Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Elder Scrolls Online has ~775,000 subscribers - report

145679

Comments

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,622Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

    What exactly makes you think that people getting paid to say stuff are in any way more credible than people that do it for free?

    Your belief in and subservience to authority is cute. A bit frightening as a prospect, but cute.

    Well IDk, but I rather get my appendix taken out by someone who makes a living doing surgery than some truck driver on the internet who likes to criticize surgeons... you, and all others who believe internet forum experts, can get yours taken out by whoever you wish... talk about frightening! ... not to mention incredibly and blissfully ignorant about qualifications.

    Well, the choice is like this:

    Go to the "village shaman" (certified "appendix remover" certified by higher force) and has to be paid

    or

    someone who practices medicine as a hobby.

    Well luckily I don't have to make that choice. I just go to the surgeon who does this every day for a living,

    You guys in this thread are hilarious... you just know you don't like Superdata's number cause it "feels" wrong to you, But since you got nothing better to point to, you go on a campaign to try to discredit those numbers and Superdata... apparently your collective manhoods are somehow threatened by their numbers being higher than what you guess they should be.

    Well, we would all like to know what surgeon (ZOS) has to say about it, but surgeon is silent and doesnt care about it so you are left with what you are left with and proclaiming "village shaman" as  surgeon. well, yeah

    But if you still didnt get the hint (and i have strong belief you did you just choose to ignore elephant in the room), theres nothing much to do about it, just like kid stomping his foot and crossing his arms, it aint really worth it, since its not your kid and not really your worry.

    But its been really entertaining endevour, we learned what superdata is REALLY about, right? lol

    I'm curious about what you do for a living. Do you have a special skill people are willing to pay you for?

    I do and so does just about everyone I know and I have respect for their skills and would consider it extremely arrogant in a dumb punk kind of way to presume to know as much about their area of expertise as they do.

    I'm just applying real life standards here: they professional gaming industry analysts... you....?

    PS... I could give less of a shit what the "real numbers" are.

  • UhwopUhwop Wilm, DEPosts: 1,663Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by kitarad
    SuperData research was the same source used to support how much money SWTOR was making and a lot of posters on this very site discredited it as unreliable. Now it is being used to support ESO sub numbers. Interesting development.

     

    Actually EA actually back up that statement by saying the game was profitable.  But people only discredit some sources when it doesn't support their bashing. 

    No they did not.  EA's own financial report stated that ToR has been seeing lower revenue each year for the past two years. They don't even sate that it's "profitable".  In every mention in the 2014 yearly financial report it is about its contributing to a loss over the previous year. It made less in 2012 than it did in 2011, and less in 2013 than it did in 2012.  

    The 2015 quarterly report states that its only a significant contributor in their F2P revenue, behind several other game services, for the first quarter of 2014. 

     

    Superdata is speculating, and they're going to speculate high. In the end they don't know anymore than anyone else does. It's a guess. 

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

    What exactly makes you think that people getting paid to say stuff are in any way more credible than people that do it for free?

    Your belief in and subservience to authority is cute. A bit frightening as a prospect, but cute.

    Well IDk, but I rather get my appendix taken out by someone who makes a living doing surgery than some truck driver on the internet who likes to criticize surgeons... you, and all others who believe internet forum experts, can get yours taken out by whoever you wish... talk about frightening! ... not to mention incredibly and blissfully ignorant about qualifications.

    Well, the choice is like this:

    Go to the "village shaman" (certified "appendix remover" certified by higher force) and has to be paid

    or

    someone who practices medicine as a hobby.

     

    Who in their right mind would go to either of those people when there are surgeons who have been through a dozen years of training, and have additional experience beyond that taking out little things like an appendix?

     

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,680Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    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

  • HrimnirHrimnir Qeynos, COPosts: 1,597Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Hrimnir
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by bcbully

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-18-elder-scrolls-online-has-775-000-subscribers-report

    "A report published by SuperData Research (via GamesIndustry International) claims The Elder Scrolls Online had 772,374 subscribers in June."

     

    This seems about right, 420k box sales + 3-4 times more digital downloads =  1.2-1.6 mill or so sold, with about a 50% retention rate. 

    That's a little higher than I had predicted at 500-700k on retention. If this data is true, this is nothing but good news for ZoS and makes the game a smashing success.

    So wait, while i dont think this is a bad number and certainly more than i expected, you consider this a "smashing" success?

