ESO subs

Raybroski · February 2015

Does any one know how many people play ESO? Like how many active subscribers. It just makes me curious, because them doing b2p all of a sudden makes me wonder if this game is dying or dead.

RedTalon · February 2015

No one really knows for sure with them being a private corp. Well save for Zen and their investor firms and others, one downside of being a private corp is a lot of info isn't public, but also an upside for them also.

Lord_Kreegan · February 2015

Two.

All the rest are bots.

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO · February 2015

We don't know, but we can guess. Judging from what I see in low level zones, veteran zones and PvP zones when playing various characters at different levels and in different factions, I would say that the EU server has somewhere around 10,000 people logged in at the most busy times. I would be very surprised (pleasantly surprised, mind you) if the total number of subscriptions in the EU area is above 100,000. In fact, it might be a lot less than that.

Their current revenue is most likely below sustainable levels, and going B2P is an attempt to attract more players and bring in more money. Whether that is going to be successful remains to be seen, but clearly their subscription model didn't work out.

dharbert · February 2015

There aren't anywhere near as many subs as some sources have suggested.

firstdecan · February 2015

Obviously not enough to keep their subscription based business model.

Jeremy · February 2015

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO wrote: »

We don't know, but we can guess. Judging from what I see in low level zones, veteran zones and PvP zones when playing various characters at different levels and in different factions, I would say that the EU server has somewhere around 10,000 people logged in at the most busy times. I would be very surprised (pleasantly surprised, mind you) if the total number of subscriptions in the EU area is above 100,000. In fact, it might be a lot less than that.

Their current revenue is most likely below sustainable levels, and going B2P is an attempt to attract more players and bring in more money. Whether that is going to be successful remains to be seen, but clearly their subscription model didn't work out.

You could be right. I hope you're wrong: because if you're right the future of Elder Scrolls looks bleak. And that would be a shame because overall it's the best MMORPG on the market right now in my opinion.

The only thing that keeps me optimistic after this change is the reasonable argument that they dropped subscriptions in order to accommodate their console players who would have had to pay twice due to network fees. And the timing of this announcement seems to back this argument up.

KhajitFurTrader · February 2015

ZOS has never made any numbers public. There have been "educated" guesses from third parties in the course of the last year, but these numbers are just speculation, i.e. they have never been confirmed.

That being said, the switch to the B2P business model was convenient for them in view of the console release. Subscription revenues have to go through the respective console networks (becoming smaller for it), and if no agreement can be reached with one of the platform owners, they can't really go ahead an say "play for free on this console, but pay a sub on the other three platforms".

Gidorick · February 2015

Jeremy wrote: »

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO wrote: »

We don't know, but we can guess. Judging from what I see in low level zones, veteran zones and PvP zones when playing various characters at different levels and in different factions, I would say that the EU server has somewhere around 10,000 people logged in at the most busy times. I would be very surprised (pleasantly surprised, mind you) if the total number of subscriptions in the EU area is above 100,000. In fact, it might be a lot less than that.

Their current revenue is most likely below sustainable levels, and going B2P is an attempt to attract more players and bring in more money. Whether that is going to be successful remains to be seen, but clearly their subscription model didn't work out.

You could be right. I hope you're wrong: because if you're right the future of Elder Scrolls looks bleak. And that would be a shame because overall it's the best MMORPG on the market right now in my opinion.

The only thing that keeps me optimistic after this change is the reasonable argument that they dropped subscriptions in order to accommodate their console players who would have had to pay twice due to network fees. And the timing of this announcement seems to back this argument up.

The prevailing speculation is they dropped the sub to accommodate Xbox players. Sony had agreed to drop the PS+ subscription. Microsoft never agreed to drop the Live requirement.

andrantos · February 2015

I had anticipated a buy-2-play transition at some point. If they were serious about the console releases, it didn't make much sense for them to continue to push for a subscription model.

Simply, console gamers just aren't accustomed to subscription models - and having a different model for PC gamers and another for console gamers just doesn't make sense either.

With that said, if the game was doing outstandingly well as it is today - I have a hard time believing they'd risk a buy-2-play transition. My guess is that console releases have always been a big piece of the whatever equation Zenimax has.

seanvwolf · February 2015

Meggedo wrote: »

The UI was always geared towards console users either out of ignorance, or lazy programmers.

