Quite a few blogs have taken up my "explosive" discussion on Twitter about the use of X-Fire as a trending tool. From those who feel it tells us NOTHING, to those who think it is FUN TO WATCH, and of course those who see the MERITS such a system holds...it has been nothing short of great to see such an open discussion taking place.
First off, I really feel it is constantly necessary to point out that using X-Fire for hard FACTUAL data is next to a no-win situation. What I do believe though is using X-Fire to trend what games someone like myself are interested in and how they rate in gamers eyes, is valid.
Time and again I can see how when a game is advertised heavily, or a game has massive sales to start and loses steam...it reflects this on X-Fire. Launches of popular MMO's always seem to reflect the same on X-Fire. Examples of this would be Age of Conan and Warhammer Online, who both rated highly on X-Fire at one time, even getting into the top 10.
When Lord of the Rings Online went free to play and we saw the exponential jump on X-Fire...is that to say that LOTRO may NOT have had a spike in new players in the real world?
Some believe this to be the case.
One notation that stands out in this regard from one of the blogs is that you cannot compare one game to another game evenly and across the board on X-Fire.
So, even though LOTRO had a jump and another game had a loss...say Age of Conan...this does not reflect real world value.
I disagree.
Tipa notes on West Karana that not all games are present on X-Fire, which throws out the ability to show real world trends. This is true to an extent. As an example, no Browser based games are tracked. This is disappointing, as we would see some major differences, I think, in what games are played the most..(and WoW would probably not even be the #1 game on X-Fire).
This does not mean that we cannot see a trend in games that DO exist on X-Fire. That is what interests me the most...thus why I play the X-Fire game.
I can go look right now at the charts and see how WoW is the most played MMO. Call of Duty is the most played FPS and Starcraft II is the most played RTS. On the PC, mind you...
Would anyone argue this does NOT match real world data?
X-Fire offers us a snapshot of the interests of roughly 17 million gamers. Not all are always accounted for, but that falls in line with polling rules.
I think of X-Fire as like an "Opinion" poll. We get a view of gamers opinions about games and can even extract some generalized data.
The continued argument right now is that Nielsen's data for TV viewing is more accurate. A random sample of the audience who watch TV, which is less than 1% of the overall population that watches TV altogether, gives us a smarter picture of TV viewing habits than say 17 million possible gamers playing games.
That is a closed minded view in my opinion.
Is it possible to believe that there are more gamers than there are TV watchers in the world? I do not believe so. Yet, the sample size in X-Fire is CONSIDERABLY larger than Nielsens. Why can't that be a good sample to look at?
Just like viewers on Nielsen's charts have different viewing habits, thus do gamers have different playing habits. Why can't this snapshot of gamers reflect what real world gamers are playing?
Nielsen and it's less than 1% RANDOM sample says that American Idol is the most watched show on TV. Yet, MY TV has never watched this show. So why did this chosen sample have the right to say that I would have a more than likely chance to watch American Idol above Fringe?
Yet, I have played WoW, and there is a chance I may play it again. I bet there are a LOT of MMO players who could say the same. Based on X-Fires data we can see more people are playing WoW than LOTRO or Guild Wars even. I believe that, because based on other data available, we can note this as a fact.
True, we do not know how real Blizzards 12 million subs statement is...but, I can pretty much agree with X-Fires listing that RIGHT NOW more people are playing WoW and are logged into WoW than say, LOTRO.
I truly do wish there were more data points we could look at (I have attempted to view Raptr's data to add a secondary source, but the information is wacky at best), or that more companies were forthcoming with info...but, they are not.
So, for now, I can look at this snapshot of gamers who use X-Fire and see what games are being played the most and truly believe what I see...as that core audience is like me; a gamer.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
SUB-Species aka The MMO player
Speculation has been rampant on just how well Rift: Planes of Telara will sell on release. What even has me more excited is the prospect of a new MMO with a sub class that elevates above most newly released MMO's.