    What planet are we on?  Everquest 1 had peak sub numbers approaching 600k YEARS after release.  They also had that when the ENTIRE mmo market consisted of around 2 million players.

    Current estimates are the MMO market is around 24 million (not sure how much of that is asia).  But let says that 1/3 of that is NA, so 8 million.  Thats bad.  Especially when this is june figures.  Most MMO's, even the really succesful ones, lose around 70% of their sub base after the first 3 months.  So, if this follows the same trend they'll be at about half that number by august.

    IMO half a million subs is fine, but you have to compare that to the budget of what the game cost to make.  This is what the SWTOR fanbois never seem to understand when they claim swtor is a success.

    EQ had maybe 10-12 MMOs as competition (all very, very different from each other) during that rather short-lived spike in subs you are referring to. The current audience may be 24 million, but there are a couple hundred MMOs currently slicing up that pie right now, not a dozen. 

    Fair enough, but you're making the (false) assumption that all of those several hundred are getting healthy portions of the proverbial pie.  The reality is probably 80% of those hundreds of MMO's is making up 5% of the MMO playerbase, and then 10-20 are gobbling up the other 95%.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • RylahRylah Tribal VillagePosts: 193Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

    What exactly makes you think that people getting paid to say stuff are in any way more credible than people that do it for free?

    Your belief in and subservience to authority is cute. A bit frightening as a prospect, but cute.

    Well IDk, but I rather get my appendix taken out by someone who makes a living doing surgery than some truck driver on the internet who likes to criticize surgeons... you, and all others who believe internet forum experts, can get yours taken out by whoever you wish... talk about frightening! ... not to mention incredibly and blissfully ignorant about qualifications.

    Not the brightest comment to make.

    1) Expertise and education are different from just getting paid by someone for something.

    2) People getting paid to say something are usually there for propaganda / advertising purposes. And the more they get paid the less credible they are usually, but this rule has exemptions.

    3) Saying things on the internet, regardless of payment, is something completely different from cutting open bellies and ripping out parts of another persons intestines. No kidding, it's different.

    Now something to think over for you: When some interwebs experts "know" the number of subscribers of an interwebs game published by a privately owned company to the precision of a thousand or even only 5000, they can have this data only from the publisher, which admittedly didn't make this data in any way public.. So you have either an illegal leak on the publishers side or on the part of payment processing, or you have Zenimax feed arbitrary data to select outside sources, or you have a completely incompetent marketing team at Zenimax, who give out good data to third parties instead of capitalizing on this themselves, or, and this is indeed the most probable version, Superdata is just guessing from whatever oracle they use and add some artificial precision to make it look more credible to the gullible.

  • ZhirocZhiroc X, NHPosts: 220Member

    Believe it or not, companies do trade confidential #s like this at times. The idea is that knowning your competitors numbers is worth more than keeping yours secret. I know my company did this with customer and customer service experiences in the past. So I don't put it beyond Zen to have shared it with Superdata.

    As for the sub numbers, my opinion depends on when that number was taken, or if it was perhaps an average over the month. My beef with these numbers from Superdata is that they haven't stated their methodology or the specifics. However, if we return to those all-so-suspect numbers from Raptr, in mid-June TESO had about 1.5x the playtime of EVE, and EVE is known to have somewhere in the vicinity of 500K subs. So, all things being equal (and I acknowledge there is no way to know for sure), somewhere in the vicinity of 750K subs for TESO is about right.

    But, FYI, by the end of June, TESO and EVE were about neck-and-neck in playtime stats...

  • MalaboogaMalabooga aadadaPosts: 1,554Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zhiroc

    Believe it or not, companies do trade confidential #s like this at times. The idea is that knowning your competitors numbers is worth more than keeping yours secret. I know my company did this with customer and customer service experiences in the past. So I don't put it beyond Zen to have shared it with Superdata.

    As for the sub numbers, my opinion depends on when that number was taken, or if it was perhaps an average over the month. My beef with these numbers from Superdata is that they haven't stated their methodology or the specifics. However, if we return to those all-so-suspect numbers from Raptr, in mid-June TESO had about 1.5x the playtime of EVE, and EVE is known to have somewhere in the vicinity of 500K subs. So, all things being equal (and I acknowledge there is no way to know for sure), somewhere in the vicinity of 750K subs for TESO is about right.

    But, FYI, by the end of June, TESO and EVE were about neck-and-neck in playtime stats...

