So according to Bioware...

[Kthx]

You've got to be kidding me. EVERYONE WHO HAS PAYED FOR HIS OR HER MONTH(S), that's it. It really isn't 'rocket science'.

 

I'm not kidding at all, because that's not what some people here are saying. They are saying if you have paid for a 6-month sub, and cancel two months into it, you shouldn't count as an "active sub" in months 3-6.

[xandax]

Funny and worrying all in one statement.

[banecolton]

If you're going to suggest that someone reads the whole article, then perhaps you also should have linked to the original article the article you linked to was writing about. Had you done so, you would have seen that what you quoted was only half of what Lusinchi had said. Here, let me help you out on that. http://spong.com/feature/10110709/Interview-Star-Wars-The-Old-Republic

Hmmmm. When you get the whole answer, it doesn't look so ridiculous, does it?

 

OK, instead of replying in the same wanna’ be gotcha’ fashion I am going to direct you to my answer to Zmidponk’s post below as he is actually attempting to have a conversation as opposed to trying to look witty on the internet.

 

Sorry, my reading of it is that, as part of a longer interview, he got asked a question about the reported drop in subscriber numbers …

 

So, frankly, it seems that I'm actually seeing what's going on clearer because I'm taking the time to get the complete picture, not merely focusing on what that article says, or that one small quote, as you seem to be doing.

 

OK, I want to start this out by saying please do not read any “trolling”. “hating” or whatever into my reply, I am not trying to attack you. With that said you seem to be missing some key details, so I am going to highlight them for you.

 

If you go back and look at the OP post you will see that he quoted the following from the article:

 

“Subscriber numbers are funny things. How you count them – the math you use – really matters, and there are lots of variables to consider,”

 

And in conclusion he (the OP) said “Joking aside, this looks like really shoddy attempt at damage control, and it makes me wonder if things are really worse than they appear to be.”

 

In reply I added the rest of that sentence in my post:

 

“Subscriber numbers are funny things. How you count them – the math you use – really matters, and there are lots of variables to consider,” he said. “Such as, people that simply subscribe compared to people that actually buy the box. There are very different numbers out there, and you should be smart about which one you use when you talk to the press.”

 

I then addressed the concern that the OP seemed to be raising with his use of that quote from the article; obvious PR spin looks bad but there are reasons for doing it. You will note that I have highlighted the same parts in the quote above. So let me again point out that SUBSCRIPTION NUMBERS have F-all to do with BOX SALES, they are two very different things. This is the spin I am talking about, specifically because it is part of the sentence that the OP quoted.

 

Now I am glad that you did in fact choose to read the rest of the article because it directly related to the next part of my post. Later in the article he (Emmanuel Lusinchi) said:

 

“Now, I’m not the best person to talk about subscriber numbers, that’s important to mention. We are a publically traded company, and subscriber numbers - like other things - are very touchy subjects. Even if I knew them I couldn’t talk to you about them because it would be impacting on stock price and all that stuff. And I don’t actually get raw numbers every day anyway.”

 

You will note that I have highlighted some parts of the quote above, in my post I said:

 

“…which is why most companies engage in the spin and misdirection you see quoted above when the numbers aren’t what they want them to be. And honestly it is perfectly understandable…

 

So yeah, I would expect to see more interactions with the press and public that include a great deal of cognitive dissidence for the time being, it is kind of the nature of the beast.”

 

And this is the part of my post were I was pointing out that the “big conspiracy” tone some of this thread has taken is false and a little silly, this is what businesses must do when the market isn’t going their way. They have to in order to protect against a drop in the stock price…not necessarily an honest practice, but a common one.

 

So here it seems you have missed that I was directly answering the OP with information that would downplay any “the sky is falling” inference that might be made over the contents of the article linked.

 

Unlike Kharnis who comes off as one of the “you said something bad about SWTOR or Bioware so I need to attempt to belittle/attack you” types we see here on the forums you actually seem to want to engage on the subject and that is why I am taking the time to be this thorough in my answer.

 

Now the second point seems to be a very simple misunderstanding, let me quote my post again:

 

I think the most useful conversation would be to discus Active Subscriptions because this is the only number the playerbase has any real interest in, it is what determines how many other people, in total, are available to enjoy the game with you, but let’s not confuse this with Active Server Population numbers which will determine how many people are directly available to play with you, be it by joining a quest, operation or being the opposition in PVP on your server.

