If you do the math...1 milllion divided by 12 servers = 83,000 players on each server.... i don't think the servers are capable of supporting that much players. If you compare that with WoW servers which supports roughly 20K players on each... I think a more realistic number would be around 200,000 subscribers on 12 servers = 16K on each server...
If you do the math...1 milllion divided by 12 servers = 83,000 players on each server.... i don't think the servers are capable of supporting that much players. If you compare that with WoW servers which supports roughly 20K players on each... I think a more realistic number would be around 200,000 subscribers on 12 servers = 16K on each server...
10% on at primetime may be a little on the low side, I understand most games are closer to 15%, but it is reasonable to expect a more casual player base and therefore fewer subscribers logged in for a game like LotRO. At 15% they would still have more then 500K subs.
I think 10% is a very low guess. My personal guess is that each MMOG - depending on how casual and how segregated the regional communities are - will have between 15% and 45% concurrency. LotRO would be around to 20% concurrency in each region, while a game like Neocron - presumably having most of its players in one time zone (Central Europe / Germany) - may have closer to 45%. I seem to remember reading 20-25% for EQ, but don't take my word for it - I might try look it up sometime though.
83k players per realm for LotRO would - assuming a 15% concurrency - mean 12.5k players online (on a single realm) at peak hours. That's pretty a high number, but maybe not impossible.
Originally posted by Recant
Someone posted the same question about Vanguard shortly after it's release.
You can't really compare MMOGs that easily. There's simply too few of them still. Anarchy Online beat all sales record for the first week, I believe, and it's not exactly the biggest game out there today - never was (still great though, imo). DAoC launched slow and nicely, but was one of the most populated (and popular) games for a long time. It might still be.
If you do the math...1 milllion divided by 12 servers = 83,000 players on each server.... i don't think the servers are capable of supporting that much players. If you compare that with WoW servers which supports roughly 20K players on each... I think a more realistic number would be around 200,000 subscribers on 12 servers = 16K on each server...
you forgot to add the 11 or 12 european servers
why does everyone do this?
Again 11 - 12 European servers will not make up the difference for 1 million subscribers. I think we are well past the European server argument.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
The game seriously blows. If you played WoW you pretty much played this. I quit after 2 months. It was just no fun. i'll admit a few new features are there, but not enough to keep me interested.
They have to much side shit instead of focusing on the main game. Adding in all this lame crap when they could be making classes better.. making gear look better.. making combat funner.. etc... instead they rather waste time on other crap.
As far as i'm concerned I only care about US population or people that speak english. So 1mil isn't much if worldwide.
Also I played high end. If this game has near 1mil then i'm blind as hell or they never wanted a group. 3hours just to shout for 1 grp and ending up with 2 people.. come the fk on.. some nights couldn't even find 1.. this game is garbage.
Best thing turbine can do for themselves is do a server merger. They started with to many servers.
As for me.. I re-activated CoH/CoV and am having a blast. Woohoo!
They are over 900,000 active subs now. They will reach their 1 mil+ subs within the next 30 days easily. But how fast did World of Warcraft hit 1 mil subs? I know it was released in America Nov 04. I'm thinking Feb 05 is when it broke 1 mil, but not quite sure. Looks like LoTRO is gathering online players almost as quickly as WoW did after it's release. But that isn't saying as much because now there are millions of mmo players looking for a new game thanks to WoW. OR is LoTRO stealing customers from the WoW numbers even more impressive? - Thoughts?
If what you're trying to imply here is that Lord of the Rings Online will have WoWesque success, I would be very surprised personally. 1 million subscribers -- yeah, they'll make that. But WoW-like success, nope.
Originally posted by Zanetanos Originally posted by Madmaxx77 They are over 900,000 active subs now. They will reach their 1 mil+ subs within the next 30 days easily. But how fast did World of Warcraft hit 1 mil subs? I know it was released in America Nov 04. I'm thinking Feb 05 is when it broke 1 mil, but not quite sure. Looks like LoTRO is gathering online players almost as quickly as WoW did after it's release. But that isn't saying as much because now there are millions of mmo players looking for a new game thanks to WoW. OR is LoTRO stealing customers from the WoW numbers even more impressive? - Thoughts?
If what you're trying to imply here is that Lord of the Rings Online will have WoWesque success, I would be very surprised personally. 1 million subscribers -- yeah, they'll make that. But WoW-like success, nope.
WoW is insanely successful, and matching it's success would be phenomenal, I do admit that. but please explain to me how Turbine matching or coming close to the success of WoW is that "impossible"?
Let me give you a few reminders...
1) LoTRO is not produced by such a big name company as Blizzard is, however "Lord of the Rings Online" is probably the BIGGEST fantasy license possible for an online game. The potential is basically UNLIMITED just because of the recognition in the name on the box. So this atleast matches World of Warcraft having "Blizzard" on their box.
2) Distribution. I have seen just as much availability (if not more) for LoTRO in my local retail outlets when compared to World of Warcraft. It's out there. Turbine FINALLY decided that making a game easily accessible might help their sales volumes as opposed to their game Asherons Call.
