Topic. Anyone know?   Last I heard is was kinda stable, but i could be wrong.   

It's #22, just behind DCUO on Xfire among MMORPGs. Its played graph is indeed looking very stable.

Originally posted by Paddyspub

Topic. Anyone know?   Last I heard is was kinda stable, but i could be wrong.   

The servers have become a bit unstable since the last major update.

And I am not going to answer what the topic is.

---

Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
Currently Rift is at roughly 245K players. Here is a link to my source. They do have a free to play component but by and large they likely have a higher number of subscription paying players than LOTRO (which has a slightly larger population) due to the way it is handled as a trial. In my view, that makes RIFT a healthy game at face value. (ie not every game needs WOW like numbers to make it.)

---

---

Originally posted by OSF8759
It's #22, just behind DCUO on Xfire among MMORPGs. Its played graph is indeed looking very stable.

---

Each time I check Rift's shard status it alwas looks like this http://www.riftgame.com/en/shardstatus/. Sometimes only one server has a meduim pop. As of now there are 4 out of 16 NA servers setting at meduim. For some odd reason people consider this a successful game. Now on that same token ToR has about 12 servers that sit at heavy during peak times and standard during non peak times. However people consider ToR a failure altough they have 12 servers at damn near full, where as Rift is setting at about half full. Now I can back the ToR failure argument due to ToR having over 100 NA servers and only 12 hitting heavy or full status. But the same can be said for RiFT as well, because they to launched with well over 100 NA servers, and had to shut most of them down.

The problem with MMO players today and dev companies, is that they want to see a game with WoW numbers. Before they consider it a success depending on the game. So in Rift's case 260k subs is a success, where as in ToR's case 500k-600k is considered a failure. Trion is also not a public traded company so they do not have to publish there sub numbers or their gains and losses, where as EA does. I am not bashing or backing either game, just pointing out the double standards that players hold when it comes to certain games. I played Rift for 2 months and quit due to bordom, I played ToR for 8 months and cancelled due to the F2P annoucement and the same dried up endgame that's in every other themepark game.

Originally posted by Gormok

Each time I check Rift's shard status it alwas looks like this http://www.riftgame.com/en/shardstatus/. Sometimes only one server has a meduim pop. As of now there are 4 out of 16 NA servers setting at meduim. For some odd reason people consider this a successful game. Now on that same token ToR has about 12 servers that sit at heavy during peak times and standard during non peak times. However people consider ToR a failure altough they have 12 servers at damn near full, where as Rift is setting at about half full. Now I can back the ToR failure argument due to ToR having over 100 NA servers and only 12 hitting heavy or full status. But the same can be said for RiFT as well, because they to launched with well over 100 NA servers, and had to shut most of them down.

 

The problem with MMO players today and dev companies, is that they want to see a game with WoW numbers. Before they consider it a success depending on the game. So in Rift's case 260k subs is a success, where as in ToR's case 500k-600k is considered a failure. Trion is also not a public traded company so they do not have to publish there sub numbers or their gains and losses, where as EA does. I am not bashing or backing either game, just pointing out the double standards that players hold when it comes to certain games. I played Rift for 2 months and quit due to bordom, I played ToR for 8 months and cancelled due to the F2P annoucement and the same dried up endgame that's in every other themepark game.

How in hell did you get 8 months out of SWTOR?  I got insanely bored in less than two.

Originally posted by silverreign

 

---

Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
Currently Rift is at roughly 245K players. Here is a link to my source. They do have a free to play component but by and large they likely have a higher number of subscription paying players than LOTRO (which has a slightly larger population) due to the way it is handled as a trial. In my view, that makes RIFT a healthy game at face value. (ie not every game needs WOW like numbers to make it.)

---

that graph is old and only goes yearly. sub numbers change drastically in a month or so. swtor isnt even on the list and launched in dec last year. that graph is useless

 

You'll find the graph is actually quite accurate. SWTOR is in another category, take a look at the source mmodata.net

The resolution is low so it's only good for looking at subscriptions over a long period.

