Poll: What is your Sub Loss Prediction?

Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst ...
31
39
40
41
  1. #801
    Legendary! Firebert's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Essex-ish
    Posts
    6,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    because you haven't given any figures for inflation.
    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...ion+since+2003

    I don't need to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    You have no idea what I think real inflation is for the US
    Inflation figures aren't up for debate.
    37 + (3*7) + (3*7)
    W/L/T/Death count: Wolf: 0/1/0/1 | Mafia: 1/6/0/7 | TPR: 0/4/1/5
    SK: 0/1/0/1 | VT: 2/5/2/7 | Cult: 1/0/0/1

  2. #802
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebert View Post
    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...ion+since+2003

    I don't need to.

    Inflation figures aren't up for debate.
    Ok, if you take BLS numbers as dogma, then we can agree to disagree. I think going further is far beyond the topic at hand.

    My contention is that benbos is unlikely to have matched or beat real US/dollarized inflation. much would depend on where he lives, geographically, if in the US. if he paid 13 a 'few' years ago, we are close to at least 3.5 years holding period. (the oct 11 cross of 13 would not be a 'few' years.)
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2013-11-07 at 03:20 AM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  3. #803
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    1) in the past have come up with about 60-70m/qtr cost of operating the game, which must be almost entirely bandwidth.
    I would have thought it was dominated by customer support.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  4. #804
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    1) in the past have come up with about 60-70m/qtr cost of operating the game, which must be almost entirely bandwidth. no time to go drag out old 10q's now, but in the past atvi was much friendlier with their revenue categories. its there.
    Why would they lie about it being about $5 million a year?

    http://kotaku.com/5050300/how-much-h...ard-since-2004

    And I looked at previously quarterly reports and annual reports, and it doesn't seem to be any "friendlier".
    Last edited by Sharuko; 2013-11-07 at 03:45 AM.

  5. #805
    Quote Originally Posted by cityguy193 View Post
    Nope. That is your own opinion. You are entitled to it. But claiming that everyone else is wrong is purely stupid, especially by saying that no one else's long term memory surpasses a decade except your own.

    That makes you pretentious. I suspect its your own bias and ignorance that makes you unable to see anyone else's point of view.
    I'm not the one saying D3 was better than D2 in the following regards [insert list here]. I'm just disputing them.

    Sorry I hurt your feelings.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    D3 had random maps? There were things that could spawn in the map, but the over all map wasn't random. A node was on or off. D2 had maps that were actually random. Sure, act 2's desert was pretty featureless and could be sidestepped; but that's the design for every D3 map.
    In Act I, you just follow the road and it will always take you to the next area. In Act III, you need to head north-east and until they modified the code in late LoD, there was only one "dead end" that could spawn and it was rare. The Durance at the end of Act III was really short until they expanded it to the point that it maxed out the map size. That is to say, the Durance was one big square. Act IV of course was tiny.

    You're really not remembering it right, if you'd played it a few times you could easily predict the optimal path to take in D2, at least as much if not more than is the case in D3.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    I agree about the story. It's always been pretty limited. They tried to make the story more involved and it ended up being really really banal.
    Eh, I found it relatively enjoyable for what it's intended to be. I think Diablo has been more about setting a tone and an atmosphere and Diablo 1 was probably the best in that respect.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    Maybe inferno was legitimately hard and I just played over powered classes? I rolled through with a mage and monk pretty early on in the game. Witchdoctor seemed to have a decent level of difficulty earlier though, I'll give you that.
    Yeah they were both broken at launch, so were DHs with SS. But even on my DH I remember having to shoot mobs from beyond the screen border or they'd rush me and I'd get 1shot haha. Then again I was playing with self-found gear only and refused to use SS because it was OP.

    They've nerfed it a lot since then because it really was brutal (especially after they fixed the broken abilities that trivialised it), but that's probably for the best.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    With stats there were skill buffing stats pretty earlier on, and I vaguely remember a reflect build (paladin or barbarian? It's been awhile) that wanted vitality over other things. Anyway, yes, there wasn't much variety. In D3 they removed skill buffing stats which is a step toward less variety. I believe this changed later, Did D3 expand their viable stats yet? Regardless, we're discussing why people found it initially unappealing so that's pretty irrelevant.
    I can see that some people were really attached to the stat points, but really they were effectively predetermined so they were just given to you by default. I feel like stat points gave the illusion of variety not actual variety. I can see why some people might think it's a simplification *shrug*.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    You could certainly play any of the one skill builds in D2 up till they introduced skill synergies. With D3 they went back to a pre synergy skill style which is pretty bad.
    Synergies were merely an attempt to make the lower abilities useful instead of a total waste. Before them you could put points into frost bolt but it was a waste, really you just wanted to save all your points until you unlocked frozen orb and just dump 20 points in that. Horrible. Synergies were like, okay so FB is crap but we'll make it buff FO... but then you're still just using all your skill points to just buff that one ability and you'll never actually cast FB once you have FO.

