ESO´s Population is lowered to 2017 level

xR3ACTORx · December 21

Ah yea sure.. It's also predictable for anyone else. Pure comedy. Thanks for the laugh

SilverBride · December 21

No one has proven that these fluctuations are due to game issues or if they are just normal fluctuations. In light of all the other similar threads throughout the years that didn't happen, I'm not worried.

spartaxoxo · December 21

xR3ACTORx wrote: »

The validation of steam data was already proved a hundred times also.

I see every attempt of negating this fact as an attempt to derail the discussion about the player population and as an attempt to create smoke and mirrors and to create white noise.

If steam data isn't accurate, then please explain to me why Valve is wasting resources on providing this data.

Steam Data isn't a representative sample =/= Steam Data isn't valid. Steam Data is valid. And that's precisely why I stated that we can still draw conclusions from it and agreed that the population is low.

But you can't make the claim it's a representative sample because it has sampling bias. This game is played on Epic, through the launcher, and on consoles. Console users generally include more casual players than PC. We can't make the claim that a sample that includes no members of a demographic represents them. Steam represents Steam users.

You know that conceding a singular point to the opposing side of a debate does not invalidate an entire argument? Just because Steam Charts aren't a representative sample doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions. It doesn't mean it doesn't show that there is a declining population. It doesn't mean I can't use that alongside my own anecdotal experience that matches that Steam Chart to draw my own conclusions. It just means that I shouldn't overstate the use of Steam Charts and be careful how I draw conclusions.

Steam Charts show that console is probably on the decline too as the reasons on the page for leaving aren't platform specific. They don't show indisputable proof that console is on the decline because console users are not included in the sample.

Edit

To answer another question I received. Steam is the best and most valid data that we have. Other sites aren't using actual play data the way that Steam is using. This is why it's such a valuable source. It is a massive number of people. It's not perfect data for the reasons that I already outlined. But it's enough people for us to understand general trends when those things are likely to platform agnostic.

baltic1284 · December 21

xR3ACTORx wrote: »

To be fair MMO-Population stats are just estimates based on social signals and aren't accurate.

However Steam data is an undeniable industry standard used by investors and analysts to track real-time engagement trends independently from people disbelieving.

(yet none of my stupid & simple questions have been answered. It's becoming kind of amusing to me )

Granted it isn't the most accurate but I had to find a third party that represent all sources as to SilverBride Steam isn't good enough even though as you stated it is the best source that even investors use to define their choices and is the number app used for gaming, and the numbers are way more accurate and even Steam shows a Decline in the player base which is a good indicator of problems with the game and a indicator of dead games look at new worlds it population dropped so much that Amazone shut the dev team down that built the game itself.
And even that community did the same as some in this community the game isn't dying and guess what it died after the players left in large enough numbers and that dev team tried to address the problems but by that time it was too little and far too late.
This game still has hope to address the problems that out it in the current situation, but it is starting to hit the point that it may be too late if actions isn't done fast enough little over 12 000 in the game last checked during an even isnt looking good either.

spartaxoxo · December 21

CatoUnchained wrote: »

Last year Firor worked for ZOS, so not sure how relevant the quote is when even the games creator and lead dev has left the studio.

I mean he is confirming that the population was on the decline at the time of his departure, and the Steam Charts back him up on that. So, it's evidence that we can use to know that at least at up until the time of the interview the trend on Steam matched the trend for the rest of the user base.

This lends credence to those of us who feel that the trend shown on Steam is probably true of all platforms.

xR3ACTORx · December 21

More comedy incoming

hopefully I'll survive it. Haven't laughed that much in a while. What a farce,but good mental gymnastics.

10/10.

lostineternity · December 21

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't trust the accuracy of Steam because it doesn't take into account anything but those that play through Steam.

I hold a master degree in applied mathematics. My main specialization is mathematical statistics, with a particular focus on social mathematical statistics (everything related to societal trends, opinion polls, elections, etc.).
And It hurts to read your words that statistical inference can't be trusted due the reason "I don't feel like that" despite this is the only data we have.

