LOTRO TAXI to victory lasted two weeks

[HaemishM]

172k isn't all that great.

Yes, it is.

[Nebu]

172k isn't all that great.

Yes, it is.

To be fair, it's all relative.  Given investment costs, servers, employees, etc. I'm sure that Turbine isn't excited about those numbers given their expectations with such a popular license.  For an Indy, this would be a homerun.   

[Numtini]

It's the biggest title they've ever had, that has to count for something.

If the people I know are any indication, the title isn't proving to be very sticky. My old kinship has gone from closing recruitment because they were too large to brainstorming about how to get more members due to people quitting the game.

Anyone in game who wants to do the social panel count?

[HaemishM]

172k isn't all that great.

Yes, it is.

To be fair, it's all relative.  Given investment costs, servers, employees, etc. I'm sure that Turbine isn't excited about those numbers given their expectations with such a popular license.  For an Indy, this would be a homerun.   

If DDO was a success, then 172k for LotRO should make them giddy. If it doesn't, they planned their dev budget very badly.

[Hound]

I wonder what the European figures are? They just started their Chinese beta also for whatever that is worth. Our guild probably has about 40% or 50% of the the launch numbers and I really don't pay much attention to the rest of the population but it seems to be fair but not what it was at launch.

[Nebu]

If DDO was a success, then 172k for LotRO should make them giddy. If it doesn't, they planned their dev budget very badly.

Different budgets and different project team sizes.  I'm wondering how many boxes they needed to sell and subs they had to maintain just to pay for the LOTR licensing alone. 

My point was that the "percieved" target audience size for both projects was likely very different.  100k for DDO may have been a success while anything under say 500k may have meant failure for LOTRO.  I know you know all this Haem... I'm just restating the obvious here.

[shiznitz]

172k is solid, a number to be happy about.

As to the comment that Turbine doesn't ask why one is quitting, that usually comes later in the program when retention becomes more of a focus than content additions. It really shouldn't happen that way since knowing why people who bought your game first are quitting is probably good information to have, but these games never launch "finished" so the first few months after launch are usually content and bug fixing related.

[Nebu]

172k is solid, a number to be happy about.

Then you can enlighten me.  How is it that you know that Turbine is satisfied with this number?  Is it sufficient revenue to offset investment and upkeep?  I'm not being even a little sarcastic here.  I'm just guessing that none of the leads on this project were selling a proof of concept with the notion that "If we can get 150k+ subs, we'll throw a party."  When this project was getting off the ground, the expected numbers I was hearing tossed around were in the 400-500k range with hope of upwards of that.  I can't imagine how anyone would be anything more than resigned to cope with the reality that they are at the 172k point. 

[Hound]

once again I point out that those figures are from US box sales reported by Midway for 2nd quarter sales, you can at least double that adding in the European numbers. Side note: does anyone know if the game is available in Korea and other Asian countries yet? Excluding China of course which as I have already pointed out is in the beta phase.

[HaemishM]

IMO, anything that gets 100k even (and especially) in today's post-WoW world is a success. I've always viewed 50k as breaking even and 100k as successful, ever since the release of Shadowbane, and I don't see even today's economics changing that bar much.

100k subs = $1.5 million in revenue a month at $15/month + 100k boxes @ $15 a box revenue for the developer = another $1.5 million. If the average subscription length is 6 months, then after the first 6 months, they've made @ $7.5 million in revenue. Again, unless their budgeting was terribly planned, they should be able to make back their investment and more within 2 years. Given that MMOG's usually stay around a lot longer than 2 years and after that point, development costs tend to go down, 100k ought to be a success, especially considering the tendency of successful MMOG's to gain subscribers for the first year as opposed to lose them like shitty Vanguard-esque MMOG's do.

[Tmon]

As to the comment that Turbine doesn't ask why one is quitting...

They did have a link to an exit survey on the cancellation confirmation page but when I clicked it I got a 404 error.

[Venkman]

The reason I don't think 172k is that great is because of the IP. This isn't some no-name license coming out of left field with the hopes of bringing some fanbois with them. This is effing Tolkien, the root of almost everything popular in this genre. And they nailed the game play experience in ways that should have at least let them pass by the likes of SWG.

At the same time, as Hound has said and I did in my last post, we could in theory double the boxes sold based on the unreported Codemasters numbers. At 330k that'd be good.

[Murgos]

These games often do grow over time.  What will be interesting will be seeing what those numbers are next time they are released.  As I recall even WoW took a while to break their first million.

[Ironwood]

As to the comment that Turbine doesn't ask why one is quitting...

They did have a link to an exit survey on the cancellation confirmation page but when I clicked it I got a 404 error.

Heh.  Coffee---->Keyboard.

[Venkman]

These games often do grow over time.  What will be interesting will be seeing what those numbers are next time they are released.  As I recall even WoW took a while to break their first million.

WoW had the benefit of a staggered launch in a huge number of territories though. Each successive launch came with some record-event that drew attention back to the core. And they had a much stronger showing initially.

