There's already been a lot of fantastic news about the launch of Starfield and now Bethesda has announced the new IP has surpassed 6 million players, making it the company's "biggest" launch of all time.
This puts the space exploration title ahead of the company's long-running RPG franchises The Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Bethesda shared the following post on social media, thanking the player base for their support:
Of course, one thing to factor in here is the game is not only an Xbox Series X|S and PC release, but also a "day one" title on Game Pass. This means there could be a lot of people playing Starfield via Microsoft's video game subscription service, who haven't actually purchased it yet.
In saying this, earlier this week it was highlighted how Microsoft's 'Premium Edition Upgrade' for Starfield (giving players early access to the game ahead of its full launch) was the best-selling selling item on the Xbox store.
So however you look at it, Starfield has got off to a tremendous start! Microsoft has also congratulated Bethesda on the incredible start. An update yesterday also revealed the game exceeded one million concurrent players at launch.
Have you contributed to Bethesda's biggest launch? Tell us in the comments.
Comments 31
Bethesda has announced the game has surpassed 6 million players, making it the company's "biggest" launch of all time
Congratulations on the successful launch Bethesda!...No doubt a certain segment of gamers will find all sorts of reasons to dismiss it as meaningless,
skewd by GamePass blah, blah, etc, etc😅.
Haven't played much....but my first thought is I think they should have maybe just stuck to one solar system with hand crafted planets
I'm absolutely loving it so far. A real RPG gamers experience. Haven't got this lost/immersed in a world since The Witcher 3.
I spent two hours along on that first planet you land on mining. Found the Terrormorph, couldn't touch it at level 3. Then went back to mining.
Can already tell this is going to be a huge time sink. Especially with all.the possibilities new game plus provides.
@InterceptorAlpha
And don’t forget the official DLC and mod support that will launch post game. This universe wil have fresh content for years to come.
Combing witcher 3 questlines quality with borderlands esque looting/shooting and space combat, the gameplay loop is a huge jackpot, if only it was in 60fps
Think it's deserved. Some minor gripes aside it's an amazing game and I've had a tonne of fun with it.
It’s a good game overall that should have had some improvements made before release to hit slightly higher heights.
The main thing I have learnt is play the game your own way, like I don’t give a dam about creating outposts and ship building it all frustrates me or over exploring the blander planets to mine or kill wildlife or harvest to much. That’s all yawn and boring to me.
I much prefer shooting space pirates, docking onto ships and space stations going inside buildings etc and giving all the baddies an arse kicking 😂
Sol4ris wrote:
But the fact is it is skewed by Game Pass, that's undoubtable, the more interesting questions relate to whether that matters or not.
The beauty of Game Pass is that it potentially allows more people to try games without the risk of paying full price, or allows gamers to play it day 1 who might have waited for a sale. So naturally with 25+ million game pass (Console & PC) subscribers, on top of the people who were always going to buy or play it, they are hitting new records for their games, even if they removed one platform. That's great.
Though the other more interesting question is does 'number of players' matter? How many booted it up gave it 10 minutes or a few hours before moving on? Which Game Pass enables. What is an important metric now that Game Pass has come and disrupted the industry so much? The old rules don't apply. I don't pretend to have the answers, but they are interesting questions.
@Sol4ris Also it did not release on Playstation making it more impressive numbers.
Absolutely loving it. I'm really impressed by the voice acting, especially for a Bethesda game, and the lip sync is one of the best I've seen since Horizon Forbidden West.
I only wish that the player protagonist was voiced to give them a bit of character. I'd also like a 'hide spacesuit' option for when in ships and structures.
@ApostateMage I believe they chose not to have a voiced character was for role playing purposes. There was a lot of contention with Fallout 4 having a voiced character as the way they delivered lines didn't always match up with what the response insinuated.
At least we can now see exactly what dialogue we're choosing and it's less jarring than Link just waving his arms around and somehow characters know what he's on about. 😂
EDIT: You can hide your spacesuit, when equipping one, there's an option to hide it at the bottom of the screen.
How does the fps not make anyone here nauseas smh guess I’m unlucky
BBB wrote:
That's quite normal for a BGS games. 2-6ish months for their last few
@themightyant Whether you go by 'Sales' figures or number of 'unique' Players, that's still just a 'metric'. Sales don't indicate a lot either on their own - you don't know how long they were 'engaged' or whether they paid 'full' price or picked it up in a sale. There is also little indication they 'played' or even 'enjoyed' the game. I have several games I have 'purchased' that I haven't started yet, other games I've played less than 1hr of too.
A game like Starfield can take you more than 10mins just to get to the create your own character point. I doubt many are just 'opening' the game and deciding it isn't for them.
I doubt that Bethesda/MS are that concerned about 'Sales' figures as MS is receiving a 'massive' chunk of money 'monthly' from Game Pass to help pay for those Games development. If MS are receiving say '$200m' a month from GP subs, they may not need to sell '3m' copies to recoup development costs, especially as its 'first' party meaning that they aren't losing '30%' to the Platform holder for selling the game digitally and pay for Xbox Licences to release on their hardware.