Wut? The UI is reminiscent of all the TES titles I played, and they were made for PC prior to console. This statement doesn't hold much water with me.

LtCrunch · February 2015

seanvwolf wrote: »

Meggedo wrote: »

The UI was always geared towards console users either out of ignorance, or lazy programmers.

Wut? The UI is reminiscent of all the TES titles I played, and they were made for PC prior to console. This statement doesn't hold much water with me.

I concur, it conforms to the typical series UI, instead of typical MMO UI. Which I am thankful for, though I'm glad they support add-ons for those that want a more typical MMO style UI.

That being said there is simply no defending the terrible potion radial, it's detestable.

Seraphyel · February 2015

Raybroski wrote: »

Does any one know how many people play ESO? Like how many active subscribers. It just makes me curious, because them doing b2p all of a sudden makes me wonder if this game is dying or dead.

Not enough to maintain the sub model or gain enough revenue.

jambam817_ESO · February 2015

Being a mostly solo game online that you paid monthly for is what ended it for me. Got a character to VR2, rerolled and another to VR12 before i realized there was nothing here for someone who enjoys MMO perks like socialization and group content. Everyone's in their own world playing their version of this game single player. Its just how it works. I have single player games i dont have a fee to play monthly

TheBull · February 2015

Seraphyel wrote: »

Raybroski wrote: »

Does any one know how many people play ESO? Like how many active subscribers. It just makes me curious, because them doing b2p all of a sudden makes me wonder if this game is dying or dead.

Not enough to maintain the sub model or gain enough revenue.

I don't think that was the case. The change to b2p was to make more money. They will probably only lose 20-30% of current subs and gain a couple million more box sales which a good portion of those will sub. Add in a couple more million console sales plus a cash shop and it's pretty easy to see why the switch was made.

3rd party industry analyst had listed ESO at 770k+ subs and reported ZOS earning more than 111 million in 6 months. To put in perspective thats about 30% more revenue earned than GW2 made this year.

TheBull · February 2015

jambam817_ESO wrote: »

Being a mostly solo game online that you paid monthly for is what ended it for me. Got a character to VR2, rerolled and another to VR12 before i realized there was nothing here for someone who enjoys MMO perks like socialization and group content. Everyone's in their own world playing their version of this game single player. Its just how it works. I have single player games i dont have a fee to play monthly

They way you play is much different than how I play. In Cyrodiil communication is key, and I'm never alone, and I'm what would be considered a solo player.

Gidorick · February 2015

jambam817_ESO wrote: »

Being a mostly solo game online that you paid monthly for is what ended it for me. Got a character to VR2, rerolled and another to VR12 before i realized there was nothing here for someone who enjoys MMO perks like socialization and group content. Everyone's in their own world playing their version of this game single player. Its just how it works. I have single player games i dont have a fee to play monthly

Now you will have s multilayer game that doesn't have a fee to pay monthly! Win!

Robocles · February 2015

seanvwolf wrote: »

Meggedo wrote: »

The UI was always geared towards console users either out of ignorance, or lazy programmers.

Wut? The UI is reminiscent of all the TES titles I played, and they were made for PC prior to console. This statement doesn't hold much water with me.

This UI started in Morrowind... the first of the series to be available on a console.

It is designed for a controller.

Robocles · February 2015

TheBull wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

Raybroski wrote: »

Does any one know how many people play ESO? Like how many active subscribers. It just makes me curious, because them doing b2p all of a sudden makes me wonder if this game is dying or dead.

Not enough to maintain the sub model or gain enough revenue.

I don't think that was the case. The change to b2p was to make more money. They will probably only lose 20-30% of current subs and gain a couple million more box sales which a good portion of those will sub. Add in a couple more million console sales plus a cash shop and it's pretty easy to see why the switch was made.

3rd party industry analyst had listed ESO at 770k+ subs and reported ZOS earning more than 111 million in 6 months. To put in perspective thats about 30% more revenue earned than GW2 made this year.

That analysis was based on speculation. The numbers they imputed were supposedly from sources they would not have access to.

Seraphyel · February 2015

TheBull wrote: »

I don't think that was the case. The change to b2p was to make more money. They will probably only lose 20-30% of current subs and gain a couple million more box sales which a good portion of those will sub. Add in a couple more million console sales plus a cash shop and it's pretty easy to see why the switch was made.

