Welcome Ubisoft forum people

[Spekkio]

Who cares if it's in the top 10 for the original Xbox? The player base for that system is pretty meager, and the list of competition is extremely shitty.  

Being in the top 10 when the games below you get less than 300 players is nothing to brag about.

[Savior20061]

Of course it is Spekkio, because you could be as bad as them but your not. That leaves me plenty to brag about.

[Spekkio]

Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.

If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game. In the scheme of total sales, 500 is a drop in the bucket...0.2%, to be exact. So assuming that everyone who plays multiplayer will not purchase the game if the mode is absent (which is a generous assumption), I will have lost a whopping 0.2% of total sales covering $25,000 USD.

That's not even enough money to pay one person for 6 months to make the game.

But hey, since you play multiplayer, it must be the most important thing in the world.

You're not doing a good job of convincing me to put my money into you.

[AgentX_003]

Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.

If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game. In the scheme of total sales, 500 is a drop in the bucket...0.2%, to be exact.

You're not doing a good job of convincing me to put my money into you.

I tend to disagree, because for a community of 2 vs 2, you can only fit so many , but 600 people  for ie. .. that would be alot of games, of course not to someone who plays counterstrike or halo, would be like WOW thats really small  :/... and not see why , just simply the fact that they are so used to playing
with 1000s of people or  24 man server , when SC has never been like that, plus on top of that ,chaotic to manage 24 people on a map for a team of spies. 

[Mortified Penguin]

Who cares if it's in the top 10 for the original Xbox? The player base for that system is pretty meager, and the list of competition is extremely shitty.  

Being in the top 10 when the games below you get less than 300 players is nothing to brag about.

Did you completely forget about time between the release of Chaos Theory and the release of the 360? That's 7 months of people playing online, and this is still before Xbox 1 "died" in terms of online activity.

So yes, it's still alot to brag about, especially when you compare it to the recent Tom Clancy branded crap that gets most of its online activity from achievement whores.

[Savior20061]

Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.

If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game. In the scheme of total sales, 500 is a drop in the bucket...0.2%, to be exact. So assuming that everyone who plays multiplayer will not purchase the game if the mode is absent (which is a generous assumption), I will have lost a whopping 0.2% of total sales covering $25,000 USD.

That's not even enough money to pay one person for 6 months to make the game.

But hey, since you play multiplayer, it must be the most important thing in the world.

You're not doing a good job of convincing me to put my money into you.

I don't want you putting anything into me.
But as for your statement: 500 players at the peak? Does that mean that none of the other millions of players EVER tried playing Versus mode? Of course not, they probably just came and went. We need to find a way to get them hooked and stay hooked.

[Spark Mandriller]

But as for your statement: 500 players at the peak? Does that mean that none of the other millions of players EVER tried playing Versus mode? Of course not, they probably just came and went. We need to find a way to get them hooked and stay hooked.

If I wanted to get people hooked, I probably wouldn't be trying to refine a game that millions of people played once and then never looked at again. I'd be making a new game in the hope that people actually liked this one, because the old one evidently sucked.

I mean seriously talk about a lost cause.

[Spekkio]

But as for your statement: 500 players at the peak? Does that mean that none of the other millions of players EVER tried playing Versus mode? Of course not, they probably just came and went. We need to find a way to get them hooked and stay hooked.

Nope. What it means is that 99.8% of people are buying the game for the single player and won't miss multiplayer if I decide not to spend my money on making it and providing free patch support.

Point I'm making is that from Ubi's perspective, it would be a poor business decision to continue making SvM.

If I wanted to get people hooked, I probably wouldn't be trying to refine a game that millions of people played once and then never looked at again. I'd be making a new game in the hope that people actually liked this one, because the old one evidently sucked.

Exactly. And I'd probably charge a monthly fee for server/patch support ala WoW, too.

Did you completely forget about time between the release of Chaos Theory and the release of the 360? That's 7 months of people playing online, and this is still before Xbox 1 "died" in terms of online activity.

Again, read above. Companies measure success in terms of absolute sales and player activity, not relative sales and player activity. It's all about dollars in vs. dollars out.

You can come in the top 10 of the special olympics, but at the end of the day you're still handicapped.

