Maintenance for the week of December 15:
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
ESO has sold almost 150,000 copies on Steam
-
Mikoto✭✭✭150k copies sold on steam but only 3k peak playing.......This isn't something to feel good about friend.
FFXIV has 226,066 sold yet only 7,401 all-time peak on steam. Either steamspy is inaccurate or people are putting it down for lack of a better reason than to putting it down. Unless you're saying that FFXIV is also a bad MMO?1 -
lihentian✭✭✭✭✭skrim have sold 20 million copies, they could have sold more then that in the future0 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭"Steam Spy is still in alpha, so expect major bugs."
One bug might be that they cannot count number of owners. Yesterday, ESO had more owners than it does today.
Owners: 121,630 ± 17,231XBox EU/NA:@ElsonsoJannus
PC NA/EU: @Elsonso
PSN NA/EU: @ElsonsoJannus
Total in-game hours: 11321
X/Twitter: ElsonsoJannus0 -
StaticWax✭✭✭✭Since we're all guessing what the numbers are, I'll guess 3 million.I wish nothing but joy for everyone.1 -
150k copies sold on steam but only 3k peak playing.......This isn't something to feel good about friend.
FFXIV has 226,066 sold yet only 7,401 all-time peak on steam. Either steamspy is inaccurate or people are putting it down for lack of a better reason than to putting it down. Unless you're saying that FFXIV is also a bad MMO?
FFXIV ARR is a great MMO - far greater than ESO, and if the vast majority decided to put the game down for reasons unknown and decided not to touch it again would be unfortunate. Maybe steamspy is very inaccurate.0 -
Seraphyel✭✭✭✭✭150k copies sold on steam but only 3k peak playing.......This isn't something to feel good about friend.
FFXIV has 226,066 sold yet only 7,401 all-time peak on steam. Either steamspy is inaccurate or people are putting it down for lack of a better reason than to putting it down. Unless you're saying that FFXIV is also a bad MMO?
As I said, FF XIV is no game for a platform like steam. Their upcoming addon is exlusively sold as a Collectors Edition (retail and digital) on Square Enix shop.
We already know that FF XIV is a huge success, it sold over 4 million copies, that's enormous. It may be - after WoW - the second most successful MMORPG right now.Since we're all guessing what the numbers are, I'll guess 3 million.
We may be guessing, but a number between 1kk-1.5kk is more realistic than your guess. 3 million would be quite a considerable success for an MMORPG, 1kk-1.5kk isn't.Edited by Seraphyel on April 5, 2015 5:36PM0 -
pecheckler✭✭✭✭✭Sales numbers do not matter. I can't even count how many games i've purchased and played for less than a few hours. All that matters is peak concurrent numbers of players online each day, and average weekly hours played of per player. Those are the established measurements.
The 3,500ish that ESO has been averaging each day isn't all to impressive (it has quadrupled since going B2P though), but if the second counter (number of hours played per day per return user) is high, then it signifies a healthy game. Unfortunately we can't see this number. The biggest population issue with ESO is that it was built on an infinitely scalable architecture that is dependent on having a minimum number of players per zone (so there is at least two mega-server instances of each zone). For example if Auridon has 6 instances, 5 of which are filled up, that results in great gameplay. But if Eastmarch AD veteran zone only has one instance, only 1/4 full.... that doesn't yield as MMOish gameplay. I probably didn't explain that very well but I hope some of you get the point.Edited by pecheckler on April 5, 2015 5:40PMEnd the tedious inventory management game.0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭farrier_ESO wrote: »
It is, or the game would have been shut down by now. 3k wouldn't pay to keep the lights on, nevermind patching and updating the game.
I don't know what the actual population of the game is, obviously, but most people aren't playing on Steam.farrier_ESO wrote: »
Ffxiv sits around 4-5k on steam. It's normal for mmo's to have low steam numbers.
It's normal for MMOs to have "low" numbers regardless. Ignoring WoW and a handful of outliers for a moment, the genre is still somewhat niche.If ESO was going well:
1) ZoS would have advertised the fat subs number around.
The real reason to advertise subscription numbers is to make investors happy and entice more. Last time I checked, Zenimax is privately traded, so, there's no incentive to say, "hey guys, we've got a game that's this big!" Unlike, say, EA, where their reported subscriber numbers have more to do with getting you... as an investor, to buy their stock. Not because they care about giving their fanboys fuel for internet arguments they don't care about.2) We'd have a more polished game
Which is why Battlefield is such a polished release every year... oh, wait.