And my other reply to you:

 

And as I said active subscriptions are very easy for Bioware to count, just pick if you want to count only subscriptions that have been active in the last thirty days, last two weeks, last two months, whatever.

 

The information is right there, it’s just a matter of what they choose to reveal to the rest of us…

I am talking about ACTIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS.

In your reply you talk about Subscription numbers.

We are talking about two different things in this case. I for one don’t give a flying #$%k about how many total subscriptions anyone wants to claim SWTOR has or does not have and I have no interest in that conversation, I only care about ACTIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS because that is the number of people I can actually have the opportunity to play SWTOR with.

 

Dear gods of the interwebs that was a long post…

 

So I hope that clears things up, again like I said above none of this should be taken in a “hostile tone”, I am just trying to clear up any misunderstandings that have taken place about what I have said.

 

Cheers.

[Skidrowbro]

could you repeat that

[GrandMike]

Ill let BW in on a little secret:

 

Counting subscriptions is EASY: you count people that have payed you sub!

 

We already knew that you padded numbers for 1,7m and 1,3m so no surprise in this indepth "how to pad sub numbers" guide.

[banecolton]

could you repeat that

 

Sorry, took an arrow to the knee.

[ChazDoit]

I took the liberty of writing what you'll be saying 6 months from now

 

22 days left and im done I cant wait for TESO

 

And 12 months from now...

 

22 days left and im done I cant wait for Titan

 

Please, keep telling us how many days you have left and what other game you can't wait to come out, we really care

Edited June 3, 2012 by ChazDoit

[XadennX]

I took the liberty of writing what you'll be saying 6 months from now

 

 

 

And 12 months from now...

 

 

 

Please, keep telling us how many days you have left and what other game you can't wait to come out, we really care

 

u took the time to quote him/her, so you must care as do I, hence I quoted you lol

[Mallorik]

Oh so I should take your word...Over someone who is bound by law...not to mis-interpret their legal documents to their Investors? Sorry... I am gonna have to take the word of those with legal obligations to do so...then just some random person made up internet number...Ok?

 

Where did i say take my word on anything, they have said it themselves several times and the guy says it again in this article. Bioware does not just count PAYING subs. Youre just like bioware, trying to twist facts around to make yourself not look bad and youre only making it worse.

[Zmidponk]

OK, I want to start this out by saying please do not read any “trolling”. “hating” or whatever into my reply, I am not trying to attack you. With that said you seem to be missing some key details, so I am going to highlight them for you.

 

Fair enough

 

If you go back and look at the OP post you will see that he quoted the following from the article:

 

“Subscriber numbers are funny things. How you count them – the math you use – really matters, and there are lots of variables to consider,”

 

And in conclusion he (the OP) said “Joking aside, this looks like really shoddy attempt at damage control, and it makes me wonder if things are really worse than they appear to be.”

 

In reply I added the rest of that sentence in my post:

 

“Subscriber numbers are funny things. How you count them – the math you use – really matters, and there are lots of variables to consider,” he said. “Such as, people that simply subscribe compared to people that actually buy the box. There are very different numbers out there, and you should be smart about which one you use when you talk to the press.”

 

I then addressed the concern that the OP seemed to be raising with his use of that quote from the article; obvious PR spin looks bad but there are reasons for doing it. You will note that I have highlighted the same parts in the quote above. So let me again point out that SUBSCRIPTION NUMBERS have F-all to do with BOX SALES, they are two very different things. This is the spin I am talking about, specifically because it is part of the sentence that the OP quoted.

 

Except that it can have something to do with what's reported as 'subscription numbers', in much the same way that (assuming that EA isn't just blatantly lying) trials failing to convert to subscriptions can cause reports of 'falling subscriptions', even though those trials aren't, technically speaking, 'subscriptions'. So he was correct to mention it as one of the variables that could have an impact and you have to be smart about when talking to the press.

 

Now I am glad that you did in fact choose to read the rest of the article because it directly related to the next part of my post. Later in the article he (Emmanuel Lusinchi) said:

 

“Now, I’m not the best person to talk about subscriber numbers, that’s important to mention. We are a publically traded company, and subscriber numbers - like other things - are very touchy subjects. Even if I knew them I couldn’t talk to you about them because it would be impacting on stock price and all that stuff. And I don’t actually get raw numbers every day anyway.”

 

You will note that I have highlighted some parts of the quote above, in my post I said:

 

“…which is why most companies engage in the spin and misdirection you see quoted above when the numbers aren’t what they want them to be. And honestly it is perfectly understandable…

 

So yeah, I would expect to see more interactions with the press and public that include a great deal of cognitive dissidence for the time being, it is kind of the nature of the beast.”

