Originally posted by Golelorn That's gotta be the first month. There is no way that many people continue to play. Even in the first month the game took a serious nosedive in population towards the end of the first month. I just can't believe 800k are into this type of boring gameplay.
I don't understand how many can continue to play WoW, which I consider a horrible game. I have learned my tastes are not the majority.
Originally posted by GeezerGamerSo the article says:"SuperData highlighted Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls Online and NCsoft's WildStar as the key new MMOs on the market, reporting a figure of 772,000 subscribers for TESO in June this year."What does that mean? That number looks more like the total number of subscriptions ever......not retained. That is to say, from release to June there were 772000 subscribers, but says nothing about how many are still current. That number might actually be closer to their box sales figure.
Why because the number is high?. Quote from the report...""So far, a subscriber base of 772,374 (June) indicates that its strategy is working"", I'd assume they understand how the sub system works and they say their plan is working. So it could be read either way I suppose. The whole point of the report is to give insight into performance, a combined report you suggested will tell little about that performance, making it's inclusion worthless.
"Customers use our data to evaluate their performance, identify key growth opportunities, assess revenue potential, optimize their efforts, and better understand their audience’s wants and needs. SuperData’s client base includes brand owners, developers, retailers, publishers, VCs, and payment service providers."
Get the full report $5,000 ---Woah that's an expensive ass service.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by GeezerGamerSo the article says:"SuperData highlighted Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls Online and NCsoft's WildStar as the key new MMOs on the market, reporting a figure of 772,000 subscribers for TESO in June this year."What does that mean? That number looks more like the total number of subscriptions ever......not retained. That is to say, from release to June there were 772000 subscribers, but says nothing about how many are still current. That number might actually be closer to their box sales figure.
Why because the number is high?. Quote from the report...""So far, a subscriber base of 772,374 (June) indicates that its strategy is working"", I'd assume they understand how the sub system works and they say their plan is working. So it could be read either way I suppose. The whole point of the report is to give insight into performance, a combined report you suggested will tell little about that performance, making it's inclusion worthless.
"Customers use our data to evaluate their performance, identify key growth opportunities, assess revenue potential, optimize their efforts, and better understand their audience’s wants and needs. SuperData’s client base includes brand owners, developers, retailers, publishers, VCs, and payment service providers."
Get the full report $5,000 ---Woah that's an expensive ass service.
The number itself is almost meaningless because of how it's being reported. High or low, it doesn't matter because we don't really know what it means. If you say "It means current subscriptions" I'd say, not it doesn't say that. It says "Subscriber base" Well, what is "Subscriber base"? And What does "(June)" represent? "As of June"?, "In June"? "Through June"? or does June just happen to be the month the report was released? It can be read that way.
This is a marketing tool and not a reporting tool after all.
That chart is kind of misleading in the way that the microtransactions revenue is used for showing how succesful sub based games are. Several of the games in that list can be played without having a sub at all, still the revenue from those microtranctions is used in this chart, Without seperating revenue from microtransactions and subs, this chart is kind of useless to determine success of payment model.
I also wonder if some of those games (Rift, TERA, SWTOR, dont know about the rest) will be listed again with complete revenue in a F2P chart. This would only be fair, not that the charts will become more useful to draw conclusions about payment models. For this you really have to split up revenue from subs and microtransations imo.
This sentence is just laughable based on the chart that is shown:
"Definitely some intriguing numbers, and strong hints that maybe the sub model isn't going anywhere... yet ".
It's not misleading, you're just reading it wrong. All those games have sub options and that is where the numbers come from. There is another chart with microtransaction numbers on it.
The sub model isn't going anywhere, the pay or you can't play is.
My point is that the chart mixes in revenue from players who don't pay for a sub. The chart doesn't give you any idea how big that part is. So you would not even know if it would matter if SWTOR for example would get rid of the subs and go completely F2P. Same for Rift.
The MMORPG.com writer then comes up with this : Definitely some intriguing numbers, and strong hints that maybe the sub model isn't going anywhere... yet.
But like I showed the chart doesn't give enough information for that discussion. Ofc WoW can keep asking subs. It is basically in its own league and to be honest, the way past titles were unable to copy that success, it should not even be in this chart if using it for discussing whether subs are still viable for new/future titles. The rest of the titles in the chart has (an unknown) substantial revenue mixed in from non subbed players.
And I agree with a poster above that the desciption of the chart only adds to the confusion. This is just sloppy work.