Originally posted by Vaelgard

Originally posted by Gormok

Each time I check Rift's shard status it alwas looks like this http://www.riftgame.com/en/shardstatus/. Sometimes only one server has a meduim pop. As of now there are 4 out of 16 NA servers setting at meduim. For some odd reason people consider this a successful game. Now on that same token ToR has about 12 servers that sit at heavy during peak times and standard during non peak times. However people consider ToR a failure altough they have 12 servers at damn near full, where as Rift is setting at about half full. Now I can back the ToR failure argument due to ToR having over 100 NA servers and only 12 hitting heavy or full status. But the same can be said for RiFT as well, because they to launched with well over 100 NA servers, and had to shut most of them down.

 

The problem with MMO players today and dev companies, is that they want to see a game with WoW numbers. Before they consider it a success depending on the game. So in Rift's case 260k subs is a success, where as in ToR's case 500k-600k is considered a failure. Trion is also not a public traded company so they do not have to publish there sub numbers or their gains and losses, where as EA does. I am not bashing or backing either game, just pointing out the double standards that players hold when it comes to certain games. I played Rift for 2 months and quit due to bordom, I played ToR for 8 months and cancelled due to the F2P annoucement and the same dried up endgame that's in every other themepark game.

How in hell did you get 8 months out of SWTOR?  I got insanely bored in less than two.

well i got about 9 months enjoyment from Rift and mainly because of the soul system and couldn't even get 3 weeks enjoyment from swtor. But I'm sure many had the exact opposite play times on the two games as me.. differn't tastes that's all.

Originally posted by Vaelgard

Originally posted by Gormok

Each time I check Rift's shard status it alwas looks like this http://www.riftgame.com/en/shardstatus/. Sometimes only one server has a meduim pop. As of now there are 4 out of 16 NA servers setting at meduim. For some odd reason people consider this a successful game. Now on that same token ToR has about 12 servers that sit at heavy during peak times and standard during non peak times. However people consider ToR a failure altough they have 12 servers at damn near full, where as Rift is setting at about half full. Now I can back the ToR failure argument due to ToR having over 100 NA servers and only 12 hitting heavy or full status. But the same can be said for RiFT as well, because they to launched with well over 100 NA servers, and had to shut most of them down.

 

The problem with MMO players today and dev companies, is that they want to see a game with WoW numbers. Before they consider it a success depending on the game. So in Rift's case 260k subs is a success, where as in ToR's case 500k-600k is considered a failure. Trion is also not a public traded company so they do not have to publish there sub numbers or their gains and losses, where as EA does. I am not bashing or backing either game, just pointing out the double standards that players hold when it comes to certain games. I played Rift for 2 months and quit due to bordom, I played ToR for 8 months and cancelled due to the F2P annoucement and the same dried up endgame that's in every other themepark game.

How in hell did you get 8 months out of SWTOR?  I got insanely bored in less than two.

Well I am not one of those people that rush to max level, I took my time doing things and different stories on different classes. Once I hit endgame however the fun stopped, I hate gear grinding the same instances. I hate themepark pvp, because it's class based, and raiding is just a heart attack waiting to happened. So I decided if that's all that's waiting at the end of journey, than my trip was pretty much over. Plus the gear is so ugly there really was no drive to go after it, Im a looks over stats type of guy.

---

Originally posted by Gormok
Each time I check Rift's shard status it alwas looks like this http://www.riftgame.com/en/shardstatus/. Sometimes only one server has a meduim pop. As of now there are 4 out of 16 NA servers setting at meduim. For some odd reason people consider this a successful game. Now on that same token ToR has about 12 servers that sit at heavy during peak times and standard during non peak times. However people consider ToR a failure altough they have 12 servers at damn near full, where as Rift is setting at about half full. Now I can back the ToR failure argument due to ToR having over 100 NA servers and only 12 hitting heavy or full status. But the same can be said for RiFT as well, because they to launched with well over 100 NA servers, and had to shut most of them down.