Subscription numbers =! a company effectively polishing their games. Skyrim is/was a runaway success, but it is still a Bethesda game. ZoS isn't the same team as Bethesda... but, it's still a Bethesda game. What kind of polish did you expect? Because this is about as polished as any of their in house developed stuff has ever been. Even if it is with a new team.3) We'd have had a lot of more content introduced and they'd have sticked to their own advertised release schedule.
Yeah, I've seen games where they really blew off their content margins, because the team was downsized and the game was flagging. This, is not that. Funcom for instance, was supposed to add a new zone to TSW six months after launch... it took over two years. We got Craglorn roughly on schedule. It wasn't until 1.6 that ZoS has fallen behind on releasing regular bits of whatever.
Also, the past tense of "stick" is "stuck" not "sticked." "Sticked" isn't a word.4) We'd not be gone B2P.
Because the transition to Buy to Play had absolutely nothing to do with the rather public snitfit Zenimax had with Microsoft about getting the XBL Gold fees waved for ESO.5) We'd see SOMEBODY, EVER in VR zones.
No, this one, no, you wouldn't. If all things were equal, sure, whatever. But, getting to the Vet Zones is a considerable time investment. The kind of person who would be willing to make the time commitment necessary to get there is exactly the same kind of person that would've been paying a subscription. The people who wouldn't subscribe are the kinds of people that treat MMOs like normal games. They get their fifty or sixty hours out, and leave. Without having reached the vet zones.Edited by starkerealm on April 5, 2015 6:02PM6 -
Nightscar✭✭starkerealm wrote: »farrier_ESO wrote: »
It is, or the game would have been shut down by now. 3k wouldn't pay to keep the lights on, nevermind patching and updating the game.
I don't know what the actual population of the game is, obviously, but most people aren't playing on Steam.farrier_ESO wrote: »
Ffxiv sits around 4-5k on steam. It's normal for mmo's to have low steam numbers.
It's normal for MMOs to have "low" numbers regardless. Ignoring WoW and a handful of outliers for a moment, the genre is still somewhat niche.If ESO was going well:
1) ZoS would have advertised the fat subs number around.
The real reason to advertise subscription numbers is to make investors happy and entice more. Last time I checked, Zenimax is privately traded, so, there's no incentive to say, "hey guys, we've got a game that's this big!" Unlike, say, EA, where their reported subscriber numbers have more to do with getting you... as an investor, to buy their stock. Not because they care about giving their fanboys fuel for internet arguments they don't care about.2) We'd have a more polished game
Which is why Battlefield is such a polished release every year... oh, wait.
Subscription numbers =! a company effectively polishing their games. Skyrim is/was a runaway success, but it is still a Bethesda game. ZoS isn't the same team as Bethesda... but, it's still a Bethesda game. What kind of polish did you expect? Because this is about as polished as any of their in house developed stuff has ever been. Even if it is with a new team.3) We'd have had a lot of more content introduced and they'd have sticked to their own advertised release schedule.
Yeah, I've seen games where they really blew off their content margins, because the team was downsized and the game was flagging. This, is not that. Funcom for instance, was supposed to add a new zone to TSW six months after launch... it took over two years. We got Craglorn roughly on schedule. It wasn't until 1.6 that ZoS has fallen behind on releasing regular bits of whatever.
Also, the past tense of "stick" is "stuck" not "sticked." "Sticked" isn't a word.4) We'd not be gone B2P.
Because the transition to Buy to Play had absolutely nothing to do with the rather public snitfit Zenimax had with Microsoft about getting the XBL Gold fees waved for ESO.5) We'd see SOMEBODY, EVER in VR zones.
No, this one, no, you wouldn't. If all things were equal, sure, whatever. But, getting to the Vet Zones is a considerable time investment. The kind of person who would be willing to make the time commitment necessary to get there is exactly the same kind of person that would've been paying a subscription. The people who wouldn't subscribe are the kinds of people that treat MMOs like normal games. They get their fifty or sixty hours out, and leave. Without having reached the vet zones.
This has to be the best reply I have ever read .. well played.
I was just talking in my guild about this yesterday..
Many games I thought would of went out by now haven't .. ESO won't be going anywhere for a while.
IMO0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Just to let everyone know concurrent users means users all on at the same time. also does steam include both EU and NA?0 -
stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Steam includes both EU and NA players, but only a small percentage of players play ESO on Steam. The only relevant number as I see it is the retention rate, and that number is disturbingly small. But people who bought ESO on Steam might be a very different kind of players, I really don't know.0 -
wrlifeboil✭✭✭✭✭Most of the players who own ESO did not buy it through Steam. Unless they made an effort to attach the game to their Steam account, they won't show up in the Steam stats. My online time doesn't show up in Steam. Don't know why I would want to have Steam running when I'm playing a game that is sensitive to latency.0
-
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »Just to let everyone know concurrent users means users all on at the same time. also does steam include both EU and NA?
