EQ2 still popular?

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
41 answers Last reply
More about popular
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    >Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?

    Explore the site some more and he gives a full description of each
    figure and how creditable he thinks it is
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    > Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >
    >

    http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    >In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html


    Dear lord i cant believe how popular FF11 is!
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    >In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
    rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    > >rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    > >> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    > The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    >
    >

    ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.

    Check out:

    http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    42 wrote:

    > In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
    > rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >
    >>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>>
    >>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    >>
    >>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
    >
    > Check out:
    >
    > http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
    >
    Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
    And why doesn't it show the latest data point for some of the games,
    including the most interesting one, EQI? On the chart it looks as
    though its currently just as popular as WOW... until you realize that
    the last data point for it is from Jan 05 (or no, they aren't really on
    the points marked, it looks more like Octoberish), instead of the Jul 05
    point (well maybe its May 05) that WOW ends with.

    Lance
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    >> What it is missing more is any kind of crediblilty.

    >/shrug

    >Its the most credible source out there. Feel free to find a better one.

    Whether or not you believe the exact numbers the general trend seems
    credible, ie WoW doing very well and EQ2 struggling to find and keep
    subscribers. Many people tried it and left for WoW or went back to EQL.

    If you look at the Lineage comments only a small fraction of players
    are form the US or EU. I reckon its the same for FFXI. (Only with
    Japanese subscribers being the majority).
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d76f3d5a7fb301a989cab@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net...
    > In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    > rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>
    >>
    >
    > http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html

    I dont believe those figures for EQ1. If they were true there would have
    been no server merges.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:28:50 GMT, mike allegretto
    <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:

    >On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    >The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.

    What it is missing more is any kind of crediblilty.

    Meldur
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >42 wrote:
    >
    >> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
    >> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    >>>
    >>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
    >>
    >> Check out:
    >>
    >> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
    >>
    >Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?

    Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:

    Anonymous Sources
    Educated Guesses

    Rofl,lol,'nuf said.

    Meldur
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:kOydnXVCDvNQDpDeRVn-
    tg@dejazzd.com:

    >
    >
    > 42 wrote:
    >
    >> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
    >> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>>>
    >>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    >>>
    >>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
    >>
    >> Check out:
    >>
    >> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
    >>
    > Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
    > And why doesn't it show the latest data point for some of the games,
    > including the most interesting one, EQI? On the chart it looks as
    > though its currently just as popular as WOW... until you realize that
    > the last data point for it is from Jan 05 (or no, they aren't really on
    > the points marked, it looks more like Octoberish), instead of the Jul
    05
    > point (well maybe its May 05) that WOW ends with.
    >

    Um, WoW is showing 2,000,000 subscribers in the last datapoint looks like
    Aprilish. EQ1 is showing 450,000ish subscribers with a Juneish
    datapoint, both in 2005. Lineage I & II are the two that are in the same
    ballpark as WoW.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    news:l98rg15u2j8ks0gpec7u6v3h66g20gkd53@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>42 wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
    >>> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>>
    >>>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >>>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    >>>>
    >>>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
    >>>
    >>> Check out:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
    >>>
    >>Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
    >
    > Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:
    >
    > Anonymous Sources
    > Educated Guesses
    >
    > Rofl,lol,'nuf said.
    >

    You did sort of leave out his other sources...

    Corporate press releases
    Corporate documents (from publicly held companies)
    News Articles

    Mine you, he does not claim that all his numbers are entirely accurate,
    he does however claim to do the best job he can with the data he can get
    hold of.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <e07rg1he6i6sm566vgi7q6dd8hodfgduvt@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    online.de says...
    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:28:50 GMT, mike allegretto
    > <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    > >On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    > >>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    > >>> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    > >The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    >
    > What it is missing more is any kind of crediblilty.

    /shrug

    Its the most credible source out there. Feel free to find a better one.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <l98rg15u2j8ks0gpec7u6v3h66g20gkd53@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    online.de says...
    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >42 wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
    > >> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    > >>
    > >>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    > >>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    > >>>
    > >>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
    > >>
    > >> Check out:
    > >>
    > >> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
    > >>
    > >Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
    >
    > Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:
    >
    > Anonymous Sources

    Can be a lot of things:
    e.g. Company Insiders who don't wish to be fired.

    Its possible to be credible and remain anonymous, especially if he
    doesn't just automatically post any number that some crack head submits
    via yahoo.

    > Educated Guesses

    Operative word being educated. Not stuff out of a magic 8-ball.

