Daniel Erickson on Server Population.

Oh yeah, nuclear science... so complicated that Rift offers the feature without problems and WoW does transfers in 5 minutes?

Who said they were lying? It's just the fact that server populations are too low
Evidence 1: http://www.torstatus.net/shards/eu

Evidence 2: http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/04...now-declining/

If you define game population as concurrent players, then yes. But this is not the same thing as saying "servers are dying" or "the overwelming majority of players are on dead servers" or "SWTOR will go f2play", all of which are representatives of common unsubstantiated assertions here on the forums. If you define game population as subscriptions, then you have not presented any evidence to support that there is a decline.

I fail to see your point. It's not an issue of hiding behind semantics: BioWare has been very clear and upfront about how it defines an "active subscription." Moreover, the definition follows a de facto standard used in the industry. Everyone understands that not every subscriber is actually an active participant (and this is true for any subscription based service, regardless of industry). From a financial perspective (which is the only context in which subscription numbers are relevant), why should they not count every paid subscription, regardless of hours played? Finally, even if you wanted some other measure of the subscription base to get around the difference between active and inactive players who maintain a subscription, how would you do it? If somone has paid for 90 days, has 45 days left, but hasn't played for the last 30 days, how could Bioware predict whether or not that person is coming back?

We need a date...not an answer like "soon" or "we are working on it"...we know that you are working on it...

Also, you guys should prioritize merges over transfers so you can control the servers better. Just my 2 cents.

TERA all this weekend.

TORTanic has already hit the iceburg, it's just a matter of time before it sinks..