I'll also add that the second article is based on Raptr's numbers - which is PC only. Even if you accept Raptr as a valid source of overall PC gaming statistics, they are necessarily skewed against cross platform games like ESO.

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

Um… Again, read the articles. That second article is referring to ALL PC games, not just MMOs. Take out the non-MMOs on this list, and ESO is doing pretty well.

If by falling 15 slots in gameplay in 3 months is "doing pretty well" in your opinion, I am not investing in any companies you work for... or any you invest in.

Further, the odds of it being in the top 20 for July are pretty much zero, which means it will have followed SWTOR in sliding out of the top 20 by 1 month, despite the fact it has only been out 4 months and SWTOR had been out 42 months before it fell.

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

I'll also add that the second article is based on Raptr's numbers - which is PC only. Even if you accept Raptr as a valid source of overall PC gaming statistics, they are necessarily skewed against cross platform games like ESO.

If you have better numbers, by all means we await you posting them.

Innocente wrote: »

ESO is actually not a very good MMO.

* Underdeveloped Features
* No global AH/Market
* Phase group lockouts
* Focus on Single-Player gameplay
* Poor Crafting systems
* Major quest defects still in game after 4 months
* No ability to even setup channels in Chat
* World is heavily instanced with players funneled into random populations
* Bugs abound in old and new content

I have not played Single-Player games since about 2001, and don't play Multi-Player games. Just play MMOs. And really, ESO is not an MMO at all.

ESO is a Single-Player game with Multi-Player optional content based on a single shard 'Mega-Server' tech that places players into an invisible lobby, then funnels them into an available instance area with a random set of players.

Just my own opinion, based on my own experience.

Ok so ill humor you a bit only because I am curious

* You are very vague, what features are you speaking of?
* This was by design. I have no problem selling anything and I am sure that the new guild kiosks will help in regards to players who want a more traditional AH.
* Phase group lockouts. I concur, however they are taking steps to fix this.
* Errr this one has me confused. You have public dungeons, World bosses, Dolmens, 4 man dungeons, trials, and an adventure zone specifically for group questing. I really don't know what more you want, so please elaborate.
* Again very vague. The crafting system is pretty deep and time consuming. Just because you think it is a poor system doesn't make it fact. I still would like you to give a real opinion on it though.
* I have done all three factions quests and haven't had progress blocked but maybe once, and that one time was in coldharbor a month or so after release. If you want to just spam click through quest dialogue, and rush the game sure things might break. For most players, the game and story are enjoyable and quest bugs are far and few between.
* Minor detail such as nameplates and chat bubbles they may come in the future as an option.
* Ummm....that's how a megaserver works lol
* Again vague what bugs do you speak of.

ESO is a great casual MMO. It is not hardcore with progressive raiding like rift or wow. It is a different flavor of game. It was widely advertised as an AvAvA PvP game. If you came strictly for the PvE side you might feel underwhelmed, but if you came for the PvP then you are getting every pennies worth. The game is not bad, it is not dying, and it is not going F2P/B2P any time soon. You may or may not like the game, but to call it bad and then make vague statements to justify it is wrong.

This thread is sad. Anyone who actually read that article about the top 10 list would have seen this:

"As Polygon notes, Bethesda’s The Elder Scrolls Online hasn’t been around long enough to appear on this list, having just released three months ago."

Do people only read headlines anymore?

As for the rest of the wild speculation about this game being an abysmal failure, how about we wait for some actual comparison data to come out before making these judgments?

Korozenn wrote: »

Xnemesis wrote: »

ESO is a great casual MMO. It is not hardcore with progressive raiding like rift or wow. It is a different flavor of game. It was widely advertised as an AvAvA PvP game. If you came strictly for the PvE side you might feel underwhelmed, but if you came for the PvP then you are getting every pennies worth. The game is not bad, it is not dying, and it is not going F2P/B2P any time soon. You may or may not like the game, but to call it bad and then make vague statements to justify it is wrong.

Yeah, that part I bolded of your post is a strong "might".

I'm almost solely focused on PvE at the moment and will go into PvP as soon as I reach my Veteran Ranks on my current character, but the game hasn't left me feeling underwhelmed at all.

I do agree it is a big MIGHT, because I am enjoying myself as well I have just started a few quest in craiglorn and am about 70% away from VR12. If I could change anything it would be the grinding. Its hard to find a group to do questing with when everyone wants to just grind to VR12. If people just stepped back and played the game the way it was designed I think the experience for everyone would be much more enjoyable.

Ok, that's my cue to hide under the drapes for an hour.

you need to practice employing your gray matter a touch more

1) you start a list contrasting single and massively player games with one another, something is wrong with your site.

2) that's 'a' site publishing 'a' list that is "said" to be the result from the data companies have sent them themselves. Emphasis on "said"

3) said list denotes income, not sub revenue. I will not insult you further by assuming you are unable to understand the distinction between the two

4) said list is presumably on a world wide scale. Some MMOs -do- have publishers in China, Russia and Japan (apart from the US and EU), some do not. Making said comparison even more unintelligent.

but here you are, doing your thing anyway. About a week since they posted that dumb thing on top of that..