    Of course companies trade information when its beneficial to them.

    And of course they dont do it through random internetz sites.

    And no, played game tiem comparing doesnt work, if you do it like that times for EvE compared to any other game would also have to match. But it doesnt, not even close, not even in ballpark.

    Dont read into stuff that isnt there, same goes for superdata.

  • MalaboogaMalabooga aadadaPosts: 1,554Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Some idiot form marketing can at some point decide to waste some money on it (hint hint).

    They of course collect whatever data they can, and then interpret the data to fill huge gaps they have in it, just like anyone on this forums can.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

    What exactly makes you think that people getting paid to say stuff are in any way more credible than people that do it for free?

    Your belief in and subservience to authority is cute. A bit frightening as a prospect, but cute.

    Well IDk, but I rather get my appendix taken out by someone who makes a living doing surgery than some truck driver on the internet who likes to criticize surgeons... you, and all others who believe internet forum experts, can get yours taken out by whoever you wish... talk about frightening! ... not to mention incredibly and blissfully ignorant about qualifications.

    Not the brightest comment to make.

    1) Expertise and education are different from just getting paid by someone for something.

    2) People getting paid to say something are usually there for propaganda / advertising purposes. And the more they get paid the less credible they are usually, but this rule has exemptions.

    3) Saying things on the internet, regardless of payment, is something completely different from cutting open bellies and ripping out parts of another persons intestines. No kidding, it's different.

    Now something to think over for you: When some interwebs experts "know" the number of subscribers of an interwebs game published by a privately owned company to the precision of a thousand or even only 5000, they can have this data only from the publisher, which admittedly didn't make this data in any way public.. So you have either an illegal leak on the publishers side or on the part of payment processing, or you have Zenimax feed arbitrary data to select outside sources, or you have a completely incompetent marketing team at Zenimax, who give out good data to third parties instead of capitalizing on this themselves, or, and this is indeed the most probable version, Superdata is just guessing from whatever oracle they use and add some artificial precision to make it look more credible to the gullible.

     

    Many, many years ago I worked in a computer shop selling and repairing computers.  We would run weekly ads on the latest machines we had built.  We got a letter from Intel explaining the difference between two types of their processors.  I don't remember what the nitpicky detail was now, but we fixed it an it was no big deal.  In a town of about 100,000 people, in a local newspaper, Intel noticed a small ad and sent us a correction to that ad from a lawyer.  SuperData, a high profile analytics company housed in New York, is not claiming to be a partner with several gaming companies without actually being a partner to those companies.  They are also not publishing misleading information about those companies for profit.  Not when some of those companies are grouped with the largest companies on the planet.

     

    So no, the most likely scenario is not that SuperData is guessing from whatever oracle they use and adding some sort of artificial precision to then sell those numbers back to the only people willing to buy them; the people they would be making up numbers about.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • MalaboogaMalabooga aadadaPosts: 1,554Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

    What exactly makes you think that people getting paid to say stuff are in any way more credible than people that do it for free?

    Your belief in and subservience to authority is cute. A bit frightening as a prospect, but cute.

    Well IDk, but I rather get my appendix taken out by someone who makes a living doing surgery than some truck driver on the internet who likes to criticize surgeons... you, and all others who believe internet forum experts, can get yours taken out by whoever you wish... talk about frightening! ... not to mention incredibly and blissfully ignorant about qualifications.

    Not the brightest comment to make.

    1) Expertise and education are different from just getting paid by someone for something.

    2) People getting paid to say something are usually there for propaganda / advertising purposes. And the more they get paid the less credible they are usually, but this rule has exemptions.

    3) Saying things on the internet, regardless of payment, is something completely different from cutting open bellies and ripping out parts of another persons intestines. No kidding, it's different.

    Now something to think over for you: When some interwebs experts "know" the number of subscribers of an interwebs game published by a privately owned company to the precision of a thousand or even only 5000, they can have this data only from the publisher, which admittedly didn't make this data in any way public.. So you have either an illegal leak on the publishers side or on the part of payment processing, or you have Zenimax feed arbitrary data to select outside sources, or you have a completely incompetent marketing team at Zenimax, who give out good data to third parties instead of capitalizing on this themselves, or, and this is indeed the most probable version, Superdata is just guessing from whatever oracle they use and add some artificial precision to make it look more credible to the gullible.