    At the start I guess they thought you'd just put your points wherever and it's not a big deal, but of course once you figure out how it works the gameplay totally devolves. Plus you couldn't respec back then which was a shocking decision.

    And remember all the junk abilities? Barb's +10% more stamina (not HP, your run bar)? LOL. I mean, you could make "exotic builds" using really underpowered and underutilised abilities, I spent a lot of time doing that but really the reason you could get away with that was because the game was so facerollicious you could beat it with anything. Remember those "pacifist" videos where a guy would try to beat the whole game without killing any monsters? Or the naked runs...

    People also underestimate the variety of builds you can make in D3. Sure "everybody" uses whatever is popular right now, but that was true in D2 as well. Personally I enjoyed randomly changing my skill bars around and using abilities most people don't. Actually that's one of my personal beefs with D3 - I wish they'd remove that stupid thing where changing your skills resets your NV stacks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  6. #806
    Elemental Lord Sierra85's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    getting a coffee
    Posts
    8,490
    I don't think it will be as bad as everyones suggesting it will be.
    Hi

  7. #807
    Quote Originally Posted by Anarchor View Post
    I guess they should get kinda worried that their active playerbase in the US and EU is only slightly bigger than GuildWars 2.
    GW2 is free and brand new, so if you think about it it's shocking that it isn't way bigger than WoW.

    P.S. Where are you getting your information? I don't think GW2 publishes active players. Apparently only about 3 million boxes have even been sold. So if what you're saying is true, every single person who bought a box would have to be currently playing.

    P.P.S. WoW has 6.6 million subs. GW2 has zero. Apples and oranges.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  8. #808
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    GW2 is free and brand new, so if you think about it it's shocking that it isn't way bigger than WoW.

    P.S. Where are you getting your information? I don't think GW2 publishes active players. Apparently only about 3 million boxes have even been sold. So if what you're saying is true, every single person who bought a box would have to be currently playing.

    P.P.S. WoW has 6.6 million subs. GW2 has zero. Apples and oranges.
    Per NCSoft's own statistics, GW2 lost more than 80% in sales since launch. WoW makes more revenue in one month than GW2 made in its lifetime. Even Eve makes more in revenue than GW2. GW2 started off big but just like every other MMO sunk quickly, it is lucky to have 100k -150k active players at the moment.

    It isn't in WoW's league, it is in SWTOR's league.
    Last edited by Sharuko; 2013-11-07 at 04:32 AM.

  9. #809
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharuko View Post
    Per NCSoft's own statistics, GW2 lost more than 80% in sales since launch.
    What is this sentence supposed to mean?

    I realize you must have some reason for saying all this; but GW2 has been doing very well in their gem store sales by allowing the easy exchange of gold for gems between players, their market format is looking like a keeper and one worth researching if not outright stealing for any new mmo. Being able to leverage their non-paying players desire for in game purchases to prop up the value of their in game currency has been extremely effective.

    I get that there's a lot of fear and hatred of GW2 by WoW adherents, but you look goofy when you say things like this to anyone who is objective in their interest in MMOs.

  10. #810
    Bloodsail Admiral Kanariya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,097
    o sweet i got the right result!

  11. #811
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    Time for chestpounding and "Called it" threads
    Time for "4th Quarted Sub Loss Predictions" threads
    Kinda funny that it's always loss, and no option for gain
    Well "other" I guess >.>

    Seriously though, the only subs I personally "care" about are the EU ones. Those affect me.

  12. #812
    Nice, my guess was right

    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    I get that there's a lot of fear and hatred of GW2 by WoW adherents, but you look goofy when you say things like this to anyone who is objective in their interest in MMOs.
    I'm sorry, but to tell that GW2's online is somewhat equal to wow's online in eu/us regions is beyond goofyness. We all realise that you like GW2 and praise it like the second coming, but don't be surprised when other people don't share your opinion in this particular matter. You can enjoy a game without having to pull numbers out of some dark, smelly places, you know.

  13. #813
    Deleted
    My preditcting was a little bit off, was think more around 7 million mark, i suspect a few 100 thousand more in Q4 tho.

  14. #814
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    It's not really thát random.
    New patch: Hardly any losses.
    'Bad' or old patch: Many losses.
    I think subs dont only drop because of quitters but lately its just better to play a few months into the patch, then quit till the next when before players used to keep subbed without breaks. So the numbers can fluctuate depending on when they are measured.

    What does 7.6 million subscribers in Q3 even mean? The lowest point? The highest number? Or maybe the average?

  15. #815
    Quote Originally Posted by Lizbeth View Post
    What does 7.6 million subscribers in Q3 even mean? The lowest point? The highest number? Or maybe the average?
    It means the number of active accounts as of the last day of the quarter.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    P.P.S. WoW has 6.6 million subs.
    7.6 million, you mean.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  16. #816
    I voted "Greater than 1 Million Sub Loss" just for fun

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •