Guild Wars 2

This is a guess not a idk only anet does post WE KNOW THAT.

Sounds like a pointless thread. This will just start a flame war.
Should do yourself and everyone else a favor and delete it before it gets out of hand.

If I was to guess, I would probably say somewhere between 18k-28k on average.

Copied and modified from a previous post I made back a month ago:

From the latest Raptr stats:
http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-july-2014-summers-winners-and-losers/
GW2 is in the top 20 list!

People say only a small number of people use these 3rd party apps and wrong, etc, however look at the relative percentages to the other games within the stats, then compare with the Steam stats:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Beware not all the games in the Raptr list is in the Steam list because those games aren’t released on Steam.

(At the time of last month) You’ll notice eg. DOTA2 ~2-3 times the numbers of Counter Strike, CS ~4 times higher than Civ 4, etc, so the Raptr stats do seem to provide a reasonable estimate in terms of relative positions.
Now looking at where GW2 lies in the Raptr ranking, it’s about the same as Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim, so looking at those games concurrency, you get peak of ~50k-60k and normal of ~20-30k, so GW2 is probably around those number, so it’s fairly small.

TLDR: GW2 concurrency is probably around the same as in Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim on Steam.

BlueZone.4236:

Copied and modified from a previous post I made back a month ago:

From the latest Raptr stats:
http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-july-2014-summers-winners-and-losers/
GW2 is in the top 20 list!

People say only a small number of people use these 3rd party apps and wrong, etc, however look at the relative percentages to the other games within the stats, then compare with the Steam stats:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Beware not all the games in the Raptr list is in the Steam list because those games aren’t released on Steam.

(At the time of last month) You’ll notice eg. DOTA2 ~2-3 times the numbers of Counter Strike, CS ~4 times higher than Civ 4, etc, so the Raptr stats do seem to provide a reasonable estimate in terms of relative positions.
Now looking at where GW2 lies in the Raptr ranking, it’s about the same as Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim, so looking at those games concurrency, you get peak of ~50k-60k and normal of ~20-30k, so GW2 is probably around those number, so it’s fairly small.

TLDR: GW2 concurrency is probably around the same as in Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim on Steam.

There’s an updated Raptr.

http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-august-2014-league-of-legends-world-of-tanks-get-an-esports-boost/

I’m in the boat that doesn’t believe 3rd party applications are a good way to measure players. If anything I would base popularity off of twitch.tv, that’s even the site that Arenanet directs its players to.

Fernling.1729:

BlueZone.4236:

Copied and modified from a previous post I made back a month ago:

From the latest Raptr stats:
http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-july-2014-summers-winners-and-losers/
GW2 is in the top 20 list!

People say only a small number of people use these 3rd party apps and wrong, etc, however look at the relative percentages to the other games within the stats, then compare with the Steam stats:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Beware not all the games in the Raptr list is in the Steam list because those games aren’t released on Steam.

(At the time of last month) You’ll notice eg. DOTA2 ~2-3 times the numbers of Counter Strike, CS ~4 times higher than Civ 4, etc, so the Raptr stats do seem to provide a reasonable estimate in terms of relative positions.
Now looking at where GW2 lies in the Raptr ranking, it’s about the same as Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim, so looking at those games concurrency, you get peak of ~50k-60k and normal of ~20-30k, so GW2 is probably around those number, so it’s fairly small.

TLDR: GW2 concurrency is probably around the same as in Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim on Steam.

There’s an updated Raptr.

http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-august-2014-league-of-legends-world-of-tanks-get-an-esports-boost/

I’m in the boat that doesn’t believe 3rd party applications are a good way to measure players. If anything I would base popularity off of twitch.tv, that’s even the site that Arenanet directs its players to.

Thanks for the updated link.
Personally, I think viewership on Twitch a little worse in terms of measurements, since depending on the game, if you’re watching, you’re probably not playing.
However, I agree the popularity of GW2 on Twitch does mean the level of interest of the game isn’t very high (especially in the e-sport area).

