| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cipher Jones
301
   |
Posted - 2012.02.13 22:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Quote:They all state their steadfast hatred against free to play and the revenue model that accompanies it.
Eveonline has the best free to play model IMHO. Since it is different than other companies models, people are in vehement denial. I have several friends who have never payed a penny to play and never will. I have paid for eve, but only 1 GTC per account. 84 months of gameplay for the price of 6. Thats one hell of a deal.
I realize that its almost impossible play Eve completely free without being grandfathered in, but it has been done before, and it is quite easy to do if you are (grandfathered in).
With the 60 day trial keys that were given out, it would be exceedingly simple to play for free. I just got my youngest brother into the game with one of those and he already wants a 2nd account, and will be able to pay for it himself within 90 days.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 16:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
If you have numbers that somehow say "subs are up" without CCP publishing them more power to you.
Less players play on the tranquility server now than at its peak.
The people who actually log onto the server and monitor its activity while they play know there are less people.
Mark Twain wrote:There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 16:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:If you have numbers that somehow say "subs are up" without CCP publishing them more power to you. Less players play on the tranquility server now than at its peak. The people who actually log onto the server and monitor its activity while they play know there are less people. Mark Twain wrote:There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Show me where the peak isEdit: Click on the 150k link on that page, to the left. No, your other left.
Show me where the chart is. That's "subscriptions", and CCP has not released subscription numbers in quite some time. Those numbers were published in October of last year and were released prior to that.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 17:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Your chart is about subscribers.
My post says less people are on tranquility.
Your chart in now way shape or form demerits what I am saying.
Your information is > 6 months old, and therefore inaccurate. I am not saying I posted numbers. I am saying I observed it.
If you could post something that contradicts my observation I would love to see it. No chart based on subscription numbers will ever disprove what I am saying, which is that less people log onto the server nowadays.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 17:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:
The people who actually log onto the server and monitor its activity while they play know there are less people.
I actually do log on to the server and I can say that the server feels much more active in the last couple of months. Oddly enough, that tallies exactly with the data from eve-offline...... ! Mark Twain wrote:There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Indeed. -Liang
That very source says tranquility has less users now than at the peak, which is what I am saying.
What you are saying is that there are more people now than a prior point in time that was not the peak.
Both scenarios can be true simultaneously.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 17:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:Your chart is about subscribers.
My post says less people are on tranquility.
Your chart in now way shape or form demerits what I am saying.
Your information is > 6 months old, and therefore inaccurate. I am not saying I posted numbers. I am saying I observed it.
If you could post something that contradicts my observation I would love to see it. No chart based on subscription numbers will ever disprove what I am saying, which is that less people log onto the server nowadays. I can't contradict the fewer players claim because I don't see players in game, I see ships that belong to subscriptions. There is no way I can tell you if 10 mining barges huddled together is ten people, or one person, and I know you can't do the same. This is why we based numbers on subscriptions. Regardless of who owns what subscription it still counts as a purchased account. CCP aint got no buy one get one free deal here. Hence, the chart that I use is providing good data as it has with every game I look after. Personally he has been the best source for me for years as he gets his information from multiple sources and verifies it as best as he can. By the way, I am surprised that you are able to cover some 5000 systems every night and personally make a head count in each one. As for the rest, well, lets just say I'm not surprised. I knew you were going to find any reason to discredit any data shown to you and that you wouldn't be able to back any of your own claims up other than 'I saw less people in x system, game is dying'.
There are both apps and websites that monitor server connections. I use an app that I can see in game via the windows sidebar.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 17:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:Your chart is about subscribers.
My post says less people are on tranquility.
Your chart in now way shape or form demerits what I am saying.
Your information is > 6 months old, and therefore inaccurate. I am not saying I posted numbers. I am saying I observed it.
If you could post something that contradicts my observation I would love to see it. No chart based on subscription numbers will ever disprove what I am saying, which is that less people log onto the server nowadays. Unless your point is that "although more people are subscribing (and CCP revenue increases), fewer seem to be on at peak times), I would say his point is entirely relevant.
the point is the chart is inaccurate due to age.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 00:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:Your chart is about subscribers.
My post says less people are on tranquility.
Your chart in now way shape or form demerits what I am saying.
Your information is > 6 months old, and therefore inaccurate. I am not saying I posted numbers. I am saying I observed it.
If you could post something that contradicts my observation I would love to see it. No chart based on subscription numbers will ever disprove what I am saying, which is that less people log onto the server nowadays. Ok, how about charts that actually look at the number of people logged into the server nowadays? Would that be sufficient for you? Lets see... According to the data pulled from Eve-Offline (analyzed here: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/crucible-mission-accomplished/ ), since shortly before the release of Crucible: - The server has 11% more EU TZ people playing (60 day rolling - its actually much higher if you take a 7 or 30 day roll) - The server has 17% more US TZ people playing (60 day rolling, again much higher if you take a 7 or 30 day roll) - The server has 45% more AUS TZ people playing( 60 days, higher, yadda yadda) Graph for you: http://liangnuren.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/chart_1.pngBasically: if you feel that the server activity is trending down, you're projecting... and just outright wrong. -Liang
According to cipher Jones...
Quote:Less players play on the tranquility server now than at its peak.