 

And this is the part of my post were I was pointing out that the “big conspiracy” tone some of this thread has taken is false and a little silly, this is what businesses must do when the market isn’t going their way. They have to in order to protect against a drop in the stock price…not necessarily an honest practice, but a common one.

 

The problem is that you seem to be, at the very least, strongly implying, if not saying outright, that Mr. Lusinchi is being less than honest and/or employing spin in this interview. My reading of it is that he simply isn't. He's being perfectly straight-up and honest in saying that there's many variables about subscriber numbers and how, exactly you measure them. You, yourself, even list some of those variables, as I'll point out below.

 

So here it seems you have missed that I was directly answering the OP with information that would downplay any “the sky is falling” inference that might be made over the contents of the article linked.

 

Unlike Kharnis who comes off as one of the “you said something bad about SWTOR or Bioware so I need to attempt to belittle/attack you” types we see here on the forums you actually seem to want to engage on the subject and that is why I am taking the time to be this thorough in my answer.

 

Now the second point seems to be a very simple misunderstanding, let me quote my post again:

 

I think the most useful conversation would be to discus Active Subscriptions because this is the only number the playerbase has any real interest in, it is what determines how many other people, in total, are available to enjoy the game with you, but let’s not confuse this with Active Server Population numbers which will determine how many people are directly available to play with you, be it by joining a quest, operation or being the opposition in PVP on your server.

And my other reply to you:

 

And as I said active subscriptions are very easy for Bioware to count, just pick if you want to count only subscriptions that have been active in the last thirty days, last two weeks, last two months, whatever.

 

The information is right there, it’s just a matter of what they choose to reveal to the rest of us…

 

Here's the variables I was talking about above. If you're running an MMOG, do you base your subscription numbers as 'subscriptions that have been active in the last thirty days', or do you use 'subscriptions that have been active in the last two weeks' or do you use 'subscriptions that have been active in the last two months'? Do you use something else entirely? Whichever you choose, it is going to affect the figure you get.

 

EDIT:And I should also point out that some people could consider an 'active' as simply 'there is paid-for time left on that account'. Others would consider 'active' as 'someone has logged in within the time period in question'.

 

I am talking about ACTIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS.

In your reply you talk about Subscription numbers.

We are talking about two different things in this case. I for one don’t give a flying #$%k about how many total subscriptions anyone wants to claim SWTOR has or does not have and I have no interest in that conversation, I only care about ACTIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS because that is the number of people I can actually have the opportunity to play SWTOR with.

 

But we're running into these variables again. Suppose someone has an account with playtime left on it, but has decided not to play any more. Is that an 'active subscription'? Some would say 'yes', some would say 'no' - and any reported figure for subscription numbers would change according to whether people like this were included or not. Plus, of course, you're forgetting about people on trials and such-like - you are perfectly able to play the game with them, but it is debatable whether these should be counted as 'active subscriptions'.

 

Oh, and, just to be clear, I'm using 'subscription numbers' as a fairly general term to mean 'whatever criteria is being used to report the current number of players in the game'.

 

Dear gods of the interwebs that was a long post…

 

So I hope that clears things up, again like I said above none of this should be taken in a “hostile tone”, I am just trying to clear up any misunderstandings that have taken place about what I have said.

 

Cheers.

 

No, I'm not taking this as hostile at all, and I hope you're not taking my comments as hostile, but it just seems to me that, generally speaking, in this thread, Mr. Lusinchi is being variously accused of employing 'spin', lying or simply being stupid for making what seems to be an accurate and honest statement, and I am honestly baffled as to why.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Zmidponk

[samht]

How do you know they didnt hav 1.3 million subs at the end of march?

 

in an interview EA said that 1.3 million players resubed their first month, and they blame the 400K lost to casual players because they tend to not like paying sub on a monthly basis. In the latest earning call they said the same thing that they had 1.3 million paid after the first payed month. BW said on DEC. 20th that if the game stays above 500K subs they will be successful. Since they laid off employees, i will bet money that BW is probably below 500K subs. Last weeks the instance: tor edition stated that they have seen number put at 386K sub from reliable sources. This would make more sense since majority of servers have 3-30 people on fleet at peak hours. I don't think there servers can handle more than 5000 people right now. So even if there are 4 servers is very heave at peak hour i doubt they even have 5000 players on all three.. I assume that is why they are talking about mega servers. They probably have less than 25K players on at anytime and they can merge them all on 4 or 5 server and call it a mega server to PR spin it.