    Given that few, if any mmogs present their numbers on demand. This is
    life. Educated guesses means indirect info... like working backwards
    from financials (revenue, etc). You can easily put a game in the right
    ballpark from good financials.

    If you actually read the analysis he specifies which titles are guesses.
    EQ, EQ2.

    > Rofl,lol,'nuf said.

    If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <%SgPe.10014$FA3.4845@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
    vladeschxxxx@bigxxxxxpond.net.auxxx says...
    > "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1d76f3d5a7fb301a989cab@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net...
    > > In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    > > rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    > >> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > > http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    >
    > I dont believe those figures for EQ1. If they were true there would have
    > been no server merges.

    Well for starters he showing that 20% of the game did just outright
    quit.

    Your entitled to beleive whatever you want but don't forget that paid
    subscriptions doesn't equal people online.

    There are a *lot* of eq1 accounts still being paid but played a lot less
    or not at all vs what they used to be.

    Additionally DoN, in particular fragmented, the population... instead of
    all the afkers/idler's being in pok they are split between guild halls,
    guild lobbies, and pok, and so on - this all accentuated the feeling of
    'mass exodus'. The ever increasing use of instances also further empties
    the world of 'visible people'.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:27:27 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    >In article <l98rg15u2j8ks0gpec7u6v3h66g20gkd53@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >online.de says...
    >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >42 wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
    >> >> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >> >>
    >> >>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >> >>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >> >>>>>
    >> >>>>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    >> >>>
    >> >>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
    >> >>
    >> >> Check out:
    >> >>
    >> >> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
    >> >>
    >> >Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
    >>
    >> Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:
    >>
    >> Anonymous Sources
    >
    >Can be a lot of things:
    >e.g. Company Insiders who don't wish to be fired.
    >
    >Its possible to be credible and remain anonymous, especially if he
    >doesn't just automatically post any number that some crack head submits
    >via yahoo.
    >
    >> Educated Guesses
    >
    >Operative word being educated. Not stuff out of a magic 8-ball.
    >
    >Given that few, if any mmogs present their numbers on demand. This is
    >life. Educated guesses means indirect info... like working backwards
    >from financials (revenue, etc). You can easily put a game in the right
    >ballpark from good financials.
    >
    >If you actually read the analysis he specifies which titles are guesses.
    >EQ, EQ2.
    >
    >> Rofl,lol,'nuf said.
    >
    >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.

    There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    EQ subscriptions.
    Thats what I would call hard data.

    In general the guy from mmogchart cannot provide a *single*
    hard fact or reviewable source for his numbers for EQ.

    Up to you ,what you make out of it,for me his credibility is zero.

    Meldur
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    news:hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:27:27 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <l98rg15u2j8ks0gpec7u6v3h66g20gkd53@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >>online.de says...
    >>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >42 wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
    >>> >> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>> >>
    >>> >>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
    >>> >>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
    >>> >>>>
    >>> >>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
    >>> >>>>>
    >>> >>>>>
    >>> >>>>
    >>> >>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Check out:
    >>> >>
    >>> >> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
    >>> >>
    >>> >Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming
    from?
    >>>
    >>> Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:
    >>>
    >>> Anonymous Sources
    >>
    >>Can be a lot of things:
    >>e.g. Company Insiders who don't wish to be fired.
    >>
    >>Its possible to be credible and remain anonymous, especially if he
    >>doesn't just automatically post any number that some crack head submits
    >>via yahoo.
    >>
    >>> Educated Guesses
    >>
    >>Operative word being educated. Not stuff out of a magic 8-ball.
    >>
    >>Given that few, if any mmogs present their numbers on demand. This is
    >>life. Educated guesses means indirect info... like working backwards
    >>from financials (revenue, etc). You can easily put a game in the right
    >>ballpark from good financials.
    >>
    >>If you actually read the analysis he specifies which titles are
    guesses.
    >>EQ, EQ2.
    >>
    >>> Rofl,lol,'nuf said.
    >>
    >>If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >
    > There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    > aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    > anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    > There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    > EQ subscriptions.
    > Thats what I would call hard data.
    >
    > In general the guy from mmogchart cannot provide a *single*
    > hard fact or reviewable source for his numbers for EQ.
    >
    > Up to you ,what you make out of it,for me his credibility is zero.
    >

    Was that 10k prior to the mergers? If so, that would put the numbers at
    roughly double your number, or, right about where the chart has them.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    online.de says...

