Mourningcry.9428 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said: > > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you've said things many times, but you haven't proven anything. I'll elaborate below just to clarify. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think that is something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to any company with future plans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Average player spending has nothing to do with company profitability. The sales figures alone are of concern. The addition of averaging these sales over customers does not lend any additional information beyond your personal interpretation of what the could mean. Nothing more; not even with dramatic fonts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My corporate finance is rusty, but, simply put, sales alone are no representation of profitability. And since the financial statements from NC Soft I've seen do not break out income factors across game divisions, it's impossible to determine GW2's profitability - regardless of population, or even individual sales figures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Customer attraction and retention with respect to Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) is not something that you can determine based on sales and population alone. Anything beyond the two trends already established is speculation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To re-iterate, all you've shown is a decline in sales, and a growth in population. Neither of which shows any determination of profitability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you've stated over and over is an opinion, based not on anything beyond an interpretation of the combining of two mutually exclusive factors to create a factor which has no real significance (Avg. sales per account). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue I have is that some people reading that may draw the same, inaccurate conclusions you're offering as fact. Which it most certainly is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A simple example for clarity: > > > > > > > > > > > > Game BS has 2 players (A&B). > > > > > > * A spends $100 on BS > > > > > > * Avg player spending is $50 > > > > > > > > > > > > C gets into BS > > > > > > * A only spends $90 this period on BS > > > > > > * Avg player spending is $30 > > > > > > > > > > > > What does this example mean? Population went up, sales went down, average player sales went down. The developers need to throw more BS to make player A happy. Maybe B & C will like the BS as well, but regardless, they don't really matter. Avg spend has nothing to add to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, lets throw a ringer into this, and say it costs $200 per period to run this BS... in either scenario, there is no profitability. But this is completely obfuscated and also, completely unaffected by average player sales. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now remove population and avg player sales from the above. The situation, and valuation of the scenario doesn't change at all. > > > > > > > > > > Lets use this analogy. > > > > > > > > > > Ok.. so what we have is Less Overall Profit. Player A spending 90 as opposed to 100. The Company might want to check that out, to ensure A is a satisfied player, because, B is a total freeloader that they could do without. > > > > > > > > > > Their next question is, why is C not spending any money. so at this point, 66% of their population is totally worthless. So they are doing something wrong by Attracting and Retaining B and C, while not enticing valuable players A to spend more. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see the problem now, using your own example? > > > > > > > > And how is this problem at all related to your average player sales metric? > > > > > > > > Further, without the additional information I provided in the example, the only information you would have is population size and sales. The point being that you needed the additional details i provided to do any kind of analysis beyond trend. Which, you do not have in the main discussion. > > > > > > > > The answers to the problem you've identified lay in other metrics beyond that which sales and population you which you've attributed such insight. > > > > > > > > My point is that given the two factors you've introduced, no information beyond trend can be derived. > > > > > > I didn't need additional information what I said was fact. > > > > The equivalent example using the two metrics you've introduced would be: > > > > Period 1- > > Population: 2; Sales: $100; > > > > Period 2- > > Population: 3; Sales: $90 > > > > None of your analysis can be derived from that information alone. The only thing you can absolutely derive from that is: > > * Population has increased, Sales have decreased, Average Player Sales has decreased. > > > > That's it. Anything else is conjecture. > > > > > > > > > > > > This still stands as absolute > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > > > > > > I have explained this many times. > > > > > > > > # _Population Increase_ with _Sales Decreased_ means a few things. > > > > > > > > * **On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game**. > > > > > > > > This is not debatable, that is what is going on. Now, why this is happening and how it is unfolding is up for discussion, and something Anet really should find out the _why_, as this directly affects their funding going forward. > > > > > > > > This analysis shows us that _simply increasing their population is not enough to increase profits_. > > > > > > > > That is very meaningful when it comes to a company staying alive. They need to find out _why_ players overall are spending