Its box sales over all 3 platforms, so if you have more than one copy of the game, then you are counted multiple times. It would be interesting however, if Xpacs count as new accounts or not? <snip>
Not.
Xpacs (and other extras) need a base account to which the registration code is applied.
If a person buys more than one copy of the "base" game then that will be more than one account. Same as if one person has more than one WoW account etc.
What isn't obvious is whether or not its just the base game, or all box sales, which might include expansions. There is no data either way to suggest it does, or it does not.
To quote the article: (MF said:) "At E3 2016, ESO had 7 million players and has grown by 1.5 million since then."
I don't think there is any attempt at deception there.
Wanted to point out I paid over 170 for the game on PC when it first came out. But little over a year ago I also bought the Imperial Edition for 8 dollars. So, after all, this time across 3 systems 8.5 units isn't really a lot sold. Just wanted to point out that small fact.
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
I'm very concerned with the aggressiveness of the "Micro" transaction plan they are taking. In the last 6 months the game has gone from 'I can purchase all the cosmetics/content I want" to "Holy
$%&* I now have to spend thousands and thousands to continue collecting"
Now with the addition of 'Chapters' DLC that is separate from ESO+, $40-$60 dollars for Morrowind they are quickly pricing many players out.
I've been watching guilds I've been in since 2014 slowly but surly bleed player's at a staggering rate... I know that's just my subjective experience, but all 5 guilds? The original players are just silently leaving and I love this game! I don't want to see these overly aggressive pay tactics kill the base.
Wanted to point out I paid over 170 for the game on PC when it first came out. But little over a year ago I also bought the Imperial Edition for 8 dollars. So, after all, this time across 3 systems 8.5 units isn't really a lot sold. Just wanted to point out that small fact.
There are lots of big titles out there: GTA V; Skyrim; Destiny; WoW in terms of box sales; Assassin' Creed titles; even The Division.
What this tells us though is that since last summer the game has added 1.5M players in about 7 months. Now developers don't get 100% of the box cost - there are retailers and tax - and some of the new players may have bought an $8 box others $60 or whatever. On an annualised basis though it suggest that the title should have brought in $40M from these box sales. Could be a lot more of course.
On top of which you have DLC sales to the other "7M" - say 10% bought the 4 DLC pack with 50% off using crowns with 50% off that would be another $10M. On top of which you have some subscription revenue. And (sadly) some cash shop revenue.
Whatever the current number is - whether it is $50M or over $100M - the key takeaway is that it is making enough money for Zenimax to continue investing in the game. It has paid for itself and is moving forward. Next stop: Morrowind.
It sounds like total box sales over all 3 platforms, its a pity they didn't give out any figures for concurrent users, though perhaps not unsurprising given Zenimax's history. It goes without saying however, that the number of boxes sold has no bearing on existing player base numbers, not the first time Zenimax has used this tactic however.
Trickle down economics is exactly this. It's the theory that benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to substitute "wealthy" with gaming company and gamer for "everyone else."
Lame is always rooting for the corporations like a blind fanboy as if it was also a good thing for you. Yes. Large profits are good... for those making those profits not for anyone else.
Lame is ignoring realities to make subtle digs at others. The fact of the matter is profit for an MMORPG is good for the players, at least those who wish to see the service continue. That's not being a fanboi, that's simply looking at the history of the genre and the realities that set in when profits drop. Profit is the exact reason ESO is where it is today compared to where it started.. Lack of expected profit is why SWG, AOC, COH, and so many others are where they are.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This is exactly like Blizzard bragging about how much money they make,right before announcing a DLC lol.
It really takes a lot of balls to shove that in consumers faces,yeah hey we have all your money and we are coming more.It is like a Hockey team announcing they made 500 million right alongside over priced tickets.
When we see GREED it jut doesn't look good,these greedy rich need to start showing some appreciation from their customers instead of shoving bragging in their faces.