    > >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >
    > There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    > aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    > anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    > There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    > EQ subscriptions.
    > Thats what I would call hard data.

    Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites? Yet
    I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?

    I don't think so.

    > In general the guy from mmogchart cannot provide a *single*
    > hard fact or reviewable source for his numbers for EQ.

    Neither did you! He says he looks at press releases, talks to insiders,
    looks at financials, none of which he reproduced. He obviously does this
    as a hobby, and has produced a website on the subject for many months.
    For what its worth, his numbers are generally accepted to be in the
    right ballparks by most obververs. And what little HARD information is
    out there has been incorporated.

    Meanhwhile, you claim you looked at one article on the web, on a
    tangential subject which you also can't produce. ... yet you think your
    credibility should be higher.

    > Up to you ,what you make out of it,for me his credibility is zero.

    What do I make out of it? What CAN I make out of it. You've given me
    nothing solid to work with.

    Can you even demonstrate with any certainty WHEN this article got
    written? (not when you SAW it) Before, during, or after the server
    merges? Because if it was before, then the number of players for each
    server is effectively doubled. In my world when they merge two 10k
    servers they end up with one 20k server.

    Second, your so-called hard data contains exactly 2 numbers. 10k per
    server, and 21 servers. One of them is trvially verifiable: 21
    servers... and dude, you didn't even get THAT right.

    There are 25 servers. (24 live + 1 test) Count them yourself if you
    don't beleive me.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

    > In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    > online.de says...
    >
    >> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>
    >> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    >> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    >> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    >> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    >> EQ subscriptions.
    >> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >
    > Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    > someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    > supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
    > Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
    >
    > I don't think so.

    http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html

    which was posted here July 8th.
    Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>


    --
    Marcel
    http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:

    >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >
    >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >> online.de says...
    >>
    >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>>
    >>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    >>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    >>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    >>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    >>> EQ subscriptions.
    >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >>
    >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    >> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    >> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
    >> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
    >>
    >> I don't think so.
    >
    >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >
    >which was posted here July 8th.
    >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

    Thanks mate.

    /wave 42

    Meldur
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    news:hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com:

    > On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    > <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    >
    >>42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >>news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >>
    >>> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >>> online.de says...
    >>>
    >>>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>>>
    >>>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    >>>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    >>>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    >>>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    >>>> EQ subscriptions.
    >>>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >>>
    >>> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    >>> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    >>> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
    >>> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
    >>>
    >>> I don't think so.
    >>
    >>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >>
    >>which was posted here July 8th.
    >>Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >
    > Thanks mate.
    >
    NP. I just pointed it out 'cause I remembered it being posted in this
    newsgroup.

    --
    Marcel
    http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    online.de says...
    > On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    > <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    >
    > >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    > >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    > >
    > >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    > >> online.de says...
    > >>
    > >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    > >>>
    > >>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    > >>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    > >>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    > >>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    > >>> EQ subscriptions.
    > >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    > >>
    > >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    > >> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    > >> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
    > >> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
    > >>
    > >> I don't think so.
    > >
    > >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    > >
    > >which was posted here July 8th.
    > >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >
    > Thanks mate.
    >
    > /wave 42
    >
    > Meldur

    *THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that trashes
    mmorpgcharts?

    /rolls eyes

    For starters:
    the artcle claims that EQ opened to 12 servers and 100,000 people...
    mmorpgcharts data matches that exactly.

    The article claims that EQ peaked at 'just over half a million'.
    mmorpgcharts data matches that exactly.

    Yet apparently the guy is just pulling numbers out his ass, and has no
    credibility?? Odd that his numbers line up like that.

    The only number that doesn't line up is his current estimation, and your
    'educated guess' which was based on multiplying the (incorrect) number
    of servers by 10,000.