3) Advertising. Again, Turbine is HEAVILY pushing this game, atleast as much as WoW was advertised. This is only my perception as one consumer, but I've seen a LOT of advertisements for LoTRO just about everywhere... even in one of my sisters "Cosmo" magazines! Now that's spreading out the advertisements!
4) Quality of game. For the most part, this game is right up there with World of Warcraft, especially when you look at major reviews across the media spectrum. It's a very well made game and had even a much smoother launch then did World of Warcraft. That says something.
I could go on with a few more major points, but I really need to get going. I think I made my point.
Zaxx: on both distribution and advertising, you're spot-on. I think Turbine has to thank Midway for that, since their capital "machinery" is behind that as well. Plus, it seems, at least, Turbine did its part right: proper coding with minimal bugs at release (they still are tackling the rogue bear and raven issue when they're in guard-mode, it's weird as hell, tbh...). But I have to say, anymore I just log-in to see who wishes to group, if no one's on, I log-out and back to UO (which I'm surprisingly loving it... o_O). So, the question of retention for LOTRO is still up the air to me. If it retains a million customers, it's probably due to the IP and not the actual game mechanics themselves, which is *okay*, but not excellent or innovative (user-end or developer-end). Yet, I expect that LOTRO will continue to be profitable, even with AoC and WAR coming out at the end of this year (or the start of the next, it seems to depend...). The only problem I see facing LOTRO, besides being the "John Kerry" of MMOs (consider WoW like George W. Bush in the '04 elections for context), is that if they fudge up any significant part of the consistency to IP it will break the game, no matter how well crafted the next expansion or free update will be.
12 american Servers + 11 european servers + Isengard(Testserver) + 2 japanese servers ( http://www.lotro-japan.com/ ) = 25 and a half servers worldwide
They are over 900,000 active subs now. They will reach their 1 mil+ subs within the next 30 days easily. But how fast did World of Warcraft hit 1 mil subs? I know it was released in America Nov 04. I'm thinking Feb 05 is when it broke 1 mil, but not quite sure. Looks like LoTRO is gathering online players almost as quickly as WoW did after it's release. But that isn't saying as much because now there are millions of mmo players looking for a new game thanks to WoW. OR is LoTRO stealing customers from the WoW numbers even more impressive? - Thoughts?
Thoughts? I think you are insane if you believe anything you posted as factual or in any other way realistic.
Originally posted by zaxtor99
Another point for any big LoTRO fans.. This game doesn't have to get remotely close to World of Warcrafts numbers to be a SUPER SUCCESSFUL mmo. 250,000 active subscribers right now would be INSANE SUCCESS for Turbine, trust me. And I could easily believe that they are atleast close to 250k, if not more. Let's assume they do have 250k active subscribers only 3 months after NA launch. That's $50 times 250k = 12.5 mil in box sales. Say 10% joined the lifetime plan at $200 US, that would be 25k times $200 = 5 mil. So approx $17.5 mil just in sales and lifetime memberships. Then another 225k times $15/month = 3.375 mil per month membership fees. At 250k, it's safe to assume Turbine has already raked in well over 20 million US dollars. In only 3 months. That's is hardly "failure" or something to be ashamed of.
- Zaxx
I am not going to question your numbers are they are pure speculation, but your premise is severely flawed. LotRO probably cost 20+ million to produce, at least, and there is probably a steep liscensing cost as well (ongoing and initial) so saying they are banking the bucks with 250K boxes sold is only saying you know NOTHING about the industry.
You forget one thing though .Turbine got the licence off M$ who spent the cash and developed the game to a certain point
st/show/66286/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-Online-Post-Launch-AU-Interview "Many thousands per server". With 24 (or more) servers, 900k subscribers is NOT out of the realms of possibilities. However, that would still mean that over 35,000 active subscribers would be assigned per server (with 24 servers). If they hit a peak time where a third of all those subscribers tried to log in, that server would be trying to put about 12,000 people onto it at the same time! Ofcourse, in that situation, if 12,000 is greater then "many thousands of people" as the Turbine rep said each could hold, then I suppose a waiting queue could be used. With 24 servers, 900k active subscribers sounds a little much to be honest. I'm certainly not saying the game doesn't have that many, but a number from 250k to 500k would be a LOT more believable to me.
- Zaxx
I don’t think any game get’s close to 33% of its players logged in concurrently. EVE is hitting 15% at its highest points (30K logged in 200K subs) and LotRO should be lower then that.
People have claimed you /who more then 5K people on LotRO servers which would be 14% of your 35K.
So while 1 million is stretching it significantly more then 500K is certainly a possibility.
I wouldn't compare LotRO to EVE.... as EVE is a completely different beast. First of all, out of those 200K subs, its quite feasible to say they really only have about 125K actual players .... I myself have two accounts, and 3/4 of the people in my corp of 50 people have 2-5 accounts.... and since we normally don't log in all our accounts at the same time it skews the logic you are using.
Also, EVE is a game that lots of folk play part-time, while they are busy on another game as well... since its real time skill system really caters towards that sort of game play....
