Estimates on how many people still play spore? (Legally not pirated)

CommanderT wrote:

theultimateend wrote:Since you won't be given a straight number I've taken a guess.

Since October 6th, there have been roughly 6 million new creations. Lets buffet that and say 7 Million.

Actual amount: 36,361,595 - 30,000,000 = 6,361,595 so I was generous.

If 1 Million people are still playing that means everyone has only made 7 new creatures (that includes recolors and evolutions) in 6 days. Or 1.16 creature a day.

So. Then as follows:

1 Million == 7 Creatures per week.
750,000 = 9.3 Creatures per week..
500,000 = 14 Creatures per week.
250,000 = 28 Creatures per week.
100,000 = 56 Creatures per week.
50,000 = 140 Creatures per week.

So ask yourself. How many creatures have YOU made in 6 days? I'm quite certain a math buff around here will explain how my math is wrong. I want that, I would like people to take this thread to post better equations using the evidence at hand.

This is what I've figured though.

Considering most people I see how around 21-30 new creations since the 6th it would appear that 3/4 of the people playing spore have left. Or are only using pre-made things.

This means that 75% of the playerbase has given up on SPORE (or are hiding in the SPOREpedia because when I look around I see a high average of my checks being 21-30 creations). Keeping in mind that at least a small percentage of them check EVERY WEEK to see if there is a patch and leave after seeing there isn't one (look at the Xfire graph. Every 7 days it spikes momentarily).

NOTE: Thanks to ThrowerOfStones for catching my HUGE typo!

PS. Which btw. To all you XFire naysayers...supports their findings. Most people did quit playing ;p.

Why does it even matter to you?

The desire to learn and understand is an evolutionary tool that humans acquired thousands if not millions of years ago.

I hope that helps.

Ryuujin wrote:Another intresting bit of maths to consider is how many even finished or reached the space phase before they got bored.

Considering there is 2 million players, and 36 million creations, that averages 18 creations per user. If you add together the number of creations a player will likely make from start to finish in a single game, it comes to about 16 at a conservative guess; which is about right for the numbers.

But how many players do you see who have far more than just 18 creations? - I have enough creations to my name to account for nearly 4 players worth of stuff, and I'm not even that big on creating. I know people with over 300 creations to their name. This distorts the average since for every 18 additional creations ascribed to one person, it's equivalent og another player not making anything at all, and it makes me wonder just how many people got fed up before they even reached the space phase.

(I've stopped playing Spore, I removed SecureROM after my OS mysteriously began to fall apart and had to be reinstalled. SecureROM is the most recent thing i installed it's worth noting. Back to playing/modding Oblivion now and tempted to play X3: Reunion again for nostalgia sake and the fact it's a million times better as space than the space phase =p)

They estimate 2 million now? Wow I was being friendly

.

I think 42 is the answer, its the answer for everything.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 10/12/2008 19:55:13

2 million is the amount of registered users.

*shrugs*

Simply because the rate of creation and new users has not gone down, I would estimate that not that many people have stopped playing, or if they have, they are being replaced at an equal rate. Which is all good for EA.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 10/12/2008 20:08:09

Vendayn wrote:I think 42 is the answer, its the answer for everything.

What do you get when you multiply six by nine?

That actually equals 42 in base 13 by the way.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 10/12/2008 20:00:55

Vendayn wrote:I think 42 is the answer, its the answer for everything.

Is it the answer for!

Fermat proposed that xn + yn = zn has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2.

IS IT! I challenge thee!

Then again I don't really know what that problem means.

I found it on damed interesting.

ThrowerOfStones wrote:2 million is the amount of registered users.

*shrugs*

Simply because the rate of creation and new users has not gone down, I would estimate that not that many people have stopped playing, or if they have, they are being replaced at an equal rate. Which is all good for EA.

Just means they are really good at advertising and not so good at making games.

Good for them bummer for you or I.

Still means they'd have a 50% mortality rate.

It appears I attracted the one-star troll.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 10/12/2008 20:05:11

theultimateend wrote:

Vendayn wrote:I think 42 is the answer, its the answer for everything.

Is it the answer for!

Fermat proposed that xn + yn = zn has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2.

IS IT! I challenge thee!

Then again I don't really know what that problem means.

I found it on damed interesting.

Fermat's last theorem, proposed in 1637 proved only recently by Andrew Wiles

and its x^n + y^n = z^n

While there are an infinte number of integer solutions for x^2 + y^2 = z^2 (5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2 and 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2) you cannot find an integer solution for any n greater than or equal to 3.

shinu1729 wrote:

theultimateend wrote:

Vendayn wrote:I think 42 is the answer, its the answer for everything.

Is it the answer for!

Fermat proposed that xn + yn = zn has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2.

IS IT! I challenge thee!

Then again I don't really know what that problem means.

I found it on damed interesting.

Fermat's last theorem, proposed in 1637 proved only recently by Andrew Wiles

and its x^n + y^n = z^n

While there are an infinte number of integer solutions for x^2 + y^2 = z^2 (5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2 and 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2) you cannot find an integer solution for any n greater than or equal to 3.

