I don't see a battle.

I'm having a bit of fun with TERA - but in a couple of months, it'll surely have sub #'s around 150k-100k.  I don't see it having much staying power.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Scorchien

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
 
... lots of snips, sorry ...

Please calculate the margin of error for XFire. Anyone please calculate a margin of error for XFire. Calculate anything really. There's too much guesswork involved with it. Even the statement "there are fewer players now than three weeks ago" has to be qualified with probably because you can't prove anything with it.

It's just a poor tool to use to make any sort of point.
 

---

Here is a margin for error for ya .. AoC , Warhammer, Aion , Hellgtae, DCUO, Dungeon Runner, Darkfall... etc , they all showed the same trends.. and the reult is always the same..  0 margin of error. in that... 
            Its only the Facts and never let it interfere with your perceived truth ...
   The game is dying and will be lucky to have 350k subs by Sept..

---

That's not a calculated margin of error. You are trying to do the impossible. Take XFire information and derive actual subscriber numbers. You can't do it because there's not enough information to actually get a real number.

Again, XFire can't be used to prove anything. There's not enough information from XFire and not enough information coming from Bioware to substantiate anything.

 

True.  The only things Xfire can show us for sure are:

1) the exact average hours played on TOR of Xfire users. 

2) the raw amount of Xfire members that play TOR on a given day.

3) and if you were really bored... I think you could figure the % of overall Xfire hours played per day, used on TOR.

However... it's hard to deny there doesn't appear to be a strong >>> correlation <<< between Xfire results and subscriber levels - based on other data (behavior of previous games in relation to Xfire data, known subscription levels, torstatus, changes in business models, observed populations, historical trends, and on and on...)

Check out the fees!

If you want to sell something and get real cash... Blizzard gets 30%, not including PayPal fees.

I played warrior for most of the OB.

I found melee combat to be very clunky - rifle pew pew pew was much better.

I didn't get quite to where you were...

I think I went: 'blergh'---> 'meh'---> 'okthisisgettingbetter'

And in contrast to TOR (I kind of had the same feelings) - where the improvements I needed would've required them putting in entirely new systems and features - GW2 seems closer to having a great game.

Originally posted by gervaise1

The key question for this thread is:

Could the GW2 weekend have accounted for the drop - and the answer must be 'possibly'.

If so then there should be a corresponding uptick when its all over.

3043 on 4/28.  Typically the 2nd most active day of the week and barely cracks 3000... surely the GW2 beta had a part in the drop, but I still think you're looking at a slowing, but steady decline.  The thing to worry about for TOR - this was only the beta... when GW2 actually launches, I'd expect a much greater impact.

2958 on 4/27. 

Setting records daily... just not the right kind.

News getting worse and worse...

I just bought it through GAMEFLY - despite swearing I'd never use them again after the D2D fiasco.

The key is in the purchase history - as others have said.

Go to GW2 site and register.

After registering, I received emails from ANET with the link to dl the beta (granted the emails were in French for some reason) - but I could figure it out.

I'm dl'ing beta client now.  That's as far as I've got, but I assume I'll be able to login when it is installed.

It's gonna be huge in Afghanistan.

10's of sales.

Ahhhh.... the always fun "buyout rumor."

Far more often than not it turns out to be the "last chance to get out with shirt still on your back."

Originally posted by fiveodano

You're all gonna hate me for this but...Champions Online looks just like the source material just pick up any marvel comic book circa 1960 or later. When I play CO I am amazed how good they got it, I'm glad they're putting more work into this, they recently had a great update. Still the game needs more(way more) content. But as far as looks go, they really nailed it. BTW, I love the look of all the other games mentioned, I just think CO looks exactly the way it should.

I know what you're talking about with CO.  It's actually a nice game.  Not something that will entertain you for 6 months... but play it for 6 weeks and you'll walk away happy.

I like graphics - but I'm definitely more about the overall look and feel.  For me - AoC could look pretty - but it always felt clunky.

Originally posted by sirphobos

Second most subscribed to MMO after WoW.  What a huge embarassing failure.

WATERWORLD was also the 12th highest grossing movie of 1995...  (probably a bit before most of your times, I know)

If EA spent XXX millions of $$$ on this game and it is only making a small profit... no profit... or having the production scaled back (cut development team and expansion schedule) to ensure it doesn't lose money...

Anyone looking at the game from a business perspective isn't going to see a success.  They will see a huge waste of company resources. 

I wonder if today will turn out to be an all-time low.  School vacation week just ended here... and it's a Monday.

I woke up this morning with that damn song stuck in my head!

Originally posted by Elikal

Playing a bit Advocatus Diaboli, 400-600k is the norm for a MMO. WoW was an exception for many reasons, a one time miracle, at least in the western market. I don't see any MMO having substantially more in the long run. People just don't stand in one MMO for years anymore, when we have 20 new MMORPGs every year. When WOW and EQ2 were new, we saw one or two MMOs per year. Grinding to max level took ages. Such days are just gone. So while it sure IS a huge drop, I think expecting anything else from a MMO today is delusional. Maybe GW2 because it's free. But no other Triple AAA MMO will fare better. People rush through content like locusts, get 2 max level chars in 3-4 months and move on to the new MMO. I doubt that can be avoided, unless you make a REALLY really great MMO.

Which these days I doubt we will ever see again.

I think that's an overlooked point

As much as some complained about "the grind" - it kept a lot of people playing for longer periods of time.  The trick - of course - is having there be a reason for the grind and keep people feeling like they are making progress... 

You want it to be slow... but not sooo slow/boring that players quit :D

Originally posted by Jason2444

Originally posted by fadis

Yeah - I'd think you'd have a really high % of WoW players trying out D3.

 

The drop happened BEFORE the Diablo beta...

You're talking about the drop from Sunday to Monday?  That happens every week in WoW (and every other tracked game for that matter) - check the charts... 

The thing that was notable in the chart was that WoWFriday was lower than WoWThursday... ie. the day D3 beta began... that wasn't normal.

Yeah - I'd think you'd have a really high % of WoW players trying out D3.

Interesting to see how the #'s look after this weekend.

D3 beta started... and yesterday didn't have the usual friday uptick - actually lost players from thur, though more hours played (which make sense).

Got in.  Played for an hour and a half - first time I have touched the game. 

Meh.  Didn't have any "wow" moments.  Felt very Blizzard.  Seemed to have the expected level of polish.  Innovation is dead.

This is the same guy that also agreed that TOR would have 2 million subscribers by end of CY2012.

This is the same guy that months before called the game "highly derivative" and "unimpressive."

Check him out... he offers a lot of analysis about VG... I don't see anything to make me think he knows more about game sales than anyone in these forums.  Hell... he bases his conclusions off of TOR server stats sites... c'mon.

I do the same thing and have probably put a lot more research and thought into it than this guy... 1.25 million paying subscribers just doesn't sound right.  Maybe there will be some way to fudge those numbers up - but I'd put a reasonable estimate of people actually paying $15/mo @ 800k (and falling...)