BlueZone.4236:

Fernling.1729:

BlueZone.4236:

Copied and modified from a previous post I made back a month ago:

From the latest Raptr stats:
http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-july-2014-summers-winners-and-losers/
GW2 is in the top 20 list!

People say only a small number of people use these 3rd party apps and wrong, etc, however look at the relative percentages to the other games within the stats, then compare with the Steam stats:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Beware not all the games in the Raptr list is in the Steam list because those games aren’t released on Steam.

(At the time of last month) You’ll notice eg. DOTA2 ~2-3 times the numbers of Counter Strike, CS ~4 times higher than Civ 4, etc, so the Raptr stats do seem to provide a reasonable estimate in terms of relative positions.
Now looking at where GW2 lies in the Raptr ranking, it’s about the same as Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim, so looking at those games concurrency, you get peak of ~50k-60k and normal of ~20-30k, so GW2 is probably around those number, so it’s fairly small.

TLDR: GW2 concurrency is probably around the same as in Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim on Steam.

There’s an updated Raptr.

http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-august-2014-league-of-legends-world-of-tanks-get-an-esports-boost/

I’m in the boat that doesn’t believe 3rd party applications are a good way to measure players. If anything I would base popularity off of twitch.tv, that’s even the site that Arenanet directs its players to.

Thanks for the updated link.
Personally, I think viewership on Twitch a little worse in terms of measurements, since depending on the game, if you’re watching, you’re probably not playing.
However, I agree the popularity of GW2 on Twitch does mean the level of interest of the game isn’t very high (especially in the e-sport area).

Some games are good to watch and some games are bad to watch. A lot of the twitch streams are competitive PvP and I think most people agree that competitive PvP is not Guild Wars 2’s strong suit. But PvE isn’t nearly as entertaining to watch. So you get an imbalanced perspective from something like twitch. Great commentary probably on how Guild Wars 2 PvP is doing but from most polls we get that most people in this game, an overwhelming majority PvE…which twitch wouldn’t show.

You have two different sources that both put Guild Wars 2 in the top 20 in players for the month. Raptr, which counts actual hours played (which is useful) and Overwolf, which measures unique log ins over the month. Overwolf has Guild Wars 2 at number 7 for many many months in a row now.

It’s obvious the game isn’t dying, isn’t close to dying,. people are still playing it a lot. Games that were supposed to sink it (Neverwinter, Wildstar, ESO) aren’t doing as well and aren’t in any of these top lists. That means either GW 2 did something right, or no one else can make a game. Now people are saying it about Arch Age.

And Arch Age might make a dent for a short time in numbers…but I suspect not a big one. There are tons of complaints about the launch, which I’m following through my son who’s bought a founders package. They’ve made a lot of questionable decisions that will affect the game’s long term growth.

At any rate, I don’t think Guild Wars 2 has a population problem. But I’m not sure what the concurrent population is, because everyone is so scattered.

I think it’s fair to say on patch days we get much higher concurrency than towards the end of a patch, and that if you’re in a tier 1 server in WvW, Blackgate’s zerg is probably bigger than the people left playing ESO (blatant exaggeration for the purposes of humor).

I’m guessing three hundred thousand and two.

I am guessing flame bait for the usual suspects.

People say only a small number of people use these 3rd party apps and wrong, etc, however look at the relative percentages to the other games within the stats, then compare with the Steam stats:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Beware not all the games in the Raptr list is in the Steam list because those games aren’t released on Steam.

I’ve been playing GW2 since launch, what’s a Raptr?

Ohoni.6057:

People say only a small number of people use these 3rd party apps and wrong, etc, however look at the relative percentages to the other games within the stats, then compare with the Steam stats:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Beware not all the games in the Raptr list is in the Steam list because those games aren’t released on Steam.

I’ve been playing GW2 since launch, what’s a Raptr?