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
1) LoTRO is not produced by such a big name company as Blizzard is, however "Lord of the Rings Online" is probably the BIGGEST fantasy license possible for an online game. The potential is basically UNLIMITED just because of the recognition in the name on the box. So this atleast matches World of Warcraft having "Blizzard" on their box. Exactly what was said about DDO having the Dungeons and Dragons license. 2) Distribution. I have seen just as much availability (if not more) for LoTRO in my local retail outlets when compared to World of Warcraft. It's out there. Turbine FINALLY decided that making a game easily accessible might help their sales volumes as opposed to their game Asherons Call. Yeah, I see it out there, too. I see the same boxes sitting, untouched, on store shelves. Just because its there, doesn't mean people are buying it. 3) Advertising. Again, Turbine is HEAVILY pushing this game, atleast as much as WoW was advertised. This is only my perception as one consumer, but I've seen a LOT of advertisements for LoTRO just about everywhere... even in one of my sisters "Cosmo" magazines! Now that's spreading out the advertisements! Sure, advertising will net them more sales, but all you have to do is check forums and listen to the "word on the street" about LOTRO, to realize that it has no longevity and only appeals to players who play very casually and enjoy roleplaying within the Tolkien lore. And I'm not sure if its Turbine or Midway who is responsible for the advertising. 4) Quality of game. For the most part, this game is right up there with World of Warcraft, especially when you look at major reviews across the media spectrum. It's a very well made game and had even a much smoother launch then did World of Warcraft. That says something. Sure it was a pretty stable launch, and the game is, for the most part, technically sound. However, what this says is that Turbine prioritized short term, first impression "look and feel", over solid gameplay mechanics and end game. It gets reviewed well because the game seems quite good within the first few hours, or when being shown a demo by a Turbine employee. I could go on with a few more major points, but I really need to get going. I think I made my point. Fairly good arguments on the surface, but when you dig deeper, you can see the flaws. There is no possible way that LOTRO can garner 1m *active* subscribers, IMHO. The turnover rate of the game appears to be just too high. No new servers, no more queues, and a constant stream of "I quit due to the game being so boring" posts across forums, suggest that LOTRO will simply go the route of all its games... down.
1) LoTRO is not produced by such a big name company as Blizzard is, however "Lord of the Rings Online" is probably the BIGGEST fantasy license possible for an online game. The potential is basically UNLIMITED just because of the recognition in the name on the box. So this atleast matches World of Warcraft having "Blizzard" on their box. Exactly what was said about DDO having the Dungeons and Dragons license. 2) Distribution. I have seen just as much availability (if not more) for LoTRO in my local retail outlets when compared to World of Warcraft. It's out there. Turbine FINALLY decided that making a game easily accessible might help their sales volumes as opposed to their game Asherons Call. Yeah, I see it out there, too. I see the same boxes sitting, untouched, on store shelves. Just because its there, doesn't mean people are buying it. 3) Advertising. Again, Turbine is HEAVILY pushing this game, atleast as much as WoW was advertised. This is only my perception as one consumer, but I've seen a LOT of advertisements for LoTRO just about everywhere... even in one of my sisters "Cosmo" magazines! Now that's spreading out the advertisements! Sure, advertising will net them more sales, but all you have to do is check forums and listen to the "word on the street" about LOTRO, to realize that it has no longevity and only appeals to players who play very casually and enjoy roleplaying within the Tolkien lore. And I'm not sure if its Turbine or Midway who is responsible for the advertising. 4) Quality of game. For the most part, this game is right up there with World of Warcraft, especially when you look at major reviews across the media spectrum. It's a very well made game and had even a much smoother launch then did World of Warcraft. That says something. Sure it was a pretty stable launch, and the game is, for the most part, technically sound. However, what this says is that Turbine prioritized short term, first impression "look and feel", over solid gameplay mechanics and end game. It gets reviewed well because the game seems quite good within the first few hours, or when being shown a demo by a Turbine employee. I could go on with a few more major points, but I really need to get going. I think I made my point. Fairly good arguments on the surface, but when you dig deeper, you can see the flaws. There is no possible way that LOTRO can garner 1m *active* subscribers, IMHO. The turnover rate of the game appears to be just too high. No new servers, no more queues, and a constant stream of "I quit due to the game being so boring" posts across forums, suggest that LOTRO will simply go the route of all its games... down.
I didn't say that Turbine's LoTRO would be as successful as World of Warcraft. I just made points that just about every level, LoTRO matches World of Warcraft.. or exceeds World of Warcraft. The graphics are superior to WoW. The stability and bugs are just as good, if not a little better then that of World of Warcraft. The game's quest system certainly equals the quality of WoW, and the lore in LoTRO is more entertaining, deeper and better then WoW. LoTRO DOES have a Tolkien feel to it, and that, atleast in my opinion is better then the lore found in World of Warcraft.
You state that looking deeper then the major reviews across the net shows plenty of forum posters and all saying that LoTRO is boring and shallow and stuff. World of Warcraft has been plagued with forum posters reporting how damn boring and shallow it is since it's birth as well! So LoTRO does not look any different then WoW looking "deeper" as you say.