     

    Many, many years ago I worked in a computer shop selling and repairing computers.  We would run weekly ads on the latest machines we had built.  We got a letter from Intel explaining the difference between two types of their processors.  I don't remember what the nitpicky detail was now, but we fixed it an it was no big deal.  In a town of about 100,000 people, in a local newspaper, Intel noticed a small ad and sent us a correction to that ad from a lawyer.  SuperData, a high profile analytics company housed in New York, is not claiming to be a partner with several gaming companies without actually being a partner to those companies.  They are also not publishing misleading information about those companies for profit.  Not when some of those companies are grouped with the largest companies on the planet.

     

    So no, the most likely scenario is not that SuperData is guessing from whatever oracle they use and adding some sort of artificial precision to then sell those numbers back to the only people willing to buy them; the people they would be making up numbers about.

     

    Ok then, write an email to superdata and ask if thats official ZOS number.

    And then let us all know.

    Better yet write to both superdata AND ZOS and ask if thats official number.

  • PhryPhry HampshirePosts: 6,297Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Some idiot form marketing can at some point decide to waste some money on it (hint hint).

    They of course collect whatever data they can, and then interpret the data to fill huge gaps they have in it, just like anyone on this forums can.

     

    Some idiot "FROM" marketing...

    Which can be interpreted as 'just about anyone' although i hear that if you use 'pie charts' it makes things look more professional image

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting?  Yes, I believe they are buying it.
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers? But the question would be , which ones?  Did Zenimax share the figure they reported? If so, why not say so directly? In fact, why didn't Zenimax report the figure themselves, why give it to Superdata to publish?  This is why I believe the Superdata figure is an interpolation rather than an exact figure, because it would have been so easy for them to say it, and Zenimax to confirm it, but they didn't.

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Whenever game developers, publishers and Superdata are evasive and unclear in their responses then I suspect shenanigan's, because I can't conceive a valid reason for this sort of behavior if there isn't something suspect.

    I didn't fall for Enron either.  image

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • PhryPhry HampshirePosts: 6,297Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Some idiot form marketing can at some point decide to waste some money on it (hint hint).

    They of course collect whatever data they can, and then interpret the data to fill huge gaps they have in it, just like anyone on this forums can.

     

    Some idiot "FROM" marketing...

    Which can be interpreted as 'just about anyone' although i hear that if you use 'pie charts' it makes things look more professional image

     

    True but the point of the exercise was if a poster is going to call someone an "idiot" it's helps if the poster uses proper spelling...

    well, the idiots he is referring to are probably working for Microsoft etc, so surely we can forgive him a little finger trouble for that image

  • HarikenHariken Brighton, MAPosts: 985Member Uncommon
    Massively latest podcast debunks this compnay and its numbers pretty badly.
  • rodingorodingo Posts: 2,346Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Hariken
    Massively latest podcast debunks this compnay and its numbers pretty badly.

     

    And the link to back that up is where??

    Well they don't debunk Superdata, but the podcasters actually present a lot of the same questions a lot of us have already stated.  Such as why would a studio give their sub numbers to a third party site instead of just releasing the numbers themselves and just how reliable could a site like Superdata be?

    The link is here: http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/07/22/massively-speaking-episode-306-alternative-advancement

    The time stamp to listen starts @22:15 and goes to about 26:00.

    "If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor

  • BigdaddyxBigdaddyx California, WAPosts: 1,986Member Uncommon

    Logic states if Zenimax had to release the numbers why do it through third party site when they can do it themselves and give more credibility to numbers.

    I like logic.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Hrimnir
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by bcbully

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-18-elder-scrolls-online-has-775-000-subscribers-report

    "A report published by SuperData Research (via GamesIndustry International) claims The Elder Scrolls Online had 772,374 subscribers in June."

     

    This seems about right, 420k box sales + 3-4 times more digital downloads =  1.2-1.6 mill or so sold, with about a 50% retention rate. 

    That's a little higher than I had predicted at 500-700k on retention. If this data is true, this is nothing but good news for ZoS and makes the game a smashing success.

    So wait, while i dont think this is a bad number and certainly more than i expected, you consider this a "smashing" success?

    What planet are we on?  Everquest 1 had peak sub numbers approaching 600k YEARS after release.  They also had that when the ENTIRE mmo market consisted of around 2 million players.

