Nomad Blue said:
wfz said:
Nomad Blue said:
wfz said:
Baalzamon said:
that's cool how they compare it at first to what an old game like Halo 3 is currently doing. How about they compare it to the launch of a newer massive game such as MW2, I'm sure the stats are similar, maybe a little higher for reach.
|
Epic post. Read the OP next time. Well actually we'd never have interesting posts like these if everyone did read the OP properly. So keep up the great work, this site wouldn't be the same without you! <3
The numbers are surprising, but could we really be undertracking such a hot title by so much? How could such drastic miscalculations be had about such a big game? I would assume the bigger the game, the easier it is to track, but I guess I'm wrong!
|
Maybe you should?
"On Tuesday, 09/14/2010 at approximately 1:30 pm PST, just a few hours after launch, Halo: Reach’s online unique user count had already completely eclipsed Halo 3’s total tally for the entirety of the week (09/13 through 09/20)."
"To account for the same number of online players found in Halo: Reach during that same window (just six days), we had to run the numbers for Halo 3 going all the way back to 8/6/2010, encompassing a full 45 days of Halo 3 play!"
|
You were so close.
So close.
to getting to the third dot.
"Ultimately, Halo: Reach’s online population for the first week dwarfed Halo 3’s by comparison, snagging four times the number of total unique users and decimating Halo 3’s all time high of concurrent users by more than 65%."
|
I'll take this slowly, just for you...
Baalzamon - "that's cool how they compare it at first to what an old game like Halo 3 is currently doing"
wfz - "Epic post. Read the OP next time."
The OP - "Halo 3’s total tally for the entirety of the week (09/13 through 09/20)" & "we had to run the numbers for Halo 3 going all the way back to 8/6/2010"
Could you also tell me, how many copies of Halo:Reach were rented last week, and how many were loaned to friends?
|
The third dot, which you keep ignoring, was comparing Reach's first week to 3's first week, and then 3's total best for users online. Am I reading that wrong? >_< So it was comparing it to H3's initial week.
Yes, it was comparing to H3's current stats in the first two bullets, but in the third one it then compared to H3's first week. So I'm failing to see what I am getting wrong.
No, I can't tell you how many copies were rented or lent, but what does that have to do with anything I said in this thread?