Originally posted by GeezerGamerSo the article says:"SuperData highlighted Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls Online and NCsoft's WildStar as the key new MMOs on the market, reporting a figure of 772,000 subscribers for TESO in June this year."What does that mean? That number looks more like the total number of subscriptions ever......not retained. That is to say, from release to June there were 772000 subscribers, but says nothing about how many are still current. That number might actually be closer to their box sales figure.
Why because the number is high?. Quote from the report...""So far, a subscriber base of 772,374 (June) indicates that its strategy is working"", I'd assume they understand how the sub system works and they say their plan is working. So it could be read either way I suppose. The whole point of the report is to give insight into performance, a combined report you suggested will tell little about that performance, making it's inclusion worthless.
"Customers use our data to evaluate their performance, identify key growth opportunities, assess revenue potential, optimize their efforts, and better understand their audience’s wants and needs. SuperData’s client base includes brand owners, developers, retailers, publishers, VCs, and payment service providers."
Get the full report $5,000 ---Woah that's an expensive ass service.
The number itself is almost meaningless because of how it's being reported. High or low, it doesn't matter because we don't really know what it means. If you say "It means current subscriptions" I'd say, not it doesn't say that. It says "Subscriber base" Well, what is "Subscriber base"? And What does "(June)" represent? "As of June"?, "In June"? "Through June"? or does June just happen to be the month the report was released? It can be read that way.
This is a marketing tool and not a reporting tool after all.
I guess we'd have to pay $5000 to find out what it all means, all we have is what is extrapolated from the data it seems, not the actual data itself and how it all breaks down.
I'd assume inclusion means the company is paying to be included, to be able to use the info going forward, considering that I don't see what the point of useless information would be. That's all in my uneducated opinion I can really say at this point.
It's all estimated according to the info they're given, I guess anyway.. Who knows, I just wouldn't be surprised by it having that many subs, it's backed by a major IP. It has some decent content (IMO), and decent PVP.. June was only a couple months after release. TOR was still healthy at that point, hell so was AOC.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I am disappointed that rift is at 10th place, to me is a game that has a TON of potential, way more than tera or knights of old republic or lineage games.
Post stuff like that and you're going to make some heads explode, Bill.
Get ready for some of the old classics to arrive:
"They're paid to give those numbers."
"I left and my five friends left. So when they're losing people like crazy,it's obvious those numbers are false."
"My best guess is it's far lower than those made up numbers."
93 million....you should ask for a raise.
LOL you know it, some people think because they do not like the game no one likes the game so it must be failing LOL...
I don't know where they get these estimates, but ZOS is not a public company, and I have never even seen them hint at sales numbers, I take this report with a grain of salt, and hope it is correct for the most part.
Just because they exist does not mean that the information they are able to garner to promote themselves is by itself, all that accurate, if anything, they are no more accurate than Xfire, but they are trying to sell themselves as a serious business.
Personally i would not place too much faith in their 'observations' they don't have insider sources, so much of what they do have is 'circumstantial' and should really be treated as such.
Did you actually check the link? Inside sources to me would mean company's they work with right?
Originally posted by zeuseason Why all the hate? ESO is a GREAT game.
The hate is typical for this site. A vocal minority decide they don't like a game and make post after post to try and convince others. And when information comes out contradicting their opinion they dismiss it. But when its for a game they like all of a sudden the information has merit.
Just because they exist does not mean that the information they are able to garner to promote themselves is by itself, all that accurate, if anything, they are no more accurate than Xfire, but they are trying to sell themselves as a serious business.
Personally i would not place too much faith in their 'observations' they don't have insider sources, so much of what they do have is 'circumstantial' and should really be treated as such.
Did you actually check the link? Inside sources to me would mean company's they work with right?
COMPANIES WE WORK WITH
/snip
Did you actually check what they have been working on and with whom exactly at these companies?
You are reading too much into it, just as superfail data wants. They are into full blown PR and some superfial data gathering, not serious scientific research as they like to present them self.
Just because your team ran a survey on some external gamers gameplay behavior once or made a useless infographic about monster kills and gathered loots on request of some marketing guy, does not mean the companies share all of their biggest financial and performance secrets with that company.
I bet a catering service once "worked with" EA. That doesnt mean if the catering service starts making guesses about the companies performance they must be backed by internal EA data. They don't need that sort data to handle the apple juice and soda so they don't get it. They don't have it.
You know that some of the people here have these reports sitting on their desk right now, right? You know some people here work in the industry, talk to their friends in the industry, and can easily verify data, right?
So, you don't think you sound the slightest bit crazy when you have a thread full of logical explanations from various people as to why the data is pretty reliable, and you're still going on with crazytalk about rumors from the bagel delivery guy?