Hey it's the gamer version of trickle down economics: "the game is making tons of money therefore they will make it an even better game for me to enjoy." Or so the story goes.
I've always found it fascinating that the average working stiff buys into the Reaganomics bullshit. It's like saying "may I bend over for your pleasure again, sir?"
So posting no numbers means a game is dying and they're obviously trying to hide it before they close up shop this year while posting numbers is belligerent endorsement of Reaganomics?
Yes, yes okay. David Lynch is that you?
I was thinking more of the fans cheering on large profits as if this was a good thing for them also. You got to have faith that the goodness will trickle down to you to do that.
It's merely an interesting factoid. Not something to be cheered... or attacked by Trion fans either for that matter
Trino plz...
Large profits are a good thing. It means your product is successful and the business is interested in dumping time and effort into it. Communicating that to your business partners and customers is good. That is not trickle down economics. For one it's a business with a consumer product relationship. That is not what trickle down was or is about. Saying that it is looks more like projection on your part.
If I were going to use ludicrous generalizations and stereotypes like you did, instead of sound reasoning, I could have just said your argument comes across as part of the entitlement crowd that expects $100M entertainment on a 50 cent a day budget.
You don't have an argument of any substance so you mock the character of anyone who would oppose your view. It's lame.
Trickle down economics is exactly this. It's the theory that benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to substitute "wealthy" with gaming company and gamer for "everyone else."
Lame is always rooting for the corporations like a blind fanboy as if it was also a good thing for you. Yes. Large profits are good... for those making those profits not for anyone else.
I think Blizzard is a good example of this. They have had an insane amount of profits from World of Warcraft. Did a majority of those go back into World of Warcraft? Nope, not that I can see. They used it to expand their portfolio and develop other IPs, to then go on to make more money.
I'm not saying profitability doesn't have ANY perks, but I think most overstate their importance. To me it means continued development. That's about it.
I'm very concerned with the aggressiveness of the "Micro" transaction plan they are taking. In the last 6 months the game has gone from 'I can purchase all the cosmetics/content I want" to "Holy
$%&* I now have to spend thousands and thousands to continue collecting"
Now with the addition of 'Chapters' DLC that is separate from ESO+, $40-$60 dollars for Morrowind they are quickly pricing many players out.
I've been watching guilds I've been in since 2014 slowly but surly bleed player's at a staggering rate... I know that's just my subjective experience, but all 5 guilds? The original players are just silently leaving and I love this game! I don't want to see these overly aggressive pay tactics kill the base.
Thousands? Hardly. I have spent less than $300 since the crown store came out and I have tons and tons of cosmetics. Most of which still are available in the store and not exclusive to crates. Soo you must not have paid that much attention.
This is exactly like Blizzard bragging about how much money they make,right before announcing a DLC lol.
It really takes a lot of balls to shove that in consumers faces,yeah hey we have all your money and we are coming more.It is like a Hockey team announcing they made 500 million right alongside over priced tickets.
When we see GREED it jut doesn't look good,these greedy rich need to start showing some appreciation from their customers instead of shoving bragging in their faces.
Hey it's the gamer version of trickle down economics: "the game is making tons of money therefore they will make it an even better game for me to enjoy." Or so the story goes.
I've always found it fascinating that the average working stiff buys into the Reaganomics bullshit. It's like saying "may I bend over for your pleasure again, sir?"
Keep comming back to this game, but after 1-2 hours gameplay... the combat is just so bad/Boring sorry to say
This has been my experience as well. I tried it out in beta and it wasn't for me based on combat alone. I ended up grabbing it during a Steam sale a couple months ago and tried it again. Same thing. Also, not a fan of the classes/skill lines. I dislike that I'm forced into javelin spells as a Templar, as puncturing sweeps is a must have, and forced into summons as a Sorcerer. The other two classes don't interest me.
I will end up grabbing the Morrowind expansion at some point since I am holding out hope that the Warden is for me, since it looks like the ESO version of a Druid which is always a favorite class of mine.