SilverBride · December 21

lostineternity wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't trust the accuracy of Steam because it doesn't take into account anything but those that play through Steam.

I hold a master degree in applied mathematics. My main specialization is mathematical statistics, with a particular focus on social mathematical statistics (everything related to societal trends, opinion polls, elections, etc.).
And It hurts to read your words that statistical inference can't be trusted due the reason "I don't feel like that" despite this is the only data we have.

Even if I were to concede and agree that Steam charts are accurate, it still doesn't tell us if the population is at a lower point due to game issues or just normal fluctuations. That is an important bit of information to know what, if anything, needs to be done.

baltic1284 · December 21

lostineternity wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't trust the accuracy of Steam because it doesn't take into account anything but those that play through Steam.

I hold a master degree in applied mathematics. My main specialization is mathematical statistics, with a particular focus on social mathematical statistics (everything related to societal trends, opinion polls, elections, etc.).
And It hurts to read your words that statistical inference can't be trusted due the reason "I don't feel like that" despite this is the only data we have.

I feel ya there even though I don't have the same degree as you, at the same time numbers never lie either. Is what ti is his or her view of things not the rest of us.

xR3ACTORx · December 21

And I feel there is a new level of absurdity unlocked. Truly a masterclass in denial. 11/10

now

No worries, Baltic. You are good.
And you are right. Once the player exodus reaches a critical mass it's gonna be a straight downward spiral.

licenturion · December 21

Why are people always so focused on player numbers these days? ZOS has committed to a long-term plan for ESO, so their projections on actual live data probably shows this is a sound plan financially and engagement wise, otherwise they wouldn't have done that.

I bet if the player numbers decrease by 50 percent most regular players won't even notice the difference the way they play the game. The only thing where player numbers have an effect on is PvP, because for all the other modes like trials, dungeons, world bosses, battlegrounds, tribute and world events you technically need at max 16 players. (BGs)

All these cross play/game dying/player numbers/subclassing/vengeance threads are always started by the same handful of PvP-centric people and always go back to the same point.

baltic1284 · December 21

SilverBride wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't trust the accuracy of Steam because it doesn't take into account anything but those that play through Steam.

I hold a master degree in applied mathematics. My main specialization is mathematical statistics, with a particular focus on social mathematical statistics (everything related to societal trends, opinion polls, elections, etc.).
And It hurts to read your words that statistical inference can't be trusted due the reason "I don't feel like that" despite this is the only data we have.

Even if I were to concede and agree that Steam charts are accurate, it still doesn't tell us if the population is at a lower point due to game issues or just normal fluctuations. That is an important bit of information to know what, if anything, needs to be done.

The player base is dropping and that is an indicator of issues with said product the game itself as one thing doing it in this case it is many little things with big ones mixed in, some of it is internal to the company itself the new boss in charge said that in the letter to the community, and some are long standing issues with the game, some are just blatant yeah we need to fix this problem and that.
If it is a fluctuation to the population that is normal you have small left and greater return and an overall up in population or a stagnant number hovering around let say 20 000 player one month it is 19 000 and the next month 21 000, that is normal not 20 000 one month and a 13 000 the month after that and a return to 14 000 a month later that is a decline.
As the moment ESO no matter how you cut it what source you use, agree with or disagree and for whatever reason makes sense to you the numbers have plummeted as of late greater than has over many years and has been going down for a long time at first it wasn't noticed but it gotten to the point that it can't be denied anymore.
As for this game it isn't any one reason that cause but many reasons which also does make it more complex for a fix, some are small and somewhere big, what was small and what was big that depends on the user not the data. All the data shows, Steam MMO population which covers just about everything you want it to cover, even though some of that data can be ignored to a point, but not outright removed, shows the same thing all of them do the player have dropped Steam been showing it for some time, for a while it was just simple fluctuations, and it trend started to go down as choices made drove players away.
No matter what the data shows what player have been saying for a long time and nothing personal you need to face the fact of that no matter how toy feel. Some of the most diehard the game isn't dying players have also faced it and realized yeah, the game is having a lot of problems that need to be addressed and those ones from what i have seen have a vested interest in not facing that for monetary reasons popularity reasons and out right it won't die so long as there are whales the game won't die.
Even they are facing the game is dying is fast and some games it is slow death, there is time tome recover change direction and start doing better there is still time, but that time is also slipping away, the faster they get on it and address the issues the better. But it isn't a slump in the numbers but a trend and nothing personal please face it and realize it then the conversation cane move on to addressing the problems and what problems may have caused it and potential solutions the devs can use to get things done and fixed and the trend start stabilizing and improving.