[samht]

I took the liberty of writing what you'll be saying 6 months from now

Please, keep telling us how many days you have left and what other game you can't wait to come out, we really care

 

I care

[Valkirus]

See...this is were you and I differ. In you own words US pays more then China...So US Sub=China Sub...Even thought they pay less. Let that sink in for a bit.....When I left WoW....Wasn't because of anything in game....I was outraged...That I was being forced to provide welfare...so that some kid in China would be forced to play to gather gold to sell on the internet.

 

I can feel your hate... ..donot let it blind you to the truth tho...that a paying sub is a paying sub...and if BioWare gets into the chinese market....they too will count the subs that they get there. You should not be concerned about what others half way across the world are paying to play the same game you do, because what is a small monthly income amount to you...may be a year's salary to them. Be thankful you live in a better part of the world.

[snwmnx]

people complain all the time. it is tantamount to telling people this product sucks.. the corrilation is not hard to reach.

 

it is no differnet than going to an internet site like amazon and rating a product one star...people will see your comment and it will negatively affect its sale.

 

complaining just to complain while not providing constructive critizism does just that..

 

I'm sorry, but this has absolutely no foundation in reality. Having complaints about a particular service or product is a far cry from saying that it is not worth buying. Those are two completely different statements and mindsets.

 

"Complaining" is a broad topic and absolutely includes actions such as rating a product or service poorly. However, it also includes criticisms that are constructive in nature. The distinction should be made in the intent of a complaint.

 

“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”

~Winston Churchill

[banecolton]

First off, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

 

I want to touch on things point by point in a brief manner as I am trying to avoid another “mega post”

 

Fair enough

Except that it can have something to do with what's reported as 'subscription numbers', in much the same way that (assuming that EA isn't just blatantly lying) trials failing to convert to subscriptions can cause reports of 'falling subscriptions', even though those trials aren't, technically speaking, 'subscriptions'. So he was correct to mention it as one of the variables that could have an impact and you have to be smart about when talking to the press.

Though what you are saying could very well be a factor when talking to the press, it doesn’t really have anything to do with what the OP quoted, what I quoted or any other the things I was saying. So it s not irrelevant in and of itself, it is just irrelevant to what I had to say in regards the OP and the article.

The problem is that you seem to be, at the very least, strongly implying, if not saying outright, that Mr. Lusinchi is being less than honest and/or employing spin in this interview. My reading of it is that he simply isn't. He's being perfectly straight-up and honest in saying that there's many variables about subscriber numbers and how, exactly you measure them. You, yourself, even list some of those variables, as I'll point out below.

By starting off a conversation about subscriptions by adding in a distraction about box sales he is being less than honest. That said it is not the end of the world, as I said myself I would be doing the same thing if I were in his shoes, but he is doing it, has to do it because the numbers are not where they want them right now. Had he just gone with “it’s complicated” and not added the misleading reference to box sales then I wouldn’t have called it out as deceptive, just evasive. This seems to be s subject that you and I aren’t destined to agree on, and that is fine.

Here's the variables I was talking about above. If you're running an MMOG, do you base your subscription numbers as 'subscriptions that have been active in the last thirty days', or do you use 'subscriptions that have been active in the last two weeks' or do you use 'subscriptions that have been active in the last two months'? Do you use something else entirely? Whichever you choose, it is going to affect the figure you get.

I think this is where you are diverging into a different conversation than the one I was having. My thoughts are as long as they say what the criteria are and use that criteria they can choose what they want…as this does not relate to what I was saying I don’t truly care, though that shouldn’t stop you from having this conversation with someone else…

 

If you read the section of my post you made this reply to you can clearly see what I was saying, and that it has nothing to do with what they choose to release for numbers or what criteria it is based on…it is the fact that they can accurately track their active subscriptions by consulting their server logs.

 

EDIT:And I should also point out that some people could consider an 'active' as simply 'there is paid-for time left on that account'. Others would consider 'active' as 'someone has logged in within the time period in question'.

My answer, though not “aimed at you” would be quite simply that the very term “Active Subscription” contains the word “active” in it. As such an account with time left on it that is not ACTIVLY being used (not logging in) is simply not active. I would call this common sense…but I am sure that wouldn’t stop someone from wanting to quibble…and in truth it’s not worth my time for the simple reason that it would most likely just be an exercise in futility with someone who’s goal was not to discuss and form a reasonable picture as to the status or number of active subscriptions but who simply wanted to engage in distraction from and stalling of that conversation.