near half what they used to spend 2 years ago. Now you might think that is irrelevant or has not meaningful significance, but, I disagree, as I think something as important as my customers spending half what they used to spend on my product is of a huge importance to my companies future plans. But I don't own Anet.. so.. that's on them. > > > > > > > > * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > > > > > Now, we can make some assumptions from that as well. > > > > > > > > But my take away from the population growing and the profits declining, tells me that whatever Anet is doing, they are not attracting or retaining the people that are willing to invest fiscally into this game. > > > > > > Ok, let's take the first one, and say it's absolute "On _average_ players as a general whole are spending less on the game" > > I've asked before - what does this prove? > > Nothing beyond conjecture can be derived from that metric alone. You have yet to provide anything beyond your opinion on what this equates to. And in fact, nothing more beyond opinion can be provided based on this. > > > > And second: * **There is no direct correlation between population growth and profit growth**. > > > > Was never even close to be proven as absolute for the simple fact that no one outside of NCSoft has the actual financials to determine profitability. > > > > If by "profit growth" you meant "sales growth" , it still doesn't matter as you've not proven, or disproven any correlation. You've just made a statement which is neither fact, nor absolute, only, again, opinion. > > > > > > > > Your little example, was just one way my facts could have come to be, they did not change the irrefutable nature of them. > > > > > The fact that I can merely change the sales numbers (and expense for that matter), yet maintain the growth and average values, and arrive at completely different conclusions inherently means this is neither absolute nor irrefutable. > > This is so painfully wrong it's gotten to point of not even being funny. Fine, site any reputable source that shows how average sales per player is a meaningful financial indicator. Edit: It's just a ratio. Absent any other data, it's an indicator of nothing aside from an average. Using the data provided similarly to your original post, explain to us which company is the most profitable? Which one has the most paying customers? Over which period? Which one has the highest paying customer? All of them show increased account population with decreased sales, representative of your original data.  SPOILER: >! You can't with only the ratio data... and you can't even get to the most basic profitability evaluation with income only, without even knowing expense... and in the case of NC Soft, we have no way at all of determining GW2's profitability at all. >! >!  >! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"STIHL.2489" said: > This is something that gets said a lot, but, I was never one to believe it. I don't think Non-paying players add any more to the game them those that pay into it, in the sense of community and feelings of being alive, mainly because they are just like everyone else, they have the same chance to be the jerks that drive paying players away as they may be the very reason some people keep playing. To clarify, I didn't say that non-paying players add more than paying players. My apologies if my previous post gave a different message. I did say that non-paying players can be considered to be something akin to content. They are potential teammates, opponents, and so on. Sure they are not financially supporting the game, but they might very well contribute to the perception of the games degree of liveliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I would agree if it is number of accounts since specific years. However, to claim it as "active" is far fetched. ESO, FF online and Gw2 have fairly comparable subscribers and online in reddit. I would say the number of online wouldn't be that far off different. ESO, according to steam chart average around 10k. I would say gw2 is around 15k to 20k average online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceridwen.6703 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > **What is the 80|20|5 Rule Used to Estimate Population?** The short version: humans are terrible about estimating because we are too influenced by what's in our field-of-view; the 80|20|5 rule was developed by the gaming industry based on using actual metrics, not anyone's guesses. The use of the [80|20|5 rule](http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/149466049419/80-20-5) is going to be counter-intuitive for a lot of people. Please read the link before deciding how you feel about it. A quick line just to say: That was informative and I enjoyed reading it - thanks for the link. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > This is something that gets said a lot, but, I was never one to believe it. I don't think Non-paying players add any more to the game them those that pay into it, in the sense of community and feelings of being alive, mainly because they are just like everyone else, they have the same chance to be the jerks that drive paying players away as they may be the very reason some people keep playing. > > To clarify, I didn't say that non-paying players add more than paying players. My apologies if my previous post gave a different message. > > I did say that non-paying players can be considered to be something akin to content. They are potential teammates, opponents, and so on. Sure they are not financially supporting the game, but they might very well contribute to the perception of the games degree of liveliness. They add to the overall population numbers, never denied that, and in that front we agree. I would say