| 107 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
I was looking at the Xfire numbers.. WAR #17 Age of Conan #42
So according to Xfire, WAR has 3 times more subs than AoC. That's a lot. Also it seems like WAR is slowly gaining population while AoC is staying the same, although after DX10 and trials we might see an increase in AoC population. I think it's safe to say that WAR has been a moderate success so far while Age of Conan has failed. What do you think? |
|
|
3/12/09 7:37:26 AM#2
Don't you need to somehow work out a way to compare them by a little more variables? I mean AoC has been out longer then WAR and WAR has added new classes etc. Don't forget that alot of people don't use xfire, I can't say that I know a single person that uses it :/
Not trying to say one is better then the other... just that pure xfire numbers are far from reliable. |
|
|
3/12/09 7:39:32 AM#3
I also dont know a single person using Xfire. |
|
|
3/12/09 7:43:09 AM#4
I think
Neither game has failed, since plenty people still enjoy playing the games. People should stop using Xfire as a reference.   |
|
|
3/12/09 8:03:53 AM#5
WAR has a 10-day trial offer, yes? I need more vespene gas. |
|
|
3/12/09 8:10:51 AM#6
I think Xfire would be more accurate if you knew the age group of the demographic that were using Xfire, and then the age group of the average player in War and AoC. It is preferable not to travel with a dead man. |
|
|
3/12/09 8:16:35 AM#7
In my multi-game guild of over 300 people, including WAR, AoC and LOTRO we have 0people that are registered w/ Xfire.
Xfire is not a true reprasentative of anything. It's just a nice mechanic that haters use to bash one another's games.
|
|
|
3/12/09 8:25:31 AM#8
First of all, if you look at the graph, after averaging out the spikes, WAR is losing players, until very recently, when there was a slight upswing - was a big patch just released? AOC's graph makes it look like it was gaining, until about two weeks ago, when it started falling again. Hard to tell, the spikes follow less of a pattern. Could be because they've been patching so much the last two weeks or so. After 1.04, they did 1.04.1, 1.04.2, 1.04.3 and 1.04.4 (I think it was?) just yesterday. I dunno what that's all about though, the first hotfix seemed to work fine, but they keep tweaking something or other, and bring the servers down for hours each time they do. That alone skews the numbers, but may also be putting players off. As for XFire, I'm not sure how much it can be used to compare, seems reliable in some ways, but may appeal more to certain types of players. PvPers, for example. Even with AOC's FFA PvP, WAR seems to appeal more to players who just want PvP, and not the formula level grind. I guess that might explain why WAR appeals to anyone at all - they MUST be ignoring the PvE. WAR does appear to be doing better than AOC, in any case. I'm just not sure it's 3x better. When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world. |
|
|
3/12/09 8:28:20 AM#9
WAR just launched free trials. I'm sure Funcom will see a boost in activity if they do the same. Well it's all for me grog, me jolly jolly grog,
all for me beer and tobacco! |
|
|
3/12/09 8:36:54 AM#10
Originally posted by Thoric485 True, I myself is waiting for the AoC winback to see how it has changed since release, so when / if free trials and winbacks come I think we will see a nice spike in numbers there. |
|
|
3/12/09 8:46:16 AM#11
it's hard to say what failed means any more. Both games were hyped beyond belief and then had a mass exodus after launch. Warhammer currently has twice as many players as AOC, but that is only because it launched 5 months after AOC and so it's decline hasn't hit rock-bottom yet. We can't say which game has failed more until both have stabilized subscriber numbers... warhammer is not stable yet, it is still losing >25% per month. But really, its all in the definition. I think with todays internet and everyone have broadband... etc... a game released today that costs 50M to make... if 6 months after launch, it has less than half the subscribers that UO did 8 years ago... then it is a failure. |
|
Originally posted by steven1966
Correction: Xfire indicates that WAR has THREE TIMES as many players as AoC. AoC has about 75k and WAR has 200k+. Also WAR is not losing >25% subs per month. Where on earth did you get that number? You must be thinking of AoC last August You need some math lessons my friend.
|
|
|
3/12/09 9:15:05 AM#13
Like yourself said: "Where on earth did you get that number?" It is preferable not to travel with a dead man. |
|
|
3/12/09 9:28:06 AM#14
Originally posted by Timoshenko yes, at launch, AoC was more of a failure than WaR, thats an undeniable fact. WaR never had heavy technical issues like AoC did, WaR had a strong PvP system and fully featured content since day 1.
however, saying that WaR is gaining subs is either a misinterpretation or a lie, i hope it is the first one. because as of today, WaR is bleeding subs, while AoC is gaining subs. anyone who actively plays both can easily notice. also, dont forget that AoC requires 2x a better computer to run adequately than WaR. so at the end, you are comparing a game which had a very bad launch and picking up, with a game which has a very good launch but diying over time. i dont know how you can do that ! |
|
|
Darth_Osor
 Advanced Member
Joined: 2/17/09
Just because you are unique does not mean you are special |
3/12/09 9:28:19 AM#15
Xfire numbers are equally meaningless whether it's AoC fanbois or haters citing them. If I was a fanboi I'd point out WAR has 10 day free trials going to bump numbers. Haters can point to a recent active grassroots effort by AoC subscribers to use XFire to bump AoC's numbers to falsely claim skyrocketing subs. I have no doubt WAR currently has more subs than AoC because at least EA/Mythic was honest or brave enough to release their sub numbers not long ago and Funcom wouldn't dare. Apparently at least EA/Mythic has enough confidence in fixes they have made to offer free trials to win back old subscribers and win new ones and Funcom apparently still doesn't think their game is sufficiently fixed. Personally I consider AoC a bigger failure only because I had higher expectations for it than I did for WAR. I don't care for the cartoony WoW style graphics of WAR (yes I know WoW stole the style from Games Workshop originally). I only tried WAR because I loved DAoC, otherwise I wouldn't have thought twice about the game. |
|
Zorgo
 Hard Core Member
Joined: 12/05/05
Who did wrong? The advertiser hired to sell the game or the consumer who put faith in advertising? |
3/12/09 9:34:21 AM#16
Originally posted by Timoshenko
With the hundreds upon hundreds of games listed on xfire, I'm not sure how either the number 17 or 42 could be considered a failure. |
|
3/12/09 9:44:41 AM#17
AoC failed far worse than Warhammer. AoC has lost nearly 90% of its paying subscribers. In North America, AoC only has 3 truly active servers. Can AoC turn it around? Depends, but as of now, they have not. You only have so much time to fix these things. |
|
|
3/12/09 9:52:42 AM#18
And WAR has just annouced yesterday that they are closing another 63 servers... Mythic To Close 63 Warhammer Online Servers Give them both a couple more months to see how it goes. |
|
|
3/12/09 9:54:42 AM#19
1. Comparing subscription numbers based on X-fire stats is meaningless 2. None of the games are a failure Have a nice day! |
|
|
3/12/09 9:56:04 AM#20
I agree AoC has done worse than Warhammer than what was expected for both. AoC is down to about 7-8 servers while Warhammer recently announced closing a HUGE load of servers as well (63 servers to be shut down).
|
|