 

But we're running into these variables again. Suppose someone has an account with playtime left on it, but has decided not to play any more. Is that an 'active subscription'? Some would say 'yes', some would say 'no' - and any reported figure for subscription numbers would change according to whether people like this were included or not. Plus, of course, you're forgetting about people on trials and such-like - you are perfectly able to play the game with them, but it is debatable whether these should be counted as 'active subscriptions'.

Beyond my answer above I would add the definition of the word from the dictionary:

sub•scrip•tion - A purchase made by signed order, as for a periodical for a specified period of time or for a series of performances.

 

So I would say there is no debate as to weather a trial account can be counted as an active subscription, as by its very definition a trial is not a subscription. But as I said above, that wouldn’t stop someone from wanting to quibble…and in truth it’s not worth my time for the simple reason that it would most likely just be an exercise in futility with someone who’s goal was not to discuss and form a reasonable picture as to the status or number of active subscriptions but who simply wanted to engage in distraction from and stalling of that conversation.

 

Oh, and, just to be clear, I'm using 'subscription numbers' as a fairly general term to mean 'whatever criteria is being used to report the current number of players in the game'.

Well I’d say if what you mean by that is you are referring to the number of active subscriptions then we are discussing the same thing, if not then we aren’t.

No, I'm not taking this as hostile at all, and I hope you're not taking my comments as hostile, but it just seems to me that, generally speaking, in this thread, Mr. Lusinchi is being variously accused of employing 'spin', lying or simply being stupid for making what seems to be an accurate and honest statement, and I am honestly baffled as to why.

 

Well my guess would be that just as we have “fanboiz” that believe Bioware can do no wrong we also have “haterz” that believe Bioware can do no right. Like most threads on these forums the discussion ends up being centered around the dynamic between those two poles and their most devoted adherents.

 

And regardless of the fact that you and I do not seem to agree on all points I wanted to take the time to say thank you for an engaging and civilized discussion, it has been quite fun and a welcome change!

 

[Durasturan]

No, he is not saying that…please re read either the quote in my post or the whole article in the link (I would suggest the whole article if you are willing to dedicate the time to it). He is making a dodge by trying to introduce box sales into the discussion about active subscriptions, two very different things. And as I said active subscriptions are very easy for Bioware to count, just pick if you want to count only subscriptions that have been active in the last thirty days, last two weeks, last two months, whatever.

 

The information is right there, it’s just a matter of what they choose to reveal to the rest of us…and as I said it is understandable for them to try and muddy the waters when the numbers aren’t something they can crow about…this is standard practice, it doesn’t make it any more honest, but it is how it works. Sorry for the long reply but you seem genuinely confused and I wanted to be sure to answer your question completely (not everyone on these forums are here strictly to insult and belittle others!).

 

And this is where your ignorance starts to show, not all subscriptions are equal. You can point to Blizzard as a very astute point of this, now depending on how you look at it, WoW either has 10 million subs or 5.5million subs, should you count China subs as full subs even though they don't function the same way as Western subs and cost only a fraction of the price, what about subs that have been canceled but still have active game time, what about free or comped time, what about free play accounts or resurrected accounts, what about accounts that have been banned, hacked? How does free time get taken into account, if someone buys a boxed game and has the 1MO free time, does that get taken into account? There is an entire host of variables that either should or shouldn't be taken into a account. It's not as simple as "count all the people herp derp."

[jarjarloves]

The real question, which is quite baffling, is:

 

What in the hell does Bioware consider a subscriber?

 

Bioware has done a masterful job of mucking up the water. I will give them that. I dont think many are buying into it however.

No the real question is how do you know what the actual subscriber number is

[plumpjksinnfein]

what is the meaning of life and what is a subscriber?

[snwmnx]

My answer, though not “aimed at you” would be quite simply that the very term “Active Subscription” contains the word “active” in it. As such an account with time left on it that is not ACTIVLY being used (not logging in) is simply not active.

 

I know I am butting in here, and on a topic you said you didn't care to discuss. Apologies. However, I believe this point is a matter of perspective.

 

They are talking about activity on the Subscription, not activity within the game. As the subscription is still being paid, it still has activity.

 

A Subscription holds no requirement for its owner to actively be engaged in its use in order for it to have activity. The "activity" is made when "a purchase [is] made by signed order, as for a periodical for a specified period of time or for a series of performances."