[Cronky]

Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.

If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game....

Not to beat a dead horse since everyone seemed to stop on this topic, but where exactly did you get that Online Peak data.

I understand the unit's sold, but you gave no source to the other bit.

If you're not just throwing a number out there from when the game was actually played, then yes, your argument is valid.

If you ARE just throwing a number out there, or are comparing present day peaks (which from my experience doesn't reach that high anyway from just a PC standpoint) then everything you said after that holds no weight among the rest of what everyone said.

Chaos Theory still holds a spot on the Top 10 spot on Xbox Live as of December of 2009. Does it say much about the game because there is so little people? Yes and No. No, because there is indeed a small player base as of now. Yes, because Double Agent isn't on any Top 10 list of activity.

Held among the Xbox 1's highest played titles, that actually still means something as of today. It shows that Multiplayer is a selling point to those that play it. A player base that is a for sure sell if you were to implement that mode into a new one (A new mode consisting of the old standard, Double Agent proved that they can screw it up).

Now they would have to spend considerably more time to make SvM compared to their SvS that they have now, but that's only because SvS in Conviction is just taking Co-op and turning friendly fire on/Slapping a score to your name when you kill your teammate. Covering up said Multiplayer substitute by saying SvM "Didn't fit Convictions Play-Style". Which is also not valid because of the fact that while Spy does take it's image from Single Player Mechanics; Merc's never did. Which didn't stop them from putting it in 3 of the games beforehand.

Whether they did it because they are just being Lazy, actually trying to get this game out because they want to see if the series is still alive before taking another chance (Again, chance being SvM, since Double Agent tanked it in a sense), or because they're actually convinced that SvM isn't popular is impossible to tell.

In the end it doesn't matter, but time will tell to see if we get a Official SvM mode back again. If not, who cares. Project Stealth already has more community awareness then Ubisoft, so it's going to be a fun, if not funner experience anyway.

[AgentX_003]

Right, but it's still not popular in absolute terms, which is my point.

If you have a game that sells in the millions (the most data I can find is 2.5 million as of April, 2005), and your online data says that 500ish people are playing it at any given time at its peak popularity, then it's quite clear that the multiplayer isn't the major selling point for that game....

Not to beat a dead horse since everyone seemed to stop on this topic, but where exactly did you get that Online Peak data.

I understand the unit's sold, but you gave no source to the other bit.

If you're not just throwing a number out there from when the game was actually played, then yes, your argument is valid.

If you ARE just throwing a number out there, or are comparing present day peaks (which from my experience doesn't reach that high anyway from just a PC standpoint) then everything you said after that holds no weight among the rest of what everyone said.

Chaos Theory still holds a spot on the Top 10 spot on Xbox Live as of December of 2009. Does it say much about the game because there is so little people? Yes and No. No, because there is indeed a small player base as of now. Yes, because Double Agent isn't on any Top 10 list of activity.

Held among the Xbox 1's highest played titles, that actually still means something as of today. It shows that Multiplayer is a selling point to those that play it. A player base that is a for sure sell if you were to implement that mode into a new one (A new mode consisting of the old standard, Double Agent proved that they can screw it up).

Now they would have to spend considerably more time to make SvM compared to their SvS that they have now, but that's only because SvS in Conviction is just taking Co-op and turning friendly fire on/Slapping a score to your name when you kill your teammate. Covering up said Multiplayer substitute by saying SvM "Didn't fit Convictions Play-Style". Which is also not valid because of the fact that while Spy does take it's image from Single Player Mechanics; Merc's never did. Which didn't stop them from putting it in 3 of the games beforehand.

Whether they did it because they are just being Lazy, actually trying to get this game out because they want to see if the series is still alive before taking another chance (Again, chance being SvM, since Double Agent tanked it in a sense), or because they're actually convinced that SvM isn't popular is impossible to tell.

In the end it doesn't matter, but time will tell to see if we get a Official SvM mode back again. If not, who cares. Project Stealth already has more community awareness then Ubisoft, so it's going to be a fun, if not funner experience anyway.

well put solid thumbs up  ;D - (Y)   (yes  i used an msn emote , i know i suck :P )

[Spekkio]

If you're not just throwing a number out there from when the game was actually played, then yes, your argument is valid.

