1.2 Million Subscribers

Elsonso

magnusnet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

You are expecting them to earn back their investment in 6 months?

Skyrim did it in days?

All of the MMOs on that list are a failure if you use the first week of Skyrim as a benchmark.

Guppet

There is no way whatsoever you can attribute a subscriber count based on 6 month income, none. The figures are pulled out of an oriface.

That total income (if the figure is remotely accurate), it would include the initial purchase (why would you assume it doesn't?), so your figures are about double the likely actual figure, since it was a high value game at release (think of all those collectors editions).

Games also take most of their money at the start, before subscriptions go down. So of that money the vast majority was taken in the first couple of months. You can't just average out the subscriptions over 12 months and say that's what they currently have, that's just plain wrong.

No one will know the actual subscriber count unless Zos releases the figures, so please stop making up number and trying to apply BS mathematical formulas to it, especially when you clearly don't understand about very rudimentary mathematical analysis.

TehMagnus

lordrichter wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

You are expecting them to earn back their investment in 6 months?

Skyrim did it in days?

All of the MMOs on that list are a failure if you use the first week of Skyrim as a benchmark.

I don't trust any of the data in that website, I don't even trust the website itself .

BBSooner

While any numbers over 500k is a healthy niche - imo - I don't trust numbers unless they release from the company itself.

Nestor

Neizir wrote: »

I know MMOs and Single Player games are different audiences but did you know that Skyrim sales were 86% console? These numbers can only go up."

The console folks won't do anything for the PC folks in the game, as they will be on a separate server. They will help ZOS fund further development of the game with their subscriptions which will help us. But it won't affect the populations in the game we see directly.

LonePirate

Nestor wrote: »

Neizir wrote: »

I know MMOs and Single Player games are different audiences but did you know that Skyrim sales were 86% console? These numbers can only go up."

The console folks won't do anything for the PC folks in the game, as they will be on a separate server. They will help ZOS fund further development of the game with their subscriptions which will help us. But it won't affect the populations in the game we see directly.

I am not convinced of this. It is definitely in this game's best interests to put console and PC players on the same servers, especially for the PVP segment of the game.

ers101284b14_ESO

LonePirate wrote: »

Nestor wrote: »

Neizir wrote: »

I know MMOs and Single Player games are different audiences but did you know that Skyrim sales were 86% console? These numbers can only go up."

The console folks won't do anything for the PC folks in the game, as they will be on a separate server. They will help ZOS fund further development of the game with their subscriptions which will help us. But it won't affect the populations in the game we see directly.

I am not convinced of this. It is definitely in this game's best interests to put console and PC players on the same servers, especially for the PVP segment of the game.

But they can't because Xbox and Playstation don't want their players on the same server. So they could bring one or the other onto PC server but they you run the risk of ticking off the other one by having less players on the 1 console only server. Its a tricky situation.

bosmern_ESO

Even if those numbers are wrong, the player base as of now seems fairly healthy. The only time I'd worry is if the most populated campaign has 2 bars at peak hours.

But everyone that is currently playing will probably be sticking with ESO for a few years to come, Which means that the numbers will increase much more with people finally trying it out for themselves, the big updates that will bring people back, etc.

Valymer

They can't put console and PC on the same server because one side could declare a "technological advantage" due to FPS issues or something. It's stupid, I know, but it would definitely happen. Everyone that plays on the same console should theoretically have the exact same performance (excluding Internet connection speed), so they are on the same playing field, so to speak.

Not to mention as @ers101284b14_ESO says, Microsoft and Sony won't let them be on the same server anyways I don't think.

Loneshard

LonePirate wrote: »

Nestor wrote: »

Neizir wrote: »

I know MMOs and Single Player games are different audiences but did you know that Skyrim sales were 86% console? These numbers can only go up."

The console folks won't do anything for the PC folks in the game, as they will be on a separate server. They will help ZOS fund further development of the game with their subscriptions which will help us. But it won't affect the populations in the game we see directly.

I am not convinced of this. It is definitely in this game's best interests to put console and PC players on the same servers, especially for the PVP segment of the game.

No way!
For each platform, a separate server.
It is very good as it is!

PS:
PC players have a big advantage, they can use Addons/Mods!
Console players can not!
Thats not fairplay..
So, nooo way!

WyndStryke

Neizir wrote: »

To all commenting about fake numbers:

SuperData says that they collect numbers from developers, publishers and payment service providers active in the space. ...

Since ZOS haven't released subscriber information, that means that of 'developers, publishers and payment service providers', the first two would have given no data, and the third, payment service providers, would almost certainly have been covered by an NDA so would be unlikely to have given out any information.

So yes, IMO the numbers are speculative.