I do agree though that this game can grow. But I think certain things need to happen though, like Blizzard taking a long time on the next expansion. AoC and WAR sucking or being delayed, Turbine making improvements to what still feels like combat underwater, more content and the beginnings of proof that the story is moving forward.

[HaemishM]

But for video games, especially COMPUTER video games, Tolkien ISN'T some big effing license. It's Tolkien. You might think it would have, what with it being the inspiration for Dungeons & Dragons which started a lot of these things, but in games it really hasn't been a license to print money. The Middle-Earth PNP roleplaying games? D&D has outlasted and outsold them in all editions. Tolkien based video games, even those based on the movie and released concurrently, haven't sold gangbusters either. It's a weird license, in that you'd expect it to be ginormous, but history would not bear that out for any type of licensing other than the movies. Star Wars, OTOH, has had a history of good, great and not so great video games, many more than Tolkien-licensed games. It damn well should have been a blockbuster as an MMOG license, but we won't rehash that.

Again, 172k JUST IN AMERICA is fucking fantastic. And if Europe does bring the total to 330k, I'd call that a rip-roaring success.

[Slayerik]

The problem I think now is retention. Every person I know that has tried it just fizzles out. I made it about a month. Not sure why it's like that, it just is.

[naum]

The problem I think now is retention. Every person I know that has tried it just fizzles out. I made it about a month. Not sure why it's like that, it just is.

A market strategy based upon players forgetting to cancel their subscription only offers short term success.

[Venkman]

But for video games, especially COMPUTER video games, Tolkien ISN'T some big effing license. It's Tolkien. You might think it would have, what with it being the inspiration for Dungeons & Dragons which started a lot of these things, but in games it really hasn't been a license to print money.

I know, and have said similar in the past when discussing LoTRO's potential success. 30 years of computer games have devalued the uniqueness of the license by knocking it off all over the place. Nowadays more people associate Warcraft with fantasy than they do some guy who wrote hard to read books 60 years ago.

But it's still not a generic-IP with a small development budget. And the movies are still fairly recent enough, having captured so many people. That the game isn't based on the movie license, and that you can't play the main characters, definitely has an impact on potential. But that's not based on what license Turbine got. Rather it's based on the needs of an MMORPG.

My saying 172k isn't that great is due entirely to the amount of effort that went into the game (if the $30mil dev budget I've heard is to be believed). Freakin' Eve has more accounts (and that's not a slight on Eve, just indication that a niche generic sci-fi game is doing better than a title that cost more to launch by probably alot and has a recognizable IP). What is the point of securing a large license if you can't drive units with it? It's a monkey on your back in terms of extra money you won't see and extra people in the approvals process that slow everything down. At least it did better by Turbine than AC2 nor a generic fantasy MMO they might otherwise have launched. But that isn't saying much.

[sam, an eggplant]

If they have 300k accounts, conservatively they'll make their money back in just over a year. After that it's all gravy. And expansion packs.

LOTRO was hardly a rip-roaring success, but it's not a failure like DDO either. Once they start pooping out expansion packs, it'll be a nice little revenue source.

[Oban]

Is DDO still alive, and if so, why?

[CmdrSlack]

Yep, DDO is still there and they still roll out content updates, etc. on a fairly regular basis. They've raised the level cap a couple of times, added in more solo content beyond the initial newbie areas, etc.

Why is it still there? Because it has a dedicated enough core audience to keep the lights on. They did just do server merges, but I am guessing that will only increase retention as it will put more people on each server, thus increasing the ease of grouping.

[HaemishM]

My saying 172k isn't that great is due entirely to the amount of effort that went into the game (if the $30mil dev budget I've heard is to be believed). Freakin' Eve has more accounts (and that's not a slight on Eve, just indication that a niche generic sci-fi game is doing better than a title that cost more to launch by probably alot and has a recognizable IP). What is the point of securing a large license if you can't drive units with it? It's a monkey on your back in terms of extra money you won't see and extra people in the approvals process that slow everything down. At least it did better by Turbine than AC2 nor a generic fantasy MMO they might otherwise have launched. But that isn't saying much.

When did Eve get more than 100k accounts? That was the number they bandied about last I heard, which is a fantastic number for Eve. I think even with 172k, LotRO beats Eve.

[Slayerik]

My saying 172k isn't that great is due entirely to the amount of effort that went into the game (if the $30mil dev budget I've heard is to be believed). Freakin' Eve has more accounts (and that's not a slight on Eve, just indication that a niche generic sci-fi game is doing better than a title that cost more to launch by probably alot and has a recognizable IP). What is the point of securing a large license if you can't drive units with it? It's a monkey on your back in terms of extra money you won't see and extra people in the approvals process that slow everything down. At least it did better by Turbine than AC2 nor a generic fantasy MMO they might otherwise have launched. But that isn't saying much.

When did Eve get more than 100k accounts? That was the number they bandied about last I heard, which is a fantastic number for Eve. I think even with 172k, LotRO beats Eve.