I would say that LoTRO was made in the shadows of World of Warcraft only with a Lord of the Rings and a Tolkien feel to it. In a lot of respects, the game is very much like World of Warcraft, especially when you look at the ease of use, and the simple gameplay mechanics. It has better graphics then WoW however... and probably a smoother, more stable game engine then World of Warcraft. I see no reason that with the right advertising, the right distribution, and the luck that WoW had that LoTRO couldn't compete hand in hand with WoW as the #1 mmorpg in the world. Give it more time, and we shall see what happens. It probably won't have near the success of WoW, but then again, I still say that Blizzard got more then extremely LUCKY with it's success of WoW.
Saying that WoW is a much better game then LoTRO is very foolish I'd say. Likewise saying that LoTRO is more then just a tad better then WoW would also be silly. I'd say they are very equal in quality, fun, depth, and even mass market appeal.
So, Perception, don't sit there and tell me how shallow Lord of the Rings is when compared to World of Warcraft without stepping back and understanding as well that World of Warcraft is every bit just as shallow.
In the end, they are BOTH high quality games with a wide range of target customers. Take your hats off and give Turbine respect for being the first company to match the quality of World of Warcraft. A lot of companies have been striving to match WoW. Turbine finally rivaled Blizzard's World of Warcraft with Lord of the Rings Online. Time will tell if there is room for two monster mmos and which one will beat the other out. ..Or maybe they will both have their own huge success and make the mmorpg market even bigger then it is now.
I didn't say that Turbine's LoTRO would be as successful as World of Warcraft. I just made points that just about every level, LoTRO matches World of Warcraft.. or exceeds World of Warcraft. The graphics are superior to WoW. The stability and bugs are just as good, if not a little better then that of World of Warcraft. The game's quest system certainly equals the quality of WoW, and the lore in LoTRO is more entertaining, deeper and better then WoW. LoTRO DOES have a Tolkien feel to it, and that, atleast in my opinion is better then the lore found in World of Warcraft. You mean, in your opinion. In my opinion, LOTRO doesn't match WoW on any level. And as I said, those people that like the LOTR lore will like LOTRO for that reason alone, not because its a good game. You state that looking deeper then the major reviews across the net shows plenty of forum posters and all saying that LoTRO is boring and shallow and stuff. World of Warcraft has been plagued with forum posters reporting how damn boring and shallow it is since it's birth as well! So LoTRO does not look any different then WoW looking "deeper" as you say. The difference here, is that those people that complained about WoW didn't quit. They just wanted it to be "better" in some regard. Even if some people did quit because they disliked the game, Blizzard constantly adding new servers attested to the fact that far more people were joining that quitting. Again, no new servers have been added to LOTRO, and the server queues no longer exist. I would say that LoTRO was made in the shadows of World of Warcraft only with a Lord of the Rings and a Tolkien feel to it. In a lot of respects, the game is very much like World of Warcraft, especially when you look at the ease of use, and the simple gameplay mechanics. It has better graphics then WoW however... and probably a smoother, more stable game engine then World of Warcraft. I see no reason that with the right advertising, the right distribution, and the luck that WoW had that LoTRO couldn't compete hand in hand with WoW as the #1 mmorpg in the world. Give it more time, and we shall see what happens. It probably won't have near the success of WoW, but then again, I still say that Blizzard got more then extremely LUCKY with it's success of WoW. WoW being successful had nothing to do with luck. It had everything to do with delivering the right dynamics in the right overall package. You are right about LOTRO being made in the shadows of WoW though. Its obvious to anyone that Turbine just tried real hard to copy WoW, but they failed miserably, IMHO. Just because a game is easy to play, has pretty graphics, and is stable, doesn't make it fun. WoW built upon proven MMORPG dynamics, and expanded upon them in a way that had a great "feel" to it. LOTRO could not duplicate the same feel. You can give it as much time as you want. Look at Turbine's track record with games you will see that all time does for their subscriber base, is make it dwindle. Saying that WoW is a much better game then LoTRO is very foolish I'd say. Likewise saying that LoTRO is more then just a tad better then WoW would also be silly. I'd say they are very equal in quality, fun, depth, and even mass market appeal. Well, just call me a fool then. It seems that millions of other fools agree with me though. So, Perception, don't sit there and tell me how shallow Lord of the Rings is when compared to World of Warcraft without stepping back and understanding as well that World of Warcraft is every bit just as shallow. I'll sit here all day long and tell you that, in my opinion, LOTRO is far, far more shallow than WoW. In the end, they are BOTH high quality games with a wide range of target customers. Take your hats off and give Turbine respect for being the first company to match the quality of World of Warcraft. A lot of companies have been striving to match WoW. Turbine finally rivaled Blizzard's World of Warcraft with Lord of the Rings Online. Time will tell if there is room for two monster mmos and which one will beat the other out. ..Or maybe they will both have their own huge success and make the mmorpg market even bigger then it is now. I can't agree with you here. It is my firm belief that LOTRO only appeals to very causal players who are fans of roleplaying in the Tolkien setting. It doesn't, IMHO, appeal to anyone who just wants a good MMORPG, and WoW has proven that it has mass appeal. I don't give Turbine any type of respect. They failed miserably with AC2 and DDO. They are pulling the same scam here with LOTRO. You can be as optimistic as you want, but given Turbine's history, I have no doubt that LOTRO will simply fade into obscurity.