For Publishers, the 'biggest' metric they are concerned with is 'Profits' - More sales mean they recoup their costs and make 'more' money. For Devs, the most important is player engagement, player numbers - reaching more people with their 'craft'. Publishers would rather release 'unfinished' games to sell and start recouping costs than invest more 'time/money', meaning they would need to sell more as well and/or reduce their 'profit' margin.
Point is, whatever 'metric' you choose - whether its 'sales' or 'Player' numbers, its not telling the whole truth. Sales don't represent 'unique' players (some may not play or bought multiple copies - inc Digital versions for 'ease' or Collectors editions they may want to 'keep' pristine/unplayed) just like Player numbers may inc those who only played the first 10mins or so before moving on. GTA or Skyrim may have a LOT of sales but how many 'unique' players as a LOT would have bought the game multiple times to play on 'newer' hardware.
Chances are, this sold 'reasonably' well - based just on Early Access. I know not 'everyone' (me included) didn't pay the 'full' price, just the 'upgrade' cost for Game Pass users, but you also have 25m+ paying for GP this month and last month and next month etc to bring in 'income' to pay for the Studios running costs regardless of whether they 'sell' their games or not. They still have many avenues to 'sell' too (Steam/PC, Xbox Consoles) and maybe can 'grow' their Subscription service bringing in 'more' revenue 'monthly' regardless of whether they are selling Hardware/Peripherals/Software etc - which MS will still do to. Sales is a 'pointless' metric for a more 'service' based business like MS is now. Sony is very much a Sales based business - so Sales matter 'most' and anything that 'disrupts' that - like Day 1 releases on PC/Sub Service would impact Sony's Sales of Hardware and Software and 'hurt' their business model.
@BBB I think PART of it is they want people to play the game properly unmodded first, so I think it was always going to be months away.
@BAMozzy All interesting points. As I said I don't pretend to have the answers, but I do find it all very interesting. But then i'm a nerd
EDIT: I'd love to discuss it at length, but busy day and I want to finish asap so I can get to Starfield!
I'm really loving it so far. Solid experience with no major bugs. And the gameplay feels really smooth on Series X, even smoother than regular 30fps, can't explain it well, but I'm not missing the 60fps as much as I thought I would.
I lost count how many times I stopped just to admire the vistas. I also love the background music. It really sets up the atmosphere really nice. Well done Bethesda. That extra year made wonders to the game.
Yup. Game took over my life and made me put BG3 on hold. It's going to take months before I even look at a different game (the only exception being WRC 23 in November).
BBB wrote:
But mods are only available because they are literally replacing the source files on PC, it isn't an official mod system on PC yet, only people basically hacking the game. That isn't quite the same thing.
Personally as a creative I fully understand wanting to get people to play the game you made FIRST before allowing the masses access to mods. If they are that important to you, or anyone else, you can always wait.
@themightyant I find it interesting to and somewhat a nerd as well. All I was trying to say is that neither Metric is 'perfect' and neither gives any indication of 'Player' engagement at all. You can speculate that people may play 'more' having spent money, but the reality is you don't have that data. Sales can be 'skewed' to in Bundles - I have 'games' I never played because of 'Bundles' but still added to their Sales count. I've bought games in Sales I've yet to start but contributed to their Sales metric. No-one knows if I paid 'launch' price or waited until it was less than £5 in a sale (like I did with the Division 2 - which I still haven't started yet) but still count as a 'sale' regardless.
In a 'service' based business, sales would be a very disappointing 'metric' when players aren't forced to 'buy' specific Hardware or the Software up front. It doesn't represent the 'true' number of Gamers who have at least 'tried' it - but Sales in general don't either - as I said, there is 'no' indication whether they bothered installing, let alone try it - certainly no indication of 'player engagement' either so why should that matter with Sub Services too? Player Numbers or Sales, one actually indicates the number of players who tried it, the other indicates how many units were 'sold' only...
Player Numbers at least are indicative of actual players who 'chose' to engage with the Game - whether they stick with it or not. You can't say that ALL 1m sales led to 1m players 'trying' it - some may have bought as a present for Christmas for example.
Arguably, you'd need a more 'engaging' game on Game Pass with so much 'choice' to play something else. Sales can get away with pre-release hype/marketing to be 'profitable' whether Games are 'engaging' or not. But in either case, sales or player numbers won't indicate Player engagement regardless....
There is a massive Excel spreadsheet in Redmond, WA calculating all manner of metrics on this one…. The key metrics will be how many new Gamepass subs and how long they are engaged. If they stay for a year that is more profitable than actually selling the game outright…
BAMozzy wrote:
But we do a little bit through achievement %. We have seen on dozens of games that those on Game Pass (and PS Plus etc.) have a much lower completion rate, and often the number of players who only have the first or second story achievement is pretty low compared to games NOT on subscription services. While I obviously haven't looked at every game, I have looked at enough, both indies and AAA games, to see that this trend seems to stick.
