Originally posted by MMOGamer71 Thanks for the link OP, was wonder when we would see 2014 data.
The data is meaningless to us random consumers. It's not actually showing the real revenue these games have made. It's showing what they would have made, based on exactly what? We don't know because they don't say if they're counting only in-game purchases, box purchase, or sub numbers only. But either way, its based off of 37 million unique paying customers.
Revenues based on approximate share of the worldwide market ...
revenue data based on the spending data we collect from developers, publishers and payment service providers totalling 37 million unique paying gamers across digital platforms. A guess brought to you by SuperData.
And in case anyone is under any illusion that this data is coming from the likes of EA, Activision etc. the release of such information would be illegal in the period running up to their results announcement.
Make of the data what you will but don't treat this as "definitive" or "strong evidence" one way or another. A percentage of those "37M" have triggered a TESO flag. And that has been factored up to give this value.
It's how all projections work: you take sample data and project. Businesses and governments make decisions every day based on similar data.
There's this science you may have heard of behind all of this. It's called statistics.
Robert McNamara, William Westmoreland, and, prior to this, Omar Bradly proved statistics do not take into account the dynamism of unbounded life; by nature inputs do not account for the conundrum of the unknown.
The OP is no better than a marketing exec. and just as trustworthy.
The list isn't about subs, it's entirely microtransactions, and has nothing to do with subs and box sales.
They did not state that ESO is number 11, only that hearthstone came in ahead of games like ESO and ToR.
Again, this was an article about IN GAME SPENDING, not subscriptions or box sales.
ROFl, if that were the case ESO wouldn't be on the list at all..
Maybe you should actually read the article.
Exactly, ESO is a sub based game that does not have an in game cash shop exactly like a real mmo should be. You can always tell how good a game is doing by how often it gets content. WoW is still king but Elder Scrolls Online and Final Fantasy XIV are the new standards in the mmo genre.
Wtf does that have to do with that website claiming that ESO earned 111m through in game spending.
Seriously? I thought the ESO bullshitting fans were done with this kind of crap when Knotwood stopped posting retarded numbers.
This article you posted isn't saying in anyway this is how much money ESO has made to date. It specifically said it extrapolated the data as if ESO had 37million unique paying players. ESO does not nor will ever even reach a 3rd of that amount. So posting stupid shit prematurely that ESO earned 111 million so far just puts the game in even worse of a light than it already was, because it shows its fans are so desperate for good news, they make shit up like this. Leave the bullshit headlines to Fox news please.
That's exactly what I did after I read your OP and then clicked the link you provided and proceeded to read an article about in game spending and a ranking that super data stated specifically DOESNT COUNT SUBSCRIPTIONS OR BOX SALES.
The OP is no better than a marketing exec. and just as trustworthy.
The list isn't about subs, it's entirely microtransactions, and has nothing to do with subs and box sales.
They did not state that ESO is number 11, only that hearthstone came in ahead of games like ESO and ToR.
Again, this was an article about IN GAME SPENDING, not subscriptions or box sales.
ROFl, if that were the case ESO wouldn't be on the list at all..
Maybe you should actually read the article.
Exactly, ESO is a sub based game that does not have an in game cash shop exactly like a real mmo should be. You can always tell how good a game is doing by how often it gets content. WoW is still king but Elder Scrolls Online and Final Fantasy XIV are the new standards in the mmo genre.
Wtf does that have to do with that website claiming that ESO earned 111m through in game spending.
Perhaps you should read the article as well.
If you read a reply somebody wrote you should read the post that he was replying too. Are you people this slow?
Seriously? I thought the ESO bullshitting fans were done with this kind of crap when Knotwood stopped posting retarded numbers.
This article you posted isn't saying in anyway this is how much money ESO has made to date. It specifically said it extrapolated the data as if ESO had 37million unique paying players. ESO does not nor will ever even reach a 3rd of that amount. So posting stupid shit prematurely that ESO earned 111 million so far just puts the game in even worse of a light than it already was, because it shows its fans are so desperate for good news, they make shit up like this. Leave the bullshit headlines to Fox news please.
That's exactly what I did after I read your OP and then clicked the link you provided and proceeded to read an article about in game spending and a ranking that super data stated specifically DOESNT COUNT SUBSCRIPTIONS OR BOX SALES.
ESO's cash shop sure is doing a lot of business these days
Of course, the saying 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' didn't come about by accident
The article in question is really, really badly written. It talks about microtransactions and presents a table of total player spending (Superdata does not just collect microtransaction data.) I think that they are completely making a mess of what the Superdata info is saying. Does anyone believe that WoW makes 700 million dollars from their in-game shop? Because that number looks an awful lot to me like what I'd get from multiplying their sub numbers by their fee and 9 months. DItto ESO.