    Quite frankly I have no reason to beleive there is much current
    credibility with the 10,000 number, particularly in the post-server
    merge environment.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    news:Xns96BE8DCCAF53Bmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:

    > 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    > news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >
    >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >> online.de says...
    >>
    >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>>
    >>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    >>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    >>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    >>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    >>> EQ subscriptions.
    >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >>
    >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    >> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    >> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
    >> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
    >>
    >> I don't think so.
    >
    > http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >
    > which was posted here July 8th.
    > Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >

    Not that that is necesarilly any more credible than any other source,
    but, the figure mentioned in there was prior to the merger of the
    servers, basically pointing out what EQ had at it's peak, and making a
    remark saying what the servers could support. Did SoE tell them that the
    figure is correct? I honestly see no reason to believe their figures any
    more than those of anyone else.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    news:hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com:

    > On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    > <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    >
    >>42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >>news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >>
    >>> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >>> online.de says...
    >>>
    >>>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>>>
    >>>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    >>>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    >>>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    >>>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    >>>> EQ subscriptions.
    >>>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >>>
    >>> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    >>> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    >>> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
    >>> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
    >>>
    >>> I don't think so.
    >>
    >>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >>
    >>which was posted here July 8th.
    >>Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >
    > Thanks mate.
    >
    > /wave 42
    >

    Don't be too smug, the only real figures cited there were for prior to
    the server merges, and the fact that the article says that each server
    can support 10k active accounts doesn't make it so. It may well be true,
    it may not, I have no way of knowing which figure is correct.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Graeme Faelban wrote:

    > Don't be too smug, the only real figures cited there were for prior to
    > the server merges, and the fact that the article says that each server
    > can support 10k active accounts doesn't make it so. It may well be true,
    > it may not, I have no way of knowing which figure is correct.
    >
    If a server can support 10K people, that doesnt' mean it has 10K people
    on it. There were around 50 servers, but it was easy to see that some
    were more crowded than others. 10K isn't a number to conjur with, its a
    "at most" number. 50 servers with 10K people each, though, would still
    be a mere 500K people, yet EQ supposedly peaked out at 2M people.

    The merger arguement which suggests that if you take two servers which
    support 10K people each and combine them, then current servers support
    20K people (I know, its not your arguement, I'm being too lazy to go
    back and put this where it belongs) is also incorrect; the servers still
    likely support a maximum of 10K people, but were so depopulated that
    they seemed empty; combining the populations into half as many servers
    mean each has a better population... probably still substantially under
    the 10K limit, as after a 9 month absence I returned to a newly (to me)
    combined server environment which still seems emptier than the previous
    non-combined servers I left.

    If the 10K figure is accurate, it must mean active population, not
    causual barely ever playing population. Even so, the server merge
    suggests that the former figure of less than 500k active subscribers is
    now at best 250K active subscribers... probably substantially fewer.

    Of course its also possible that the 10K cap is now substantially
    larger, what with the addition of so many new zones, and of
    instancing... the relative emptiness I'm feeling could in part be due to
    that. But whether this is the case or not has nothing to do with the
    mergers themselves.

    Lance
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <Xns96BE993FA54Drichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
    RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
    > Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    > news:hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com:
    >
    > > On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    > > <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >>42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    > >>news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    > >>
    > >>> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    > >>> online.de says...
    > >>>
    > >>>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    > >>>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    > >>>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    > >>>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    > >>>> EQ subscriptions.
    > >>>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    > >>>
    > >>> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    > >>> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    > >>> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
    > >>> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
    > >>>
    > >>> I don't think so.
    > >>
    > >>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    > >>
    > >>which was posted here July 8th.
    > >>Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    > >
    > > Thanks mate.
    > >
    > > /wave 42
    > >
    >
    > Don't be too smug, the only real figures cited there were for prior to
    > the server merges, and the fact that the article says that each server
    > can support 10k active accounts doesn't make it so.

    I'm also inclined to beleive that the author (who of course is not a
    Sony employee, merely a web-columnist, and the figure in question was
    only tangentially related to the subject matter so good 'fact checking'
    can hardly be assumed) took half a million divided it by 52, got 9615
    and then guessed that the servers were supporting up to 10,000 players.

    Suggesting that each server only supports 10,000 accounts has some major
    inconsistencies. EQ lets each player have 8 characters PER SERVER. Now
    very very few people have done THAT. But practically EVERYONE I know has
    created a characte or two on at least one other server. (be it a couple
    weeks on a Zek, or FV, or a testbuff on test, or a server someone they
    met in RL plays on...) sure in many (most) cases those characters are
    essentially abandoned, but they are still there, with the accounts paid
    in full each month.

    10,000 accounts per server with 52 servers leaves almost NO wiggle room
    for the number of accounts with characters on multiple servers. I mean,
    I have abandoned characters on 5 servers (even post merge). I'd be
    counted 5 times under meldurs assumptions, and I'd wager that a very
    very large number of accounts would be counted at least twice.

    I'd fully expect the number of "sever-accounts" to be at least 50% again
    or even double (or beyond) the total number of subscriptions.

