It's had a rocky launch, but it's improving. I feel that this game will truly be able to compete with the other giants in the industry (WoW, GW2, ARR, etc) in terms of quality and not franchise alone.

As long as monthly subscribers keep paying their $15, ZOS doesn't care if they play 5 hours per week or 5 hours per day.

It should be noted that the current population is much higher than normal right now because it's been artificially boosted.

1. They gave away 3,000 free copies of the game at Quakecon.
2. Quakecon presentations/hype.
3. The game arrived on steam and is currently on steam sale for 50% off.
4. Imperial edition has a limited time offer that gives you a hunting dog pet right now.

So keep that in mind when you are evaluating the current population of the game. In a month or so it will level back out to more normal levels. I'm not saying yay or nay, I'm just saying that these things are currently affecting the numbers and your impressions.

Liquid_Time wrote: »

Well it is hard to believe that the "artificial population" that you are referring to is already populating the vet zones, so you point is currently invalid IMO.

Vet zone population is much higher than it used to be because of the recent vet changes. People used to avoid vet zones like the plague, because they were not fun for most people. Vet zone 2 and 3 were ghost towns. Alot of people exploited anomalies or found alternative leveling paths to skip them completely while leveling. Even provisioners have been hosed because they were getting T1 ingredients instead of veteran ingredients, which has now been partially addressed.

The population during pre-veteran rank changes and pre-provisoner changes in the vet zones was lower than they should have been. What you are seeing now is just the normal it always should have been, not an increase in actual players of that level. Players just actually visit those zones now.

SuraklinPrime wrote: »

@Ralathar44‌ - but isn't that what any game of this type does?

I would think that ZOS will be promoting this game one way or another full time until they eventually turn off the servers - do some offers, some sales, some vanity giveaways to get new people in or old people to come back... see how many stick... rinse & repeat...

They will always need to seek new subbers to replace the old and increase game population, just the nature of this type of game.

I hope they will also at some point start to throw a few such treats at long term subbers as I believe some other games do quite successfully.

I don't disagree with you, I just think that evaluating the population of a game during the middle of a population surge is an inherently flawed idea if you goal is trying to judge the overall population health.

It would be like evaluating the normal traffic on the streets at rush hour and assuming it's always like that.

I'm finding the game has more players now than a few weeks ago. But it's still a bit dead in my local prime time(Australia). I think the game a pretty solid player base atm and will continue to grow as/if improvements are made.

Ralathar44 wrote: »

Liquid_Time wrote: »

Well it is hard to believe that the "artificial population" that you are referring to is already populating the vet zones, so you point is currently invalid IMO.

Vet zone population is much higher than it used to be because of the recent vet changes. People used to avoid vet zones like the plague, because they were not fun for most people. Vet zone 2 and 3 were ghost towns. Alot of people exploited anomalies or found alternative leveling paths to skip them completely while leveling. Even provisioners have been hosed because they were getting T1 ingredients instead of veteran ingredients, which has now been partially addressed.

The population during pre-veteran rank changes and pre-provisoner changes in the vet zones was lower than they should have been. What you are seeing now is just the normal it always should have been, not an increase in actual players of that level. Players just actually visit those zones now.

Yes I understand this.. However where is this "artificial population" you are referring to that is making us think that things are fine simply due to it?

After a tricky launch (the exact opposite of the bug & lag free launch that Paul Sage predicted), it's stablising. The population is very healthy and the updates are coming regularly.

There'll always be doomsayers, and bugs/imbalances are still in game but nowhere near as many. All in all it's pretty much a typical healthy mmo at this stage.

Enkil wrote: »

It should also be noted that you are a self-professed DOOM-sayer.

Ok and? I also said that EA claimed it needed 500k subs to stay afloat and spent like 1/3rd more on their MMORPG, but ESO has 750k+, so it would seem to be in a good spot. I've also said that this game has quite alot of really good things that they have done.