No, they didn't assume that ESO had 37 million users. They used a large sample size to measure popularity and then extrapolate to the population as a whole.
This is consistent with the last go-around of Superdata numbers, e.g. around 700 K subscribers. The game is getting solid updates, feels active, and is doing just fine. If there is some in-game exodus it's well concealed.
Originally posted by Galadourn if the game's development cost $200mio as was circulated, then they're still trying to recuperate the initial development costs. I don't know what typical IRRs are in the game industry to evaluate that number...
Ignore IRR. Ignore cost of capital. IF a project costs $200m upfront and has made $111, then it's clearly a negative NPV value so far.
Now if you want to properly calculate the actual NPV, then you need the cost of capital (required return...).
But then I guess, it depends on how many years in the future you project. Cause clearly a project like ESO will be longer than 1 year. So I am guessing they're looking at potentially breaking even in a year or more.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Originally posted by Galadourn if the game's development cost $200mio as was circulated, then they're still trying to recuperate the initial development costs. I don't know what typical IRRs are in the game industry to evaluate that number...
Ignore IRR. Ignore cost of capital. IF a project costs $200m upfront and has made $111, then it's clearly a negative NPV value so far.
Now if you want to properly calculate the actual NPV, then you need the cost of capital (required return...).
But then I guess, it depends on how many years in the future you project. Cause clearly a project like ESO will be longer than 1 year. So I am guessing they're looking at potentially breaking even in a year or more.
well, if they're half the money short in November, and you factor in that initial sales probably amount to the better part of that number of $111mio, I don't see how they can break even in a year, or even more.
Originally posted by Galadourn if the game's development cost $200mio as was circulated, then they're still trying to recuperate the initial development costs. I don't know what typical IRRs are in the game industry to evaluate that number...
Ignore IRR. Ignore cost of capital. IF a project costs $200m upfront and has made $111, then it's clearly a negative NPV value so far.
Now if you want to properly calculate the actual NPV, then you need the cost of capital (required return...).
But then I guess, it depends on how many years in the future you project. Cause clearly a project like ESO will be longer than 1 year. So I am guessing they're looking at potentially breaking even in a year or more.
well, if they're half the money short in November, and you factor in that initial sales probably amount to the better part of that number of $111mio, I don't see how they can break even in a year, or even more.
Just two put things into perspective.
I own a fabricating, manufacturing business. As part of my machinery I have Three CO2 laser cutting machines. Each machine costs around $730,000.00. From the hourly rate I charge for the machines, it takes me 3-4 years to recoup my 730 grand. Each machine has a productive life of about 10 years. Do the math.
Expecting to recoup your investment in a year is very unrealistic.
Originally posted by Galadourn if the game's development cost $200mio as was circulated, then they're still trying to recuperate the initial development costs. I don't know what typical IRRs are in the game industry to evaluate that number...
Ignore IRR. Ignore cost of capital. IF a project costs $200m upfront and has made $111, then it's clearly a negative NPV value so far.
Now if you want to properly calculate the actual NPV, then you need the cost of capital (required return...).
But then I guess, it depends on how many years in the future you project. Cause clearly a project like ESO will be longer than 1 year. So I am guessing they're looking at potentially breaking even in a year or more.
well, if they're half the money short in November, and you factor in that initial sales probably amount to the better part of that number of $111mio, I don't see how they can break even in a year, or even more.
Just two put things into perspective.
I own a fabricating, manufacturing business. As part of my machinery I have Three CO2 laser cutting machines. Each machine costs around $730,000.00. From the hourly rate I charge for the machines, it takes me 3-4 years to recoup my 730 grand. Each machine has a productive life of about 10 years. Do the math.
Expecting to recoup your investment in a year is very unrealistic.
that's true, that's why I mentioned right from the start that I don't know what typical IRRs are in the game industry.
in most businesses however, you have a business plan for the next 10-15 years. In MMOs... I'd say even 5 years is a bit of a stretch. So I don't know whether successful MMOs must recoup their costs right from the start from the initial sales and then turn a profit, or if that can be stretched a bit (but how much?).
Ok so serious question for the OP. Wasn't the budget like 300 mil for TESO design and development pre-launch, not including post launch development, maintenance, and marketing? So even if the game made 100 mil the first year including initial box sales isn't that kind of not so great? I mean excluding box sales that number will be like 1/2 this coming year.
So I guess my question is when will they actually start to see a return on their investment? I wouldn't really consider any game (or business for that matter) a success until they turn a profit.