    So at its PEAK, with 500,000 subscribers I'd have expected 500,000 -
    1,000,000+ server accounts. Which is a *heck* a lot more than 10,000 per
    server with 52 servers.

    -cheers
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d792b71ce3367ed989cc2@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net>,
    nospam@nospam.com says...

    > So at its PEAK, with 500,000 subscribers I'd have expected 500,000 -
    er 750,000 - 1,000,000 server-accounts.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
    news:Xns96BE98B024E46richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:

    > Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    > news:Xns96BE8DCCAF53Bmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
    >> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >>
    >> which was posted here July 8th.
    >> Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >>
    >
    > Not that that is necesarilly any more credible than any other source,
    > but, the figure mentioned in there was prior to the merger of the
    > servers, basically pointing out what EQ had at it's peak, and making a
    > remark saying what the servers could support. Did SoE tell them that
    > the figure is correct? I honestly see no reason to believe their
    > figures any more than those of anyone else.

    Seeing as how they interviewed people from SOE for the article, it is
    probably a safe assumption, IMO, that the figure came from SOE in the first
    place.

    Marcel
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    news:Xns96BEB8C41695Fmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:

    > Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
    > news:Xns96BE98B024E46richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:
    >
    >> Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    >> news:Xns96BE8DCCAF53Bmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
    >>> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >>>
    >>> which was posted here July 8th.
    >>> Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >>>
    >>
    >> Not that that is necesarilly any more credible than any other source,
    >> but, the figure mentioned in there was prior to the merger of the
    >> servers, basically pointing out what EQ had at it's peak, and making
    >> a remark saying what the servers could support. Did SoE tell them
    >> that the figure is correct? I honestly see no reason to believe
    >> their figures any more than those of anyone else.
    >
    > Seeing as how they interviewed people from SOE for the article, it is
    > probably a safe assumption, IMO, that the figure came from SOE in the
    > first place.
    >

    That could well be. For all we know, the figures on the chart also come
    form an SoE insider. In both cases, we don't actually know. One thing
    we do know is that the chart very closely tracks what was in that article
    you pointed to as far as active accounts up to the last available
    datapoint in the article, which was over 500k accounts about a year ago.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <Xns96BEB8C41695Fmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4>,
    mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com says...
    > Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
    > news:Xns96BE98B024E46richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:
    >
    > > Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
    > > news:Xns96BE8DCCAF53Bmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
    > >> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    > >>
    > >> which was posted here July 8th.
    > >> Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    > >>
    > >
    > > Not that that is necesarilly any more credible than any other source,
    > > but, the figure mentioned in there was prior to the merger of the
    > > servers, basically pointing out what EQ had at it's peak, and making a
    > > remark saying what the servers could support. Did SoE tell them that
    > > the figure is correct? I honestly see no reason to believe their
    > > figures any more than those of anyone else.
    >
    > Seeing as how they interviewed people from SOE for the article, it is
    > probably a safe assumption, IMO, that the figure came from SOE in the first
    > place.

    /quote from another post:

    .... took half a million divided it by 52, got 9615
    and then guessed that the servers were supporting up to 10,000 players.

    /end quote

    Whether your columnist did that math or SOE did it really doesn't
    matter. It was certainly true at some point in time, that just over half
    a million players were served by 52 servers, and thus approximately 10k
    / world server.

    The EQ worlds of 2005, run on newer hardware, with dynamic load
    balancing accross world server clusters, severing an ever expanding game
    with more and more realestate for people to spread into, both interms of
    zones, and zone-instances. Its likely that world servers can support
    much larger player counts than they could "once upon a time".

    Especially if non-trivial quantities of players are splitting their time
    with other titles now.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    >In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >online.de says...
    >> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    >> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >> >
    >> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >> >> online.de says...
    >> >>
    >> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
    >> >>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
    >> >>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
    >> >>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
    >> >>> EQ subscriptions.
    >> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >> >>
    >> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
    >> >> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
    >> >> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
    >> >> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
    >> >>
    >> >> I don't think so.
    >> >
    >> >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >> >
    >> >which was posted here July 8th.
    >> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >>
    >> Thanks mate.
    >>
    >> /wave 42
    >>
    >> Meldur
    >
    >*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that trashes
    >mmorpgcharts?

    Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
    public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
    And it was meant as an example.