my largest gripe when people put this out, is that they too often make it off that they get this customer service crown, and make the game better, which is not really true, they are just as likely to add toxicity to the game and drive people away as they are to add a feeling of community That is all I am saying. They are people, like anyone else, they can be good or bad in their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"STIHL.2489" said: > > > This is something that gets said a lot, but, I was never one to believe it. I don't think Non-paying players add any more to the game them those that pay into it, in the sense of community and feelings of being alive, mainly because they are just like everyone else, they have the same chance to be the jerks that drive paying players away as they may be the very reason some people keep playing. > > > > To clarify, I didn't say that non-paying players add more than paying players. My apologies if my previous post gave a different message. > > > > I did say that non-paying players can be considered to be something akin to content. They are potential teammates, opponents, and so on. Sure they are not financially supporting the game, but they might very well contribute to the perception of the games degree of liveliness. > > They add to the overall population numbers, never denied that, and in that front we agree. I would say my largest gripe when people put this out, is that they too often make it off that they get this customer service crown, and make the game better, which is not really true, they are just as likely to add toxicity to the game and drive people away as they are to add a feeling of community That is all I am saying. They are people, like anyone else, they can be good or bad in their actions. Of course they can be good or bad members of a community. They are people and people can be good or bad. It could be argued that free players are more likely to be bad in some cases than paying players because they, potentially, have less to lose if their account is banned for inappropriate behavior. Fear of consequences can be aa very real contributor to social responsibility after all. My point has nothing to do with the behavior of the average free player. I am solely referring to the benefits of a larger pool of players (referring to experience across a couple of games with both free and paid options) Queue times for content can be shorter. Participation in content can be higher. Greater variety of participation in pvp modes (it can really suck to see only the same small pool of players day in and out. I can easily ignore/block a troll, but making a new gaming friend can make my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikali.9651 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I knew that I shouldn't have played this game 2 weeks ago! Now I entered the population list :anguished: I am sorry for deceiving you guys! I do not play this game actively, only browsing forums and subreddit for GW2 on occasion to be up-to-date with the news (which also mess with your metrics, now I also am in the list of active subreddit population :anguished: ). I only play when new LS chapter is released, there is no point for me to spend any more time in the game after I've done with that content, I have done everything I wanted at this point and PvP is too stale for my likings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I will never believe there is more than 1,5 mil unique players and maybe 400-600k active players per month. Unique players. Multiaccounts are irrelevant. And GW2 never, ever had 11 mil unique players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seyiwaji.4082 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Useless speculations & guesswork, as long as Anet is affraid of giving number all what you talk is snowflake and cloud. waste of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoah.1956 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 At first I didn't wanna check this thread, because my own gameplay and rising or declining interest in GW should not be affected by other players. But in the end this is an MMO, and some content can only done with others. So I guess it doesn't sound too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katz.8376 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 why are we talking about politics in a gaming forum? you all know those politics posts are still there just because it's the weekend, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granrey.8920 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 the important number is the average of players at any given moment and in my books, it feels like couple thousands at most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 > @"Granrey.8920" said: > the important number is the average of players at any given moment and in my books, it feels like couple thousands at most. Not sure where you're getting this but it's definitely more than a couple of thousand. You need to start count maps and events. A couple of full dragon stand maps alone is a couple of hundred people. I've seen multiple maps full for Tequatl. The point is if you're on a map, you can't tell how many other of the same maps there are, so I'm not sure how you can tell. Seems to me unlikely that the number is that low though. That's not counting people in raids, fractals, dungeons, WvW and PvP in addition to randomly wandering around different maps. Today I was in a party with a guy and we ended up multiple times on different maps as we were teleporting around. If that hadn't happened, I'd have not know there was more than one map. And we don't know if those two were the only maps either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 People still seem to be getting