For the last few years, MMO releases went hand in hand with praise (Age of Conan and Warhammer Online), followed by a swift decline of populations due to a buggy and messy affair once players progressed in these fantasy worlds.
Rift has something going for it already, that most do not. An almost flawless delivery of a beta; word of mouth salesmanship; a chance to offer familiar gameplay in a polished and stable environment.
Barring any major nerfage at launch, Rift could contend with the masters of the genre (Lord of The Rings, EvE Online and Aion based on sales and representative data showing higher populations than most MMO's).
This led me to a question of the day after reading several blog posts all stating "Rift will be my MMO along with...(you fill in the blank)"
How often does an MMO player really play two MMO's on a regular basis?
For myself, it always fails. I even tried two years ago. I was subbing to Everquest 2 when I got a "free offer" to return to Age of Conan. AoC had made strides and was playing quite well. I continued my level grind and playtime through EQ2, but felt swayed to log into AoC more each day. Eventaully I felt it just was not worth it to keep both.
Putting this question out to Twitter brought in some interesting responses, and some corroborating data of why the player could or could not continue more than one MMO.
I had many other answers (for example, wargrimnir Grimnir who plays so many games your head would burst, had noted he is a Weekend Warrior Dad...), but a consensus was that it is hard to have TWO or more MMO's. Some played another game as their wife or friend was in that game. Some would play the other game (or list it) as it was F2P or they were a Lifetime subber.
This had me thinking...where will this leave Rift (or say DC Universe, our latest launched MMO) when the dust clears. What will keep the player in the game and not return to their old sub. No matter how anyone slices it, there is a reason we try to sub to two games..and it is not always because we WANT two games to play.
What do you think the new MMO needs to offer to finally give up your old MMO sub?
For the last few years, MMO releases went hand in hand with praise (Age of Conan and Warhammer Online), followed by a swift decline of populations due to a buggy and messy affair once players progressed in these fantasy worlds.
Rift has something going for it already, that most do not. An almost flawless delivery of a beta; word of mouth salesmanship; a chance to offer familiar gameplay in a polished and stable environment.
Barring any major nerfage at launch, Rift could contend with the masters of the genre (Lord of The Rings, EvE Online and Aion based on sales and representative data showing higher populations than most MMO's).
This led me to a question of the day after reading several blog posts all stating "Rift will be my MMO along with...(you fill in the blank)"
How often does an MMO player really play two MMO's on a regular basis?
For myself, it always fails. I even tried two years ago. I was subbing to Everquest 2 when I got a "free offer" to return to Age of Conan. AoC had made strides and was playing quite well. I continued my level grind and playtime through EQ2, but felt swayed to log into AoC more each day. Eventaully I felt it just was not worth it to keep both.
Putting this question out to Twitter brought in some interesting responses, and some corroborating data of why the player could or could not continue more than one MMO.
I have EQ2 and LOTRO at the moment as I'm a lifer in the 2nd. I barely have time for one due to mini me. (EDIT: I assume he speaks of a little one, child in the way)
yup I bought aoc and war on the same day but didn't touch war till I tired of aoc months later hehe
Usually when I would play two MMOs I had friends go back and forth as well. But that's no longer the case.
I have always run at LEAST two subs at a time. Yeah, it happens. (EDIT: Found out one sub is with his wife)
I multi sub - but - that is due to work. If I did not have a job playing video games I would MUCH rather be a one sub gal.
I've been playing two MMOs (WoW & LotRO) for a good while now. But generally one will dominate my time. (EDIT: as I found out, the second sub for this person was LOTRO...as a lifer)
This had me thinking...where will this leave Rift (or say DC Universe, our latest launched MMO) when the dust clears. What will keep the player in the game and not return to their old sub. No matter how anyone slices it, there is a reason we try to sub to two games..and it is not always because we WANT two games to play.
What do you think the new MMO needs to offer to finally give up your old MMO sub?