    Current estimates are the MMO market is around 24 million (not sure how much of that is asia).  But let says that 1/3 of that is NA, so 8 million.  Thats bad.  Especially when this is june figures.  Most MMO's, even the really succesful ones, lose around 70% of their sub base after the first 3 months.  So, if this follows the same trend they'll be at about half that number by august.

    IMO half a million subs is fine, but you have to compare that to the budget of what the game cost to make.  This is what the SWTOR fanbois never seem to understand when they claim swtor is a success.

    Look at the current mmo's and compare sub numbers.

    Other than the standard "if they can cover their bills and grow the game" income, anything that falls in line with standard mmo population is good.

    This falls in with standard mmo population. The idea that a game has to have millions is a gamer idea because they compare it to WoW numbers because they see this as "the king" of games financially and therefore any game that can come close or be in the same realm is also a success.

     

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,622Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Some idiot form marketing can at some point decide to waste some money on it (hint hint).

    They of course collect whatever data they can, and then interpret the data to fill huge gaps they have in it, just like anyone on this forums can.

     

    Some idiot "FROM" marketing...

    Which can be interpreted as 'just about anyone' although i hear that if you use 'pie charts' it makes things look more professional image

     

    True but the point of the exercise was if a poster is going to call someone an "idiot" it's helps if the poster uses proper spelling...

    well, the idiots he is referring to are probably working for Microsoft etc, so surely we can forgive him a little finger trouble for that image

    Yes, because it's logical to assume that the biggest developers of MMOs on the planet all have one marketing idiot who coincidentally makes the same mistake as his idiot counterpart in the other companies and is willing to pay money for worthless data to the same company.

     

    The critics in this thread, OTOH, are NOT idiots. They have the superior  wisdom that posting shit anonymously on the internet brings.... (insert appropriate silly emoticon for emphasis here)

  • MalaboogaMalabooga aadadaPosts: 1,554Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Some idiot form marketing can at some point decide to waste some money on it (hint hint).

    They of course collect whatever data they can, and then interpret the data to fill huge gaps they have in it, just like anyone on this forums can.

     

    Some idiot "FROM" marketing...

    Which can be interpreted as 'just about anyone' although i hear that if you use 'pie charts' it makes things look more professional image

     

    True but the point of the exercise was if a poster is going to call someone an "idiot" it's helps if the poster uses proper spelling...

    well, the idiots he is referring to are probably working for Microsoft etc, so surely we can forgive him a little finger trouble for that image

    Yes, because it's logical to assume that the biggest developers of MMOs on the planet all have one marketing idiot who coincidentally makes the same mistake as his idiot counterpart in the other companies and is willing to pay money for worthless data to the same company.

     

    The critics in this thread, OTOH, are NOT idiots. They have the superior  wisdom that posting shit anonymously on the internet brings.... (insert appropriate silly emoticon for emphasis here)

    dude, youre so far far away...

    no, MS DOES NOT buy "research" from superdata (no big company does):

    https://www.linkedin.com/job/microsoft/director-market-research-jobs/

    dudes, get a grip on reality rofl

    one really has to question some things, its funny as hell but sad as hell at the same time....

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

    What exactly makes you think that people getting paid to say stuff are in any way more credible than people that do it for free?

    Your belief in and subservience to authority is cute. A bit frightening as a prospect, but cute.

    Well IDk, but I rather get my appendix taken out by someone who makes a living doing surgery than some truck driver on the internet who likes to criticize surgeons... you, and all others who believe internet forum experts, can get yours taken out by whoever you wish... talk about frightening! ... not to mention incredibly and blissfully ignorant about qualifications.

    Not the brightest comment to make.

    1) Expertise and education are different from just getting paid by someone for something.

    2) People getting paid to say something are usually there for propaganda / advertising purposes. And the more they get paid the less credible they are usually, but this rule has exemptions.

    3) Saying things on the internet, regardless of payment, is something completely different from cutting open bellies and ripping out parts of another persons intestines. No kidding, it's different.

    Now something to think over for you: When some interwebs experts "know" the number of subscribers of an interwebs game published by a privately owned company to the precision of a thousand or even only 5000, they can have this data only from the publisher, which admittedly didn't make this data in any way public.. So you have either an illegal leak on the publishers side or on the part of payment processing, or you have Zenimax feed arbitrary data to select outside sources, or you have a completely incompetent marketing team at Zenimax, who give out good data to third parties instead of capitalizing on this themselves, or, and this is indeed the most probable version, Superdata is just guessing from whatever oracle they use and add some artificial precision to make it look more credible to the gullible.