Here is a link to the original article (or what it claims to be the original article):

superdataresearch.com/blog/us-digital-games-market/

And if you scroll down here is a section of that article:

WILDSTAR AND ELDER SCROLLS ONLINE CHALLENGE STATUS QUO

When Bethesda Softworks released Elder Scrolls Online, the industry took notice as the publisher fearlessly announced a subscription model, rather than going free-to-play like its direct competitor Guild Wars 2 (NCsoft). So far, a subscriber base of 772,374 (June) indicates that its strategy is working. And perhaps its because of this that NCsoft released its own subscription-based title, Wildstar, over one month ago. As the initial purchase included a free first month, NCsoft is about to find out how strong the demand for sci-fi action really is. Traditionally, sci-fi styled MMOs tend to generate three times as much in monthly revenue compared to fantasy-based titles. And the early signs are good. According to Carbine, the game has so far seen “four to five times” as many concurrent users than during its open beta stage. Combined with NCsoft’s expertise, having four titles in the worldwide top 10 for subscription-based MMOs last year, Wildstar is a strong contender in the current market.”

Decimus_Rex wrote: »

ESO achieved that 750,000 by losing far more than that in the first 3 months.

Further, top as in "good" is an opinion. Top as in "most subscribers" is not.

Let's see, my Algebra is real rusty

Your math suggests that we are in the negative integers

I guess that means I'm not really playing the game

http://youtu.be/gUyqfUut8lA

Aenra wrote: »

you need to practice employing your gray matter a touch more

1) you start a list contrasting single and massively player games with one another, something is wrong with your site.

2) that's 'a' site publishing 'a' list that is "said" to be the result from the data companies have sent them themselves. Emphasis on "said"

3) said list denotes income, not sub revenue. I will not insult you further by assuming you are unable to understand the distinction between the two

4) said list is presumably on a world wide scale. Some MMOs -do- have publishers in China, Russia and Japan (apart from the US and EU), some do not. Making said comparison even more unintelligent.

but here you are, doing your thing anyway. About a week since they posted that dumb thing on top of that..

You got better, go ahead and post it.

lordrichter wrote: »

This is one of those websites that takes a very specific data set and attempts to generalize it to a larger community based on the premise that (1) they have enough of a sample size to represent a larger community and (2) that their community has the same cross-section as the larger community.

Specifically, this is all about people who run the Raptr spyware and what games they play.

It is very accurate in how it portrays Raptr users but not so much when it comes to everyone else.

It might be worth noting that Elder Scrolls Online is down in the bottom 50 of the current Top 100 on Steam and is at 2000 players today. While it is below Rift (2500 players today) it is well above World of Warcraft and Wildstar, which apparently no one is playing anymore.

I do hope that was an attempt at humor. Steam can only measures games played that were sold via Steam. As such, it isn't a very good indicator unless compared to its own numbers over time--i.e. if you were to look at 3,000 Steam users last month, and 2,000 this month, that would be an indicator one could extrapolate to overall trends.

However, the problem with that would be a lot of people will be leaving at the end of the their one month after purchasing via Steam.

lordrichter wrote: »

d.crosgrove_ESO wrote: »

I do hope that was an attempt at humor. Steam can only measures games played that were sold via Steam.

Of course. It would been better if Steam had not just released a version of ESO, but yeah, my point is that when you take a microscopic subset of a population that may not even represent a true cross section of customer participation, you end up with numbers like what I posted for Steam.

If Zenimax gave 30 days free to each of us who who ran Raptr's software, ESO would rank much higher in the next Raptr survey. Those numbers would also not reflect the true customer participation.

Again, the point is that if the microscopic sample size does not mirror the larger population, the numbers are meaningless.

Not entirely correct. A sample size of as few as fifty can be used to demonstrate trends for groups of thousands with a reliability has high as 95%. And while it is true to say that IF Raptr had done X Then Y would not be valid," the fact remains that as Raptr has not done X, it is pointless to discuss X affecting Y.

One can argue that perhaps Raptr is not truly spot-on, as it is used by people who are into such things, and as someone else pointed out, perhaps ESO is falling into a niche for older casual gamers.

If so, the question remains why it failed to attract mainstream gamers, and is becoming an Eve-like niche game. when it is clear it was being marketed for the mainstream gamers.

I do agree that Steam's low numbers for ESO are indicative of a problem, but the comparison must either be ESO with itself over time, or ESO compared to other Steam titles that are sold both via Steam and independently. However, the latter suffers from other variables sneaking in, such as what is the predominant method of sales for each title(s).

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

d.crosgrove_ESO wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

This is one of those websites that takes a very specific data set and attempts to generalize it to a larger community based on the premise that (1) they have enough of a sample size to represent a larger community and (2) that their community has the same cross-section as the larger community.

Specifically, this is all about people who run the Raptr spyware and what games they play.

It is very accurate in how it portrays Raptr users but not so much when it comes to everyone else.

It might be worth noting that Elder Scrolls Online is down in the bottom 50 of the current Top 100 on Steam and is at 2000 players today. While it is below Rift (2500 players today) it is well above World of Warcraft and Wildstar, which apparently no one is playing anymore.

I do hope that was an attempt at humor. Steam can only measures games played that were sold via Steam. As such, it isn't a very good indicator unless compared to its own numbers over time--i.e. if you were to look at 3,000 Steam users last month, and 2,000 this month, that would be an indicator one could extrapolate to overall trends.

However, the problem with that would be a lot of people will be leaving at the end of the their one month after purchasing via Steam.

I agree, your limited sample size of data, is much more compelling then his limited sample size of data...

I was really impressed with the is this an attempt at humor. That made me laugh, and really sold it for me.

You need to look up the word "humor". Humor can also be delivered via irony and sarcasm. LordRichter caught my meaning even if it was beyond your ken.