Monday, January 10, 2011
The X-Fire Game: SUB-strata
This week has shown an interesting change in our report for X-Fire. Almost all games were up across the board. Last weeks listing may have been premature in showing who is playing what.
But, as we will see, two games DO seem to be losing ground though.
My hope is after this report, we can track properly as all players should be back in game after the holidays.
Several notes. If you do not know about the X-Fire game, please head HERE and HERE to see how this is played. I will be attempting to play the "subs" game this round with new calculations I got last week. We also have added a new MMO that I really should have added a long time ago: EvE Online!
I am disappointed about the holiday return as it does not allow me to see what changes, if any the games may have had with the "RIFT" effect. Maybe next beta? Anyways...
Lets get this ball rolling...
Expect this game to take off if Free to play ever launches.
But, as we will see, two games DO seem to be losing ground though.
My hope is after this report, we can track properly as all players should be back in game after the holidays.
Several notes. If you do not know about the X-Fire game, please head HERE and HERE to see how this is played. I will be attempting to play the "subs" game this round with new calculations I got last week. We also have added a new MMO that I really should have added a long time ago: EvE Online!
I am disappointed about the holiday return as it does not allow me to see what changes, if any the games may have had with the "RIFT" effect. Maybe next beta? Anyways...
Lets get this ball rolling...
Champions Online
86 x 215.5 = 18,533 subs
Champions continues to trail the bottom of our reports. Mind you, it is NOT the lowest of MMO's out (for example Vanguard is in considerably worse shape). There is no doubt that this super hero game has not fared well.
Even though it is not within the purview of this report, City of Heroes ranks #127 and has 181 X-Fire players...thus beating out CO (CoH is NOT on the list due to age and CO is being watched for when it goes Free To Play).
Expect this game to take off if Free to play ever launches.
Final Fantasy XIV
192 x 215.5 = 41,376 subs
My how the mighty do fall. Square Enix really made some major mistakes. And even FREE to play is not helping this failure out. FFXIV is one of two games that fell this week from previous reports. It continues to fall weekly. I have not seen this since Age of Conan's launch. Keep an eye on this one, as Rift will make this game one spoken of in hushed tones in the backrooms and board rooms of how not to launch an MMO...Warhammer Online
275 x 215.5 = 59,263
Well, a small rise for another game that has fallen considerably on these charts. WAR seems to be weathering the current changes from their patches. But, the damage has been done. These numbers are not good, and the distance between this game and it's cousin, Age of Conan (launched the same year, same premise of PvP and had a horrible launch as well...) has grown over the last year. Unless WAR gets it together I expect it to fall out of the X-Fire top 100.
Age of Conan
335 x 215.5 = 72,193
This has been pretty much par for course for Age of Conan. It has held steady in the 70's for quite a while with the same number of players holding on. Special events and the expansion launch brought this game up earlier this year (even beating LOTRO). But, I expect this will now be the story and even some loss after Rift releases.Star Trek Online
402 x 215.5 = 86,331
A turn of events for Star Trek Online...voted most popular MMO of 2010 at Massively. Could that poll have had any effect on the game as a result of winning those honors? The numbers have steadily risen, and is beating out WAR and AoC for their spots on this chart. Will this last?
Dungeons & Dragons Online
501 x 215.5 = 107,966
For a game that was bordering utter failure, Free To Play seems to be the way to fix just such a catastrophic release. The game was not bad either, just not what most people expected of a pay for MMO. Free to play suited DDO quite well, and these numbers corroborate this.
EvE Online
2229 x 215.5 = 480,350
New to our round-up due to popular demand, EvE opens with a killer showing. EvE has been resting within the top 50 for the longest time, but this right here is where it has held on the most. Great sub numbers accompany the only really successful Sci-Fi MMO on the charts...or of any Sci-Fi MMO...period.
Aion
2141 x 215.5 = 461,386
This is our second game on the chart to show loss this week. Aion has been a game that has held a high spot on these charts for quite a while, but has seen some major cracks as of late. Could this fall be part of the Rift effect?
