Time to Quit

[Renathras]

/sigh

Wow, Square Enix is a lot stupider than I thought. Did they really go through all the work of porting this game to PC and putting it on Steam only for 20,000 concurrent players

Do you know the difference between "concurrent players" and "players"?

Suppose a nation has 100,000 drivers in it. But they aren't all on the road at the exact same time. Many are at work. Many are at home. Different people have different schedules. Despite a population of 100k drivers, there may only be 20k drivers on the road at peak times with various lesser amounts at other times. The nation still has 100k drivers. "concurrent" isn't relevant.

Note I didn't say "concurrent" anywhere. Look at what you just quoted.

"So that's between 0.5% and 1% of the playerbase. What about the other 99%"

Where, in that quote, is the word "concurrent"?

This is yet another example of the bad faith goalpost moves I keep talking about that I'm not interested in entertaining other than just soundly debunking you.

As you said yourself in the same message: "Going to need some sources for those numbers". My estimate with 7% is rough, but at least it's based on some sources.

...which are?

Like, I'm specifically asking for what your sources are, not for you to tell me you have some.

20K of all time active players

What do you mean by "all time active players"?

Is this the "concurrent players" bad faith goalpost move I just demolished the person above for making? Note also I said between 1m and 3m total playerbase. Not concurrent playerbase. And that's also not "more popular than any game"; WoW peaked around 13m, and quite a few random games like Runescape have had millions of accounts as well. 1-3m for one of the top MMOs on the planet isn't outlandish.

Your analogy is...

No, my analogy is accurate. If you're arguing that some group makes up a majority or significant portion of the population, the onus is on YOU to prove it. 5% isn't a majority, and it's not always even significant. I even pointed this out with my remark 5% of people in 2016 voted for the Libertarian candidate for US President, yet no one considers that a serious movement or significant portion of the population in any real sense of policy.

Also, give me source of that 1-2 mil, and once you do, I'll respond just like you, and tell you to give me hard data instead.

I'm not asking you for "hard data". I'm asking you for your source. What is your source? You keep saying you have one, yet don't actually link it.

Anyway, that's not the way this works. You don't get to make revealing your source contingent on someone else providing theirs (and I did anyway) in a debate or discussion or scientific paper or any kind of persuasive argument. Either you have a source or you don't, and if you don't and are saying you do, you're lying.

Again, YOU made a claim, so the onus is on YOU to prove it. YOU even said you had sources. But when asked, you don't reveal them. Which either means you don't have sources or you know they're questionable.

For my part, I've consistently pointed out we don't HAVE good sources. We know that several millions of people have created accounts, as SE has said so and we have no reason to dispute those numbers. But that's also a useless metric. "Created account" doesn't say if the person ever logged in, much less still plays the game. The most accurate metric we probably have since it's based on log-ins are the Lucky Bancho numbers, which fluctuate but tend to be between 1-2m, generally 1.5+/-0.3, or 1.2-1.8. It's not a perfect source, but probably the most reliable we have.

I've also used the Steam numbers - CORRECTLY - by comparing to the same time last expansion to see if we've had an apples-to-apples, "expansion on" growth or decline. Something no one has yet refuted either of the times I've presented it.

So there's my "sources". What are yours?

Oh, let me guess, you won't reveal them until I reveal some concrete super source?

...which means you have none or yours is untrustworthy and you know it, and you just refuse to admit you have none/it's untrustworthy. THAT is why you won't reveal it or put conditions on revealing it. If someone has good sources, they reveal them without being asked, or if not then, when asked. The only reason not to is duplicity. Either you don't have any and lied, you know the sources aren't good, or you think they are but want to string someone along without revealing your source proves them wrong and try to give them rope to hang themselves with before dropping your sources - entrapment, in other words - instead of just doing so openly and honestly to begin with.

None of those, btw, is a good look. All of them are bad faith. Some are just WORSE faith than others.