Anyway as I edited into my reply above, I would LOVE to discuss this at length, I find it fascinating, but can't right now - I have a busy day and want to get to Starfield asap. Another time i'd love to hash it out properly. Happy gaming dude!
Completely deserved. The game is brilliant in my opinion and I'm enjoying it a lot. Easily the best exclusive on any consoles I've played for years. Looking forward to exploring the rest of the Starfield universe and meeting all the different characters!
@themightyant All I am saying is that metrics are not perfect and certainly don't indicate Player Engagement. Even considering 'achievements', each game is 'individual' and appeal to different people in different ways. Maybe Game Pass lets 'more' people try games outside of their 'prefered' genre and therefore less likely to complete than someone who only buys games they are really interested in, not prepared to 'spend' money on things they were unsure of, not their usual game.
I've tried MANY indies thanks to Game Pass - but I refuse to buy any Indies as I'd rather spend the 'same' money on a AAA game in a sale than take a 'chance' I'll enjoy the 'indie'. As such, I have finished 'several', but also have quite a few I only played the first chapter or two. High on Life is a great example - hated the humour/voices 'prior' to launch, but gave it a 'try' and never beat the first boss because i didn't 'enjoy' it. I wouldn't have bought it anyway - but my point is, you'll likely get 'more' trying something out of their preferred genre so less likely to finish too - skewing the 'Achievements'...
Anyway, its an interesting topic for sure. I too can't wait to jump back into Starfield when I can, which is a sign it has me 'engaged'. Enjoy your Gaming time too Dude!
Well deserved for an absolutely FANTASTIC game.
@themightyant
I don't think completion % is a good measure on games. To begin with some games are harder and take longer to get achievements than other games. And also some games are more multiplayer oriented for their achievements then single player, etc. There are a number of reasons why completion percentages are low on certain games. One reason can also be that people didn't like the game. But dating back to XB360 I have over 1,500 games with achievements. There are many games I like but have a low completion percentage in them.
Microsoft measures XB success primarily based on engagement. They have been clear with that. If 6 mln people have downloaded Starfield to play it then that is really great initial engagement. Keeping that engagement will be seen over time and can't be assessed immediately. For example, I spent two hours in Starfield earlier this week, but I am still creeping my way through Diablo IV's story/campaign so I am going to park Starfield until Christmas probably when I can give it the time it deserves. Just because you don't spend long at a game when it comes out, does not mean you don't want or like the game. There are many reasons gamers park a game and yes one of them is that they don't like it.
Frankly, the best indicator of how good a game really is, is 6 months from now is the game community still strong or has it mostly moved on and forgotten about the game. That is not a tangible measure, but things like number of new you tube videos continually coming out, positive talk of the game in the media, and additional player counts over time will help us understand that.
Personally, I think 6 mln downloads can be considered an initial success. But, the test of time will truly decide success or not.
@NeoRatt I think you misunderstood what I meant by 'completion rate'. I didn't mean percentage of achievements completed I meant the percentage of people who had finished the game which you can see by the percentage of gamers with the relative achievement for finishing the game's story. For many of the best AAA games this is usually around 30% - 50%+ e.g.
Even giant RPGs like Witcher 3 is 28.8% on PS4. Compare that to AAA games that were Day 1 on Game Pass and it's typically 5% - 15% e.g.
Deathloop is an interesting one as it was around 28% on PS5 until it joined PS+ later and then it dropped to 15.5% which shows the impact being on subscription service has on percentage of people finishing a game. And it's only 4.3% on Xbox where it was on Game Pass Day 1.
To be clear this isn't a criticism of Game Pass, or other subscriptions services, it's GREAT that people get to try more games imo. But it does seemingly make games less sticky, a much higher percentage will start but give up. E.g. Starfield may have 6 million players (not downloads) but only 48.21% have competed the first main mission and joined Constellation. Or looked at another way over half the players haven't even finished the first main mission, though I realise it's very early days.
The whole point of my original post was that I don't know if 6 million players in the first few days is impressive or not as Game Pass has changed the landscape so drastically that comparing to old metrics is like comparing apples to oranges. Skyrim shipped 7 million in it's first week, Fallout 4 shipped 12 million in it's first 24 hours. How does 6 million 'players' compare? I honestly don't know.
But I agree that engagement is a more important metric and I expect Starfield to do just fine on that front.
Had a couple of days off because Baldur's Gate 3 but i plan on giving a whole night to it tonight, fantastic game and well done Bethesda/MS.
@themightyant
Agreed with all you said.
For Halo Infinite as an example there are a lot of Halo gamers that don't get into the game for story and just play multi-player. I still think the story completion percentage is low there, but there are things that affect the story completion percentage as well. I am not trying to defend Halo Infinite. I enjoyed the campaign/story but I know many others did not. I see Halo Infinite as a salvaged game. It was not going to be a good entry but the year+ delay made it into an ok game. Going forward 343 has to give up on their own game engine and adopt UE or the ID engine for Halo.
@S-Bacc idk I have the lg c2
Downloaded it last night, haven't had a chance yet to play it but looking forward to doing so soon.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...