It’s not relevant whether you’ve heard of Raptr or not. Raptr is a program that runs in the background that allows you to communicate with friends. It’s got a lot of players. Obviously only players that have heard of it. If you haven’t you won’t be using it.

But of the people who do use it, this month, Guild Wars 2 wracked up enough hours to place it #12 on their list. Since Raptr is running in the background, it tracks how many people using Raptr are playing games for how long.

While it’s not a hard and fast this game is doing better than this, it is however an indication that lots of people are still playing Guild Wars 2 for lots of hours. In fact, Guild Wars 2 has never been out of the top 20, where as ESO and Wildstar have already fallen out of the top 20.

It’s not something that you can get accurate numbers from, but it’s an indication of trends. Haven’t followed the Raptr top 10 for quite a long time now, I can honestly say that it gives a fair indication of how games are doing.

The text below explains why Guild Wars 2 went up five slots, and it’s because of the sale, mostly. Normally it’s hovering around 17 on the chart.

While it’s not a hard and fast this game is doing better than this, it is however an indication that lots of people are still playing Guild Wars 2 for lots of hours. In fact, Guild Wars 2 has never been out of the top 20, where as ESO and Wildstar have already fallen out of the top 20.

Well, I suppose it provides a decent “minimum,” but I don’t see it being great at tracking maximum users, since many people have never heard of it. Within certain communities, it may track accurately, but within other gaming communities it might not track well at all because those communities are less tied into it.

Ohoni.6057:

While it’s not a hard and fast this game is doing better than this, it is however an indication that lots of people are still playing Guild Wars 2 for lots of hours. In fact, Guild Wars 2 has never been out of the top 20, where as ESO and Wildstar have already fallen out of the top 20.

Well, I suppose it provides a decent “minimum,” but I don’t see it being great at tracking maximum users, since many people have never heard of it. Within certain communities, it may track accurately, but within other gaming communities it might not track well at all because those communities are less tied into it.

Sure that’s why you need multiple sources. While Raptr puts Guild Wars 2 at 12 for number of hours played total, Overwolf puts Guild Wars 2 at number 7 in terms of total number of unique log ins.

As for steam, since steam doesn’t sell Guild Wars 2 and most people who have steam, including me, would just launch Guild Wars 2 without launching it from steam, it’s impossible to tell how many people who have steam are playing Guild Wars 2. Steam only really tracks games it sells.

Ohoni.6057:

While it’s not a hard and fast this game is doing better than this, it is however an indication that lots of people are still playing Guild Wars 2 for lots of hours. In fact, Guild Wars 2 has never been out of the top 20, where as ESO and Wildstar have already fallen out of the top 20.

Well, I suppose it provides a decent “minimum,” but I don’t see it being great at tracking maximum users, since many people have never heard of it. Within certain communities, it may track accurately, but within other gaming communities it might not track well at all because those communities are less tied into it.

Well, as I explained, the relative ranking (and proportions) in the Raptr stats agrees fairly well with the Steam concurrency, so I don’t think the numbers are going to be wildly off.
However, Vayne does make a point that the concurrency would be higher during patch days. Since games like Civ4, Skyrim, Garry’s Mod doesn’t have patches, in order for Guild Wars 2 to meet the same relative position, GW2 must have lower concurrency on non-patch days in order to offset the higher concurrency brought on by the patch day interests.

BlueZone.4236:

Ohoni.6057:

While it’s not a hard and fast this game is doing better than this, it is however an indication that lots of people are still playing Guild Wars 2 for lots of hours. In fact, Guild Wars 2 has never been out of the top 20, where as ESO and Wildstar have already fallen out of the top 20.

Well, I suppose it provides a decent “minimum,” but I don’t see it being great at tracking maximum users, since many people have never heard of it. Within certain communities, it may track accurately, but within other gaming communities it might not track well at all because those communities are less tied into it.