You and Kanga should go half on a fallout bunker.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Purutzil Hey look the throwing random numbers as a marketting ploy news story! Whoo hurray for random numbers with no validity behind them! I'm sorry but I just can't believe any of the numbers. Granted its nice to see Tera being up so high on the list, I honestly can't see it being a very accurate source of telling anything, and the ESO numbers being even more wonky to believe being so early. I don't feel ESO or other games are failures and I feel they can sustain, but just these numbers, I'm sorry but I don't buy any of them being remotely accurate at all.
a marketing ploy yet these numbers do not come from any gaming company trying to market their game lol
absolutely love the paranoia over video games haha
"Definitely some intriguing numbers, and strong hints that maybe the sub model isn't going anywhere... yet."
If the point is that sub based games aren't going anywhere - why does the list show 50% f2p games with much of their yearly revenue coming from the cash shop NOT subscriptions?
The image given does not prove the point made by the author
So many media outlets are currently jumping on the bandwagon of this companies "ESO isnt doomed" information - seeing as they use guess work not concrete evidence i have my doubts their numbers are accurate across the board
"Definitely some intriguing numbers, and strong hints that maybe the sub model isn't going anywhere... yet."
If the point is that sub based games aren't going anywhere - why does the list show 50% f2p games with much of their yearly revenue coming from the cash shop NOT subscriptions?
The image given does not prove the point made by the author
So many media outlets are currently jumping on the bandwagon of this companies "ESO isnt doomed" information - seeing as they use guess work not concrete evidence i have my doubts their numbers are accurate across the board
Because those games have subscription options aswell being F2P maybe?
I'm done with this, to many people lacking any sort of logic in this topic.
What blows my mind in all of this is that Lord of the Rings Online made $104 mil and yet they still can't make the effort to fix those horrid, repulsive, they're so ugly I can't stand to play the game character animations.
They're so bad that I'm a lifetime sub and haven't played since about 2010...and my friends refuse to even touch the game because of them.
Can't tell you how many times I've heard/read about the game pushing potential players away because of how terrible the animations are. Just imagine how much higher on that list they might be!
If you had taken the time to read the opening statement in this thread you would see it refers to games that released with a subscription based model . GW2 if you recall released as buy to play so would not be included in this list .
So your statement about GW2 tanking may have seemed very clever to you when you wrote it but on closer examination it is the opposite .
I found this to be very fascinating! I looked up different MMOs and you can even see which regions in the world are doing the most searching. It appears that Iceland has the largest search for ESO but for SWTOR the USA does. For WoW... Bolivia! HA This is very interesting. Also the amount of searching for WoW is just amazing... yes it has been out a long time but it took me by surprise. However I find that SWTOR has been steady for a year now yet ESO has a big spike in April 2014 but dropped to SWTOR levels in July. This makes me think that as ESO adds content and changes things up ESO's data will look like a mountain range for sometime to come. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Yet I must say the data in the article is surprising to me, in some ways.
What blows my mind in all of this is that Lord of the Rings Online made $104 mil and yet they still can't make the effort to fix those horrid, repulsive, they're so ugly I can't stand to play the game character animations.
They're so bad that I'm a lifetime sub and haven't played since about 2010...and my friends refuse to even touch the game because of them.
Can't tell you how many times I've heard/read about the game pushing potential players away because of how terrible the animations are. Just imagine how much higher on that list they might be!
Edit: typos
I agree 100%. Change animations add some new optrion to character creation and add some more voiceover to main quests and I would be probably playing it from time to time. I also have lifetime sub.
What blows my mind in all of this is that Lord of the Rings Online made $104 mil and yet they still can't make the effort to fix those horrid, repulsive, they're so ugly I can't stand to play the game character animations.
They're so bad that I'm a lifetime sub and haven't played since about 2010...and my friends refuse to even touch the game because of them.
Can't tell you how many times I've heard/read about the game pushing potential players away because of how terrible the animations are. Just imagine how much higher on that list they might be!
Edit: typos
Seriously, what is with people that post such nonsense. The animations in Lotro have very little difference from any other MMO. Compare them to Wow, I cannot tell much difference. If you are going to whine about something, at least pick a topic that is worthy of addressing.
As to the article, a lot of people are tired of the f2p money cycle. Buy powerups in cash shop, developer raises the level limit, rinse and repeat. You can only do that so many times before players become disgusted with your money grubbing. Unless f2p comes up with a better model, they will find themselves on the decline.
