BuddyAces wrote: »

Yeah ok I didn't read the whole article since I figured they were just spouting off that ten million copies thing. Dunno if a slip of the tongue happened there or what but ten million active players?? Gonna call shenanigans.

Edit:
Going to guess that they are talking how many accounts including inactive ones they have.

We've known for a while now about the 10 Million number and that its representative of unique accounts made over almost 4 years of the games existence. The 2.5 million is much more revealing as to the general health of the game. As 2.5 million players, even if a chunk of them are logging in for just 1 day, is a better snapshot the games popularity and further conformation that the game is doing very well. 2.5 million players is nothing to scoff at in the MMO market. Especially when you consider a good chunk of those millions are previously SP gamers and ESO is their first MMO.

0. Thanks to the OP for finding this.

1. Based on the overall wording of the article, it appears that the 10 million total / 2.5 million "monthly active users" figure was provided by Zenimax itself. [They could have been more clear about sourcing, but since so much of the article consists of direct quotes from a ZOS higher-up, this is inferred.]

One must remember that Zenimax is still a private company - but also that it is owned by a private equity firm, Providence, and the endgame for PE funds is always either to sell ("flip") the portfolio company or to take it public (usually retaining 20%-80% of the equity and letting the rest trade on some exchange). Which means that a) as a private company, it only releases the numbers management wants to; and b) management wants to release any "positive" headline number in order to generate "buyer buzz" (even if a sale or IPO is not imminent, just to sort of stay on people's radar).

So there is no reason not to believe the 2.5 million user number - and by the way, I think "users" means individual ESO accounts and not characters (of which there can be several per account). On the other hand, we ought to keep in mind that we have no way of verifying the figure (no public filings), and the company is currently (more) incentivized (than usual) to present the "best looking" numbers to the public. Which means that, among other things, they probably used the loosest definition of "monthly active user" possible (see below).

Incidentally, here is how Activision defines its "monthly active users", straight from the documents:

We monitor MAUs as a key measure of the overall size of our user base and its regular engagement with our portfolio of games. MAUs are the number of individuals who played a particular game in a given month. We calculate average MAUs in a period by adding the total number of MAUs in each of the months in a given period and dividing that total by the number of months in the period. An individual who plays two of our games would be counted as two users. In addition, due to technical limitations, for Activision and King, an individual who plays the same game on two platforms or devices in the relevant period would be counted as two users. For Blizzard, an individual who plays the same game on two platforms or devices in the relevant period would generally be counted as a single user.

[And incidentally, Blizzard's average MAU as of December 2016 was 41 million. Which, yes, includes Diablo, Hearthstone and Overwatch, not just WoW. Still.]

2. Remember that ESO is on the F2P model.

When WoW used to publish subs numbers, these were subs in the truest sense of the word - monthly subscriptions. For any F2P MMO, however, one has to account for different classes of subs on different, umm...payment tracks, let's call it.

For example, one rule of thumb that existed years ago was the 70-20-10 "rule" - 70% of your users pay nothing ("freeloaders"), 20% pay a little and only occasionally, 10% pay the equivalent of a monthly subscription or more. Obviously every F2P product will have its own distribution. I've mentioned elsewhere that pre-Microsoft Skype used to get much of its revenues from just 2%-3% of the user base.

The point is that if one wants to talk about anything financial, one must make some assumptions about what proportion of the user base pays what. It is possible, for example, that the 2.5 million "users" condenses into 200-300 thousand "monthly subscription equivalents" - still very healthy, just nowhere near WoW's old highs.

3. What might this mean money-wise?

It is important that one stresses that the following "mental gymnastics" are speculative in nature. In other words, I know nothing, I am just trying to show what revenue range one can get to for ESO with some assumptions.

For example, start with 2.5 million users and assume:

- 1.5 million pay zero.
- 700k only make occasional Crown Store purchases. Say, $5 per month (or local currency equivalent) or $60 per year.
- 250k pay for ESO+ and make occasional Crown Store purchases. ESO+ is $13-$15 per month depending on duration, tack on $5 per month in Crown Store purchases, end up at $20 per month or $240 per year.
- 50k are "super-users" who suck up everything in the Crown Store like so many gigantic vacuums. Call it $40 per month ($13 for 6 months of ESO+ and the rest in the Crown Store) or $480 per year.

Let us finally assume no churn of any kind, no one-time bumps due to expansions (the WoW model), no...anything else, because simplicity.

So the monthly revenues work out to: 700k * $60 = $42 million for the "occasionals", 250k * $240 = $60 million for the "regulars", and 50k * $480 = $24 million for the "super-users" or $126 million total. You can see how playing around with any of these six (!) numbers by itself can move the needle a lot - e.g. halve the number of the "occasionals" and now you're down to nearly $100 million per year. On the other hand, suppose my "Crown Store Sales" estimate is way too low, and should really be close to double my assumptions - that can easily kick the number to $185 million or higher.