3rd party industry analyst had listed ESO at 770k+ subs and reported ZOS earning more than 111 million in 6 months. To put in perspective thats about 30% more revenue earned than GW2 made this year.

Please go back and look how much revenue GW2 made in it's release year, it was multiple times higher than ESOs one - and they didn't had a sub fee.

I think +4 million sales within 2 years speak for GW2.

We don't even know if ESO has sold 1 million copies.

Million more box sales? On PC? Sorry, but that is totally delusional. 95% of the guys that wanted to play ESO have bought it on release. Maybe they didn't sub because of the fee, but the PC playerbase has been worn out.

A couple more million console sales... I think that is as delusional as the millions of upcoming box sales. I think 1 million console sales are a quite high estimation, you have to realize that ESO is no new game anymore, even with 1.6 it's 1 year old without noticeable new content.

Sure console sales will give ESO a quick but not enduring upstream of revenue.

The 770k subs were estimated in June for the 1st / 2nd month after release, that's not an impressive number at all.

If you want to make an actual comparison... WoW made over 700 million and you just have to think about that they didn't even had a new addon or something like that, it's only subs and account services.

ESO is rank 11, behind Lineage 1 or Heartsthone (remember the last is F2P and didn't even cost a box price).

$111 million is literally nothing when you think about they released the game that year for $40-50 a box.

Let's guesstimate:

1 million box sales = ~ $60-70 million (IE was over $100)
May = 770k x $13 = ~ $10 million
June = 600k x $13 = ~ $8 million
July = 500k x $13 = ~ $6,5 million
August = 400k x $13 = ~ $5 million
September = 300k x $13 = ~ $4 million
October = 300k x $13 = ~ $4 million

That's not so impressive at all, is it?

TheBull · February 2015

The analyst is Superdata. They have clients such as Microsoft, Visa and Google. Clients that pay them for their research. I think it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss their findings as speculation. Especially since Zenimax is one of those clients.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/about/

"Using digital point-of-sale data received from publishers, developers and payment service providers, we base our analyses on the monthly spending of 37 million paying online gamers, worldwide. This makes us the only research provider that offers insight into the current generation of interactive entertainment using transaction-level data."

Maverick827 · February 2015

The game offers no compelling end-game PvE and a PvP style that a majority of players do not prefer (e.g., most prefer battlegrounds). I don't know how this game expects me to spend my time, so I quit. I don't think I was alone.

Faugaun · February 2015

TheBull wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

Raybroski wrote: »

Does any one know how many people play ESO? Like how many active subscribers. It just makes me curious, because them doing b2p all of a sudden makes me wonder if this game is dying or dead.

Not enough to maintain the sub model or gain enough revenue.

I don't think that was the case. The change to b2p was to make more money. They will probably only lose 20-30% of current subs and gain a couple million more box sales which a good portion of those will sub. Add in a couple more million console sales plus a cash shop and it's pretty easy to see why the switch was made.

3rd party industry analyst had listed ESO at 770k+ subs and reported ZOS earning more than 111 million in 6 months. To put in perspective thats about 30% more revenue earned than GW2 made this year.

If that's correct they are still 200 mil in the red...on money that hasn't been earning interest for 7 years now...still a lot of make up ground before they have real roi.

Seraphyel · February 2015

TheBull wrote: »

The analyst is Superdata. They have clients such as Microsoft, Visa and Google. Clients that pay them for their research. I think it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss their findings as speculation. Especially since Zenimax is one of those clients.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/about/

"Using digital point-of-sale data received from publishers, developers and payment service providers, we base our analyses on the monthly spending of 37 million paying online gamers, worldwide. This makes us the only research provider that offers insight into the current generation of interactive entertainment using transaction-level data."

As I said and calculated above:

Let's guesstimate:

1 million box sales = ~ $60-70 million (IE was over $100)
May = 770k x $13 = ~ $10 million
June = 600k x $13 = ~ $8 million
July = 500k x $13 = ~ $6,5 million
August = 400k x $13 = ~ $5 million
September = 300k x $13 = ~ $4 million
October = 300k x $13 = ~ $4 million

$111 million is literally nothing when you think about they released the game that year for $40-50 a box. That's not so impressive at all, is it?

Either their box sales were quite low but with a stable sub-base or their box sales were round about a million with a quickly decreasing sub-number.