xR3ACTORx · December 21

licenturion wrote: »

All these cross play/game dying/player numbers/subclassing/vengeance threads are always started by the same handful of PvP-centric people and always go back to the same point.

12/10

now.
I'm pretty new to the forum ✌🏻
Nice to meet you.

spartaxoxo · December 21

licenturion wrote: »

Why are people always so focused on player numbers these days? ZOS has committed to a long-term plan for ESO, so their projections on actual live data probably shows this is a sound plan financially and engagement wise, otherwise they wouldn't have done that.

I bet if the player numbers decrease by 50 percent most regular players won't even notice the difference the way they play the game. The only thing where player numbers have an effect on is PvP, because for all the other modes like trials, dungeons, world bosses, battlegrounds, tribute and world events you technically need at max 16 players. (BGs)

All these cross play/game dying/player numbers/subclassing/vengeance threads are always started by the same handful of PvP-centric people and always go back to the same point.

What? I don't play PvP. Other people are important for group PvE content such as trials. I primarily prefer to play with pugs as my schedule isn't conducive to prog teams at set times. Less pugs means less opportunities to engage in content I enjoy. Not to mentioned, even when questing, I want to see other people around because that's what makes a zone feel lively. Also, there's even overland content that is simply far better in groups such as siege camps. Low population also impacts the quantity and quality of new content we can get.

Player population effects everyone. We should all want it to stop declining.

baltic1284 · December 21

licenturion wrote: »

Why are people always so focused on player numbers these days? ZOS has committed to a long-term plan for ESO, so their projections on actual live data probably shows this is a sound plan financially and engagement wise, otherwise they wouldn't have done that.

I bet if the player numbers decrease by 50 percent most regular players won't even notice the difference the way they play the game. The only thing where player numbers have an effect on is PvP, because for all the other modes like trials, dungeons, world bosses, battlegrounds, tribute and world events you technically need at max 16 players. (BGs)

All these cross play/game dying/player numbers/subclassing/vengeance threads are always started by the same handful of PvP-centric people and always go back to the same point.

Thing is the PvP community is a small part of the community in raw numbers, so any change to population the smaller parts of the community feel it first and harder impact wise to game play and such, so they usually raise the alarm on it. Larger communities don't feel it as fast or as harshly but do feel it over time. IE the current situation, some the first players to raise the alarm on the lower player pops was the PVP community, then Dungeons felt it and so forth down the line to larger population of the game and community.
Like extension which is good example extinctions just don't hit all at once even though what caused it does it is usually the more exact animals that die IE carnivores die first because there isn't enough food to support theme, but plants and herbivore die over a longer period of time. The smaller community of the animals are the meat eaters they specialized in one thing so feel effects of change more quickly and more harshly due to the smaller population. Same in gaming which is why most focus on the numbers in MMOs as then smaller parts of those games communities feel it first, so change in numbers especially a decline in it can cause problems that where made IE a year ago even more impactful on the larger parts and usually isn't any one choice like many think but usually a combination of many smaller choices.

licenturion · December 21

spartaxoxo wrote: »

What? I don't care about PvP. Other people are important for group PvE content such as trials. I primarily prefer to play with pugs as my schedule isn't conducive to prog teams at set times. Less pugs means less opportunities to engage in content I enjoy. Not to mentioned, even when questing, I want to see other people around because that's what makes a zone feel lively. Also, there's even overland content that is simply far better in groups such as siege camps. Low population also impacts the quantity and quality of new content we can get.