So, does the fact I think some future changes will be negative for the game cancel out every other opinion I ever have for some reason I don't know about, or is this just your personal bias?

What you describe above is normal promotional marketing that coincides with a big gaming convention (QuakeCon). I have been extremely critical of the game and was unsubbed until recently.. but let's get real..

• Dev's have demonstrated their commitment to a quality MMO that is deserving of the Elder Scrolls title in their most recent public appearance at QuakeCon.
• They are working to add elements that we all have been wanting in an Elder Scrolls MMO.
• Yes, we are playing a paid beta but suck it up.. that's the norm these days unfortunately.
• We get to play the very playable and fun game and give our feedback which they listen to.

This game is in the best position it has been since launch.... anyone that says otherwise is indeed full of BS...

I honestly don't see what any of this has to do with the population comments I made at all.

All I've said is that were are in the middle of a population spike from numerous promotions so it'd be impossible to get an accurate measurement on the normal population values at this current time.

In fact the only population comment that was not neutral that I have made in this thread was in support of the game via the EA/ESO sub comparison.


Oh and btw, onions have layers.

ESO isn't struggling. It's certainly not the genre leading MMO we all hoped it would be, but it's certainly not struggling.
ESO is slowly getting better for numerous reasons...

•Firstly, we have gotten past that new MMO stage. Most (not all) the bugs have been ironed out and they seem at least to be on top of that.

•Second, Zenimax have finally realised that listening to the players will get them far more. Not necessarily because we know more than them, but because (IMO) they underestimated the fanatical support TES has from its fans/players.

•Third, this is a TES game. It has Lore richer than any other MMO and a world as diverse as any I've encountered in 30 years of gaming.

•Lastly, Zenimax seem to have a great deal of ideas/content in the pipeline ready to be released. Just watching that 2 hour Dev session gave some idea of the vast quantity of content yet to come.


I think the next couple of updates will be crucial though. If Zenimax manage to keep all their player groups (PvP/PvE/RP) all happy for the next couple of releases they will find ESO has a very strong and loyal fan base that may well stay with them for years !

Enkil wrote: »

Well... the only part of my reply that was directed at you was the doomsayer comment which judging by your previous thread, I assumed was a badge were proud to wear...

I considered it necessary to wear. Honestly it's a plain inconvenience and as you just demonstrated it will color people's views of what you say even in unrelated topics. I full well understood the ramifications and that post goes against my HOPES for the game. But nonetheless I felt somebody needed to bear the sticks, stones, and arrows to say it. So I did lol.

The rest of my post has nothing to do with your silly population prognostications... You are not the original poster, whom the bulk of my reply is directed at.... If you are trying to bait me into an argument with you (a self-professed doomsayer), it's not gonna happen. I know how to play devil's advocate and I can easily argue a position that is the opposite of my personal beliefs. On this topic, I prefer to keep it real... bro!

You'll understand that this was difficult to determine considering that you quoted me, directly referenced me, and then started out with the phrase "What you describe above". Naturally I assumed you meant the quoted portion, not one of the 20 posts above that.

As well though, your post was not any more applicable to the OP. THQ has proven that a company can do all the right things and still fail. Games like Flappy Bird prove that a game does not have to be good to succeed. Designing a good game and supporting it well definitely helps to garner a larger population, but it does not ensure it.

Much less the fact that there is plenty of disagreement for the points you mentioned on these very forums. But I'll leave that for everyone else to beat into glue as they have been for months.

Tabbycat wrote: »

I think there's three main reasons for all the hate that spews for ESO on various forums. They can be summed up as follows:

1. It's not Skyrim Co-op.

2. It's not F2P or B2P.

3. It's not a pure sandbox game.

I would agree with you when this game released. I do not agree with you now. Alot of the complaints are now game specific and a fair amount of them do indeed bear quite a bit of validity.

Enkil wrote: »

It's more BS

This ^^^^^^
Plus the news from Quake Con, paints a picture of a game doing well not the other way around.