This is a fact. Bringing feelings into it is unnecessary.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 21:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Valei Khurelem wrote:Quote:39k online says that EVE is a niche product. No, 39k online with how much was it last announcement? 200,000 subscribers? According to these articles[1][2] your average SWTOR server can expect to have somewhere between 1400 and 2700 people. This includes both the shards and the "sharded zones" that have different people running on the same map. Thus, we could say (for example) that 39k people online is the equivalent of 14 and 27 servers. Split the difference and call it 21. So lets assume that SWTOR is representative of all sharded MMOs and note that Rift has 16 US TZ servers and 18 EU TZ servers[3]. Noting that only one of those server sets really comes into play at a time, we can safely say that on average that Eve has ~15% more people playing than Rift does. Now, one might argue that its terrible if Eve is merely as popular as Rift - afterall, Rift just went half free to play! However, the situations are quite distinct. Consider: - Eve has long since been turning a profit, and is continuing to turn quite a pretty penny in profit. Enough to outright pay for the development of at least one extra game. - Eve's sub graph doesn't look like Rift's[4]. - Eve's sub graph has a high correlation to its population graph. Consider the server metrics [5][6] as well. Basically: while 39k seems like its "really low"... its actually not. -Liang [1] http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-01-03-swtor-has-350-000-peak-concurrent-users-report[2] http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=240117[3] http://www.riftstatus.com/[4] http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png[5] http://wp.me/p1WQ0O-4i[6] http://bit.ly/z55dg6 It is good to see such high quality posts, thank you.
No offense but....
If I were a dev I would love that post too. It alludes to subscriptions being up without CCP having to post the numbers. Then once you guys get more subs you can post the numbers again and release a dev blog or new QEN or whatever. You'll never have to publish how many subs Incarna cost.
Quote:Basically: while 39k seems like its "really low"... its actually not.
I want CCP to succeed, I want enough people to play Eve to keep it alive indefinitely and I applaud what they have accomplished.
I am not saying its "really low", I am saying its lower than it could be and has been.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Switching to "free" to play won't help Eve increase the size of its player base because I and a lot of other players will quit in disgust.
You mean switching it to a different model. It already is free. With microtransactions.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 16:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ascendic wrote:Professor Alphane wrote:baltec1 wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:One thing that has always struck me as odd is why CCP thinks making a game that encourages griefing and driving people away is a good business model. Maybe they did not realize the magnitude of the issue and thought they would get sufficient subscriptions in any case. Maybe they are satisfied with the current level of subscriptions, and are simply not looking for Eve to be a multimillion player game. Or maybe they think having sufficient employees to police a "no griefing" policy would be so costly that it would not pay off despite increased subscriptions. EVE is the only MMO to reach this age and still be growing. I'd say they are getting it right. Technically yes but only because it's a year older than WOW which by most metrics laughs in every other MMO's face Considering WOW has begun bleeding subs your statement is wrong.
Wow increased income even tho it lost subs.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 17:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
Page 12 and people are still in denial that you can both play eve free and also pay to win already.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 20:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:Page 12 and people are still in denial that you can both play eve free and also pay to win already. Since the game is still not operating on a Free-to-play/Freemium model, and that you cannot buy any more win than what's already in the game, it's not so much a matter of denial as a matter of fact. No, EVE is not free-to-play since every last account is paid for. No, EVE is not pay-to-win since you cannot buy more win than people are willing to sell to you, no matter how much $$$-áyou have.
Its not free to play according to your definition. It is free to play literally by the meaning of the words.
What you are arguing is the scale of the pay to win in eve, you admit it exists. You started your sentence with "no". Clearly your hatred for me is causing you to post poorly.
Just kidding.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 20:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:Its not free to play according to your definition. It is free to play literally by the meaning of the words. GǪwhich is not what "Free to playGÇ¥ actually means. F2P means the business model isn't subscription, but auxiliary services. Thus, EVE is not F2P. Quote:What you are arguing is the scale of the pay to win in eve, you admit it exists. No, because as with the F2P case, that's not what P2W means. EVE is not pay-to-win because you cannot pay to win GÇö you can only pay to get stuff that the game already offers without payment.
OP said FtP in the title and the words "free to play", as did I. Argue about the semantics of "F2P" all you want. Start your own thread about it if you want. This one is about free to play as stated in the Original Poast.
It is considered a "pay to win" advantage in a game if you can do something faster by paying real world money. In the case of Eve Online, you most certainly can. It is also considered a pay to win advantage if you can accomplish something with real money that you cannot accomplish without.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 21:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:To expand, the only time since it went live in 2003 where subscriptions dipped was when MT was introduced. While I am not against MT, or even against a FTP format, it does go to show that the "general attitude" in game is not the reason why it experienced that small dip.
Your premise is based on the fallacy that EVE is decreasing in player base, and that the reason players leave is because people are cut throat in this game... neither of which is fact.
The surest way for EVE to self destruct would be to change the rules to enforce "civilized behavior".
Microtransactions were introduced before I started playing in late '08.
Subs dipped when Aurum was introduced with the Incarna Expansion. You are confusing the 2 scenarios.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 21:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:Transactions under 20 bucks are microtransactions, unless you have more clout than Visa I consider their definition valid.
I guess that means you didn't think about it??
It means what it ******* means. Understand it or don't. Draw any conclusion you like.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
| |
|