I didn't say that Turbine's LoTRO would be as successful as World of Warcraft. I just made points that just about every level, LoTRO matches World of Warcraft.. or exceeds World of Warcraft. The graphics are superior to WoW. The stability and bugs are just as good, if not a little better then that of World of Warcraft. The game's quest system certainly equals the quality of WoW, and the lore in LoTRO is more entertaining, deeper and better then WoW. LoTRO DOES have a Tolkien feel to it, and that, atleast in my opinion is better then the lore found in World of Warcraft. You mean, in your opinion. In my opinion, LOTRO doesn't match WoW on any level. And as I said, those people that like the LOTR lore will like LOTRO for that reason alone, not because its a good game. You state that looking deeper then the major reviews across the net shows plenty of forum posters and all saying that LoTRO is boring and shallow and stuff. World of Warcraft has been plagued with forum posters reporting how damn boring and shallow it is since it's birth as well! So LoTRO does not look any different then WoW looking "deeper" as you say. The difference here, is that those people that complained about WoW didn't quit. They just wanted it to be "better" in some regard. Even if some people did quit because they disliked the game, Blizzard constantly adding new servers attested to the fact that far more people were joining that quitting. Again, no new servers have been added to LOTRO, and the server queues no longer exist. I would say that LoTRO was made in the shadows of World of Warcraft only with a Lord of the Rings and a Tolkien feel to it. In a lot of respects, the game is very much like World of Warcraft, especially when you look at the ease of use, and the simple gameplay mechanics. It has better graphics then WoW however... and probably a smoother, more stable game engine then World of Warcraft. I see no reason that with the right advertising, the right distribution, and the luck that WoW had that LoTRO couldn't compete hand in hand with WoW as the #1 mmorpg in the world. Give it more time, and we shall see what happens. It probably won't have near the success of WoW, but then again, I still say that Blizzard got more then extremely LUCKY with it's success of WoW. WoW being successful had nothing to do with luck. It had everything to do with delivering the right dynamics in the right overall package. You are right about LOTRO being made in the shadows of WoW though. Its obvious to anyone that Turbine just tried real hard to copy WoW, but they failed miserably, IMHO. Just because a game is easy to play, has pretty graphics, and is stable, doesn't make it fun. WoW built upon proven MMORPG dynamics, and expanded upon them in a way that had a great "feel" to it. LOTRO could not duplicate the same feel. You can give it as much time as you want. Look at Turbine's track record with games you will see that all time does for their subscriber base, is make it dwindle. Saying that WoW is a much better game then LoTRO is very foolish I'd say. Likewise saying that LoTRO is more then just a tad better then WoW would also be silly. I'd say they are very equal in quality, fun, depth, and even mass market appeal. Well, just call me a fool then. It seems that millions of other fools agree with me though. So, Perception, don't sit there and tell me how shallow Lord of the Rings is when compared to World of Warcraft without stepping back and understanding as well that World of Warcraft is every bit just as shallow. I'll sit here all day long and tell you that, in my opinion, LOTRO is far, far more shallow than WoW. In the end, they are BOTH high quality games with a wide range of target customers. Take your hats off and give Turbine respect for being the first company to match the quality of World of Warcraft. A lot of companies have been striving to match WoW. Turbine finally rivaled Blizzard's World of Warcraft with Lord of the Rings Online. Time will tell if there is room for two monster mmos and which one will beat the other out. ..Or maybe they will both have their own huge success and make the mmorpg market even bigger then it is now. I can't agree with you here. It is my firm belief that LOTRO only appeals to very causal players who are fans of roleplaying in the Tolkien setting. It doesn't, IMHO, appeal to anyone who just wants a good MMORPG, and WoW has proven that it has mass appeal. I don't give Turbine any type of respect. They failed miserably with AC2 and DDO. They are pulling the same scam here with LOTRO. You can be as optimistic as you want, but given Turbine's history, I have no doubt that LOTRO will simply fade into obscurity.
I can't believe that anyone is actually honestly saying a game is more shallow then WoW. A game of "rock paper scissors" has more depth then WoW does. Yes WoW can be fun, but it isn't because it is a deep game.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
600,000 were sucked in with false hope & a great game lvl 1-30 , into getting a lifetime membership , Shrewd marketing & a polished game & even Vanguard helped push sales of Lifetime well about what they should be . I wonder how many if offered there lifetime money back would take it ?
They are over 900,000 active subs now. They will reach their 1 mil+ subs within the next 30 days easily. But how fast did World of Warcraft hit 1 mil subs? I know it was released in America Nov 04. I'm thinking Feb 05 is when it broke 1 mil, but not quite sure. Looks like LoTRO is gathering online players almost as quickly as WoW did after it's release. But that isn't saying as much because now there are millions of mmo players looking for a new game thanks to WoW. OR is LoTRO stealing customers from the WoW numbers even more impressive? - Thoughts?
LoTRO is an awful game, my advice to you is to put your glasses back on because its most likely 90,000 active.
Originally posted by Cabe2323 I can't believe that anyone is actually honestly saying a game is more shallow then WoW. A game of "rock paper scissors" has more depth then WoW does. Yes WoW can be fun, but it isn't because it is a deep game.