Who's forcing you to use summons as sorcerer. nothing is forcing you to run sorcerer without summons or heck even without any sorcerer spell. thats why eso is so good in class freedom you can basicly make anything work. there are dk healers or nb healers so that alone shows that there no hard detirmend roles for each class
It gives you the illusion of choice. Summons offer you not just a tank but a heal as well, all in one skill. There is nothing comparable. That makes it a must have skill.
Its actually one of the weakest spells in the game, unless you specifically want to make a "summoner" character the only reason to take it is to level up the summoning tree to get conjured ward/perks. Maybe it feels powerful if you have only played until level 5 or something?
Keep comming back to this game, but after 1-2 hours gameplay... the combat is just so bad/Boring sorry to say
This has been my experience as well. I tried it out in beta and it wasn't for me based on combat alone. I ended up grabbing it during a Steam sale a couple months ago and tried it again. Same thing. Also, not a fan of the classes/skill lines. I dislike that I'm forced into javelin spells as a Templar, as puncturing sweeps is a must have, and forced into summons as a Sorcerer. The other two classes don't interest me.
I will end up grabbing the Morrowind expansion at some point since I am holding out hope that the Warden is for me, since it looks like the ESO version of a Druid which is always a favorite class of mine.
Who's forcing you to use summons as sorcerer. nothing is forcing you to run sorcerer without summons or heck even without any sorcerer spell. thats why eso is so good in class freedom you can basicly make anything work. there are dk healers or nb healers so that alone shows that there no hard detirmend roles for each class
It gives you the illusion of choice. Summons offer you not just a tank but a heal as well, all in one skill. There is nothing comparable. That makes it a must have skill.
Its actually one of the weakest spells in the game, unless you specifically want to make a "summoner" character the only reason to take it is to level up the summoning tree to get conjured ward/perks. Maybe it feels powerful if you have only played until level 5 or something?
I only made it to 15. Like I said, the combat turned me off from the game. I have no idea about mid or end-game. I couldn't see the combat changing drastically by end-game enough for me to stick around. Clearly the skills do but that was a small part of my issue. I disliked the feeling of being on ice the whole time, none of my attacks feeling like they actually had an impact, altogether it felt spammy, and just standing there a good portion of the time while charging a heavy attack (Your character just winds up like he's about to swing a baseball bat, at least with the destruction staff that I was using).
For leveling the tank+heal certainly was necessary while I was playing. Same with Puncturing Sweeps on Templar since it had the heal tied into it. These were just smaller issues I had with the overall feel that I disliked from combat. It's just not for me. I will try again with the Warden but I don't think a difference in skills is going to make that much of a difference for me.
I only made it to 15. Like I said, the combat turned me off from the game. I have no idea about mid or end-game. I couldn't see the combat changing drastically by end-game enough for me to stick around. Clearly the skills do but that was a small part of my issue. I disliked the feeling of being on ice the whole time, none of my attacks feeling like they actually had an impact, altogether it felt spammy, and just standing there a good portion of the time while charging a heavy attack (Your character just winds up like he's about to swing a baseball bat, at least with the destruction staff that I was using).
For leveling the tank+heal certainly was necessary while I was playing. Same with Puncturing Sweeps on Templar since it had the heal tied into it. These were just smaller issues I had with the overall feel that I disliked from combat. It's just not for me. I will try again with the Warden but I don't think a difference in skills is going to make that much of a difference for me.
Have you tried since One Tamriel though? Reason for asking is that it is easy to check out if "end-game" combat if you check out an attack on a world boss or dolman say. See if they stand there and spam heavy attacks?
It is what it is and its not for everyone. And I am not suggesting that if you do check out the game you will see people fully utilising all the combat options available - most of the time there is no need to go into "full on" dps or heal mode. It would - if you are interested - give you a better idea though.
"Basically "everyone" OWNS a FREE TO PLAY game, many dont play it. Those numbers bear that out perfectly."