In my opinion from a business standpoint TESO is a failure, from a gaming standpoint it's a success. Having 500k + paying subscribers is nothing to sneeze at especially with a game that has one persistent world. However, showing revenue to prove the game is a "success" when it's still in the red is kind of pointless.
Originally posted by Galadourn if the game's development cost $200mio as was circulated, then they're still trying to recuperate the initial development costs. I don't know what typical IRRs are in the game industry to evaluate that number...
Ignore IRR. Ignore cost of capital. IF a project costs $200m upfront and has made $111, then it's clearly a negative NPV value so far.
Now if you want to properly calculate the actual NPV, then you need the cost of capital (required return...).
But then I guess, it depends on how many years in the future you project. Cause clearly a project like ESO will be longer than 1 year. So I am guessing they're looking at potentially breaking even in a year or more.
well, if they're half the money short in November, and you factor in that initial sales probably amount to the better part of that number of $111mio, I don't see how they can break even in a year, or even more.
Just two put things into perspective.
I own a fabricating, manufacturing business. As part of my machinery I have Three CO2 laser cutting machines. Each machine costs around $730,000.00. From the hourly rate I charge for the machines, it takes me 3-4 years to recoup my 730 grand. Each machine has a productive life of about 10 years. Do the math.
Expecting to recoup your investment in a year is very unrealistic.
that's true, that's why I mentioned right from the start that I don't know what typical IRRs are in the game industry.
in most businesses however, you have a business plan for the next 10-15 years. In MMOs... I'd say even 5 years is a bit of a stretch. So I don't know whether successful MMOs must recoup their costs right from the start from the initial sales and then turn a profit, or if that can be stretched a bit (but how much?).
MMORPGs are regularly running for five years, and ten years is becoming common. A ten year plan seems reasonable. Unless I'm mistaken, even if a game makes all its money back with sales in the first month, the company doesn't just pay off any incurred debt in the first month, they register the profit and reinvest the money into the company or another game in order to expand their business.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
ESO and Final Fantasy XIV are both successful pay to play games that do not have in game cash shops and I believe that is the best model period.
ESO has a cash shop and FFXIV introduced their cash shop yesterday. They can easily make future updates and expand it with their Moogle NPC and tie it in with their Moogle Station System.
300 million for ESO seems absurdly high; they responded to 200 million claims by saying that they were overblown. And the console launch (which would not sell zero copies; look at Skyrim) hasn't happened yet.
ESO and Final Fantasy XIV are both successful pay to play games that do not have in game cash shops and I believe that is the best model period.
ESO has a cash shop and FFXIV introduced their cash shop yesterday. They can easily make future updates and expand it with their Moogle NPC and tie it in with their Moogle Station System.
ESO cash shop? Are you talking about the out of game store that sells -
The ability to upgrade from the Standard Edition of the game to the Digital Imperial Edition
The Palomino Horse, a unique in-game mount
Like the Imperial White Horse, the Palomino Horse has stats equivalent to mounts available in-game.
Is the FFXIV cash shop going to be like this? Only selling the ability to upgrade your account and a horse?
Ok so serious question for the OP. Wasn't the budget like 300 mil for TESO design and development pre-launch, not including post launch development, maintenance, and marketing? So even if the game made 100 mil the first year including initial box sales isn't that kind of not so great? I mean excluding box sales that number will be like 1/2 this coming year.
So I guess my question is when will they actually start to see a return on their investment? I wouldn't really consider any game (or business for that matter) a success until they turn a profit.
In my opinion from a business standpoint TESO is a failure, from a gaming standpoint it's a success. Having 500k + paying subscribers is nothing to sneeze at especially with a game that has one persistent world. However, showing revenue to prove the game is a "success" when it's still in the red is kind of pointless.
First it was 200m and now it is 300m.. I have yet to see anything that says it was even 200m. Where are these numbers coming from? Either way expecting a profit within the first year is pretty silly.
Good for them, I hope they will earn s**tload of money so Zenimax will let Bethesda continue develop the ES series. Looking forward for the next "Skyrim".
First it was 200m and now it is 300m.. I have yet to see anything that says it was even 200m. Where are these numbers coming from? Either way expecting a profit within the first year is pretty silly.
If they would have put that amount of money into it in the beginning maybe their launch would have been different? Who knows how much they actually spent. However, if their production was indeed $200 mil + then they would surely be hurting a lot more now. Now it makes more sense as why to they are able to hang on for as long as they have. More power to them I guess.
Comments
The data is meaningless to us random consumers. It's not actually showing the real revenue these games have made. It's showing what they would have made, based on exactly what? We don't know because they don't say if they're counting only in-game purchases, box purchase, or sub numbers only. But either way, its based off of 37 million unique paying customers.