Well, he's probably referring to content. WOW has more content, it is 3 years older, so of course theres more there. In the end it's all the same though.
I enjoyed WOW for a long time, just bored of it now,. LOTRO lasted me about 3 weeks.
Exact same time for me - that last week I just was saying what is the point, I have done this over and over and this version of it really isn't very fun or interesting to watch (animations being so poor and overall combat being very flat). I never even made it from the $10 pre-order to live, just sent the pre-order back and moved on.
Has anyone else noticed that every time LotRO reaches a milestone like best selling MMO, or a certain number of subs, the haters flock to the post to minimize and flame? Let me share with you what Jerry Castine from Blizzard told me at the Austin Game developers conference. The only game we are concerned with believe it or not is LOTRO. WAR and AoC will have short-term appeal that may temporarily drain our subscriber base, but LOTRO has a development team that understands how to attract and keep the long term subscriber. Is LOTRO a WoW killer? Nope, but it has a large, growing fan base.
Seriously, you need some audio tape or video post to back that up. Development team that understands how to attract and keep subscribers? Ask all the AC2 longtermers how their subs are going.......Oh wait.....you cant.
Originally posted by goingwylde Originally posted by martinj63 Has anyone else noticed that every time LotRO reaches a milestone like best selling MMO, or a certain number of subs, the haters flock to the post to minimize and flame? Let me share with you what Jerry Castine from Blizzard told me at the Austin Game developers conference. The only game we are concerned with believe it or not is LOTRO. WAR and AoC will have short-term appeal that may temporarily drain our subscriber base, but LOTRO has a development team that understands how to attract and keep the long term subscriber. Is LOTRO a WoW killer? Nope, but it has a large, growing fan base.
Seriously, you need some audio tape or video post to back that up. Development team that understands how to attract and keep subscribers? Ask all the AC2 longtermers how their subs are going.......Oh wait.....you cant.
Just because Turbine has dropped AC2 and because Dungeons and Dragons Online isn't the game most people were wanting, does NOT mean that Turbine is incapable of putting out a quality mmo. It does not mean that LoTRO sucks as much as AC2 and DDO.
You guys have some real hardcore Turbine bias. They could put out a WoW killer that got no review less then a 97% and got 100 million players it's first year, and I swear to God that some of your guys would still be ranting on how Turbine could never, ever put out a good game and giving BS reasons as to why their God-game was such a success. "Oh, it's only cuz Midway" advertised for them" or "It's only cuz WoW got all those players in the market".
Whatever. Shush up and just admit that Turbine has finally put out a decent game, even if it's not your cup of tea. Sheeesh.
Exact same time for me - that last week I just was saying what is the point, I have done this over and over and this version of it really isn't very fun or interesting to watch (animations being so poor and overall combat being very flat). I never even made it from the $10 pre-order to live, just sent the pre-order back and moved on.
Yep yep yep you are a man after my own OMGLOTROSUCKS heart.. and nice system btw
10% on at primetime may be a little on the low side, I understand most games are closer to 15%, but it is reasonable to expect a more casual player base and therefore fewer subscribers logged in for a game like LotRO. At 15% they would still have more then 500K subs.
I think 10% is a very low guess. My personal guess is that each MMOG - depending on how casual and how segregated the regional communities are - will have between 15% and 45% concurrency. LotRO would be around to 20% concurrency in each region, while a game like Neocron - presumably having most of its players in one time zone (Central Europe / Germany) - may have closer to 45%. I seem to remember reading 20-25% for EQ, but don't take my word for it - I might try look it up sometime though.
83k players per realm for LotRO would - assuming a 15% concurrency - mean 12.5k players online (on a single realm) at peak hours. That's pretty a high number, but maybe not impossible.
Claiming any game has ever reached 45% concurrency is silly. EQ1 had a higher concurrency because people were forced to camp stuff for a week at a time so they had to be logged in even when they were not really doing anything. Even EQ1 was in the low 20% range.
I’m not sure where you get that 83K players per realm number from. With 23 live server and 1 test server LotRO would need 2 million users to have 83K per realm. 800K users / 23+1 servers is ~35k users per realm. At 15% online concurrently (same as EVE & WoW) that’s just over 5K users per server in peak hours, which is in line with what people are reporting.
I still maintain that LotRO is attracting a different type of player, one who is drawn by the LotRO franchise and if they were gamers at all they were ultra casual. This should result in a lower concurrency number then games like WoW or EVE.
Comments
If you do the math...1 milllion divided by 12 servers = 83,000 players on each server.... i don't think the servers are capable of supporting that much players. If you compare that with WoW servers which supports roughly 20K players on each... I think a more realistic number would be around 200,000 subscribers on 12 servers = 16K on each server...
why does everyone do this?
they might sell 1 mil boxes, but are they actually KEEPING the subs? i think not. there hasn't been a heavy server in weeks.
I think 10% is a very low guess. My personal guess is that each MMOG - depending on how casual and how segregated the regional communities are - will have between 15% and 45% concurrency. LotRO would be around to 20% concurrency in each region, while a game like Neocron - presumably having most of its players in one time zone (Central Europe / Germany) - may have closer to 45%. I seem to remember reading 20-25% for EQ, but don't take my word for it - I might try look it up sometime though.