None of the above options shows huge financial success when you realize that the game had a budget beyond the $111 million and they couldn't make it within their first half year - in Hollywood something like that is considered a box office bomb.

TheBull · February 2015

Seraphyel wrote: »

TheBull wrote: »

I don't think that was the case. The change to b2p was to make more money. They will probably only lose 20-30% of current subs and gain a couple million more box sales which a good portion of those will sub. Add in a couple more million console sales plus a cash shop and it's pretty easy to see why the switch was made.

3rd party industry analyst had listed ESO at 770k+ subs and reported ZOS earning more than 111 million in 6 months. To put in perspective thats about 30% more revenue earned than GW2 made this year.

Please go back and look how much revenue GW2 made in it's release year, it was multiple times higher than ESOs one - and they didn't had a sub fee.

I think +4 million sales within 2 years speak for GW2.

We don't even know if ESO has sold 1 million copies.

Million more box sales? On PC? Sorry, but that is totally delusional. 95% of the guys that wanted to play ESO have bought it on release. Maybe they didn't sub because of the fee, but the PC playerbase has been worn out.

A couple more million console sales... I think that is as delusional as the millions of upcoming box sales. I think 1 million console sales are a quite high estimation, you have to realize that ESO is no new game anymore, even with 1.6 it's 1 year old without noticeable new content.

Sure console sales will give ESO a quick but not enduring upstream of revenue.

The 770k subs were estimated in June for the 1st / 2nd month after release, that's not an impressive number at all.

If you want to make an actual comparison... WoW made over 700 million and you just have to think about that they didn't even had a new addon or something like that, it's only subs and account services.

ESO is rank 11, behind Lineage 1 or Heartsthone (remember the last is F2P and didn't even cost a box price).

$111 million is literally nothing when you think about they released the game that year for $40-50 a box.

ESO sold 600k+ Physical boxes... We all know that digital downloads are many times that number. You would have to be delusional to think that ESO didn't sell more than a million issues of the game...
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/70799/the-elder-scrolls-online/Global/

#11 made ESO the #2 western mmorpg. Behind only WoW...

eserras7b16_ESO · February 2015

Raybroski wrote: »

Does any one know how many people play ESO? Like how many active subscribers. It just makes me curious, because them doing b2p all of a sudden makes me wonder if this game is dying or dead.

Game is not dead, nor dying. Playing I can see we're growing in numbers last months and we'll grow more after buy to play.
Don't know about numbers, but I feel I have always people to play with in both PvE and PvP and the /zone chats are always full of life.

Sincerily, Eptackt

IrishGirlGamer · February 2015

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Two.

All the rest are bots.

Wow ... I wonder who the other person is?

Khami · February 2015

Slight correction. Only the retail copies of the Imperial Edition were over $100. I only paid $80 for my digital copy.

Seraphyel · February 2015

TheBull wrote: »

ESO sold 600k+ Physical boxes... We all know that digital downloads are many times that number. You would have to be delusional to think that ESO didn't sell more than a million issues of the game...
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/70799/the-elder-scrolls-online/Global/

#11 made ESO the #2 western mmorpg. Behind only WoW...

As I said, then they had low subs and they dropped quite fast. Doesn't make it better at all.

If digital downloads were many times that number, their revenue would be multiple times higher.

And again, the 2nd western MMORPG because it was launched in that year. Without box sales it would have what, $30 million on subs? Where would it have been then?

I really like ESO and I think Zenimax improved the game over the last 11 months, but it's far from being a big success.

I hope with the B2P and hopefully many upcoming DLCs it will be more successful.

Rosveen · February 2015

seanvwolf wrote: »

Meggedo wrote: »

The UI was always geared towards console users either out of ignorance, or lazy programmers.

Wut? The UI is reminiscent of all the TES titles I played, and they were made for PC prior to console. This statement doesn't hold much water with me.

Skyrim's interface was clearly designed for consoles. Very limited key remapping, endless scrolling and terrible mouse support are dead giveaways. I had to navigate everything with my keyboard because mouse clicks didn't work more than half the time. Not only that, but it was generally poorly designed with inefficient use of space and a horrible skill menu.

Of course, it didn't come as a surprise to me. Bethesda hasn't created a good interface since Morrowind. ZOS is no different, ESO's interface lacks a few functionalities so basic that I don't know how it was ever approved.