Lord of the Rings Online
3000 x 215.5 = 646,500
Still our Number 1 game of the X-Fire chart listings on my site. This number proves interesting historically as well. Just last week on the Ten Ton Hammer podcast, Turbine had announced tripling of revenue since going free to play. This helps corroborate some older data too...if the X-Fire Game can be trusted.
A post from March of 2010 was done playing the X-Fire sub game (SOURCE) which did the calc before LOTRO went free to play. They had 213,689 subs according to the math. Triple that and we get 641k. That is SCARY close to what we have now. The only concern is that maybe not all of these players can be considered monthly due to the Free to play mechanic. But, I am not one to argue with the Karmic like nature of the math here.
That wraps up this weeks X-Fire game. Time keeps ticking along as we get close to a new launch (DC Universe). Will see how that relates to Champions and City of Heroes. And of course Rift is on the way, and a Free to play launch for Champions.
2011 - expect excitement in the MMO market.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Age of Conan vs. Rift: FIGHT!!
During a discussion on Twitter about the infamous Jef Reahard 1 hour gameplay session of Rift, I started to think on if that hour can really tell you anything.
The reason for this is the first 20 levels of Age of Conan.
Here is a game with a winning hour of gameplay that does not tell you the whole story. First, you are not given the requisite "Fetch me this" or "Kill 10 of this" type of quest. You basically are left standing on a beach and must discover your roots. You must figure out where to go. Of course they leave you pointing in a certain direction that leads you to a screaming woman who gives you a quest...but, you get the drift.
The story starts to lead you through, but it is an open and exhilarating hour that gets you to where you need to be. The battles become more intense, the journey through that jungle feels natural and how you should progress. Combat does not feel the same (unless you're a caster, but the casting mechanic is still a bit different than most MMO's). There are not even any of the infamous "?" over heads to lead you on.
Basically the first 20 levels of Conan has "buy" written all over it. Funcom knew this, and sold the game based on it's beta and those 20 levels.
Then reality hits. If you play an hour of Age of Conan, then you will be sold short. You will not know the true game until after several hours.
Now, of course, this is not to say that Rift's first hour is not boring. It kinda is. But, would holding out for more gameplay have helped a player like Jef know if there was more to the game? Even though his interests are clearly not geared toward this game, whose not to say that the next game may be his style...but, he gives up, as the first hour did not tell him the whole story.
Age of Conan is clearly the marker here for understanding that just one hour of gameplay is not enough.
Can you name another game which does not really tell the whole story in that first hour?
Cheers
The reason for this is the first 20 levels of Age of Conan.
Here is a game with a winning hour of gameplay that does not tell you the whole story. First, you are not given the requisite "Fetch me this" or "Kill 10 of this" type of quest. You basically are left standing on a beach and must discover your roots. You must figure out where to go. Of course they leave you pointing in a certain direction that leads you to a screaming woman who gives you a quest...but, you get the drift.
The story starts to lead you through, but it is an open and exhilarating hour that gets you to where you need to be. The battles become more intense, the journey through that jungle feels natural and how you should progress. Combat does not feel the same (unless you're a caster, but the casting mechanic is still a bit different than most MMO's). There are not even any of the infamous "?" over heads to lead you on.
Basically the first 20 levels of Conan has "buy" written all over it. Funcom knew this, and sold the game based on it's beta and those 20 levels.
Then reality hits. If you play an hour of Age of Conan, then you will be sold short. You will not know the true game until after several hours.
Now, of course, this is not to say that Rift's first hour is not boring. It kinda is. But, would holding out for more gameplay have helped a player like Jef know if there was more to the game? Even though his interests are clearly not geared toward this game, whose not to say that the next game may be his style...but, he gives up, as the first hour did not tell him the whole story.
Age of Conan is clearly the marker here for understanding that just one hour of gameplay is not enough.
Can you name another game which does not really tell the whole story in that first hour?