83k players per realm for LotRO would - assuming a 15% concurrency - mean 12.5k players online (on a single realm) at peak hours. That's pretty a high number, but maybe not impossible.
You can't really compare MMOGs that easily. There's simply too few of them still. Anarchy Online beat all sales record for the first week, I believe, and it's not exactly the biggest game out there today - never was (still great though, imo). DAoC launched slow and nicely, but was one of the most populated (and popular) games for a long time. It might still be.
why does everyone do this?
Again 11 - 12 European servers will not make up the difference for 1 million subscribers. I think we are well past the European server argument.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
LOTRO probably has around 35-55% customer retention.
Who cares.. honestly...
The game seriously blows. If you played WoW you pretty much played this. I quit after 2 months. It was just no fun. i'll admit a few new features are there, but not enough to keep me interested.
They have to much side shit instead of focusing on the main game. Adding in all this lame crap when they could be making classes better.. making gear look better.. making combat funner.. etc... instead they rather waste time on other crap.
As far as i'm concerned I only care about US population or people that speak english. So 1mil isn't much if worldwide.
Also I played high end. If this game has near 1mil then i'm blind as hell or they never wanted a group. 3hours just to shout for 1 grp and ending up with 2 people.. come the fk on.. some nights couldn't even find 1.. this game is garbage.
Best thing turbine can do for themselves is do a server merger. They started with to many servers.
As for me.. I re-activated CoH/CoV and am having a blast. Woohoo!
If what you're trying to imply here is that Lord of the Rings Online will have WoWesque success, I would be very surprised personally. 1 million subscribers -- yeah, they'll make that. But WoW-like success, nope.
WoW is insanely successful, and matching it's success would be phenomenal, I do admit that. but please explain to me how Turbine matching or coming close to the success of WoW is that "impossible"?
Let me give you a few reminders...
1) LoTRO is not produced by such a big name company as Blizzard is, however "Lord of the Rings Online" is probably the BIGGEST fantasy license possible for an online game. The potential is basically UNLIMITED just because of the recognition in the name on the box. So this atleast matches World of Warcraft having "Blizzard" on their box.
2) Distribution. I have seen just as much availability (if not more) for LoTRO in my local retail outlets when compared to World of Warcraft. It's out there. Turbine FINALLY decided that making a game easily accessible might help their sales volumes as opposed to their game Asherons Call.
3) Advertising. Again, Turbine is HEAVILY pushing this game, atleast as much as WoW was advertised. This is only my perception as one consumer, but I've seen a LOT of advertisements for LoTRO just about everywhere... even in one of my sisters "Cosmo" magazines! Now that's spreading out the advertisements!
4) Quality of game. For the most part, this game is right up there with World of Warcraft, especially when you look at major reviews across the media spectrum. It's a very well made game and had even a much smoother launch then did World of Warcraft. That says something.
I could go on with a few more major points, but I really need to get going. I think I made my point.
- Zaxx
Zaxx: on both distribution and advertising, you're spot-on. I think Turbine has to thank Midway for that, since their capital "machinery" is behind that as well. Plus, it seems, at least, Turbine did its part right: proper coding with minimal bugs at release (they still are tackling the rogue bear and raven issue when they're in guard-mode, it's weird as hell, tbh...). But I have to say, anymore I just log-in to see who wishes to group, if no one's on, I log-out and back to UO (which I'm surprisingly loving it... o_O). So, the question of retention for LOTRO is still up the air to me. If it retains a million customers, it's probably due to the IP and not the actual game mechanics themselves, which is *okay*, but not excellent or innovative (user-end or developer-end). Yet, I expect that LOTRO will continue to be profitable, even with AoC and WAR coming out at the end of this year (or the start of the next, it seems to depend...). The only problem I see facing LOTRO, besides being the "John Kerry" of MMOs (consider WoW like George W. Bush in the '04 elections for context), is that if they fudge up any significant part of the consistency to IP it will break the game, no matter how well crafted the next expansion or free update will be.
-- Brede
500000 / 25.5 = 19607 Subscribers per server
Thoughts? I think you are insane if you believe anything you posted as factual or in any other way realistic.
I am not going to question your numbers are they are pure speculation, but your premise is severely flawed. LotRO probably cost 20+ million to produce, at least, and there is probably a steep liscensing cost as well (ongoing and initial) so saying they are banking the bucks with 250K boxes sold is only saying you know NOTHING about the industry.
You forget one thing though .Turbine got the licence off M$ who spent the cash and developed the game to a certain pointI wouldn't compare LotRO to EVE.... as EVE is a completely different beast. First of all, out of those 200K subs, its quite feasible to say they really only have about 125K actual players .... I myself have two accounts, and 3/4 of the people in my corp of 50 people have 2-5 accounts.... and since we normally don't log in all our accounts at the same time it skews the logic you are using.
Also, EVE is a game that lots of folk play part-time, while they are busy on another game as well... since its real time skill system really caters towards that sort of game play....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Perception is Reality.
