Yeah the 'franchise unit sales' doublespeak made me laugh. In other words, the game sales are crap, but we sold a lot of differently coloured lazers and shiny paint jobs.
The epic fail of Beyond
- Thread starter Marcus Tullius
- Start date
- Status
Yeah the 'franchise unit sales' doublespeak made me laugh. In other words, the game sales are crap, but we sold a lot of differently coloured lazers and shiny paint jobs.
Yeah the 'franchise unit sales' doublespeak made me laugh. In other words, the game sales are crap, but we sold a lot of differently coloured lazers and shiny paint jobs.
Citation required for games sales being crap. Something more than wishing.
Yeah the 'franchise unit sales' doublespeak made me laugh. In other words, the game sales are crap, but we sold a lot of differently coloured lazers and shiny paint jobs.
Franchise unit sales doesn't apply to lasers and paint jobs. They clarified that.
If there's 1,277,000 ish owners of ED on Steam and steam says there's around 8k players on average playing at the moment, that's only like 7% of owners playing at any one time.
So that would say 93% of Steam ED owners don't play ED that often or at all anymore.
Doesn't mean 93% of the player base is permanently lost, just means that only 7% still like it enough to play regularly
Somebody can do maths!
And yet nobody can explain WHY i'm wrong. My argument is sound what you don't like is that I'm right. You'd also have to argue against every article out there. It is patently ridiculous to say 100% of the playerbase is still playing the game when 22 out of 100 are.
How can you use the statistic of a player base when calculating number of players NOT playing the game then?
Anyway, I'm not the one here who has to explain why the industry can use the term and yet people here on these forums are having issues with it.
It would be useful if he used the correct stats though. That average is concurrent players, so an average of 8000 people playing at any one time, not the average amount of players in a day, unless it is the same 8000 people playing every hour of the day, which it isn't.
So the daily players on the 14th would be anywhere between 11,000 (peak concurrent players) and 137,000 players (players in the last 2 weeks). You try to work out the active player base from those stats (which is all we have to play with) on the 14th of Jan.
Also not everyone plays every day due to family and work commitments.
Playing same game with same mechanics for years. Your choice.
This game only surviving with minimal effort. Just look at update/fix intensity. Actually i think there are more forum moderators than people who actually working on game.
This game only surviving with minimal effort. Just look at update/fix intensity. Actually i think there are more forum moderators than people who actually working on game.
That's actually a really good point LOL
I don't think many people think it is fun to be on a 2 hour long supercruise journey, but luckily that is purely optional and the game never forces you to do that. If you don't like it, don't do it. So I fail to see the really good point there.
Oh it's 3 million copies now is it?
I was reading his post as an example instead of actual stats as some posters here think that player base is used differently than it is and weant to make an argument out of it for some reason.
That some people think huge SC trips doing nothing is perfectly fine in the game.
Some people do like it. Each to their own. Why should that be removed when nobody needs to do it. I don't enjoy huge 2 hour long SC trips, so I don't do them. I don't have an issue with it, so yes I think it is perfectly fine for those that want to do it.
So what is the point exactly.
Yes, probably.
To my knowledge (and speaking under correction):
A playerbase is based on the number of active players at any given time; not the number of people who bought the game.
For example, Activision Blizzard monitors their MAUs (Monthly Active User) as a key measure of the overall size of their user base / playerbase. MAUs are the number of individuals who played a particular game in a given month.*
If 5 million people played WoW in a given month, that puts their playerbase at 5 million people.
If 4 million people played WoW in the following month, that puts their playerbase at 4 million people.
Which is a 20% decline on active players on the previous month.
Another example, For Honour had a playerbase of 71,000 during BETA; at release, they barely hit 45,000.
36% less players were playing For Honour at launch; it's not 45,000 of 71,000 players. It's just 45k.
So I believe it's flawed logic to say 22 out of 100 are playing the game because, as mentioned above, playerbase is based on active user count.
One should rather just look at it as "22 people are playing the game, which is down 78% from 100 players since X."
*
A playerbase is based on the number of active players at any given time; not the number of people who bought the game.
For example, Activision Blizzard monitors their MAUs (Monthly Active User) as a key measure of the overall size of their user base / playerbase. MAUs are the number of individuals who played a particular game in a given month.*
If 5 million people played WoW in a given month, that puts their playerbase at 5 million people.
If 4 million people played WoW in the following month, that puts their playerbase at 4 million people.
Which is a 20% decline on active players on the previous month.
Another example, For Honour had a playerbase of 71,000 during BETA; at release, they barely hit 45,000.
36% less players were playing For Honour at launch; it's not 45,000 of 71,000 players. It's just 45k.
So I believe it's flawed logic to say 22 out of 100 are playing the game because, as mentioned above, playerbase is based on active user count.
One should rather just look at it as "22 people are playing the game, which is down 78% from 100 players since X."
*
- https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...lizzard-Consumer-Products-Group-Arrives-Brand
Last edited:
I would think very few people want to sit there doing nothing for an hour. It's not gameplay and we pay money to play a game, not sit around doing nothing. We work for our money and expect certain things to be in the things we call "games" - sitting around doing nothing is not one of them.
unlikely.
It's been explained several times, you just haven't understood it. Which means that there is clearly no point in trying to explain it to you. You don't actually understand what the phrase player base means.
Aah the old " we already explained it to you" routine, eh? Except you haven't and I've explained how you are wrong. Not only that, but the rest of the gaming media stands behind me along side reality.
Why? Do you think they didn't sell a single copy in the last 4 months even though there was a major sale?
As stated many times, you do not have to do it, so what is the issue. Thats right, there is no issue at all. You are turning something that is purely optional and therefor not an issue for anyone that doesn't want to do it into an issue.
Yes you have payed for the game, but if you decide to sit there doing nothing for 2 hours being bored senseless, sorry but that is entirely your own fault and not the games.
Looks like you ignored NuttiKrust's comment above.
- Status