     

    Many, many years ago I worked in a computer shop selling and repairing computers.  We would run weekly ads on the latest machines we had built.  We got a letter from Intel explaining the difference between two types of their processors.  I don't remember what the nitpicky detail was now, but we fixed it an it was no big deal.  In a town of about 100,000 people, in a local newspaper, Intel noticed a small ad and sent us a correction to that ad from a lawyer.  SuperData, a high profile analytics company housed in New York, is not claiming to be a partner with several gaming companies without actually being a partner to those companies.  They are also not publishing misleading information about those companies for profit.  Not when some of those companies are grouped with the largest companies on the planet.

     

    So no, the most likely scenario is not that SuperData is guessing from whatever oracle they use and adding some sort of artificial precision to then sell those numbers back to the only people willing to buy them; the people they would be making up numbers about.

     

    Ok then, write an email to superdata and ask if thats official ZOS number.

    And then let us all know.

    Better yet write to both superdata AND ZOS and ask if thats official number.

     

    That's a great idea.  Why don't you do it?

     

    Oh wait, this is one of those things where misdirection is used rather than actually responding to the thread or the person you are replying to.  I suppose in a post further down you'll declare some sort of victory.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Some idiot form marketing can at some point decide to waste some money on it (hint hint).

    They of course collect whatever data they can, and then interpret the data to fill huge gaps they have in it, just like anyone on this forums can.

     

    Some idiot "FROM" marketing...

    Which can be interpreted as 'just about anyone' although i hear that if you use 'pie charts' it makes things look more professional image

     

    True but the point of the exercise was if a poster is going to call someone an "idiot" it's helps if the poster uses proper spelling...

    well, the idiots he is referring to are probably working for Microsoft etc, so surely we can forgive him a little finger trouble for that image

    Yes, because it's logical to assume that the biggest developers of MMOs on the planet all have one marketing idiot who coincidentally makes the same mistake as his idiot counterpart in the other companies and is willing to pay money for worthless data to the same company.

     

    The critics in this thread, OTOH, are NOT idiots. They have the superior  wisdom that posting shit anonymously on the internet brings.... (insert appropriate silly emoticon for emphasis here)

    dude, youre so far far away...

    no, MS DOES NOT buy "research" from superdata (no big company does):

    https://www.linkedin.com/job/microsoft/director-market-research-jobs/

    dudes, get a grip on reality rofl

    one really has to question some things, its funny as hell but sad as hell at the same time....

     

    Lyuba Kharitonova of CCP and Torrie Dorrell from Microsoft have purchased information from SuperData.  CCP isn't the biggest company around, but Microsoft is pretty big.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • MalaboogaMalabooga aadadaPosts: 1,554Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Some idiot form marketing can at some point decide to waste some money on it (hint hint).

    They of course collect whatever data they can, and then interpret the data to fill huge gaps they have in it, just like anyone on this forums can.

     

    Some idiot "FROM" marketing...

    Which can be interpreted as 'just about anyone' although i hear that if you use 'pie charts' it makes things look more professional image

     

    True but the point of the exercise was if a poster is going to call someone an "idiot" it's helps if the poster uses proper spelling...

    well, the idiots he is referring to are probably working for Microsoft etc, so surely we can forgive him a little finger trouble for that image

    Yes, because it's logical to assume that the biggest developers of MMOs on the planet all have one marketing idiot who coincidentally makes the same mistake as his idiot counterpart in the other companies and is willing to pay money for worthless data to the same company.

     

    The critics in this thread, OTOH, are NOT idiots. They have the superior  wisdom that posting shit anonymously on the internet brings.... (insert appropriate silly emoticon for emphasis here)

    dude, youre so far far away...

    no, MS DOES NOT buy "research" from superdata (no big company does):

    https://www.linkedin.com/job/microsoft/director-market-research-jobs/

    dudes, get a grip on reality rofl

    one really has to question some things, its funny as hell but sad as hell at the same time....

     

    Lyuba Kharitonova of CCP and Torrie Dorrell from Microsoft have purchased information from SuperData.  CCP isn't the biggest company around, but Microsoft is pretty big.

     

    Now go back and see thesecond post.

    And once and for all: superdata IS NOT SELLING INFORMATION, especiallly not CALSSIFIED COMPANY INFORMATION

    ffs, educate yourself what these "consultant" companies even do for a living.