Cheers
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Same as it ever was...
Today has been a flurry of discussion on various sites about upcoming MMO's Rift and Star Wars: The Old Republic.
One thing seems to be clear for both of these games...they are the "Same as it ever was..."
Is this really a bad thing?
I have argued in the past that the MMO genre really needs a swift kick in the pants. Innovation is dead for this style of game. I would prefer each of the above listed games made a move toward a different way to play an MMO. But, it is not to be. So, why should you still look at these games?
They are finally getting it right.
Since 2008 (or even earlier...depending on your view of the growth of this industry), every MMO that has been released has had some sort of issue. Whether it is bugginess (Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, etc, etc.), ugliness (Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online...animations and some models mainly) or unfinished games (most MMO's released since 2008)...there really has not been a winner in the genre since World of Warcraft.
Rift will be the first game to take elements of each MMO listed and polish it until you are blinded by the light of the sheen.
Will it really be ready? Is endgame there? Will balance haunt the infamous "souls" system? Will the "Rifts" be unmanageable due to lower populations as players level?
And will the Dev's continue to listen like they do now?
This and many other questions remain unanswered. Based on the feedback though and the current iteration (Beta 3 as of this writing) the game looks to be a competitor. For those who have grown tired of their current game, but are relatively new to the genre, Rift is a winner. To those, like myself, that loved the older MMO's; Vanguard, WAR and AoC all had something I liked, yet had more to hate; then it is a good home to come to.
As to Star Wars, or Guild Wars 2 or any further game, Rift will actually be telling. If the "familiarity" does not keep the players in this game, then innovation will be the only step to player retention.
This genre, I feel, has really been played out. Rift could be the last great game of the familiar "themepark" variety. After that, it will be time to step into the next generation.
Cheers!
One thing seems to be clear for both of these games...they are the "Same as it ever was..."
Is this really a bad thing?
I have argued in the past that the MMO genre really needs a swift kick in the pants. Innovation is dead for this style of game. I would prefer each of the above listed games made a move toward a different way to play an MMO. But, it is not to be. So, why should you still look at these games?
They are finally getting it right.
Since 2008 (or even earlier...depending on your view of the growth of this industry), every MMO that has been released has had some sort of issue. Whether it is bugginess (Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, etc, etc.), ugliness (Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online...animations and some models mainly) or unfinished games (most MMO's released since 2008)...there really has not been a winner in the genre since World of Warcraft.
Rift will be the first game to take elements of each MMO listed and polish it until you are blinded by the light of the sheen.
Will it really be ready? Is endgame there? Will balance haunt the infamous "souls" system? Will the "Rifts" be unmanageable due to lower populations as players level?
And will the Dev's continue to listen like they do now?
This and many other questions remain unanswered. Based on the feedback though and the current iteration (Beta 3 as of this writing) the game looks to be a competitor. For those who have grown tired of their current game, but are relatively new to the genre, Rift is a winner. To those, like myself, that loved the older MMO's; Vanguard, WAR and AoC all had something I liked, yet had more to hate; then it is a good home to come to.
As to Star Wars, or Guild Wars 2 or any further game, Rift will actually be telling. If the "familiarity" does not keep the players in this game, then innovation will be the only step to player retention.
This genre, I feel, has really been played out. Rift could be the last great game of the familiar "themepark" variety. After that, it will be time to step into the next generation.
Cheers!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
X-Fire Game: Got Math?
Almost three years ago I started playing what I called the "X-Fire game". I used a calculation sometimes to show an average number of subs an MMO may have. You can read more about the calculation here - X-FIRE GAME.
As time has progressed, of course the numbers on X-Fire have also changed. Less people use it, thus, the calculation seems to be a tad off.
For the X-Fire game, we would see the number of players for WoW, which is our benchmark game, and use it to gain our total sub counts. When I started the game, X-Fire was around 90k WoW players. Now, we are getting around 50-60k.
Time to make an adjustment.