As such, I suspect that money-wise we are talking about...$100-$150 million per year in revenues, plus or minus. [Really a sort of a $50-$200 million range, but that doesn't really narrow things down much.] Probably "plus" this year since Morrowind was made not-a-DLC and one assumes more than a few "regulars" paid up for it.

How does this compare with other MMOs?

Well, TOR (owned by EA) no longer reports its sub numbers (because even public companies try to not report things that a) they are not required to by regulators and b) do not make them look extra-super-happy-fun-time-good), but EA "extra content" and "subscription/advertising" revenue line items for fiscal 2017 (year ended March 31) were $1.2 billion (! - $1,204 million) and $385 million. To be sure, these numbers were "primarily driven by" FIFA games, SW: Galaxy of Heroes, and...Need for Speed 2015? Really? All right...however the year before EA did $1,062 million in "extra content" and $338 million in "subscriptions/advertising", and this was "primarily driven by" FIFA games and TOR. So based on this, and (not unreasonably) assuming TOR didn't crater just as Disney's SW release machine really got in gear, is it conceivable that TOR is doing something like $100+ million a year in subscription fees and another $200-$300-$400 million a year in "Star Wars Crown Store sales"? Yes, I do not see why not.

WoW (Activision, Blizzard segment) is even less transparent, but Blizzard as a whole did $2,428 million in revenues in 2016, of which probably a third or so was from Overwatch (since it and yet another WoW expansion were listed as the two primary reasons for year-to-year growth, and in 2015 Blizzard did $1,565 million in sales). So...$500-$800 million in WoW revenues per annum, give or take? Implying a subs number (using $120 in annual spend) somewhere in the 4-5 million range? Yes! Because we know that WoW subs were at 5.5 million as of Q3 2015, so this isn't an unreasonable subs range. And notice I'm not counting the expansion pack they had in 2016 because a) it's sort of one-time (and indeed, most recent numbers show Blizzard down a little vs. 2016 specifically because of this), and b) even if every one of the subs buys it, you're still talking about, what, $100 million in extra revenues at most?

TLDR - ESO is likely to be doing around or better than $100 million per year, but probably under $200 million. TOR is, quite possibly, in the $200-$500 million per year range. WoW is likely to be still in the $500-$800 million per year area, more or less. So there you have the top three MMORPGs in the business (WoT is probably generating comparable annual revenues as well, but it is not an RPG and so does not count).

TLDR^2 - ESO is doing "fine" assuming they can control churn. The real question is can they kick it up a notch to compete with the other two big MMORPGs on the market, never mind MMO-non-RPGs...

CiliPadi wrote: »

I would like to know where those numbers are pulled from. Let's have more transparency. At this stage I think he got it off some loot crate :P

They dont owe you transparency. Youre lucky they give you this amount of insight into their possible profits.

idk wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

According to an article on MCV mcvuk.com/articles/publishing/ten-million-in-tamriel-the-slow-build-success-story-of-elder-scrolls-online published just 2 days ago indicates that the actual active playerbase month-to-month is in fact far smaller than the 10 million milestone ZOS likes to boast. The actual number is 2.5 million players, which is still a healthy number for an MMO, but by far nothing close to the very misleading number reflective of players that have made accounts over the life of the game.

Theres still a question of how many of those 2.5 million are actual players and not bots. But at least we now know that the game is indeed healthy.

EDIT: Fixed link to article.

I do not think anyone thought for a moment there were 10 million active players in any given month, even a given year. Zos' statements have always been clear that it was based on sales and never suggested they were all active players at the time.

Since they are not publicly traded I am actually surprised Zos would state how many active players the game has. Heck, probably the most successful MMO, let along MMORPG that is privately owned.

This right here. I never figured, outside of that 10 million number they love to throw around every chance they get, they would ever release numbers of actively playing users for a month.

BTW, that number is atrociously f'ing high for no g'damn tanks in Q. SERIOUSLY.

2.5 million unique logins in a month is pretty good.

Assuming that 1/3 of the player base is on each platform, as ZOS has previously claimed, and that the population is evenly split across EU and NA, then there are around 400k players per server on each platform. That number doesn't seem so high.

The only thing that is off to me though is that it isn't corroborated by the Steam user data. Steam says that there are only 15-30k unique logins each month. ZOS has previously stated that Steam represents about 1/3 of the total PC player base, which would put the total monthly PC player base at 45-90k concurrent players. or just 20-45k per server.

Jarryzzt wrote: »

2. Remember that ESO is on the F2P model.

No. It's really not.

I understand the point you're making, and in most cases the difference between ESO's buy to play model, and free to play is somewhat academic. But, in this case, we're actually talking about active player counts, and at that point the presence of a paywall, any paywall, has dramatic effects on the resulting demographics.