    Meldur
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
    Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
    >
    > In general the guy from mmogchart cannot provide a *single*
    > hard fact or reviewable source for his numbers for EQ.

    For EQ, his data comes from Sony press releases where Sony says what the
    number of subscribers are. That will be very accurate.


    --
    --Tim Smith
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in
    news:b46dneeHs5pMKJLeRVn-gw@dejazzd.com:

    >
    >
    > Graeme Faelban wrote:
    >
    >> Don't be too smug, the only real figures cited there were for prior
    >> to the server merges, and the fact that the article says that each
    >> server can support 10k active accounts doesn't make it so. It may
    >> well be true, it may not, I have no way of knowing which figure is
    >> correct.
    >>
    > If a server can support 10K people, that doesnt' mean it has 10K
    > people on it. There were around 50 servers, but it was easy to see
    > that some were more crowded than others. 10K isn't a number to conjur
    > with, its a "at most" number. 50 servers with 10K people each,
    > though, would still be a mere 500K people, yet EQ supposedly peaked
    > out at 2M people.

    First I ever heard of a 2M number for EQ, the peak I head of was over
    500k.

    >
    > The merger arguement which suggests that if you take two servers which
    > support 10K people each and combine them, then current servers support
    > 20K people (I know, its not your arguement, I'm being too lazy to go
    > back and put this where it belongs) is also incorrect; the servers
    > still likely support a maximum of 10K people, but were so depopulated
    > that they seemed empty; combining the populations into half as many
    > servers mean each has a better population... probably still
    > substantially under the 10K limit, as after a 9 month absence I
    > returned to a newly (to me) combined server environment which still
    > seems emptier than the previous non-combined servers I left.
    >
    > If the 10K figure is accurate, it must mean active population, not
    > causual barely ever playing population. Even so, the server merge
    > suggests that the former figure of less than 500k active subscribers
    > is now at best 250K active subscribers... probably substantially
    > fewer.
    >
    > Of course its also possible that the 10K cap is now substantially
    > larger, what with the addition of so many new zones, and of
    > instancing... the relative emptiness I'm feeling could in part be due
    > to that. But whether this is the case or not has nothing to do with
    > the mergers themselves.
    >

    I would be shocked if there was a 10k hard cap anyway, given that EQ
    accounts are not server based. Most people actively play on only one
    server at any time, but many do have characters created on more than one
    server. Heck, I have characters on 5 or 6 servers.

    Regardless, the mmorpgchart site seemed to track very well with the
    figures in the article on the IEEE site (numbers from SoE as I understand
    it) up to the peak point of 550kish active accounts. Having no
    information to the contrary at this point, I'd guess that they continue
    to track the actual figures reasonably well now.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    news:jnd0h1l8psofbdns84l8nuhsqiqbr9hjrl@4ax.com:

    > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >>online.de says...
    >>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    >>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >>> >
    >>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
    >>> >> Meldur@t- online.de says...
    >>> >>
    >>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the
    >>> >>> tecnical aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find
    >>> >>> it anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k
    >>> >>> players. There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes
    >>> >>> 210k active EQ subscriptions.
    >>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written
    >>> >> by someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And
    >>> >> that's supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other
    >>> >> guy cites? Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this
    >>> >> 'HARD DATA'?
    >>> >>
    >>> >> I don't think so.
    >>> >
    >>> >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >>> >
    >>> >which was posted here July 8th.
    >>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >>>
    >>> Thanks mate.
    >>>
    >>> /wave 42
    >>>
    >>> Meldur
    >>
    >>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that trashes
    >>mmorpgcharts?
    >
    > Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
    > public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
    > And it was meant as an example.
    >

    If you read the article carefully, you will notice that the figures
    stated in that article over the life of EQ track very well with the
    figures presented at the mmorpgcharts site. Why would you assume that
    they are not innaccurate?

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 29 Aug 2005 14:29:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
    <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

    >Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    >news:jnd0h1l8psofbdns84l8nuhsqiqbr9hjrl@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >>>online.de says...
    >>>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    >>>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >>>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >>>> >
    >>>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
    >>>> >> Meldur@t- online.de says...
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>>> >>>
    >>>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the
    >>>> >>> tecnical aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find
    >>>> >>> it anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k
    >>>> >>> players. There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes
    >>>> >>> 210k active EQ subscriptions.
    >>>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written
    >>>> >> by someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And
    >>>> >> that's supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other
    >>>> >> guy cites? Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this
    >>>> >> 'HARD DATA'?
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> I don't think so.
    >>>> >
    >>>> >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >>>> >
    >>>> >which was posted here July 8th.
    >>>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks mate.
    >>>>
    >>>> /wave 42
    >>>>
    >>>> Meldur
    >>>
    >>>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that trashes
    >>>mmorpgcharts?
    >>
    >> Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
    >> public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
    >> And it was meant as an example.
    >>
    >
    >If you read the article carefully, you will notice that the figures
    >stated in that article over the life of EQ track very well with the
    >figures presented at the mmorpgcharts site. Why would you assume that
    >they are not innaccurate?