Just because it's free, doesn't mean you OWN it - otherwise every F2P game would have ownership of around 7 billion players.
Besides it's not about how many people own it - it's how many people actively play, and that was shown clearly:
Trove - players in last 2 weeks - 210,037, ESO - players in last 2 weeks - 153,860
Are you comparing the everyday flux of players in a F2P vs B2P? Daily/weekly traffic in a F2P is meaningless. 100,000 of those could be people who played for all of 10 minutes making no monetary investment what so ever.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But I am not going to quote the whole thing just highlight this...
Besides it's not about how many people own it - it's how many people actively play, and that was shown clearly:
Trove - players in last 2 weeks - 210,037, ESO - players in last 2 weeks - 153,860
Then cite, like I did originally that those numbers for Trove represent less than 3% of those that own it. For ESO they represent 16%.
So by your own metric ESO is far and away more played than Trove is.
As for the who 'owns' it. I suspect anyone who owns ANY Trion games owns them all. So Trove gets the cross over numbers of Rift, Atlas reactor and Archeage. And thats why their player numbers to 'owner' numbers are so tiny.
It really is easy to see if the game has a lot of players or not. A lot of people playing the game, you get major lag. Not a lot you get less lag. Lately, I have been dealing with lag in a lot of areas. So megaserver seems to have a lot of players in the game.
Other than that no reason to argue numbers, the only way we will know how many people are actually playing/paying/trying the game is if ZOS releases numbers. That will never happen, just boxes sold.
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
As for the who 'owns' it. I suspect anyone who owns ANY Trion games owns them all. So Trove gets the cross over numbers of Rift, Atlas reactor and Archeage. And thats why their player numbers to 'owner' numbers are so tiny.
I played Rift and AA, never played or downloaded Trove or any of the other games from Trion. So I doubt I'd be counted as an owner for those.
PC launch was April 2014 - almost 3 years,
Console launch was June 9 2015 - 1.5 years
8.5 million players over 3 years on PC and 1.5 years on console for a major AAA title is average.
Example Fallout 4 sold almost 8 million copies on PS4 alone since Nov 10th 2015
What other MMO has sold 8.5mil of copies, let alone in less than 3 years?
WoW is at 14mil (if you don't count expansions). I think they stopped counting WoW sales after WotLK or maybe Cata, ever since then it's all bundled in with their Expansions (which are at 40mil at the moment).
However WoW is a thing on it's own, and shouldn't even be compared (at least not yet). Othervise there is no other MMO that is even close in terms of copies sold.
And as for measurement with SP games, you do realize that ESO is getting most of it's revenue OUTSIDE of the copies sold? It has likely generated way more than Fallout 4.
Kano never takes it well when any other game than one coming from Trion is having a successful run of some sort. I've seen these sour statements and fabricating his own "facts" countless times here on the forums.
Trove has had 4500 players average on Steamcharts in the last 6
month and just recently Kano made an effort to explain how "successful" that
game is. On the other hand ESO's 8.5 mio isn't impressive for a mmorpg because a single player game sold more copies. Go figure.
At least we didn't see his usual made up numbers from "inside sources that must not be named" -yet.
Be careful, there are some here *kough kough* that like to use the 'flag' feature whenever someone disagrees with them.
WoW still kicks it s ass, Although ESO is good at what it does.
All of my friends left wow a month or so after Legion. I went back with the latest patch then unsubbed. Problem with wow's population is the servers I play on are now dead, there are a few servers where a lot of people migrated to because their servers where dead. So wow's population is scattered and a few servers are full. ESO use's mega servers for EU and USA so there is always a healthy population. As for wow being around 10 million players now I highly doubt as Blizzard yet again are going into a content drought as they always do after an expansion. ESO on the other hand are releasing content every 2-3 months, guess where my money is going.
As for the who 'owns' it. I suspect anyone who owns ANY Trion games owns them all. So Trove gets the cross over numbers of Rift, Atlas reactor and Archeage. And thats why their player numbers to 'owner' numbers are so tiny.