This system of "calculation" follows the same benchmarking that Nielsens use. Nielsens in the USA tracks the number of viewers in an age demographic who watch TV, based on a number of viewers who use "set top boxes" to watch various shows. As well, there is also a write in campaign, and secret viewers as well (it has been noted that colleges will have boxes unknowingly setup in dorms).
You can read more about Nielsens HERE.
As you can see, roughly 25k houses will hold a metered box, which tracks the viewers watching habits. Yet, it calculates for over 114 million households with TV's.
So, with the X-Fire game, we take an X-Fire "player" and it will be noted as a number for an average of subs.
You can understand why this also leads to criticism. Same with my X-Fire game.
But, if you go through the historical postings here you can see how at times the "game" has actually matched actual numbers noted by companies for their MMO's. For example, a post I did last year when Star Trek Online announced the number of players HERE. Talk about a close match.
So, for 2011, I wanted to rework my calculation.
Blizzard had recently posted a new average for subs, with 12 million being the sub marker. Now, we know this does not mean EVERY single one of those 12 million are true "subs". With Asian markets offering per hour gameplay, it is quite hard to get an exact.
Using my original system, I have played with some new calcs, with a 215.5 getting me a number that seems reasonable.
Now, using this past Sunday, X-Fire had an average of 53k players in WoW.
53000 x 215.5 = 11.4 million
This drops some numbers so we can alleviate the anomaly of players who may be hourly.
Now, of course, the last calculation did a total of 11 million players (i.e: the total listed by Blizzard). This may have caused some variations to be off for MMO listings, and actually giving games more players. We may never know. Just like this new "game" may never be accurate until we have someone else say "We have X number of subs" and I can use the X-Fire calc.
So, why don't we use the new calc on a game listed from yesterdays post and see how the numbers work out.
As time has progressed, of course the numbers on X-Fire have also changed. Less people use it, thus, the calculation seems to be a tad off.
For the X-Fire game, we would see the number of players for WoW, which is our benchmark game, and use it to gain our total sub counts. When I started the game, X-Fire was around 90k WoW players. Now, we are getting around 50-60k.
Time to make an adjustment.
This system of "calculation" follows the same benchmarking that Nielsens use. Nielsens in the USA tracks the number of viewers in an age demographic who watch TV, based on a number of viewers who use "set top boxes" to watch various shows. As well, there is also a write in campaign, and secret viewers as well (it has been noted that colleges will have boxes unknowingly setup in dorms).
You can read more about Nielsens HERE.
As you can see, roughly 25k houses will hold a metered box, which tracks the viewers watching habits. Yet, it calculates for over 114 million households with TV's.
So, with the X-Fire game, we take an X-Fire "player" and it will be noted as a number for an average of subs.
You can understand why this also leads to criticism. Same with my X-Fire game.
But, if you go through the historical postings here you can see how at times the "game" has actually matched actual numbers noted by companies for their MMO's. For example, a post I did last year when Star Trek Online announced the number of players HERE. Talk about a close match.
So, for 2011, I wanted to rework my calculation.
Blizzard had recently posted a new average for subs, with 12 million being the sub marker. Now, we know this does not mean EVERY single one of those 12 million are true "subs". With Asian markets offering per hour gameplay, it is quite hard to get an exact.
Using my original system, I have played with some new calcs, with a 215.5 getting me a number that seems reasonable.
Now, using this past Sunday, X-Fire had an average of 53k players in WoW.
53000 x 215.5 = 11.4 million
This drops some numbers so we can alleviate the anomaly of players who may be hourly.
Now, of course, the last calculation did a total of 11 million players (i.e: the total listed by Blizzard). This may have caused some variations to be off for MMO listings, and actually giving games more players. We may never know. Just like this new "game" may never be accurate until we have someone else say "We have X number of subs" and I can use the X-Fire calc.
So, why don't we use the new calc on a game listed from yesterdays post and see how the numbers work out.