Well, as I explained, the relative ranking (and proportions) in the Raptr stats agrees fairly well with the Steam concurrency, so I don’t think the numbers are going to be wildly off.
However, Vayne does make a point that the concurrency would be higher during patch days. Since games like Civ4, Skyrim, Garry’s Mod doesn’t have patches, in order for Guild Wars 2 to meet the same relative position, GW2 must have lower concurrency on non-patch days in order to offset the higher concurrency brought on by the patch day interests.

It doesn’t really work that way. Every single game has ebbs and flows of traffic. Other games have it for tournaments and for releases of new DLC, as an example. That’s why it pays not just to look at the chart for Raptr but also to read the articles that accompanies each chart.

For example, though Guild Wars 2 moved up five slots this month, it’s been number 17 for a long time now. More play hours in game are due to the sale, and the article says so.

However, most months, Guild Wars 2 and Final Fantasy are neck and neck.

What it does show is that games like Wildstar and ESO didn’t get enough play hours to even make the top 20 even though they’re relatively new games. They come out with content patches.

You can’t take content patches away from how well a game does, because it’s part of the game. If that’s what’s getting people to play it’s still part of that game’s success.

It’s interesting that Guild Wars 2 stays pretty high on both Raptr and Overwolf, because they measure players differently. Raptr is based on hours played and Overwolf is based on unique log ins. I personally prefer Raptr for that reason. Someone logging in just to unlock the living story will still count as a unique log in, even if they don’t play. But because Raptr counts hours played it’s a better over all system to see what’s going on.

Face it, if Guild Wars 2 is coming out with content that every month keeps people playing, it can’t be discounted.

Wow, I wonder how many subs FF14 has?
If we figure that out, and knowing that Raptr only tracks PC games and the majority of FF14 players would most likely be on consoles, we’d probably get the upper bound of players in GW2.

Well, as I explained, the relative ranking (and proportions) in the Raptr stats agrees fairly well with the Steam concurrency, so I don’t think the numbers are going to be wildly off.

That’s very poor science. All that proves is a link between “players who use Raptor” and “Players who use Steam.” There could be a third wing of “players who use neither” that behaves entirely differently. Raptr and Steam are both self-selecting groups, and may share similar audiences that are not well represented in the total audience.

Ohoni.6057:

Well, as I explained, the relative ranking (and proportions) in the Raptr stats agrees fairly well with the Steam concurrency, so I don’t think the numbers are going to be wildly off.

That’s very poor science. All that proves is a link between “players who use Raptor” and “Players who use Steam.” There could be a third wing of “players who use neither” that behaves entirely differently. Raptr and Steam are both self-selecting groups, and may share similar audiences that are not well represented in the total audience.

Raptr and Steam’s rankings for LoL, WoW & Dota2 prove what the game developers says about their games.
If you want to refuse to believe those as well, then be my guest.

Raptr and Steam’s rankings for LoL, WoW & Dota2 prove what the game developers says about their games.
If you want to refuse to believe those as well, then be my guest.

My point is that while Raptr and Steam’s rankings might be concurrent for those specific games, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would also be concurrent with other games. What is so difficult to understand about that?

You cannot compare games from raptr data (as has been proven by comparing several games with known concurrency, well at least known for that moment).

The only thing you can get from raptr are trends on individual game basis, and those have shown to be quite reliable.

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

Ohoni.6057:

Raptr and Steam’s rankings for LoL, WoW & Dota2 prove what the game developers says about their games.
If you want to refuse to believe those as well, then be my guest.

My point is that while Raptr and Steam’s rankings might be concurrent for those specific games, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would also be concurrent with other games. What is so difficult to understand about that?

What leads you to believe GW2 differs wildly from the norm?
For a game that’s sold 3.5-4 million and is 2 years old, this concurrency seems reasonable even if you think the margin of error is large.

BlueZone.4236:

Ohoni.6057:

Raptr and Steam’s rankings for LoL, WoW & Dota2 prove what the game developers says about their games.
If you want to refuse to believe those as well, then be my guest.

My point is that while Raptr and Steam’s rankings might be concurrent for those specific games, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would also be concurrent with other games. What is so difficult to understand about that?