caught up in the terminology and the accuracy of using time-tested estimation processes. So here's something else for those folks to consider: the reason the 2018 estimate is higher than the 2016 estimate is that the base numbers are higher. That is, the /r/guildwars2 subreddit now has 155k subscribers and 15 months ago, it had 133k. (And that also goes for the amount of traffic, for those who wish to point out that people don't always unsubscribe after leaving a game.) A couple of other points that seem to keep coming up: * Folks keep comparing the 3.3M estimate to the number of WoW paid subscriptions. Don't; those numbers aren't measuring the same thing. There are no paid subscriptions for GW2, so we'd want to compare subscriptions and traffic at r/wow, **if** that's the only major discussion center for all things WoW (I don't know enough about the WoW community to say). * The 3.3M necessarily includes F2P, so it tells us nothing about how well ANet is doing on sales of accounts or gems. * Similarly, the 3.3M doesn't tell us anything about what people are doing in the game. It just estimates how many logon at least sometimes. * The main reason to trust this type of estimation is that the industry itself does. In brief, all that the original poster offered is: * Typically, the number of people participating in forums is about 5% of the actual actively-interested population in a game, i.e. one twentieth. * There are currently 155k people subscribed to r/guildwars2 * 3.3M is twenty times that. * Similar numbers come from using stats from GW2 Efficiency or looking at traffic to r/guildwars2 instead of subscribers. Thus the post simply says that we can reasonably estimate the number of people logging into GW2 every month at about 3.3M. It isn't trying to tell us anything else. So, as I wrote above: if you're a huge fan, don't read too much into this number. And, if you're a huge critic, try not to read too little into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Yeah, doesn't sound right. If Guild Wars 2 was doing that well we'd be getting a lot more /more varied content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Notice also, that if these estimations were even close to being true, that would mean that out of all the accounts ever made (including f2p), over one-third is still active. That i seriously doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 > @"Einlanzer.1627" said: > Yeah, doesn't sound right. If Guild Wars 2 was doing that well we'd be getting a lot more /more varied content. Why? Just because more people play the game does not suddenly allow them to make content faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 > @"Aeolus.3615" said: > @witcher.3197, What are they gona twitch??? 11111111 dodge 11111 ? > flashy spams everywhere... and this game does not have that much depth to talk or stream about. It has as much depth as games like bdo eso wow etc wether u want to believe that or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granrey.8920 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Granrey.8920" said: > > the important number is the average of players at any given moment and in my books, it feels like couple thousands at most. > > Not sure where you're getting this but it's definitely more than a couple of thousand. You need to start count maps and events. A couple of full dragon stand maps alone is a couple of hundred people. I've seen multiple maps full for Tequatl. The point is if you're on a map, you can't tell how many other of the same maps there are, so I'm not sure how you can tell. Seems to me unlikely that the number is that low though. That's not counting people in raids, fractals, dungeons, WvW and PvP in addition to randomly wandering around different maps. > > Today I was in a party with a guy and we ended up multiple times on different maps as we were teleporting around. If that hadn't happened, I'd have not know there was more than one map. And we don't know if those two were the only maps either. pretty much everywhere I go. I rarely see another player. unless is a boss event, I could see maybe 10 or 15 players. the game has fragmented the population too much. the chat is usually empty too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"Granrey.8920" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"Granrey.8920" said: > > > the important number is the average of players at any given moment and in my books, it feels like couple thousands at most. > > > > Not sure where you're getting this but it's definitely more than a couple of thousand. You need to start count maps and events. A couple of full dragon stand maps alone is a couple of hundred people. I've seen multiple maps full for Tequatl. The point is if you're on a map, you can't tell how many other of the same maps there are, so I'm not sure how you can tell. Seems to me unlikely that the number is that low though. That's not counting people in raids, fractals, dungeons, WvW and PvP in addition to randomly wandering around different maps. > > > > Today I was in a party with a guy and we ended up multiple times on different maps as we were teleporting around. If that hadn't happened, I'd have not know there was more than one map. And we don't know if those two were the only maps either. > > pretty much everywhere I go. I rarely see another player. unless is a boss event, I could see maybe 10 or 15 players. > > the game has fragmented the population too much. the chat is usually empty too. First of all, free to play players can't chat in the map. So if you're on any map that's not in a new zone, a good percentage of the players might be free to play. But more than that, I have no idea what boss events you're going to. There were a ton of people at Dragon Stand today. I know the map for TD for the