I played Rift and AA, never played or downloaded Trove or any of the other games from Trion. So I doubt I'd be counted as an owner for those.
Maybe.
Rift only has 2.6 million owners on the same site that claims Trove has 7.5. But Lotro only has 2.6 million owners according to that site as well.
So the numbers are most definitely skewed. Obviously based on Steam which is why I think Trove is credited with more 'ownership'.
WoW still kicks it s ass, Although ESO is good at what it does.
All of my friends left wow a month or so after Legion. I went back with the latest patch then unsubbed. Problem with wow's population is the servers I play on are now dead, there are a few servers where a lot of people migrated to because their servers where dead. So wow's population is scattered and a few servers are full.
With CRZ, individual realm population doesn't mean much in WoW. My horde server is low pop, one of the original servers in the game, and there are loads of people out in the world because of CRZ.
Into my third day of play now with ESO and I am finding that I am now getting into it. At first I was not too sure but I am glad I stuck with it as it is really good and am enjoying just questing without caring about leveling up fast as I do with other games.
Comments
I don't think there is any attempt at deception there.
― George Carlin
$%&* I now have to spend thousands and thousands to continue collecting"
Now with the addition of 'Chapters' DLC that is separate from ESO+, $40-$60 dollars for Morrowind they are quickly pricing many players out.
I've been watching guilds I've been in since 2014 slowly but surly bleed player's at a staggering rate... I know that's just my subjective experience, but all 5 guilds? The original players are just silently leaving and I love this game! I don't want to see these overly aggressive pay tactics kill the base.
What this tells us though is that since last summer the game has added 1.5M players in about 7 months. Now developers don't get 100% of the box cost - there are retailers and tax - and some of the new players may have bought an $8 box others $60 or whatever. On an annualised basis though it suggest that the title should have brought in $40M from these box sales. Could be a lot more of course.
On top of which you have DLC sales to the other "7M" - say 10% bought the 4 DLC pack with 50% off using crowns with 50% off that would be another $10M. On top of which you have some subscription revenue. And (sadly) some cash shop revenue.
Whatever the current number is - whether it is $50M or over $100M - the key takeaway is that it is making enough money for Zenimax to continue investing in the game. It has paid for itself and is moving forward. Next stop: Morrowind.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm not saying profitability doesn't have ANY perks, but I think most overstate their importance. To me it means continued development. That's about it.
For leveling the tank+heal certainly was necessary while I was playing. Same with Puncturing Sweeps on Templar since it had the heal tied into it. These were just smaller issues I had with the overall feel that I disliked from combat. It's just not for me. I will try again with the Warden but I don't think a difference in skills is going to make that much of a difference for me.
It is what it is and its not for everyone. And I am not suggesting that if you do check out the game you will see people fully utilising all the combat options available - most of the time there is no need to go into "full on" dps or heal mode. It would - if you are interested - give you a better idea though.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But I am not going to quote the whole thing just highlight this...
Besides it's not about how many people own it - it's how many people actively play, and that was shown clearly:
Trove - players in last 2 weeks - 210,037, ESO - players in last 2 weeks - 153,860
Then cite, like I did originally that those numbers for Trove represent less than 3% of those that own it. For ESO they represent 16%.
So by your own metric ESO is far and away more played than Trove is.
As for the who 'owns' it. I suspect anyone who owns ANY Trion games owns them all. So Trove gets the cross over numbers of Rift, Atlas reactor and Archeage. And thats why their player numbers to 'owner' numbers are so tiny.
Other than that no reason to argue numbers, the only way we will know how many people are actually playing/paying/trying the game is if ZOS releases numbers. That will never happen, just boxes sold.
― George Carlin
~~ postlarval ~~
Rift only has 2.6 million owners on the same site that claims Trove has 7.5. But Lotro only has 2.6 million owners according to that site as well.
So the numbers are most definitely skewed. Obviously based on Steam which is why I think Trove is credited with more 'ownership'.