Star Trek Online
386 players x 215.5 = 83,183 subs
Now, lets say we account for "loss" over time as a game ages, STO really has not lost that many subs, and still seems to be doing well. The last time I did the calc STO had 117k subs. So, over 30k subs lost.
Does that feel accurate?
Lets try a bigger game.
Lord of the Rings Online
2825 X-Fire players x 215.5 = 608,787
Now, lets look back. Turbine had announced a 100% increase in overall subs. At the time of my last calc, the game had 213, 689. Double that and then account for a variance in "FREE" players who do not sub...and I think we again can see a fairly accurate listing here.
We will never know how accurate this is until we do hear "real" numbers. But, we can see some trends AND we have a way of trying to find out how the market is being affected by either new launches or changes in pricing structures.
Champions Online is one game to watch who will be changing to Free to Play. How will their numbers look when they change over? Is Age of Conan and Warhammer Online still failing to retain it's audience? Is Final Fantasy XIV truly a major failure? How will DC Universe or Rift do when they launch?
Lets play the game...
Monday, January 3, 2011
X-fire Review: Ending and Beginnings
Welcome 2011. I can't wait to get my hands on you and run you through the ringer.
For now, I must settle down and start my work for 2011 on the right foot. So, lets track the games that we have watched over the last year in X-Fire. These reports are for the first Sunday of 2011, and show where these games are sitting since my last report in November.
I will have the usual suspects here. But, lets get excited, as this year will bring some new and fun changes.
First off, Champions Online will be launching as Free to Play (or whatever you want to call it...Free to load, pay to play with little trinkets...etc..). So, I think we will see some adjustments in their numbers when that hits.
Next up is the launch of several new games.
February is the beginning of DC Universe Online. Later this year (ETA is noted as March) is Rift. I am sure some other games may muck with the times on X-Fire (for example, if Diablo 3 launches, I will be watching that games times).
For now, we will need to set up our markers for the current MMO's we watch, and we can use them as comparison through the year.
As is usual, lets get the disclaimer out of the way (so many "Whiners" throw a fit thinking this is hard science...when it is not...)
"The results here in no way equal a major scientific fact. If anything, X-Fire stats show a "trend" among gamers on the X-Fire network, who number in the millions, who may play an MMO in the list".
Whew....alright then, lets get started.
A good placeholder for our 2011 Calculations. I also put the games in order from least played to most and ranked accordingly. Any commentary I will leave to Twitter...so make sure to FOLLOW ME.
Cheers and Happy 2011.
For now, I must settle down and start my work for 2011 on the right foot. So, lets track the games that we have watched over the last year in X-Fire. These reports are for the first Sunday of 2011, and show where these games are sitting since my last report in November.
I will have the usual suspects here. But, lets get excited, as this year will bring some new and fun changes.
First off, Champions Online will be launching as Free to Play (or whatever you want to call it...Free to load, pay to play with little trinkets...etc..). So, I think we will see some adjustments in their numbers when that hits.
Next up is the launch of several new games.
February is the beginning of DC Universe Online. Later this year (ETA is noted as March) is Rift. I am sure some other games may muck with the times on X-Fire (for example, if Diablo 3 launches, I will be watching that games times).
For now, we will need to set up our markers for the current MMO's we watch, and we can use them as comparison through the year.
As is usual, lets get the disclaimer out of the way (so many "Whiners" throw a fit thinking this is hard science...when it is not...)
"The results here in no way equal a major scientific fact. If anything, X-Fire stats show a "trend" among gamers on the X-Fire network, who number in the millions, who may play an MMO in the list".
Whew....alright then, lets get started.
Champions Online
Warhammer Online
Final Fantasy XIV
Age of Conan
Star Trek Online
Dungeons & Dragons Online
AION
Lord of the Rings Online
A good placeholder for our 2011 Calculations. I also put the games in order from least played to most and ranked accordingly. Any commentary I will leave to Twitter...so make sure to FOLLOW ME.
Cheers and Happy 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)