If you were drawing analogies between ESO and games like Destiny, or even the original Guild Wars, then that's reasonable, given those games work off of the same basic model. But, comparing it to games which are actually Free to Play like TOR is a huge mistake.

ArchMikem wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

indicates that the actual active playerbase month-to-month is in fact far smaller than the 10 million milestone ZOS likes to boast. The actual number is 2.5 million players, which is still a healthy number for an MMO, but by far nothing close to the very misleading number reflective of players that have made accounts over the life of the game.

You just contradicted yourself. They never claimed there were 10 million active accounts, they claimed there had been 10 million unique accounts created over the course of the game's lifetime, as you stated.

That's not misleading. People just can't think hard enough apparently.

Pretty sure I didnt contradict myself. At no time do I claim 10 million accounts were active accounts. In fact I say the actual number is 2.5 million. Which you can read earlier in that very sentence.

Apparently people, ie you, cant think hard enough to read something thoroughly before posting.

ArchMikem wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

indicates that the actual active playerbase month-to-month is in fact far smaller than the 10 million milestone ZOS likes to boast. The actual number is 2.5 million players, which is still a healthy number for an MMO, but by far nothing close to the very misleading number reflective of players that have made accounts over the life of the game.

You just contradicted yourself. They never claimed there were 10 million active accounts, they claimed there had been 10 million unique accounts created over the course of the game's lifetime, as you stated.

That's not misleading. People just can't think hard enough apparently.

Pretty sure I didnt contradict myself. At no time do I claim 10 million accounts were active accounts. In fact I say the actual number is 2.5 million. Which you can read earlier in that very sentence.

Apparently people, ie you, cant think hard enough to read something thoroughly before posting.

Dude, you said ZOS' claim was misleading. How is it misleading when it's true?

Because it is misleading. Something can be true and misleading at the same time. Honestly, Im not even sure why that is something you decided to pick apart unless you were looking to pick an fight.

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

indicates that the actual active playerbase month-to-month is in fact far smaller than the 10 million milestone ZOS likes to boast. The actual number is 2.5 million players, which is still a healthy number for an MMO, but by far nothing close to the very misleading number reflective of players that have made accounts over the life of the game.

You just contradicted yourself. They never claimed there were 10 million active accounts, they claimed there had been 10 million unique accounts created over the course of the game's lifetime, as you stated.

That's not misleading. People just can't think hard enough apparently.

Pretty sure I didnt contradict myself. At no time do I claim 10 million accounts were active accounts. In fact I say the actual number is 2.5 million. Which you can read earlier in that very sentence.

Apparently people, ie you, cant think hard enough to read something thoroughly before posting.

Dude, you said ZOS' claim was misleading. How is it misleading when it's true?

Because it is misleading. Something can be true and misleading at the same time. Honestly, Im not even sure why that is something you decided to pick apart unless you were looking to pick an fight.

No, the representation of the 10m accounts as "active players," is misleading, but you did that. ZOS was fairly careful to say that 10m people had played their game, which is somewhat debatable, given players who have multiple accounts, but they weren't going out and saying that ESO had 10m people logged in. That was you.

starkerealm wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

indicates that the actual active playerbase month-to-month is in fact far smaller than the 10 million milestone ZOS likes to boast. The actual number is 2.5 million players, which is still a healthy number for an MMO, but by far nothing close to the very misleading number reflective of players that have made accounts over the life of the game.

You just contradicted yourself. They never claimed there were 10 million active accounts, they claimed there had been 10 million unique accounts created over the course of the game's lifetime, as you stated.

That's not misleading. People just can't think hard enough apparently.

Pretty sure I didnt contradict myself. At no time do I claim 10 million accounts were active accounts. In fact I say the actual number is 2.5 million. Which you can read earlier in that very sentence.

Apparently people, ie you, cant think hard enough to read something thoroughly before posting.

Dude, you said ZOS' claim was misleading. How is it misleading when it's true?

Because it is misleading. Something can be true and misleading at the same time. Honestly, Im not even sure why that is something you decided to pick apart unless you were looking to pick an fight.

No, the representation of the 10m accounts as "active players," is misleading, but you did that. ZOS was fairly careful to say that 10m people had played their game, which is somewhat debatable, given players who have multiple accounts, but they weren't going out and saying that ESO had 10m people logged in. That was you.

Specifically cite where I state there were 10 million active players.

It was actually very obvious 10m was not the number of active players. If you thought otherwise that's on you for jumping to conclusions. There was nothing misleading about the figure and companies report total sales all the time.

This whole thread is pointless conspiracy nonsense. Accept that it was silly of you to ever assume they were claiming 10m active players and move on.

Edit: the 2.5m was reported in June by the way