I would doubt if LOTRO holds 100k US for longer than a month or two, regardless of box sales. But thats just me. Well, me and my wife and my brother and roughly 10 online friends who have all quit. That and stories of Kinships folding already due to players just...not logging on.

[sam, an eggplant]

I hear the same stories about WoW and it seems to be doing alright. Don't take anecdotal evidence as gospel.

[Slayerik]

I hear the same stories about WoW and it seems to be doing alright. Don't take anecdotal evidence as gospel.

You just playin' devil's advocate or do you have any experience with the game? If so, are you still playing?

It just seemed like retention is a problem when every person that I know who tried the game.......quit. If you asked them why, I'm not sure they'd know, besides "I just didnt feel like logging in anymore."

Between US and Europe im sure subs are fine.

[CmdrSlack]

I still play LoTRO, so there's your counter-anecdote. I guess.

[Numtini]

Well a few weeks after launch I used the social panel and the "20% of subs are online during normal prime time" rule and came up with 175k. (Pretty amazing that this has remained so stable through so many games.)

So if someone has an account, count people online and multiply times five then multiply by the number of servers and see what it is now.

My guess is that it's down a lot. In June my guild limited membership to friends of members because we were too large to be manageable. Now we have a four page thread of people who quit the game and they're brainstorming for ways to find enough people to make guild grouping viable.

[tmp]

It just seemed like retention is a problem when every person that I know who tried the game.......quit.

It would be interesting to know what's average time spent in game by player before they quit, for other MMOs. The only one I can recall that sort of went on record with that is EVE, where devs stated average player stays playing 8 months or so (or was it 10?)  But then EVE is quite different from casual fantasy diku, and suspect their average player has longer attention span.

[sam, an eggplant]

Eve is kind of a weird case, where you can retain an account just to dick around in the forums and still progress your character as if you were actively playing the entire time. I would imagine their retention numbers are higher than other games that require you to actually, you know, play.

[Venkman]

Well a few weeks after launch I used the social panel and the "20% of subs are online during normal prime time" rule and came up with 175k. (Pretty amazing that this has remained so stable through so many games.)

I would guess it is down as well. However, this method is less effective these days unfortunately. The gold sales spammers are out in force, apparently running a macro that goes down the "who's online" list. So this is training the playerbase to click their Anonymous box in the Social panel, which among other things remove them from being counted in the "who's online" list.

When did Eve get more than 100k accounts? That was the number they bandied about last I heard, which is a fantastic number for Eve. I think even with 172k, LotRO beats Eve.

From May (no idea where it is today, nor how many are actual people):

Recently celebrating its fourth anniversary, EVE Online has a current subscription base of more than 180,000 players in more than 80 countries

[HaemishM]

Damn, Eve got 180k? I had not heard that. Kickass.

[Venkman]

Ya know, it's funny, but I feel the same way. For what CCP has done and for the type of incredibly unique game Eve is, I feel like they deserve more of a success. I'm no CCP fanboi if half of what the company reps have done in the game world with the ubers is to be believed. But they're at least persistent and dedicated to maintaining and growing a non-DIKU whack-a-mole level engine.

[Tarami]

Well, I did a count now (which over here in Sweden/Europe is almost 1 AM, thus very much off-peak), and I got 910 people online. I'm guessing there are another 50 or so hidden by being anonymous, so let's round to 950. It's not exactly massive, but it's far from depopulated aswell. With a wild guesstimate that's 10% of the population (that does sound high, however. I'd probably go a little lower, but half the peak population seems good enough.) That gives us 9500 players per server and at 11 servers, that's pretty neatly 100K players just in Europe. I take no responsibility for the calculation above, it's mostly to get a clue.

Funnily enough, with the exception for range 1 through 10, I got almost exactly the same number of players per 5-level span. Maybe Turbine know this MMO-stuff better than they initially let on.

But retention is a problem, true enough. I probably wouldn't play either if it wasn't for the fact that I got friends and family playing, plus that it's a very... average game that just suits me fine at the moment. In addition to that I'm curious how Turbine will develop things - and I like dikus. :-D

I'll make a headcount tomorrow or Friday during peak for a better measure.

[Trippy]

Well, I did a count now (which over here in Sweden/Europe is almost 1 AM, thus very much off-peak), and I got 910 people online. I'm guessing there are another 50 or so hidden by being anonymous, so let's round to 950. It's not exactly massive, but it's far from depopulated aswell. With a wild guesstimate that's 10% of the population (that does sound high, however. I'd probably go a little lower, but half the peak population seems good enough.) That gives us 9500 players per server and at 11 servers, that's pretty neatly 100K players just in Europe. I take no responsibility for the calculation above, it's mostly to get a clue.

That's actually pretty accurate at least from a month or so ago. Somebody from Codemasters was interviewed on some BBC program and said Europe had over 100K players. That was back in the end of June/beginning of July timeframe.