I played CT more often than I'd like to admit from the day it was released until 3 years later. I never once saw more than 300ish players online at once, and that number was usually hit during European peak hours. American prime time (6-10pm)  usually had about 150ish and quickly dwindled down to about 80ish after 6 months (European peak times went to 180ish) where it stayed for about a year or so until it took a nose dive into can't get a good game unless it's setup on xfire territory.

I got 500 as an added estimate from the popularity of the Xbox compared to PC. Honestly, when compared to 2.5 million sales in the first quarter of release, and presumably quite a bit more past that, it really doesn't matter if you even double or triple that number. It is still orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of people who purchased the game.

Held among the Xbox 1's highest played titles, that actually still means something as of today. It shows that Multiplayer is a selling point to those that play it. A player base that is a for sure sell if you were to implement that mode into a new one (A new mode consisting of the old standard, Double Agent proved that they can screw it up).

If I were making a sequel for profit, I wouldn't bank its success on the "sure sells" of a few hundred people. I'd scrap that aspect and try to enhance but keep the parts that got 2.5 million people to buy it in the first 3 months of release.

Honestly, that list is relatively meaningless. Very few people play the original Xbox today. I wouldn't be surprised if that list wasn't even updated.

Why don't you go logon to your Xbox and tell us how many people are searching for a game at various times? I bet it's less than 150 at any given time, and this is supposed to be one of the "top 10 most popular games!!1one"

[Cronky]

All valid points. I'll give you that.

While all also being true, I wonder what the number of Unique Users were for CT's Multiplayer. Since 500 at a given time is a good number if the amount of people switching in and out was constant.

I say that because that is how the Ranking of Xbox originals games is tracked. Which still says very little but also can accumulate a more specific number of Multiplayer players.

(It has come to my brainular area that the ranking may not be of active users right now, but of Unique Users since it was released.)

Since saying 500 is such a low number is nice if it was the same 500 every time.

CT being at 8th place could mean anything from 1000 Unique Users to 100,000+. Which makes CT Versus look much better than what you are making it seem. (Even though 100,000 also isn't a lot compared to 2.5 mill sold, there is no way to actually tell what the ranking for Xbox alone means for accurate numbers. Could be much more. Could be much less.)

While also on the subject of Multiplayer. I would have to wonder what the peak of Co-op online was. If versus wasn't all too popular and it held the same basic premise for at least one side of Versus. Then what are the chances that Co-op was any different? (Did the Last Gen version of Double Agent really sell that much better than current gen? Cause they are replicating that versions structure rather than current gen.) Or is Ubisoft going with a plan much like our discussion about Uncharted 2 in that other thread and just taking the safe road? Single Player, Co-op, and a simplistic Multiplayer...

[frvge]

Coop in CT was buggy as hell. I doubt many people were able to start a successful game.

[Spark Mandriller]

Starting coop games wasn't hard. Finishing them, yes, but not starting.

[Spekkio]

Yea, on the PC side coop was very busy for like...a week. Then everyone figured out that the mode simply just didn't work, and for those who got it to work it ran at like 10 FPS.

CT being at 8th place could mean anything from 1000 Unique Users to 100,000+. Which makes CT Versus look much better than what you are making it seem. (Even though 100,000 also isn't a lot compared to 2.5 mill sold, there is no way to actually tell what the ranking for Xbox alone means for accurate numbers. Could be much more. Could be much less.)

You're not going to get 500 unique users at various different times of the day. For starters, the peak time means just that -- the amount of users online at other times are not as high. For Xbox Live, which didn't have European support during CT's hayday IIRC, it would be a generous estimate if you doubled or tripled the amount online for amount of unique users that are actively playing the game. But even then, "unique users" is a tough thing because data is often taken by how many different screen names played the game, so people with multiple accounts in a household with 1 copy of the game count as "unique users."

But like you said, ultimately the meaning is vague. Hence my original position: it's meaningless that the game is in the top 10 most popular Xbox games. I'm sure Ubisoft has done plenty of datamining on the subject, crunched the numbers, and came to the conclusion that the development costs were not worth it. It's as simple as that.