    Cause it was linked from SoE's site some months ago.
    I didnt say his numbers are flat out wrong,but everyone playing Eq
    over several years can make the same estimates,without claiming
    numbers come from trustworthy sources like he does without the
    slightest proof or hint what his sources are.For me this stinks.

    Meldur
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    news:ij27h1prkde185082h98e0e1gdlvt1972m@4ax.com:

    > On 29 Aug 2005 14:29:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
    > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    >>news:jnd0h1l8psofbdns84l8nuhsqiqbr9hjrl@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >>>>online.de says...
    >>>>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    >>>>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >>>>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
    >>>>> >> Meldur@t- online.de says...
    >>>>> >>
    >>>>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>>>> >>>
    >>>>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the
    >>>>> >>> tecnical aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant
    find
    >>>>> >>> it anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k
    >>>>> >>> players. There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes
    >>>>> >>> 210k active EQ subscriptions.
    >>>>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >>>>> >>
    >>>>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce,
    written
    >>>>> >> by someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention.
    And
    >>>>> >> that's supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other
    >>>>> >> guy cites? Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this
    >>>>> >> 'HARD DATA'?
    >>>>> >>
    >>>>> >> I don't think so.
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >
    http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >which was posted here July 8th.
    >>>>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530
    @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks mate.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> /wave 42
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Meldur
    >>>>
    >>>>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that
    trashes
    >>>>mmorpgcharts?
    >>>
    >>> Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
    >>> public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
    >>> And it was meant as an example.
    >>>
    >>
    >>If you read the article carefully, you will notice that the figures
    >>stated in that article over the life of EQ track very well with the
    >>figures presented at the mmorpgcharts site. Why would you assume that
    >>they are not innaccurate?
    >
    > Cause it was linked from SoE's site some months ago.
    > I didnt say his numbers are flat out wrong,but everyone playing Eq
    > over several years can make the same estimates,without claiming
    > numbers come from trustworthy sources like he does without the
    > slightest proof or hint what his sources are.For me this stinks.
    >

    He has a record of reporting reasonably accurate numbers, I see no reason
    to believe that has changed. They may be way off, I certainly don't know
    for a fact, but, until given good reason to believe otherwise, I see no
    reason to stop trusting them.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    On 30 Aug 2005 14:04:07 GMT, Graeme Faelban
    <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

    >Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    >news:ij27h1prkde185082h98e0e1gdlvt1972m@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On 29 Aug 2005 14:29:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
    >> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    >>>news:jnd0h1l8psofbdns84l8nuhsqiqbr9hjrl@4ax.com:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    >>>>>online.de says...
    >>>>>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
    >>>>>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
    >>>>>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
    >>>>>> >> Meldur@t- online.de says...
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
    >>>>>> >>>
    >>>>>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the
    >>>>>> >>> tecnical aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant
    >find
    >>>>>> >>> it anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k
    >>>>>> >>> players. There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes
    >>>>>> >>> 210k active EQ subscriptions.
    >>>>>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce,
    >written
    >>>>>> >> by someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention.
    >And
    >>>>>> >> that's supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other
    >>>>>> >> guy cites? Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this
    >>>>>> >> 'HARD DATA'?
    >>>>>> >>
    >>>>>> >> I don't think so.
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> >
    >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul05/0705eq.html
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> >which was posted here July 8th.
    >>>>>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530
    >@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Thanks mate.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> /wave 42
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Meldur
    >>>>>
    >>>>>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that
    >trashes
    >>>>>mmorpgcharts?
    >>>>
    >>>> Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
    >>>> public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
    >>>> And it was meant as an example.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>If you read the article carefully, you will notice that the figures
    >>>stated in that article over the life of EQ track very well with the
    >>>figures presented at the mmorpgcharts site. Why would you assume that
    >>>they are not innaccurate?
    >>
    >> Cause it was linked from SoE's site some months ago.
    >> I didnt say his numbers are flat out wrong,but everyone playing Eq
    >> over several years can make the same estimates,without claiming
    >> numbers come from trustworthy sources like he does without the
    >> slightest proof or hint what his sources are.For me this stinks.
    >>
    >
    >He has a record of reporting reasonably accurate numbers, I see no reason
    >to believe that has changed. They may be way off, I certainly don't know
    >for a fact, but, until given good reason to believe otherwise, I see no
    >reason to stop trusting them.