Player population effects everyone. We should all want it to stop declining.

I play solo and pugs exclusively too. But people recently are totally overreacting these days like the end is near. Queue times and group finder times are still pretty good. Even when I play during weird hours the morning or in the middle of the night. (PC)

Only thing we can hope is that they announce great new content in January that will attract or bring back more players. I am also basically waiting for new content because I finished everything this year so there isn't anything to do anymore for me now and I also play way less.

spartaxoxo · December 21

licenturion wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

What? I don't care about PvP. Other people are important for group PvE content such as trials. I primarily prefer to play with pugs as my schedule isn't conducive to prog teams at set times. Less pugs means less opportunities to engage in content I enjoy. Not to mentioned, even when questing, I want to see other people around because that's what makes a zone feel lively. Also, there's even overland content that is simply far better in groups such as siege camps. Low population also impacts the quantity and quality of new content we can get.

Player population effects everyone. We should all want it to stop declining.

I play solo and pugs exclusively too. But people recently are totally overreacting these days like the end is near. Queue times and group finder times are still pretty good. Even when I play during weird hours the morning or in the middle of the night. (PC)

Only thing we can hope is that they announce great new content in January that will attract or bring back more players. I am also basically waiting for new content because I finished everything this year so there isn't anything to do anymore for me now and I also play way less.

I don't think people are overreacting. It's important to respond to these trends before it comes a big problem. Once the game is actually dead, it's too late. ZOS can still turn things around. It wouldn't be the first time that they have. But they need to release new stuff and fix up the experience with older stuff.

licenturion · December 21

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I don't think people are overreacting. It's important to respond to these trends before it comes a big problem. Once the game is actually dead, it's too late. ZOS can still turn things around. It wouldn't be the first time that they have. But they need to release new stuff and fix up the experience with older stuff.

That was my point. They are!

- Overland difficulty
- Vengeance
- Class rework
- New release model
- 2016 reveal in January
- much better communication since recently
- ...

A big cruising ship can't turn in 5 seconds, they are working on it. But the same people talking about player numbers usually don't find any of these changes to their liking either.

spartaxoxo · December 21

licenturion wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I don't think people are overreacting. It's important to respond to these trends before it comes a big problem. Once the game is actually dead, it's too late. ZOS can still turn things around. It wouldn't be the first time that they have. But they need to release new stuff and fix up the experience with older stuff.

That was my point. They are!

- Overland difficulty
- Vengeance
- Class rebalance
- New release model
- 2016 reveal in January
- much better communication since recently
- ...

A big cruising ship can't turn in 5 seconds, they are working on it.

I didn't say they weren't. But we need more than we've seen. The class rebalance going 1 at a time leaves me concerned that they don't consider this urgent. Vengeance seems really divisive and new PvP content is coming but that's an inherently niche piece of content for this game because they neglected it for years. I fear they are going to be placing too much emphasis on PvP content that PvP players don't even seem interested in while neglecting PvE. And that end result won't satisfy either group.

I'm certainly be watching the 2026 reveal closely and hope it's worth the wait.

licenturion · December 21

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't. But we need more than we've seen. The class rebalance going 1 at a time leaves me concerned that they don't consider this urgent. Vengeance seems really divisive and new PvP content is coming but that's an inherently niche piece of content for this game because they neglected it for years. I fear they are going to be placing too much emphasis on PvP content that PvP players don't even seem interested in while neglecting PvE.

That is also my biggest fear. That 2026 will be 'reimagined old content'. Class overhauls, new quests in old zones, a companion, a tribute deck, a new PvP feature, 2 dungeons. But nothing big and substantial.

This would be a mistake. The only type of player they haven't disappointed greatly are the people who love new places and stories to play. I am curious to see if this will be another segment of players they will cut lose or not on the 7th. But we will have to see.

baltic1284 · December 21

licenturion wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't. But we need more than we've seen. The class rebalance going 1 at a time leaves me concerned that they don't consider this urgent. Vengeance seems really divisive and new PvP content is coming but that's an inherently niche piece of content for this game because they neglected it for years. I fear they are going to be placing too much emphasis on PvP content that PvP players don't even seem interested in while neglecting PvE.