You just blew my mind.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 10/12/2008 20:06:56

Just means they are really good at advertising and not so good at making games.

Good for them bummer for you or I.

Still means they'd have a 50% mortality rate.

Meh. I like messing around with the creators. Largely that's the reason I keep starting new civilizations, I enjoy the idea of sculpting a civilization more than anything. The simplistic gameplay doesn't bother me, especially as the more I play it the more I realize there is a lot of emergent behavior in the game that people don't see unless you really play the **** out of the game.

So in other words, I don't mind EA thinking their game is a success, as for me, it is.

Not to say that I wouldn't mind it getting fleshed out some more - in fact, my major hope is A) All the people ragging on Spore don't cause EA to trash it as a hopeless cause and B) That EA doesn't decide that Spore, being a casual game, woul only suffer from more depth and so instead only release part packs or similar things. I don't mind a part pack - the Sim's Living Large was basically a part pack, and it was still IMO the best expansion for that game, better than Hot Date or House Party, definitely, which actually added content - but I'd also like to see the game grow in other ways. Which is why I try to stay positive about the game while still making posts about ways it could be better, because that way, EA knows I like the game AND knows I think more complex would be even more awesome.

Did you concider to devide the Pc players from the Wii and mobile version?

I mean, I hear there are about 2 million Spore users.
How many of them play on the Pc?

You would need real figures to get a near geuss.
The number of creations is already a number based on inflation.
I think thats the word we use for this.

Endless copies reducing the amount of real and qaulity content.

There's no Wii version, and the mobile version people don't have Sporepedia accounts, I'm pretty sure.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 10/12/2008 20:10:28

ThrowerOfStones wrote:

Just means they are really good at advertising and not so good at making games.

Good for them bummer for you or I.

Still means they'd have a 50% mortality rate.

Meh. I like messing around with the creators. Largely that's the reason I keep starting new civilizations, I enjoy the idea of sculpting a civilization more than anything. The simplistic gameplay doesn't bother me, especially as the more I play it the more I realize there is a lot of emergent behavior in the game that people don't see unless you really play the **** out of the game.

So in other words, I don't mind EA thinking their game is a success, as for me, it is.

Not to say that I wouldn't mind it getting fleshed out some more - in fact, my major hope is A) All the people ragging on Spore don't cause EA to trash it as a hopeless cause and B) That EA doesn't decide that Spore, being a casual game, woul only suffer from more depth and so instead only release part packs or similar things. I don't mind a part pack - the Sim's Living Large was basically a part pack, and it was still IMO the best expansion for that game, better than Hot Date or House Party, definitely, which actually added content - but I'd also like to see the game grow in other ways. Which is why I try to stay positive about the game while still making posts about ways it could be better, because that way, EA knows I like the game AND knows I think more complex would be even more awesome.

I doubt the negativity here would lead them to give up on it. Most of the negativity is backed by suggestions at one point or another.

I do however feel they will not make it more complex for at least 365 days.

I appreciate your input though

. It's refreshing. I do know what you mean for underlying things. I've seen lots of little things that could easily go unnoticed, I just wished much of those things weren't from staring at the screen for 20 minutes going "God...why is this still on? I should go read a book or something at least then I'll see some verbs."

Parvati wrote:Did you concider to devide the Pc players from the Wii and mobile version?

I mean, I hear there are about 2 million Spore users.
How many of them play on the Pc?

You would need real figures to get a near geuss.
The number of creations is already a number based on inflation.
I think thats the word we use for this.

Endless copies reducing the amount of real and qaulity content.

The massive inflation actually means my numbers are generous

. They have far less players if you take inflation into account.

There is no Wii version and the mobile versions haven't had any sales figures released so they obviously haven't done well (EA always brags).

The DS version however is the shiznit, I will never rag on it. As DS games go the SPORE DS is a great game

.

Hmm, OK.

Thanks for telling me there is no Wii version.
How very odd

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 10/12/2008 20:14:40

I couldn't quite tell if you were joking about the Wii version, and I still can't. As I said before, you are a very cryptic person, Parvati.

In any case, given EA's reputation as an evil empire, if they listen to posts on the boards at all (which they probably don't), I would guess they'd be far more likely to can a project due to criticism rather than actually listen rationally and follow the advice. But they'll probably base their actions on sales and what has worked in the past rather than on what internet pundits say, anyways - if they actually listened to the message boards, then they would never have included SecuRom to begin with, because there was a huge hullaballoo about it even BEFORE the game came out.

Someone definitely is 1 starring your posts as soon as you make them, ultimate. I 5 starred your latest as soon as you made it, and its now at 3 stars.

theultimateend wrote:
The DS version however is the shiznit, I will never rag on it. As DS games go the SPORE DS is a great game .

Really? I've heard bad things. I was tempted to get it, but every review I read said it paled in comparison to the PC version by a huge margin, and even compared to other DS games was extremely simplistic and linear.