 

Note: I have no more of an idea on how they, or any other company, counts their active subscribers. Just wanted to point that out.

 

Beyond my answer above I would add the definition of the word from the dictionary:

sub•scrip•tion - A purchase made by signed order, as for a periodical for a specified period of time or for a series of performances.

[Onyx]

I'm curious how many people who've responded in this thread actually read the article.

 

It isn't about calculating the subscription number (i.e. the total number of subscribers).

 

It's about analyzing the various metrics of subscriber numbers--i.e. how many converted sales vs. how many total boxes sold, how many subscribed players logged in during a specific time-frame, how many subscribers from a specific geographical area, and so forth.

[Evironrage]

...you count the number of accounts with an active subscription within the last month! There, now hire me.

 

Joking aside, this looks like really shoddy attempt at damage control, and it makes me wonder if things are really worse than they appear to be.

 

This.

After reading the article the OP posted I am inclined to believe that it is nothing but EA/BW CYAing. I am starting to wonder how bad it really is if they are having to BS their way out of questions related to actual numbers.

[Syylara]

No statistic is meaningful without context.

 

Saying they have 1.3 million subscriptions tells you very little on its own, for example. When compared to previous numbers such as 1.7 million, now you can make some simple observations like "the number of subs has gone down." When you compare it to total box sales you can extrapolate a retention rate.

 

However, the only significance these numbers ultimately have is in terms of revenue. Again, this information is of little value on its own. If you know the expenses, marginal costs and other economics then you can start to make conclusions about profit and ROI.

 

Real metrics that focus on game population "health" are usually not available to the public. These are things like average and peak concurrency (number of players online at the same time), weekly and monthly uniques, session lengths (mean, median and mode along with several ranges). You can also continue this sort of analysis for specific activities like "x% of players engage in y or more warzones per day."

[Evironrage]

Fatman PvP (east coast) Heavy

Drooga's Pleasure Barge PvE (west coast) Standard

Jedi Covenant PvE (east coast) Standard

The Harbinger PvE (west coast) Standard

Ajunta Pall RP-PvP (west coast) Standard

The Swiftsure PvP (west coast) Standard

All other servers are light. Pretty much all you need to know is right there at the server screen regularly. Even during prime hours PST (which would have been 3hrs ago) there were still only 10 servers Standard or above.

[Plumz]

in an interview EA said that 1.3 million players resubed their first month, and they blame the 400K lost to casual players because they tend to not like paying sub on a monthly basis. In the latest earning call they said the same thing that they had 1.3 million paid after the first payed month. BW said on DEC. 20th that if the game stays above 500K subs they will be successful. Since they laid off employees, i will bet money that BW is probably below 500K subs. Last weeks the instance: tor edition stated that they have seen number put at 386K sub from reliable sources. This would make more sense since majority of servers have 3-30 people on fleet at peak hours. I don't think there servers can handle more than 5000 people right now. So even if there are 4 servers is very heave at peak hour i doubt they even have 5000 players on all three.. I assume that is why they are talking about mega servers. They probably have less than 25K players on at anytime and they can merge them all on 4 or 5 server and call it a mega server to PR spin it.

 

Yep, we don't have the proof in hard numbers but that certainly "feels" like if you look at the server list in prime time. 2 V Heavy, 3-4 standart and rest light. I rerolled on JC which is still very heavy but both fleet barely scratching 200 peps on each side, also by pvping in the 1-49 bracket have ofthen guildies in 3-4 different WZ's who seem to also point out pretty much same pool of names on both sides pvping. I don't have the numbers, but it truly "feels" like there is less than 1k players on each of those 2 V Heavy servers in US primetime. The 25k active players primetime is quite likely considering of how many servers are hovering under 100 people (serverwide not fleet presence).

 

The fact that BW is going more or less shady is the most infportant one. I think the dmg is so much greater that any1 on these forums can anticipate and that is why they even talk about it. Again, we don't have hard numbers, but a lot of folks have the feeling this ship sinks faster that anybody can even think of. And don't forget all those who got hooked on the hype and paid full 6 months, but they don't play it anymore. I frankly don't care how many mln subscribers the game has. How many of those subs are are actualy playing is the key.

 

Anyway, I think once the 6month mark hits (+30 free days offered by BW) everybody will be shocked of how few subs are still active and how many of them are still playing... Dreadful days ahead:(

[Drakkip]

There are very different numbers out there, and you should be smart about which one you use when you talk to the press

 

Translation: I have to be very careful how I spin this so I keep my job