That is also my biggest fear. That 2026 will be 'reimagined old content'. Class overhauls, new quests in old zones, a companion, a tribute deck, a new PvP feature, 2 dungeons. But nothing big and substantial.

This would be a mistake. The only type of player they haven't disappointed greatly are the people who love new places and stories to play. I am curious to see if this will be another segment of players they will cut lose or not on the 7th. But we will have to see.

The 2026 reveal stream whatever you wanna call it will be the make it or break it moment if they don't do go hard and with absolute urgency to fix things then it will be bleed more players for time to do it instead of just getting it done and with urgency on it. Changes won't happen right away takes a bit of time for changes have an impact and most gamers now this, but at the same time if urgency to fix things and make it right and stop cutting parts of the community and look at all the community no matter how they play as broken and needing immediate fixing ASAP then it will just be seen and felt as same as before, no change no fix why wait. that's where I am at with the game changes need to be done and but urgency behind the change's realization that yes, we messed up and that's on us, so all hands-on deck to make changes for the better of the game all around.

Rungar · December 21

the gutting of zenimax by microsoft has done unrepairable damage imo. This is a long term game but they dont see long term investment. People can see the microsoft reaper hanging over the game and thus invest their time accordingly.

had they cancelled the game but kept everyone on to work on eso i think a different idea would float in peoples heads.

baltic1284 wrote: »

licenturion wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't. But we need more than we've seen. The class rebalance going 1 at a time leaves me concerned that they don't consider this urgent. Vengeance seems really divisive and new PvP content is coming but that's an inherently niche piece of content for this game because they neglected it for years. I fear they are going to be placing too much emphasis on PvP content that PvP players don't even seem interested in while neglecting PvE.

That is also my biggest fear. That 2026 will be 'reimagined old content'. Class overhauls, new quests in old zones, a companion, a tribute deck, a new PvP feature, 2 dungeons. But nothing big and substantial.

This would be a mistake. The only type of player they haven't disappointed greatly are the people who love new places and stories to play. I am curious to see if this will be another segment of players they will cut lose or not on the 7th. But we will have to see.

The 2026 reveal stream whatever you wanna call it will be the make it or break it moment if they don't do go hard and with absolute urgency to fix things then it will be bleed more players for time to do it instead of just getting it done and with urgency on it. Changes won't happen right away takes a bit of time for changes have an impact and most gamers now this, but at the same time if urgency to fix things and make it right and stop cutting parts of the community and look at all the community no matter how they play as broken and needing immediate fixing ASAP then it will just be seen and felt as same as before, no change no fix why wait. that's where I am at with the game changes need to be done and but urgency behind the change's realization that yes, we messed up and that's on us, so all hands-on deck to make changes for the better of the game all around.

i think your correct here. Without something really big this may very well be zos's last kick at the can. I think steam numbers are an excellent sample size to extrapolate general trends with.

lostineternity · December 21

SilverBride wrote: »

lostineternity wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't trust the accuracy of Steam because it doesn't take into account anything but those that play through Steam.

I hold a master degree in applied mathematics. My main specialization is mathematical statistics, with a particular focus on social mathematical statistics (everything related to societal trends, opinion polls, elections, etc.).
And It hurts to read your words that statistical inference can't be trusted due the reason "I don't feel like that" despite this is the only data we have.

Even if I were to concede and agree that Steam charts are accurate, it still doesn't tell us if the population is at a lower point due to game issues or just normal fluctuations. That is an important bit of information to know what, if anything, needs to be done.

You are right about the seasonal nature of the fluctuations, but what really matters is the trend of the peaks. As we can see from Steam data, peak values are becoming lower and lower each season.

This is what’s disturbing: new content brings fewer players back to the game (you can compare the months when content was released each year), and the player outflow after several months becomes more significant.

This is not a sign of a healthy population.