 

The problem with MMO players today and dev companies, is that they want to see a game with WoW numbers. Before they consider it a success depending on the game. So in Rift's case 260k subs is a success, where as in ToR's case 500k-600k is considered a failure. Trion is also not a public traded company so they do not have to publish there sub numbers or their gains and losses, where as EA does. I am not bashing or backing either game, just pointing out the double standards that players hold when it comes to certain games. I played Rift for 2 months and quit due to bordom, I played ToR for 8 months and cancelled due to the F2P annoucement and the same dried up endgame that's in every other themepark game.

---

Rift had ~600,000 subscribers at it's peak and has stabilized around 250,000 subscribers, and it's still P2P. SW:TOR possibly had 1,7 million subs at it's peak and is now between 500,000 and 1 million. After once server merge it went from ~220 to 19 servers. It is going Freemium and the population, which was stabile for a short period, is now declining. And it had a couple of masssive lay-offs on top of all this.

No double standard here.

Originally posted by Alot

 

---

Originally posted by Gormok
Each time I check Rift's shard status it alwas looks like this http://www.riftgame.com/en/shardstatus/. Sometimes only one server has a meduim pop. As of now there are 4 out of 16 NA servers setting at meduim. For some odd reason people consider this a successful game. Now on that same token ToR has about 12 servers that sit at heavy during peak times and standard during non peak times. However people consider ToR a failure altough they have 12 servers at damn near full, where as Rift is setting at about half full. Now I can back the ToR failure argument due to ToR having over 100 NA servers and only 12 hitting heavy or full status. But the same can be said for RiFT as well, because they to launched with well over 100 NA servers, and had to shut most of them down.

 

 

The problem with MMO players today and dev companies, is that they want to see a game with WoW numbers. Before they consider it a success depending on the game. So in Rift's case 260k subs is a success, where as in ToR's case 500k-600k is considered a failure. Trion is also not a public traded company so they do not have to publish there sub numbers or their gains and losses, where as EA does. I am not bashing or backing either game, just pointing out the double standards that players hold when it comes to certain games. I played Rift for 2 months and quit due to bordom, I played ToR for 8 months and cancelled due to the F2P annoucement and the same dried up endgame that's in every other themepark game.

---

 

Rift had ~600,000 subscribers at it's peak and has stabilized around 250,000 subscribers, and it's still P2P. SW:TOR possibly had 1,7 million subs at it's peak and is now between 500,000 and 1 million. After once server merge it went from ~220 to 19 servers. It is going Freemium and the population, which was stabile for a short period, is now declining. And it had a couple of masssive lay-offs on top of all this.

No double standard here.

@Alot, another trend I have noticed as well, is that people do not give these games a chance to settle in. They expect millions from the outset. The mmo community isnt as loyal as it used to be, back in the day EQ was the king of MMOs. But there were other mmos that people played that they were content with. Hell people and devs a like were happy if their game had 10k subs. Well except EA and im directing this at Earth and Beyond.

Originally posted by Gormok

Originally posted by Alot

 

---

Originally posted by Gormok
Each time I check Rift's shard status it alwas looks like this http://www.riftgame.com/en/shardstatus/. Sometimes only one server has a meduim pop. As of now there are 4 out of 16 NA servers setting at meduim. For some odd reason people consider this a successful game. Now on that same token ToR has about 12 servers that sit at heavy during peak times and standard during non peak times. However people consider ToR a failure altough they have 12 servers at damn near full, where as Rift is setting at about half full. Now I can back the ToR failure argument due to ToR having over 100 NA servers and only 12 hitting heavy or full status. But the same can be said for RiFT as well, because they to launched with well over 100 NA servers, and had to shut most of them down.

 

 

The problem with MMO players today and dev companies, is that they want to see a game with WoW numbers. Before they consider it a success depending on the game. So in Rift's case 260k subs is a success, where as in ToR's case 500k-600k is considered a failure. Trion is also not a public traded company so they do not have to publish there sub numbers or their gains and losses, where as EA does. I am not bashing or backing either game, just pointing out the double standards that players hold when it comes to certain games. I played Rift for 2 months and quit due to bordom, I played ToR for 8 months and cancelled due to the F2P annoucement and the same dried up endgame that's in every other themepark game.

