compare, if not just delete the picture pls @Zos.

This picture i took yesterday in the other game, they have like Events all few hours, where you have to do a subject or fight hard bosses for loot.
Sometimes the boss fights are with pvp aswell, wich is messy tbf.

During the night, the public dungeons become pvp area.

These events are highly populated, my screenshot is from the PS only server, wich is PS GLOBAL thought.

The servers are able to handle the incredible ammount of players and only thing happening is frame drops if 300 people hitting the same boss.

On the screenshot we see 1/3 Portals of a Boss.

There are 4 bosses up at the same time.

Not everyone is participating these events.

The population in this game is crazy, there is people everywhere and you can always find activity.

This is no bashing but when i stopped playing yesterday night at 11 i went on PS EU on ESO and wanted to check cyrodiil.

It was 1 bar AD left, nothing else. So i just logged off again.

Zos you need to find a way to catch up urgently.
I hope yous are working on it.

Parasaurolophus

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

Zos you need to find a way to catch up urgently.
I hope yous are working on it.

I really don’t want to say this, but I’m afraid it’s already too late. You can’t step into the same river twice. ZOS (Zenimax Online Studios) prioritized casual players for too long, and this strategy worked for a while. To be fair, back then, it probably made sense. But casual players are casual for a reason—they just prefer moving on to newer projects. Even casual players will eventually get tired of the same annual, repetitive content. ESO is aging and can no longer compete with newer projects.

Online games often show remarkable resilience, but for some reason, I feel like ESO won’t last much longer in its current state.

Arrow312

MISTFORMBZZZ wrote: »

I

SkaiFaith wrote: »

On XBOX EU I am seeing Guild Traders' Spots in towns without any guild taking them for weeks. I think this points to a bad health of population since I don't remember seeing this before, and I'm almost 8 years playing now.

I can see the many potential issues in crossplay between consoles and PC, and I imagine unifying XBOX EU and NA would be harder physically, while merging XBOX EU and PS EU would be more difficult business-wise, but I think ANY form of crossplay feels needed at this point, at least for XBOX EU and PS EU.

Even if they would only merge xbox eu and ps eu it would be a big difference in population.

PS EU is the same level dead.

And the message that crossplay is a thing, would bring many players back

I saw "empty" Guild traders around 3-5 times on Xbox EU when i was playing. Never saw this before. I think crossplay will never happen it is to expensive and there will be technical issues. IMO they mild the cow to the end. But many ppl are fine with it. I left because what i want to play is more or less dead, if i just wanted to do quests or picking flowers im sure the game is great as a solo player perspective but not for the ppl who needs groups or guild for their plays e.g. trials, PvP, dungeons....

At the beginning of the year cyro was dead on X EU so i went to BGs first it tooks years to enter and after i played a few rounds there was only the same ppl just the teams switched around.

For Solo Players or Skyrim Lovers it is a good game but it is a MMO and on this side of view it is bad IMO.

@MISTFORMBZZZ never saw more players in town at the same time like in this game. Even the Events are always full.

twev

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

I'd be more interested in seeing the number of unique logins in a given period of time rather than putting all my faith in the total number of logins during the same period.

Clearly the two numbers relate to each other, but just one small factor that comes to mind is:

'How many of those total logins are actually masses of players over the time period relogging after being disconnected, or after disconnecting out of frustration and trying multiple times over hours/days hoping for a better connection, or finding a lull with better ping times?'

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the number of unique logins to be a rather small number in comparison.

Clearly ZOS is very proud of the total number of licenses sold and total gross revenues, but they sure are quiet about any indications of the number logins and unique logins per month.
Trade secrets and all, and they're satisfied letting us quibble over the validity of the slice of sample that steam shows without ever trying to go on the record themselves one way or the other.
If they were proud of the logins, they'd be crowing about them just as loudly as they have about the gross revenues (which also don't translate to bug and lag fixes in any appreciable way).

Just one adorable little elf's opinion in the maelstrom of discussion.

twev

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.

A lot of the addons I use haven't been updated in years with a corresponding degradation in usefulness as various modules in the addons either stop working or start giving bad results.

Many more of the addons that made my game 'fun' are just useless now, and both instances stated result from having no replacement at all for the addons that are crippled or dead.

Those are QoL addons for me that make my gaming worth showing up, and I'm playing a lot less, to hardly at all anymore as the addons I use for UI, inventory, accounting, and the like just devolve.

I truth, I haven't/don't use any combat addons that give me an advantage in play over NPCs or other players in fighting them, just the mundane stuff like inv management, trading (buying is almost the total trading I do, the only stuff I sell is jewelry with inspiration or master writs I don't have the motifs or scarce mats to do myself) , crafting (daily and master) writs, and finding stuff/surveys/locations on maps.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Sunday Prime time eso PS EU

SkaiFaith

Since now this thread is looked in by high figures at Zos I'll reiterate a point I made early in the year: soon Xbox will welcome Genshin Impact and a lesson ESO could learn from it and similar games is - give out more free crates! These games give free daily/weekly/monthly "shots at crates".

I asked for this at the start of 2024 and I was SO happy to see first months of the year offering crates as Daily login rewards, but then it stopped and we are not seeing them anymore. I would say the more the merrier!
Every time I saw crates in the preview article I was excited to login the next month! SAME with Seals of endeavors!!! The anniversary spotlight months that gifted Seals or made them more available through Endeavors were hype!