meta was full because I couldn't get into it, and the next map, the one I was on filled up pretty fast too. The point is the world is big and getting bigger all the time, but no matter where I am and what I'm doing, someone ends up joining in. That wouldn't happen if only a couple of thousand players were online at one time. That's not counting peiople in instances or WvW or Edge of the Mists. You draw conclusions based your observations but let's pretend you only see 15 people at a boss event. How can you ever know there's not another full map doing that boss event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardid.7203 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > Redditor [moriz0](https://www.reddit.com/user/moriz0) shared their estimates of the currently-playing GW2 community in [this reddit post](https://redd.it/7r4op7). (See also the discussion on Reddit; people have raised a variety of interesting points, some of which I have tried to highlight in the next post in this thread.) > > > On September of 2016, i made [this post with an estimate of GW2's population]( ). Check out the link to see my methodology. [iWN adds: to save time, see [this **Ask a Game Dev** post](http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/149466049419/80-20-5) about the rationale and [the traffic stats available on reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/about/traffic/)] > > > > Now plenty has happened in the intervening time, so I thought it is time for an update. > > > > Using the exact methods as in my original post, here are the estimated numbers: > > > > * From [/r/GuildWars2 subscriber counts](https://www.reddit.com/r/GuildWars2): 165,105 * 20 = 3,302,100 > > * From GW2Efficiency account numbers: 169,052 * 20 = 3,381,040 > > * Unfortunately, detailed subscriber info for subreddits is now locked to moderator's only. According to [/u/TheRabidCoder](https://www.reddit.com/u/TheRabidCoder), that number is: 3.25 Million > > > > **So, I estimate that GW2's current "active" population to be around 3.3 Million.** > > > > Keep in mind that it is difficult to nail down an exact number for "active" accounts, since GW2 does not have a subscription service. However, it is reasonable to assume that the minimum activity level of these accounts is "logs in at least a few times a month". > > > > **EDIT:** to those who say anything about "multiple game accounts": do note that my estimate is based off of /r/GuildWars2 subscribers, unique visitors (provided by [/u/TheRabidCoder](https://www.reddit.com/u/TheRabidCoder)), and tracked API keys on GW2Efficiency. these numbers basically ignores multiple game accounts owned by the same player. > > > > **EDIT2:** as many of you have pointed out, people tend to never unsubscribe from subreddits, and that almost nobody would unregister API keys from GW2Efficiency. both of these are true. we're already seeing the effect for GW2Efficiency: when i made my first post over a year ago, GW2Efficiency was giving me a low estimate compared to subreddit subscribers; now, it gives a slightly higher estimate. however, the remainng metric, unique visitors per month, isn't affected by "dead" subscribers, and it currently gives a similar estimate. unique subscribers is vulnerable to temporary spikes around major releases, but that will resolve itself within the next month or so. > > **** > > **Added:** > Since it keeps coming up, I'll mention it here: think of this estimate as measuring "people who are **actively interested** in the game enough to logon once a month" rather than "active" in the sense of playing the game to the point we'd see them at a meta or in a fractal etc. It's a very specific sort of measurement that has a lot of limitations. It's useful mostly as a relative number to compare to various points in the game's history. > > tl;dr a lot of people are actively interested in the game; that doesn't mean they play a lot. Do we have access to ANY clearer numbers? If not, well, I think it is reasonable to use what we have. We know its not going to be truly accurate, but IMO, is better than not having any number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogrey.3891 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 don't have much to add but twitch is not a population measurement. many people don't like to watch others play games. and many people watching stuff sometimes they don't own the game they are watching. as well that gw2 don't have any famous streamer outside of gw2 community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witcher.3197 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"Mogrey.3891" said: > don't have much to add but twitch is not a population measurement. Twitch/youtube numbers alone don't really mean anything, I agree. But if the rapid decline of those numbers certainly does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogrey.3891 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"witcher.3197" said: > > @"Mogrey.3891" said: > > don't have much to add but twitch is not a population measurement. > > Twitch/youtube numbers alone don't really mean anything, I agree. But if the rapid decline of those numbers certainly does. > > you give twitch/youtube way too much credits that you should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witcher.3197 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 > @"Mogrey.3891" said: > > @"witcher.3197" said: > > > @"Mogrey.3891" said: > > > don't have much to add but twitch is not a population measurement. > > > > Twitch/youtube numbers alone don't really mean anything, I agree. But if the rapid decline of those numbers certainly does. > > > > > > you give twitch/youtube way too much credits that you should. Or you give too little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now