Yeah, it's both servers.wrlifeboil wrote: »Most of the players who own ESO did not buy it through Steam. Unless they made an effort to attach the game to their Steam account, they won't show up in the Steam stats. My online time doesn't show up in Steam. Don't know why I would want to have Steam running when I'm playing a game that is sensitive to latency.
Yeah, it actually isn't possible to attach a retail copy to Steam. You can "add a non-Steam game" but that won't count towards the active player totals. So, even though I use the Steam overlay when playing, I don't contribute to that 3k statistic, because I picked it up from the ZOS store before launch.0 -
BlackEar✭✭✭✭✭5) We'd see SOMEBODY, EVER in VR zones.
Since the B2P I see A LOT of players in the VR zones.
Bjorn Blackbear - Master Angler - Collector - Black Market Mogul - Ebonheart Pact - Exterminatus - EU.
Achievement hunter:
Visit my profile page to find out about which achievement I am currently hunting.
Check out Anemonean's thieving guide!1 -
farrier_ESO✭✭✭Legerdemain is quite a crowded profession even in VR zones, yeah.Yet another indie games programmer.
Upvote the change you want to see.0 -
mitchav66✭✭✭I'm glad the game is getting more attention, but I just hope the game doesn't get reflooded with a bunch of new players again. It was finally nice to be able to level without a dungeon getting flooded with people. A good instancing system is what we really need, leave the megaserver for the PVP.Check out my video on the Top 20 Things ESO NEEDS (In My Opinion)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXlmLyIuJFA0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I dont get this whole "vet zones are empty" deal. Granted there are more people in the starter zones but I always run into people in the vet areas. Go to a major city see people everywhere. Zone chat is usually even busy.0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »I dont get this whole "vet zones are empty" deal. Granted there are more people in the starter zones but I always run into people in the vet areas. Go to a major city see people everywhere. Zone chat is usually even busy.
Silver Alik'r... though... on second thought, that place has been annoyingly active lately.
I do like the vet zones, though. You're not tripping over people, but you can still BS in zone. Also, the caliber of zone chatter is much higher.0 -
Genomic✭✭✭✭✭
It's a relative thing. Before B2P I'd see one or two people in VR zones, now I may see up to a couple of dozen if I play for a few hours. It may seem a lot in comparison to what it was before, but a couple of dozen still is not "a lot".
0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
It's a relative thing. Before B2P I'd see one or two people in VR zones, now I may see up to a couple of dozen if I play for a few hours. It may seem a lot in comparison to what it was before, but a couple of dozen still is not "a lot".
What to you would be "alot" in one zone in a vet area it takes a bit to reach? Also when are you playing? If not during prime time then no wonder. Remember too if you are in a low population faction you will probably see fewer players in vet areas. All my characters are AD.0 -
Seraphyel✭✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »1. It is, or the game would have been shut down by now. 3k wouldn't pay to keep the lights on, nevermind patching and updating the game.
I don't know what the actual population of the game is, obviously, but most people aren't playing on Steam.
2. Ffxiv sits around 4-5k on steam. It's normal for mmo's to have low steam numbers.
It's normal for MMOs to have "low" numbers regardless. Ignoring WoW and a handful of outliers for a moment, the genre is still somewhat niche.
3. The real reason to advertise subscription numbers is to make investors happy and entice more. Last time I checked, Zenimax is privately traded, so, there's no incentive to say, "hey guys, we've got a game that's this big!" Unlike, say, EA, where their reported subscriber numbers have more to do with getting you... as an investor, to buy their stock. Not because they care about giving their fanboys fuel for internet arguments they don't care about.
4. Which is why Battlefield is such a polished release every year... oh, wait.
Subscription numbers =! a company effectively polishing their games. Skyrim is/was a runaway success, but it is still a Bethesda game. ZoS isn't the same team as Bethesda... but, it's still a Bethesda game. What kind of polish did you expect? Because this is about as polished as any of their in house developed stuff has ever been. Even if it is with a new team.
5. Yeah, I've seen games where they really blew off their content margins, because the team was downsized and the game was flagging. This, is not that. Funcom for instance, was supposed to add a new zone to TSW six months after launch... it took over two years. We got Craglorn roughly on schedule. It wasn't until 1.6 that ZoS has fallen behind on releasing regular bits of whatever.
Also, the past tense of "stick" is "stuck" not "sticked." "Sticked" isn't a word.