CatoUnchained · December 22

SilverBride wrote: »

No one has proven that these fluctuations are due to game issues or if they are just normal fluctuations. In light of all the other similar threads throughout the years that didn't happen, I'm not worried.

lostineternity wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't trust the accuracy of Steam because it doesn't take into account anything but those that play through Steam.

I hold a master degree in applied mathematics. My main specialization is mathematical statistics, with a particular focus on social mathematical statistics (everything related to societal trends, opinion polls, elections, etc.).
And It hurts to read your words that statistical inference can't be trusted due the reason "I don't feel like that" despite this is the only data we have.

You're proving that some people are feeling based thinkers while others are fact and evidence based thinkers. Turns out the fact and evidence based thinkers are much better at recognizing and identifying problems and how to fix them. While the feeling based thinkers get to enjoy their cocoon of surety no matter the evidence.

CatoUnchained · December 22

licenturion wrote: »

Why are people always so focused on player numbers these days? ZOS has committed to a long-term plan for ESO, so their projections on actual live data probably shows this is a sound plan financially and engagement wise, otherwise they wouldn't have done that.

I bet if the player numbers decrease by 50 percent most regular players won't even notice the difference the way they play the game. The only thing where player numbers have an effect on is PvP, because for all the other modes like trials, dungeons, world bosses, battlegrounds, tribute and world events you technically need at max 16 players. (BGs)

All these cross play/game dying/player numbers/subclassing/vengeance threads are always started by the same handful of PvP-centric people and always go back to the same point.

...with that point being that the player population is declining more rapidly now than ever before in the history of ESO. People think this because we have data to show it's happening from steam, and everyone who plays group content has either already left the game or mostly spend their time trying to form groups so they can run group content. The MMO part of ESO is virtually not a thing anymore, certainly not in comparison to what it's always been in the past anyway.

CatoUnchained · December 22

licenturion wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I don't think people are overreacting. It's important to respond to these trends before it comes a big problem. Once the game is actually dead, it's too late. ZOS can still turn things around. It wouldn't be the first time that they have. But they need to release new stuff and fix up the experience with older stuff.

That was my point. They are!

- Overland difficulty
- Vengeance
- Class rework
- New release model
- 2016 reveal in January
- much better communication since recently
- ...

A big cruising ship can't turn in 5 seconds, they are working on it. But the same people talking about player numbers usually don't find any of these changes to their liking either.

To stick with the ship metaphor, I'm pretty sure that's the same announcement the captain of the titanic gave over the loudspeaker at one point.

CatoUnchained · December 22

baltic1284 wrote: »

licenturion wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't. But we need more than we've seen. The class rebalance going 1 at a time leaves me concerned that they don't consider this urgent. Vengeance seems really divisive and new PvP content is coming but that's an inherently niche piece of content for this game because they neglected it for years. I fear they are going to be placing too much emphasis on PvP content that PvP players don't even seem interested in while neglecting PvE.

That is also my biggest fear. That 2026 will be 'reimagined old content'. Class overhauls, new quests in old zones, a companion, a tribute deck, a new PvP feature, 2 dungeons. But nothing big and substantial.

This would be a mistake. The only type of player they haven't disappointed greatly are the people who love new places and stories to play. I am curious to see if this will be another segment of players they will cut lose or not on the 7th. But we will have to see.

The 2026 reveal stream whatever you wanna call it will be the make it or break it moment if they don't do go hard and with absolute urgency to fix things then it will be bleed more players for time to do it instead of just getting it done and with urgency on it. Changes won't happen right away takes a bit of time for changes have an impact and most gamers now this, but at the same time if urgency to fix things and make it right and stop cutting parts of the community and look at all the community no matter how they play as broken and needing immediate fixing ASAP then it will just be seen and felt as same as before, no change no fix why wait. that's where I am at with the game changes need to be done and but urgency behind the change's realization that yes, we messed up and that's on us, so all hands-on deck to make changes for the better of the game all around.

Except we already know what will be in the reveal stream. It will be the same thing as it's been the last 5 years. The four previous years were nearly identical hype as 2025. Why would the 2026 reveal stream be any different? And besides that, how many people still believe anything ZOS says after the vengeance bait and switch? What they say now is irrelevant. What they do is the only thing that matters.