I typed in "CrossFire Pay To Win" and I got a little over 1.3 million hits in Google. Almost 900 million in revenue eh? For a P2W game eh? I say meh.
Robert McNamara, William Westmoreland, and, prior to this, Omar Bradly proved statistics do not take into account the dynamism of unbounded life; by nature inputs do not account for the conundrum of the unknown.
http://wyrdblogging.blogspot.com/
What has the number of hits got to do with anything? Am I missing your point? Hits do not show a game is raking in the money.
Wtf does that have to do with that website claiming that ESO earned 111m through in game spending.
Perhaps you should read the article as well.
That's exactly what I did after I read your OP and then clicked the link you provided and proceeded to read an article about in game spending and a ranking that super data stated specifically DOESNT COUNT SUBSCRIPTIONS OR BOX SALES.
If you read a reply somebody wrote you should read the post that he was replying too. Are you people this slow?
ESO's cash shop sure is doing a lot of business these days
Of course, the saying 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' didn't come about by accident
The article in question is really, really badly written. It talks about microtransactions and presents a table of total player spending (Superdata does not just collect microtransaction data.) I think that they are completely making a mess of what the Superdata info is saying. Does anyone believe that WoW makes 700 million dollars from their in-game shop? Because that number looks an awful lot to me like what I'd get from multiplying their sub numbers by their fee and 9 months. DItto ESO.
No, they didn't assume that ESO had 37 million users. They used a large sample size to measure popularity and then extrapolate to the population as a whole.
This is consistent with the last go-around of Superdata numbers, e.g. around 700 K subscribers. The game is getting solid updates, feels active, and is doing just fine. If there is some in-game exodus it's well concealed.
Ignore IRR. Ignore cost of capital. IF a project costs $200m upfront and has made $111, then it's clearly a negative NPV value so far.
Now if you want to properly calculate the actual NPV, then you need the cost of capital (required return...).
But then I guess, it depends on how many years in the future you project. Cause clearly a project like ESO will be longer than 1 year. So I am guessing they're looking at potentially breaking even in a year or more.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
well, if they're half the money short in November, and you factor in that initial sales probably amount to the better part of that number of $111mio, I don't see how they can break even in a year, or even more.
Just two put things into perspective.
I own a fabricating, manufacturing business. As part of my machinery I have Three CO2 laser cutting machines. Each machine costs around $730,000.00. From the hourly rate I charge for the machines, it takes me 3-4 years to recoup my 730 grand. Each machine has a productive life of about 10 years. Do the math.
Expecting to recoup your investment in a year is very unrealistic.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
that's true, that's why I mentioned right from the start that I don't know what typical IRRs are in the game industry.
in most businesses however, you have a business plan for the next 10-15 years. In MMOs... I'd say even 5 years is a bit of a stretch. So I don't know whether successful MMOs must recoup their costs right from the start from the initial sales and then turn a profit, or if that can be stretched a bit (but how much?).
Ok so serious question for the OP. Wasn't the budget like 300 mil for TESO design and development pre-launch, not including post launch development, maintenance, and marketing? So even if the game made 100 mil the first year including initial box sales isn't that kind of not so great? I mean excluding box sales that number will be like 1/2 this coming year.
So I guess my question is when will they actually start to see a return on their investment? I wouldn't really consider any game (or business for that matter) a success until they turn a profit.
In my opinion from a business standpoint TESO is a failure, from a gaming standpoint it's a success. Having 500k + paying subscribers is nothing to sneeze at especially with a game that has one persistent world. However, showing revenue to prove the game is a "success" when it's still in the red is kind of pointless.
MMORPGs are regularly running for five years, and ten years is becoming common. A ten year plan seems reasonable. Unless I'm mistaken, even if a game makes all its money back with sales in the first month, the company doesn't just pay off any incurred debt in the first month, they register the profit and reinvest the money into the company or another game in order to expand their business.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
ESO has a cash shop and FFXIV introduced their cash shop yesterday. They can easily make future updates and expand it with their Moogle NPC and tie it in with their Moogle Station System.
ESO cash shop? Are you talking about the out of game store that sells -
Like the Imperial White Horse, the Palomino Horse has stats equivalent to mounts available in-game.
Is the FFXIV cash shop going to be like this? Only selling the ability to upgrade your account and a horse?
First it was 200m and now it is 300m.. I have yet to see anything that says it was even 200m. Where are these numbers coming from? Either way expecting a profit within the first year is pretty silly.
----
----
If they would have put that amount of money into it in the beginning maybe their launch would have been different? Who knows how much they actually spent. However, if their production was indeed $200 mil + then they would surely be hurting a lot more now. Now it makes more sense as why to they are able to hang on for as long as they have. More power to them I guess.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Did you read the last line?