6. Because the transition to Buy to Play had absolutely nothing to do with the rather public snitfit Zenimax had with Microsoft about getting the XBL Gold fees waved for ESO.
7. No, this one, no, you wouldn't. If all things were equal, sure, whatever. But, getting to the Vet Zones is a considerable time investment. The kind of person who would be willing to make the time commitment necessary to get there is exactly the same kind of person that would've been paying a subscription. The people who wouldn't subscribe are the kinds of people that treat MMOs like normal games. They get their fifty or sixty hours out, and leave. Without having reached the vet zones.
So, let me fix that for you:
1. The game went B2P. It went B2P because it's population was not enough to keep the sub model. That's it.
2. FF XIV is mostly bound to Square Enix shops / websites. The upcoming CE can only be bought on their official store. And FF XIV is the proof for a new and incredibly successful MMORPG.
3. The real reason to advertise sub numbers is to get attention how successful your product is - that's called Marketing. If you don't advertise them, your product couldn't live up to it's expectations.
4. Battlefield is no MMORPG. And sure, a healthy population brings a better polish of the game. Guild Wars 2 was incredibly polished when it launched. How could they handle that? ESO isn't polished after 12 months. You know why? I don't.
5. Do you really compare The Secret World to Elder Scrolls Online? LOL. Craglorn was the only thing we've got and even that was split up to have a bigger time span for "content". Craglorn should have been here at launch then they delayed it until September? And besides Craglorn, no other content? That's just insane. And that's why this game is going down, because there is just no content. And why you take Funcom as an example? Take Trion on RIFT, Square Enix on FF XIV or anybody else - Square released ten times the content we got in ESO within the same time frame.
6. Guys like you keep saying that but it doesn't change facts. ESO PC was advertised as a sub based game. It could have stayed P2P with a B2P console version. They changed the PC ESO to B2P because it just had no players. It's not because of Microsoft. And even if it was Microsofts fault, they could have made the transition just 2-4 weeks before the console version and not 3 months ahead to loose millions of $$$.
7. They are still empty. They have been empty at launch, empty over the one year runtime and they are still empty. They are empty because... a) VR is horrible and b) there are not many players.Many games I thought would of went out by now haven't .. ESO won't be going anywhere for a while.
IMO
His answer was just the usual delusional FB stuff.
ESO will go down if the console version is no success and I am sorry to tell you that but the interest in the console version is marginal.Edited by Seraphyel on April 6, 2015 2:43PM2 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭So, let me fix that for you:
Yeah, if you're going to "fix" anything. It might help if you were able to actually... oh, I don't know, address the issues being discussed instead of botching up the quote tags and then going after other people's arguments. Rather than saying to yourself, "well I can't win this piece of the argument, but if I splice in someone else's quotes on the subject, then I have a chance to say what I want."
For example:starkerealm wrote: »2. Ffxiv sits around 4-5k on steam.
I never said this. You know how I know I never said this? Because, I would never put roman numerals in lower case outside of a fairly deep outline format. And, oh my, look at this, I didn't say it. The actual post was here:Ffxiv sits around 4-5k on steam. It's normal for mmo's to have low steam numbers.
But, wait, that's funny. You see how the name in that quote box isn't starkerealm?
So, let me fix your post for you:I desperately want to see this game fail, and want to somehow cultivate some meager schadenfreude in the process, WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO STOP ME? IT'S JUST NOT FAIR!?
That roughly encapsulate the sentiment of your post, you think?4 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭1. The game went B2P. It went B2P because it's population was not enough to keep the sub model. That's it.
Sorry, I can't give credit for that one. Go back and look at the news regarding the game for the last year. Read it, and then come back with a real argument please.2. FF XIV is mostly bound to Square Enix shops / websites. The upcoming CE can only be bought on their official store. And FF XIV is the proof for a new and incredibly successful MMORPG.
Yeah, I have less than zero interest in Final Fantasy anything. I don't know what you're talking about here, don't particlarly care, and don't think it's relevant.3. The real reason to advertise sub numbers is to get attention how successful your product is - that's called Marketing. If you don't advertise them, your product couldn't live up to it's expectations.
What you don't seem to understand is what is being marketed. Saying your game is played by millions is a good hook to say "hey, we're successful enough you should see what other people are saying." When you get into the real numbers for normal MMOs, IE, not WoW... then you're talking about numbers that won't sell anything... except stocks.4. Battlefield is no MMORPG. And sure, a healthy population brings a better polish of the game. Guild Wars 2 was incredibly polished when it launched. How could they handle that? ESO isn't polished after 12 months. You know why? I don't.