I didn't say that Turbine's LoTRO would be as successful as World of Warcraft. I just made points that just about every level, LoTRO matches World of Warcraft.. or exceeds World of Warcraft. The graphics are superior to WoW. The stability and bugs are just as good, if not a little better then that of World of Warcraft. The game's quest system certainly equals the quality of WoW, and the lore in LoTRO is more entertaining, deeper and better then WoW. LoTRO DOES have a Tolkien feel to it, and that, atleast in my opinion is better then the lore found in World of Warcraft.
You state that looking deeper then the major reviews across the net shows plenty of forum posters and all saying that LoTRO is boring and shallow and stuff. World of Warcraft has been plagued with forum posters reporting how damn boring and shallow it is since it's birth as well! So LoTRO does not look any different then WoW looking "deeper" as you say.
I would say that LoTRO was made in the shadows of World of Warcraft only with a Lord of the Rings and a Tolkien feel to it. In a lot of respects, the game is very much like World of Warcraft, especially when you look at the ease of use, and the simple gameplay mechanics. It has better graphics then WoW however... and probably a smoother, more stable game engine then World of Warcraft. I see no reason that with the right advertising, the right distribution, and the luck that WoW had that LoTRO couldn't compete hand in hand with WoW as the #1 mmorpg in the world. Give it more time, and we shall see what happens. It probably won't have near the success of WoW, but then again, I still say that Blizzard got more then extremely LUCKY with it's success of WoW.
Saying that WoW is a much better game then LoTRO is very foolish I'd say. Likewise saying that LoTRO is more then just a tad better then WoW would also be silly. I'd say they are very equal in quality, fun, depth, and even mass market appeal.
So, Perception, don't sit there and tell me how shallow Lord of the Rings is when compared to World of Warcraft without stepping back and understanding as well that World of Warcraft is every bit just as shallow.
In the end, they are BOTH high quality games with a wide range of target customers. Take your hats off and give Turbine respect for being the first company to match the quality of World of Warcraft. A lot of companies have been striving to match WoW. Turbine finally rivaled Blizzard's World of Warcraft with Lord of the Rings Online. Time will tell if there is room for two monster mmos and which one will beat the other out. ..Or maybe they will both have their own huge success and make the mmorpg market even bigger then it is now.
- Zaxx
Perception is Reality.
I can't believe that anyone is actually honestly saying a game is more shallow then WoW. A game of "rock paper scissors" has more depth then WoW does. Yes WoW can be fun, but it isn't because it is a deep game.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
600,000 were sucked in with false hope & a great game lvl 1-30 , into getting a lifetime membership , Shrewd marketing & a polished game & even Vanguard helped push sales of Lifetime well about what they should be . I wonder how many if offered there lifetime money back would take it ?
LoTRO is an awful game, my advice to you is to put your glasses back on because its most likely 90,000 active.
Well, he's probably referring to content. WOW has more content, it is 3 years older, so of course theres more there. In the end it's all the same though.
I enjoyed WOW for a long time, just bored of it now,. LOTRO lasted me about 3 weeks.
Exact same time for me - that last week I just was saying what is the point, I have done this over and over and this version of it really isn't very fun or interesting to watch (animations being so poor and overall combat being very flat). I never even made it from the $10 pre-order to live, just sent the pre-order back and moved on.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Seriously, you need some audio tape or video post to back that up. Development team that understands how to attract and keep subscribers? Ask all the AC2 longtermers how their subs are going.......Oh wait.....you cant.
Seriously, you need some audio tape or video post to back that up. Development team that understands how to attract and keep subscribers? Ask all the AC2 longtermers how their subs are going.......Oh wait.....you cant.
Just because Turbine has dropped AC2 and because Dungeons and Dragons Online isn't the game most people were wanting, does NOT mean that Turbine is incapable of putting out a quality mmo. It does not mean that LoTRO sucks as much as AC2 and DDO.
You guys have some real hardcore Turbine bias. They could put out a WoW killer that got no review less then a 97% and got 100 million players it's first year, and I swear to God that some of your guys would still be ranting on how Turbine could never, ever put out a good game and giving BS reasons as to why their God-game was such a success. "Oh, it's only cuz Midway" advertised for them" or "It's only cuz WoW got all those players in the market".
Whatever. Shush up and just admit that Turbine has finally put out a decent game, even if it's not your cup of tea. Sheeesh.
- Zaxx
Exact same time for me - that last week I just was saying what is the point, I have done this over and over and this version of it really isn't very fun or interesting to watch (animations being so poor and overall combat being very flat). I never even made it from the $10 pre-order to live, just sent the pre-order back and moved on.
Yep yep yep you are a man after my own OMGLOTROSUCKS heart.. and nice system btw
And MARTIN are you the same MARTIN from DCI?
I think 10% is a very low guess. My personal guess is that each MMOG - depending on how casual and how segregated the regional communities are - will have between 15% and 45% concurrency. LotRO would be around to 20% concurrency in each region, while a game like Neocron - presumably having most of its players in one time zone (Central Europe / Germany) - may have closer to 45%. I seem to remember reading 20-25% for EQ, but don't take my word for it - I might try look it up sometime though.
83k players per realm for LotRO would - assuming a 15% concurrency - mean 12.5k players online (on a single realm) at peak hours. That's pretty a high number, but maybe not impossible.