What is lost on many gamers apparently is that when all of these publishers do well, we do well. We get more content, more people develop games, publishers are more likely to do something innovate vs. sticking to just "what works."
The whole, "I hope ____ fails" crowd should take note. Don't like something, don't play it but don't will ill on our hobby. I enjoy playing MMOs on a PC vs. my Playstation and I want to continue doing that.
By the way, business isn't about beating the other guy so much as getting what you need to be successful; however you define that. If you are en entrepreneur, that's probably "more than your fair share" by definition but the point doesn't change; still about getting what you need vs. denying the other guy what he needs. Beating the other guy is a waste of time unless beating the other guy is critical to your success and it rarely is. If you're Trion for example, you would probably like to make more revenue sure but are you unhappy making $36 MM at 1% market share? Nope. Rift is profitable and allows them to engage in other business and attempt to grow further (Archage)
Its all good. I'm glad the game companies are doing well so they can keep producing new content for me to play.
While it's respectable, I wouldn't exactly call the numbers impressive compared to the rest of the market.
What subscription MMO market are you comparing 775k to that it isn't impressive?
I think you've all gone nuts.
Maybe a free-for-all PvP game without a major IP that's ten years old that averaged over 500,000 for the entire year that this data covers? This ESO subscription number has been taken for just 3 months.
I said it was respectable. I meant that. Is it impressive? Not really.
Comments
I don't understand how many can continue to play WoW, which I consider a horrible game. I have learned my tastes are not the majority.
Why because the number is high?.
Quote from the report...""So far, a subscriber base of 772,374 (June) indicates that its strategy is working"", I'd assume they understand how the sub system works and they say their plan is working. So it could be read either way I suppose. The whole point of the report is to give insight into performance, a combined report you suggested will tell little about that performance, making it's inclusion worthless.
"Customers use our data to evaluate their performance, identify key growth opportunities, assess revenue potential, optimize their efforts, and better understand their audience’s wants and needs. SuperData’s client base includes brand owners, developers, retailers, publishers, VCs, and payment service providers."
Get the full report $5,000 ---Woah that's an expensive ass service.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The number itself is almost meaningless because of how it's being reported. High or low, it doesn't matter because we don't really know what it means. If you say "It means current subscriptions" I'd say, not it doesn't say that. It says "Subscriber base" Well, what is "Subscriber base"? And What does "(June)" represent? "As of June"?, "In June"? "Through June"? or does June just happen to be the month the report was released? It can be read that way.
This is a marketing tool and not a reporting tool after all.
you mean to tell me MMORPG.com posters don't dictate which games are dead or failing?
dunno how many times i heard that games like Tera and LOTRO had to go F2P cuz they died, and that they died every month afterwards, etc.
nice job posters!
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
My point is that the chart mixes in revenue from players who don't pay for a sub. The chart doesn't give you any idea how big that part is. So you would not even know if it would matter if SWTOR for example would get rid of the subs and go completely F2P. Same for Rift.
The MMORPG.com writer then comes up with this : Definitely some intriguing numbers, and strong hints that maybe the sub model isn't going anywhere... yet.
But like I showed the chart doesn't give enough information for that discussion. Ofc WoW can keep asking subs. It is basically in its own league and to be honest, the way past titles were unable to copy that success, it should not even be in this chart if using it for discussing whether subs are still viable for new/future titles. The rest of the titles in the chart has (an unknown) substantial revenue mixed in from non subbed players.
And I agree with a poster above that the desciption of the chart only adds to the confusion. This is just sloppy work.
I guess we'd have to pay $5000 to find out what it all means, all we have is what is extrapolated from the data it seems, not the actual data itself and how it all breaks down.
I'd assume inclusion means the company is paying to be included, to be able to use the info going forward, considering that I don't see what the point of useless information would be. That's all in my uneducated opinion I can really say at this point.
It's all estimated according to the info they're given, I guess anyway.. Who knows, I just wouldn't be surprised by it having that many subs, it's backed by a major IP. It has some decent content (IMO), and decent PVP.. June was only a couple months after release. TOR was still healthy at that point, hell so was AOC.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
LOL you know it, some people think because they do not like the game no one likes the game so it must be failing LOL...
I don't know where they get these estimates, but ZOS is not a public company, and I have never even seen them hint at sales numbers, I take this report with a grain of salt, and hope it is correct for the most part.
Did you actually check the link? Inside sources to me would mean company's they work with right?
COMPANIES WE WORK WITH
The hate is typical for this site. A vocal minority decide they don't like a game and make post after post to try and convince others. And when information comes out contradicting their opinion they dismiss it. But when its for a game they like all of a sudden the information has merit.