I would hope that ESO & ZOS are doing well and have loads of subscribers, but personally I think those numbers are entirely untrustworthy. It could be wildly higher, or wildly lower.

The potential user base of ESO is very high (there are many elder scrolls fans after all). But how many of those will get converted into long-term subscribers I have no idea.

VictorBrav0

1.2 million seems a bit high I think. While many obviously did not buy ESO on steam, steam shows on average 600 players who play ESO.... a VERY low number. Could the other million or so be off steam? possibly but I think not. I'm guessing under a million... perhaps 600-800k

Pallmor

magnusnet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

You are expecting them to earn back their investment in 6 months?

Skirim did it in days?

Skyrim pretty much HAD to do it in days, since it didn't have a monthly sub (only a few DLC packs). ESO is more of a long-term marathon than a quick sprint.

Francescolg

Most pvp-players have left the boat, that'll be (a guessed) 50k-1000k players

That leads to the conclusion, together with the estimated numbers..., that all players left in ESO are either PvE-[snip] or rich casuals that can afford an extra 15 bucks every month, without paying too much attention at quality, crashes, etc. etc.

That's what I've always proclaimed Most ESO gamers are pve-[snip], that's what made WoW BIG... (...) (...)

PvP maybe called one "major part" of ESO, but two facts speak another language:
1. Most players still aren't done with the huuuge solo-part and they like and really appreciate the constant pve-lollipop updates (new content every 6-8 weeks). For these players thing like "new armor dyes", "chat bubbles", etc. do matter!
2. All "major" updates till now were mostly for pve, pvp doesn't matter that much..! (no need to argue on these points).
3. Make your conclusions.. The Devs already may have done so a few months ago (more and more pve to come - while investments in anything related to pvp will make out a lesser pie!)

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

CapuchinSeven

Good for them, honestly pleased for them.

tordr86b16_ESO

Threads like these only cause flame wars, why is this thread still alive mods?

Gidorick

As long as it's enough to get ZOS enough $ to keep ESO going and growing.

timidobserver

It should be pretty obvious that ESO is doing fine to at least some degree. They do to many content releases to be on the verge of shutting down like so many people claim.

jeevin

My crystal ball tells me there will be other players on when I log in later. Can't quite see how many because they all seem to be spread out across different zones and factions. There seems like a lot. They all pay a subscription. This makes zos happy.

Voodoo

WOW all the SPIN in this thread is making me dizzy!

I declare this thread the grand champion of SPIN THEORIES!

ers101284b14_ESO

Voodoo wrote: »

WOW all the SPIN in this thread is making me dizzy!

I declare this thread the grand champion of SPIN THEORIES!

So HalfLife 3 is confirmed!!!!!

kijima

Chufu wrote: »

Please, think about it.

All that talk about sweetrolls has made me hungry.

Origin

Neizir wrote: »

There pretty much isn't anything in ESO's store.

Which is a mistake ZOS should address.

jackyd

Maybe we can all chip in and gather the 2k bucks that are required to get our hands on the full report?

Additionally on their about page they state to be working with ZeniMax ... you know the games publisher as well as PayPal and Visa, so why the Eff shouldn't the numbers on ESO be accurate?

The only thing left open for discussion IMHO is do those 111million include subs and store purchases (Palomino Horse and Imperial Edition upgrade) & box sales or are box sales left out.

Judging by logic, I know logic eh? in an era of sensationalism, box sales are not included as otherwise the game couldn't be ranked effectively against all other games on their list, ESO is doing rather good compared to other MMO releases this year ...I am looking at you WoWstar

Lord_Kreegan

magnusnet wrote: »

Knowing the game cost 200M just to produce, they haven't even covered their initial investment after 6 months of launch. Doesn't look good at all.

I don't know that the actual cost of development has ever been released.

HOWEVER, they stated they received an investment/loan of $300M to form ZeniMax Online Systems and develop the game. [http://www.zenimaxonline.com/faq.html]

Irrespective of how much of that money went specifically to develop the game, that's the debt they're dealing with.

Erlex

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Knowing the game cost 200M just to produce, they haven't even covered their initial investment after 6 months of launch. Doesn't look good at all.

I don't know that the actual cost of development has ever been released.

HOWEVER, they stated they received an investment/loan of $300M to form ZeniMax Online Systems and develop the game. [http://www.zenimaxonline.com/faq.html]

Irrespective of how much of that money went specifically to develop the game, that's the debt they're dealing with.

Don't forget that (presumably) much of that money was also spent on console development by this point - which hasn't been released yet to earn its share back.

KBKB

Wrong.

Nazon_Katts

KBKB wrote: »

Wrong.

http://youtu.be/QrtydD2u1N0