    "Central to this subscription are the month-to-month revenue estimates of the major MMO titles, such as League of Legends, World of Tanks, Counter-Strike Online, Guild Wars 2 and others. For these titles we offer estimates on their monthly active users, conversion rate, average spending and total monthly revenue."

     

    "Online games research

    While the retail games market has long had standardized metrics for the performance of titles, the digital and downloadable games market has lacked such insight. Whereas units and sale prices of boxed games is sufficient for determining success, digital games require more detailed performance indicators. The Market Movers analysis is the only online games research that sheds light on the growing digital, online, and mobile games market. Using our sample of nearly 3 million paying digital gamers, this subscription allows for competitive analyses, forecasting, and performance benchmarking for the main drivers of change for genres and publishers."

    Its not hard, really,it isnt.

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,622Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by allday88
    Originally posted by Malabooga
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    They are not more credible than Knotwood (meaning anyone on the internet)

    They are certainly not paid to release info company itself dont want released/goes to great lenght to hide even from shareholders, in fact, that info (IF the company ever shared it, which it would not in the first place) would be treated as confidential.

    So yeah, they have as much credibility as Knotwood and their weight is same as every other "shit that passes for "evidence" around here." and should be respectfully treated as such.

    I don't think anyone is paying Knotwood for his powers of prognostication or scientific guess work and I'm thinking no one pays you either. Superdata, OTOH, is getting paid for their research... so yeah, one hell of a lot more credible than either yours or Knotwood's biased guesswork for the purpose of making your respective pointed arguments.

     

    You have a funny idea about Superdata, i mean honestly, you think Zenimax is going to pay them to do research, when all Superdata does is sell their 'data' to other companies, ie, would Zenimax really give Superdata confidential data that they in turn would then sell to their direct competitors in the market, and also pay them for the privilege, i don't think so.image

     It's entirely possible they are buying research data from Superdata, and entirely possible the price they pay for data on other services is affected by the information they provide on their own services.  

    To be clear,

    • Are you suggesting that Microsoft, Google, Zenimax and these other companies are not paying Superdata in some way for their data, research and consulting? 
    • Are you suggesting that Superdata does not collect spending data directly from publishers and developers?

     

    I'm just trying to figure out where this 'haha you believe them? image' stance you've taken in this thread comes from. 

     

    Some idiot form marketing can at some point decide to waste some money on it (hint hint).

    They of course collect whatever data they can, and then interpret the data to fill huge gaps they have in it, just like anyone on this forums can.

     

    Some idiot "FROM" marketing...

    Which can be interpreted as 'just about anyone' although i hear that if you use 'pie charts' it makes things look more professional image

     

    True but the point of the exercise was if a poster is going to call someone an "idiot" it's helps if the poster uses proper spelling...

    well, the idiots he is referring to are probably working for Microsoft etc, so surely we can forgive him a little finger trouble for that image

    Yes, because it's logical to assume that the biggest developers of MMOs on the planet all have one marketing idiot who coincidentally makes the same mistake as his idiot counterpart in the other companies and is willing to pay money for worthless data to the same company.

     

    The critics in this thread, OTOH, are NOT idiots. They have the superior  wisdom that posting shit anonymously on the internet brings.... (insert appropriate silly emoticon for emphasis here)

    dude, youre so far far away...

    no, MS DOES NOT buy "research" from superdata (no big company does):

    https://www.linkedin.com/job/microsoft/director-market-research-jobs/

    dudes, get a grip on reality rofl

    one really has to question some things, its funny as hell but sad as hell at the same time....

     

    Lyuba Kharitonova of CCP and Torrie Dorrell from Microsoft have purchased information from SuperData.  CCP isn't the biggest company around, but Microsoft is pretty big.

     

    But Malabooga knows best because... just because... you can tell by his superior interwebs vocabulary like "get a grip" and "rofl"... those trump specifics, logic and reason everyday! If that doesn't work he'll try to change the subject and misdirect.

     

    I'm sure he has a post-grad degree in statistics... that must be it.

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,622Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Malabooga
     Using our sample of nearly 3 million paying digital gamers, this subscription allows for competitive analyses, forecasting, and performance benchmarking for the main drivers of change for genres and publishers."

    Its not hard, really,it isnt.

     You understand why samples are used in statistics instead of whole populations don't you? Statistics 101...

This discussion has been closed.