---

 

Rift had ~600,000 subscribers at it's peak and has stabilized around 250,000 subscribers, and it's still P2P. SW:TOR possibly had 1,7 million subs at it's peak and is now between 500,000 and 1 million. After once server merge it went from ~220 to 19 servers. It is going Freemium and the population, which was stabile for a short period, is now declining. And it had a couple of masssive lay-offs on top of all this.

No double standard here.

@Alot, another trend I have noticed as well, is that people do not give these games a chance to settle in. They expect millions from the outset. The mmo community isnt as loyal as it used to be, back in the day EQ was the king of MMOs. But there were other mmos that people played that they were content with. Hell people and devs a like were happy if their game had 10k subs. Well except EA and im directing this at Earth and Beyond.

This is true. My first mmo was Neocron, which I think had at the most of about 500-700 English speaking subscribers.  Of course I didn't know any better and thought that was fine.  They might have had more, but I think it always showed that there were about 100-200 people on the server whenever I logged in.  Earth and Beyond was my second mmo.  Talk about gameplay that got old quickly. There is only so many giant space shrimp you can kill before it just gets tedious.

Originally posted by Vaelgard

Originally posted by Gormok

Each time I check Rift's shard status it alwas looks like this http://www.riftgame.com/en/shardstatus/. Sometimes only one server has a meduim pop. As of now there are 4 out of 16 NA servers setting at meduim. For some odd reason people consider this a successful game. Now on that same token ToR has about 12 servers that sit at heavy during peak times and standard during non peak times. However people consider ToR a failure altough they have 12 servers at damn near full, where as Rift is setting at about half full. Now I can back the ToR failure argument due to ToR having over 100 NA servers and only 12 hitting heavy or full status. But the same can be said for RiFT as well, because they to launched with well over 100 NA servers, and had to shut most of them down.

 

The problem with MMO players today and dev companies, is that they want to see a game with WoW numbers. Before they consider it a success depending on the game. So in Rift's case 260k subs is a success, where as in ToR's case 500k-600k is considered a failure. Trion is also not a public traded company so they do not have to publish there sub numbers or their gains and losses, where as EA does. I am not bashing or backing either game, just pointing out the double standards that players hold when it comes to certain games. I played Rift for 2 months and quit due to bordom, I played ToR for 8 months and cancelled due to the F2P annoucement and the same dried up endgame that's in every other themepark game.

How in hell did you get 8 months out of SWTOR?  I got insanely bored in less than two.

I got bored of ToR in 2 months. I got bored of RIFT in 2 weeks. Each to their own.

Originally posted by silverreign

 

---

Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
Currently Rift is at roughly 245K players. Here is a link to my source. They do have a free to play component but by and large they likely have a higher number of subscription paying players than LOTRO (which has a slightly larger population) due to the way it is handled as a trial. In my view, that makes RIFT a healthy game at face value. (ie not every game needs WOW like numbers to make it.)

---

that graph is old and only goes yearly. sub numbers change drastically in a month or so. swtor isnt even on the list and launched in dec last year. that graph is useless

 

*Grumbles.* I only linked the chart containing RIFT because it's what was asked for. I'd advise you to go into the full website, see how it's all collected, and reconsider your claim. as noted by another poster. SWTOR is on another chart due to its population totals last update. For determining a population trends over time, it's pretty solid. Like it or not... You want real time tracking? You go pay for it. 

seriously...page 2 and not one person has answered with 42 yet...

MMORPG, I am disappoint.

Originally posted by jacklo

Originally posted by silverreign

 

---

Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
Currently Rift is at roughly 245K players. Here is a link to my source. They do have a free to play component but by and large they likely have a higher number of subscription paying players than LOTRO (which has a slightly larger population) due to the way it is handled as a trial. In my view, that makes RIFT a healthy game at face value. (ie not every game needs WOW like numbers to make it.)

---

that graph is old and only goes yearly. sub numbers change drastically in a month or so. swtor isnt even on the list and launched in dec last year. that graph is useless

 

You'll find the graph is actually quite accurate. SWTOR is in another category, take a look at the source mmodata.net

The resolution is low so it's only good for looking at subscriptions over a long period.

What happened to the everquest II numbers they stop in 2010 and I know the game is still going on as I play it daily.