And yet, the original argument was, "a lack of polish indicates a lack of revenue." The problem with this logic is that polish, even with MMOs is heavily based in prerelease states. Once a game goes live, you can't really polish it, you're working hard enough to keep your head above water most of the time.5. Do you really compare The Secret World to Elder Scrolls Online?
Are you saying it's not an MMO? Or that it's not dying? Which was it?6. Guys like you keep saying that but it doesn't change facts. ESO PC was advertised as a sub based game. It could have stayed P2P with a B2P console version. They changed the PC ESO to B2P because it just had no players. It's not because of Microsoft. And even if it was Microsofts fault, they could have made the transition just 2-4 weeks before the console version and not 3 months ahead to loose millions of $$$.
Guys like me? Guys who aren't playing a game of Chicken Little for schadenfreude?
Also, yeah, no, 3 months makes sense. It does. I get that you don't understand what goes into a console launch. You don't need to. But it is worth spitting the B2P format up on the PC with enough lead time to actually get in ahead of the console build going gold. Which, will probably happen in the next week or two.7. They are still empty. They have been empty at launch, empty over the one year runtime and they are still empty. They are empty because... a) VR is horrible and b) there are not many players.
Yeah, yeah, the entire game sucks, which is why you're still playing it?ESO will go down if the console version is no success and I am sorry to tell you that but the interest in the console version is marginal.
And you know this because of your masterful understanding of the market... right. Thanks, I'll pass on your prognostications.2 -
Seraphyel✭✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »And you know this because of your masterful understanding of the market... right. Thanks, I'll pass on your prognostications.
I know that because it's obvious.
The first year with ESO on PC was anything but smooth and successful and it's obvious that the console version is the (only) silver lining on the horizon before turning the shop into a P2W monster.
Regarding the other points... no need to discuss them anymore.starkerealm wrote: »
Thank you for making up a false quotation.
You know that I (we) already saw ESO fail on the PC? It's not schadenfreude, it's disappointment and frustration about an once amazing IP named Elder Scrolls going down the drain.Edited by Seraphyel on April 7, 2015 11:26AM0 -
fromtesonlineb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭
First, ESO was released on Steam last year, those figures are not from TU alone as that page clearly shows.his could mean that ESO as a whole has sold several million copies, and may well be close to becoming the second-highest-selling game in the whole series.
Second, we know ESO sold over a million copies, figures last year from several sources of sales and active accounts proved that.
And no, there's no "30+ million potential sales" this is far from the first MMO available for consoles and none have sold more than 1/10 of that number, if that.
0 -
Ace_SiN✭✭✭✭I think getting too caught up on numbers is a waste of time. It seems like since WoW blew up with its high sub count everyone thinks that x mmo needs a huge amount of subs as well to stay alive. Newflash, the MMO genre is still a niche genre and more so in recent years than the initial MMO craze that WoW created. The best thing about the megaserver tech is that at least all the new blood trying out the game will run into people early on. Instead of the population being spread thin over x amount of servers and new players thinking "game is dead".
Players are still finding groups no problem and PvP is still packed almost around the clock. I'd say we are in a good spot(there are MMOs surviving with a lot less players than ESO). ESO just needs more content, fixes, and the removal of the awful vet ranks.King of Beasts0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭ESO does need more content yes. They dont need to spend another year trying to code and figure out to remove vet ranks. Siply put vet ranks are here to stay. So like them or quit. They arent going to revamp the game yet again. Take all those console people and tell them they are removing the ranks they just earned. Nerf them all back to lvl 50 because some pvp guy doesnt feel like leveling his characters.
Give me a break. They dont need to remove vet ranks. I know that was the plan but the plan has changed. Now the plan is to code new content for people to play instead of yet another revamp trying to please these pvp epople who will never be happy regardless of what they do. I swear they should just remove pvp and this game would take off. Instead they want to constantly revamp the core systems over and over while introducing absolutely no content since craglorn.0 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭lordrichter wrote: »"Steam Spy is still in alpha, so expect major bugs."
One bug might be that they cannot count number of owners. Yesterday, ESO had more owners than it does today.
Owners: 121,630 ± 17,231
Before this thread gets locked, I just want to say that ESO is losing owners rapidly.
Owners: 114,555 ± 14,414
I would keep an eye over your shoulder. I know I am. They could be coming for me at any time.XBox EU/NA:@ElsonsoJannus
PC NA/EU: @Elsonso
PSN NA/EU: @ElsonsoJannus
Total in-game hours: 11321
X/Twitter: ElsonsoJannus2