SummersetCitizen · December 22

lostineternity wrote: »

I hold a master degree in applied mathematics. My main specialization is mathematical statistics, with a particular focus on social mathematical statistics (everything related to societal trends, opinion polls, elections, etc.

I also hold an MS in the social sciences, with a particular focus on data analysis. The level of statistical illiteracy in these discussions is striking. Personal anecdotes and individual experiences may feel meaningful, but they do not constitute evidence and carry little weight in population-level analysis.

One contributing factor to population decline is the forum environment itself. Long-standing trolls—some of whom have posted thousands of borderline rage-bait messages over the years—appear to be effectively insulated from consequences, potentially due to inconsistent or legacy moderation practices. At the same time, many ordinary in-game players report being automatically banned through AI-driven moderation systems.

These trolls are widely disliked by the player base, yet their posts—often driven by emotion rather than evidence—tend to align with pro-ZOS narratives. As a result, dissenting voices are gradually removed or disengage out of frustration, leaving a shrinking, unrepresentative group that persists until the community itself is effectively shut down.

xR3ACTORx · December 22

I don't have a master degree in anything, but as a former well known troll that gathered some reputation in the country where I live for trolling politicians and celebrities and as someone who was even investigated by official governmental institutions for this reasons and as someone who was even parodied by a nation wide radio station in days when the internet was much wilder for trolling governmental officials, I have seen a lot of these peoples tactics by myself as I used them by myself and as these tactics were used to discredit my persona.

And with my knowledge of today I can absolutely confirm that a community that stands in the way of finding the truth only robs itself of that truth and ends up sabotaging and blinding itself.

One thing is for sure:
This debate has not only shed a light on the declining player numbers, but also on the fundamental issues within the debate culture of this forum.

tomofhyrule · December 22

licenturion wrote: »

Why are people always so focused on player numbers these days? ZOS has committed to a long-term plan for ESO, so their projections on actual live data probably shows this is a sound plan financially and engagement wise, otherwise they wouldn't have done that.

I bet if the player numbers decrease by 50 percent most regular players won't even notice the difference the way they play the game. The only thing where player numbers have an effect on is PvP, because for all the other modes like trials, dungeons, world bosses, battlegrounds, tribute and world events you technically need at max 16 players. (BGs)

All these cross play/game dying/player numbers/subclassing/vengeance threads are always started by the same handful of PvP-centric people and always go back to the same point.

A lot of it has to do with one simple fact: just because ZOS says they have a long-term plan doesn't mean it will happen.

There is any number of reasons why plans change, and 'financial' is the genesis of most of those. After all, I'm sure that the New World devs had loads of plans for the future of that game as well, what with the new expansion they just released and their big player boom. And then their parent company just came out and said "surprise!"
What's the guarantee that Microsoft won't just pull the plug on ESO just as suddenly?

So because of that, it is in everyone's best interest that ESO be as profitable as possible, and that does mean caring about it having a large population. If ESO remains profitable, then there's at least a bit of a chance that Microsoft won't just shut it down. But if the playerbase drops too low and it's not making any money... well, Microsoft probably would want those datacenters for other things.

This is another factor that I feel like people don't consider: ESO is not Skyrim. ESO is a server-based live-service game. Skyrim is a single-player game that exists on disc. The big thing is that if we want to compare ESO to another Elder Scrolls game, it's actually Legends that's the one with the most similar architecture. And therein lies the rub: if ESO were to ever shut down, for any reason, it would be gone. There would be no "oh, I'll just play it by myself solo." There wouldn't be a "oh, let me just log back in and look at my characters." The playable game is on servers, and when it's gone it's gone.
Yes, the EU have the Stop Killing Games initiative, but 1) that's EU, not worldwide, and 2) that's not standard practice yet. As such, End of Service for ESO means it (and all of the money we've put into it) is gone.

It is in everyone's interest that ESO has as healthy a population as possible to ensure the game lasts as long as possible. And that includes proving to the parent company that it is not worth pulling the plug.