You know that some of the people here have these reports sitting on their desk right now, right? You know some people here work in the industry, talk to their friends in the industry, and can easily verify data, right?
So, you don't think you sound the slightest bit crazy when you have a thread full of logical explanations from various people as to why the data is pretty reliable, and you're still going on with crazytalk about rumors from the bagel delivery guy?
You and Kanga should go half on a fallout bunker.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
a marketing ploy yet these numbers do not come from any gaming company trying to market their game lol
absolutely love the paranoia over video games haha
"Definitely some intriguing numbers, and strong hints that maybe the sub model isn't going anywhere... yet."
If the point is that sub based games aren't going anywhere - why does the list show 50% f2p games with much of their yearly revenue coming from the cash shop NOT subscriptions?
The image given does not prove the point made by the author
So many media outlets are currently jumping on the bandwagon of this companies "ESO isnt doomed" information - seeing as they use guess work not concrete evidence i have my doubts their numbers are accurate across the board
Because those games have subscription options aswell being F2P maybe?
I'm done with this, to many people lacking any sort of logic in this topic.
To dream, perhaps to be.
What blows my mind in all of this is that Lord of the Rings Online made $104 mil and yet they still can't make the effort to fix those horrid, repulsive, they're so ugly I can't stand to play the game character animations.
They're so bad that I'm a lifetime sub and haven't played since about 2010...and my friends refuse to even touch the game because of them.
Can't tell you how many times I've heard/read about the game pushing potential players away because of how terrible the animations are. Just imagine how much higher on that list they might be!
Edit: typos
If you had taken the time to read the opening statement in this thread you would see it refers to games that released with a subscription based model . GW2 if you recall released as buy to play so would not be included in this list .
So your statement about GW2 tanking may have seemed very clever to you when you wrote it but on closer examination it is the opposite .
I found this to be very fascinating! I looked up different MMOs and you can even see which regions in the world are doing the most searching. It appears that Iceland has the largest search for ESO but for SWTOR the USA does. For WoW... Bolivia! HA This is very interesting. Also the amount of searching for WoW is just amazing... yes it has been out a long time but it took me by surprise. However I find that SWTOR has been steady for a year now yet ESO has a big spike in April 2014 but dropped to SWTOR levels in July. This makes me think that as ESO adds content and changes things up ESO's data will look like a mountain range for sometime to come. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Yet I must say the data in the article is surprising to me, in some ways.
This here speaks volumes on this whole topic.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I agree 100%. Change animations add some new optrion to character creation and add some more voiceover to main quests and I would be probably playing it from time to time. I also have lifetime sub.
Sith Warrior - Story of Hate and Love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKrlwXt7Ao
Imperial Agent - Rise of Cipher Nine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBBj3eJWBvU&feature=youtu.be
Imperial Agent - Hunt for the Eagle Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQqjYYU128E
Seriously, what is with people that post such nonsense. The animations in Lotro have very little difference from any other MMO. Compare them to Wow, I cannot tell much difference. If you are going to whine about something, at least pick a topic that is worthy of addressing.
As to the article, a lot of people are tired of the f2p money cycle. Buy powerups in cash shop, developer raises the level limit, rinse and repeat. You can only do that so many times before players become disgusted with your money grubbing. Unless f2p comes up with a better model, they will find themselves on the decline.
What is lost on many gamers apparently is that when all of these publishers do well, we do well. We get more content, more people develop games, publishers are more likely to do something innovate vs. sticking to just "what works."
The whole, "I hope ____ fails" crowd should take note. Don't like something, don't play it but don't will ill on our hobby. I enjoy playing MMOs on a PC vs. my Playstation and I want to continue doing that.
By the way, business isn't about beating the other guy so much as getting what you need to be successful; however you define that. If you are en entrepreneur, that's probably "more than your fair share" by definition but the point doesn't change; still about getting what you need vs. denying the other guy what he needs. Beating the other guy is a waste of time unless beating the other guy is critical to your success and it rarely is. If you're Trion for example, you would probably like to make more revenue sure but are you unhappy making $36 MM at 1% market share? Nope. Rift is profitable and allows them to engage in other business and attempt to grow further (Archage)
Its all good. I'm glad the game companies are doing well so they can keep producing new content for me to play.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
Maybe a free-for-all PvP game without a major IP that's ten years old that averaged over 500,000 for the entire year that this data covers? This ESO subscription number has been taken for just 3 months.
I said it was respectable. I meant that. Is it impressive? Not really.