    He does not give a *single* source which can be verified.

    When you read articles in your newspaper about economy,
    you always know where the numbers come from,for example inflation
    rate,unemployment rate or the number of sold cars or condomes is found
    out by reading governmental publications or publications made by
    companies or their organisations etc.Nothing like this on his site.

    I repeat ,he does not give a *single* source where he has his numbers
    from.

    Meldur
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
    news:gg39h1hjls9549hvdbgng9014ea1ee7f8g@4ax.com:

    > On 30 Aug 2005 14:04:07 GMT, Graeme Faelban
    > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>He has a record of reporting reasonably accurate numbers, I see no
    >>reason to believe that has changed. They may be way off, I certainly
    >>don't know for a fact, but, until given good reason to believe
    >>otherwise, I see no reason to stop trusting them.
    >
    > He does not give a *single* source which can be verified.
    >
    > When you read articles in your newspaper about economy,
    > you always know where the numbers come from,for example inflation
    > rate,unemployment rate or the number of sold cars or condomes is found
    > out by reading governmental publications or publications made by
    > companies or their organisations etc.Nothing like this on his site.
    >
    > I repeat ,he does not give a *single* source where he has his numbers
    > from.
    >

    He does say what his source is for the EQ information, we cannot verify
    it, I'll agree with that. I would imagine that if he disclosed who his
    inside source is they would likely not have a job at SoE anymore. If SoE
    wanted to have the information out there, they would release it
    themselves.

    And I say again, his numbers appear to track fairly accurately
    information that SoE has released in the past, or released after he put
    that information on his charts, including the information provided in the
    article that you are talking about. Unless a verifiable source can
    refute his numbers, I see no reason to stop believing that they are
    reasonably close now. The only discrepancy between what is said in that
    article, and his numbers would be if we accept 10k accounts per server.
    Given the way EQ is structured, I have no reason to believe there is any
    specific limit such as that on a per server basis.

    --
    On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
    Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

    On Steamfont
    Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
    Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    In article <gg39h1hjls9549hvdbgng9014ea1ee7f8g@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
    online.de says...

    > >He has a record of reporting reasonably accurate numbers, I see no reason
    > >to believe that has changed. They may be way off, I certainly don't know
    > >for a fact, but, until given good reason to believe otherwise, I see no
    > >reason to stop trusting them.
    >
    > He does not give a *single* source which can be verified.

    And yet his numbers line up with every single verifiable source of
    actual numbers.

    > When you read articles in your newspaper about economy,
    > you always know where the numbers come from,for example inflation
    > rate,unemployment rate or the number of sold cars or condomes is found
    > out by reading governmental publications or publications made by
    > companies or their organisations etc.

    LMAO. I'm sorry but that was irony at its peak. Whats the point of
    citing sources if the sources are deliberately fudging the numbers?

    Inflation? Lol...

    http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Late+Breaking+Commentary/IO/2004/IO_Oct_
    2004.htm

    Did your computer cost 25% less this year? Did you cosume energy
    (electriciy, gasoline, etc...) or food last year? According to the
    inflation calculations: you didn't.

    Unemployment rate? That's understated too.

    You want numbers that lack credibility read your governmental economic
    publications.


    > Nothing like this on his site.

    You'll tend to scare away anonymous insiders by putting their faces on
    your website.

    > I repeat ,he does not give a *single* source where he has his numbers
    > from.

    The numbers track with the verifiable sources *you* found. Your
    explanation? Coincidence?
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

    <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
    >
    > When you read articles in your newspaper about economy,
    > you always know where the numbers come from

    That's a mighty pretty world you're living in. Kinda rose-colored...
  41. Cool charts. I've seen parts of the data in forums and such. But that is stil not as trustworthy a source as the devs. The chart creator should have a listing of links to articals of sources. That way we wouldn't be wondering about this =)

    Anywho, I'm off the play EVE Online. Great game and great PVP !!
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games