1) Averages of numerous sources which seemed okay.

...which ARE...?

(Also, not that you care - analytic rigor is clearly not of interest to you - but mixing different data sources into an aggregate is a touchy thing that has to be done extremely carefully since different types of data are not always compatible, and of those that are, often require weighting or multipliers played on various datasets to make them compatible; all of which introduce bias. It's a thing that even experienced statisticians have to be very careful with, not something to be done with "rough estimates" on the fly by someone with no intereste in analytic or academic rigor in their efforts.)

I acknowledged that I'm working with rough estimates numerous times, and that hard data are impossible to come by

Then you agree with me, as I've said the same thing several times.

2, 3, 4)

"significant" depends on your perspective. If we're talking less than 1 in 20 people in an MMO, that's not very significant at all.

And lol at "real life politics". I get it clearly debunks your argument so you're desperate for an out, but pointing out 5% isn't much of a given population isn't "politics". Note I didn't bring up any political issue, it's just an easy to point to statistic. I could point out 5% of people support X random thing in life but you'd probably question THAT too, so I'm using something easy to verify to make the point so you can't waft or try a bad faith dodge or derail.

If that is not significant to you, I don't know what is.

Again, significance to what?

If we're talking about the playerbase or the Dev's direction, then "significance" would be "a large percentage of the playerbase". 5% is not a large percent. If a company is going to cater to a specific part of the playerbase at the exclusion of all others, it's generally going to be more than 5%. And especially given FFXIV 1.0's history, Yoshi P and his team are very likely aware of how easy it is to mess up and more cognizant than most to avoid such a thing. (Whether they succeed or not is debatable, but arguing they're now only making the game for ERPers is just asinine.)

You haven't provided any...

Yes, I have.

I directly provided the Steam data, lest you missed it. The post with the picture? That's data.

I provided analysis of it, which wasn't "just completely off topic comparison of some 0.042% rare disease". (That was specifically debunking the argument the game was "dying" or "losing players" and "not growing").

Unlike your "rough estimates", that's hard data you can't argue with, and I provided apples-to-apples analysis of. Something the doomsayers never do, and instead of acknowledging when someone does it, they engage in personal attacks or bad faith goalpost moves.

And you can't go away from posting your source for that 0.5% - 1% claim of yours. Come on, I'll wait, I'm curious where did you get that number. Same goes for that random 1-2 mil you threw in.

I already said this? Not just in this post, but before now.

And, again, this is a dodge. This is you avoiding posting your own sources because you know they're suspect.

Again, when YOU make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it, not other people to disprove it. And trying to get off on a "I'll show you mine ONLY IF you show me yours first" mentality is disingenuous.

"My argument is so strong it will not even need further defending, I'm always right waaah" - Ren Shapiro, 2023

/yawn

And this is why I didn't want to engage with you and those like you. It's like arguing with a child. A very WHINY child.

No serious, competent, rational, or even vaguely respectful adult would type what you just did.

I'll take an L,

I highly doubt that. Though by all means, prove me wrong on it and take the L. I'll be OH so put in my place.

if they're not too long

Like this post of yours I'm responding to?

like one of his many deranged

Belittling insult again.

healer rants,

"Riveting." -Semi-perfect Cell, DBZ Abridged

.

Yeah, I debunked your arguments, of course your petty and refusing to offer sources.

Again: The game isn't dying, and your ERP number is a small fraction of the playerbase. Even by the most positive numbers for your argument, it's 10%, and by the less positive for your position, far less.

If you can't argue in good faith - and you can't - don't bother. And no amount of getting a dozen likes from every one of Titenmen's alts makes you any less bad faith and wrong.

.

You provided no sources, you didn't engage in argument, you engaged in insults and goalpost moves, both proving your bad faith. I've addressed your arguments - all of them - and you couldn't offer defenses. So instead, you went low and petty, and I've no interest in debate against one with such a mentality.