What leads you to believe GW2 differs wildly from the norm?
For a game that’s sold 3.5-4 million and is 2 years old, this concurrency seems reasonable even if you think the margin of error is large.

Since raptr tracks what it tracks (hours NOT players in charts) you would have to know what is average play time/player/day.

Also, some games have more “need” for such programs and in such more players will be inclined to use it.

Also there have been numerous promotions for certain games which drove higher usage of raptr in such games (example is Rift and free expansion if you used raptr)

So you would end up with whole slew of coefficients that would vary between games and would barely be in ballpark area (game A might have coefficent of 2,3 game B migth have 0,75)

9 Billions, including the Tentacloids of Tau Ceti (they have had a relatively unnoticed, but very succesful launch recently).

Or did you expect any serious estimates based on information not available to you or me?

Or is that just an attempt at an obfuscated “game is dying, change it the way I recommend” post?

MikaHR.1978:

BlueZone.4236:

Ohoni.6057:

Raptr and Steam’s rankings for LoL, WoW & Dota2 prove what the game developers says about their games.
If you want to refuse to believe those as well, then be my guest.

My point is that while Raptr and Steam’s rankings might be concurrent for those specific games, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would also be concurrent with other games. What is so difficult to understand about that?

What leads you to believe GW2 differs wildly from the norm?
For a game that’s sold 3.5-4 million and is 2 years old, this concurrency seems reasonable even if you think the margin of error is large.

Since raptr tracks what it tracks (hours NOT players in charts) you would have to know what is average play time/player/day.

Also, some games have more “need” for such programs and in such more players will be inclined to use it.

Also there have been numerous promotions for certain games which drove higher usage of raptr in such games (example is Rift and free expansion if you used raptr)

So you would end up with whole slew of coefficients that would vary between games and would barely be in ballpark area (game A might have coefficent of 2,3 game B migth have 0,75)

Well, if you mention Rift, then it sounds like it has perhaps been (is?) skewed towards MMO players a little?
According to some old surveys, MMO players average 21-22 hours per week.
Hmm…maybe you’re right then, maybe it’s a bit lower than the Steam concurrency numbers.

BlueZone.4236:

MikaHR.1978:

BlueZone.4236:

Ohoni.6057:

Raptr and Steam’s rankings for LoL, WoW & Dota2 prove what the game developers says about their games.
If you want to refuse to believe those as well, then be my guest.

My point is that while Raptr and Steam’s rankings might be concurrent for those specific games, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would also be concurrent with other games. What is so difficult to understand about that?

What leads you to believe GW2 differs wildly from the norm?
For a game that’s sold 3.5-4 million and is 2 years old, this concurrency seems reasonable even if you think the margin of error is large.

Since raptr tracks what it tracks (hours NOT players in charts) you would have to know what is average play time/player/day.

Also, some games have more “need” for such programs and in such more players will be inclined to use it.

Also there have been numerous promotions for certain games which drove higher usage of raptr in such games (example is Rift and free expansion if you used raptr)

So you would end up with whole slew of coefficients that would vary between games and would barely be in ballpark area (game A might have coefficent of 2,3 game B migth have 0,75)

Well, if you mention Rift, then it sounds like it has perhaps been (is?) skewed towards MMO players a little?
According to some old surveys, MMO players average 21-22 hours per week.
Hmm…maybe you’re right then, maybe it’s a bit lower than the Steam concurrency numbers.

thats the point, you dont know. Even among MMOs average daily played can be vastly different depending on type of game.

And yes, some games had promotions other didnt.

Theres really no way to correlate 2 games directly, and theres no data to make it even remotely accurate.

From raptr you can get trends and on individual game basis. Reading more into it is quite pointless and missleading.

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Fernling.1729:

BlueZone.4236:

Copied and modified from a previous post I made back a month ago:

From the latest Raptr stats:
http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-july-2014-summers-winners-and-losers/
GW2 is in the top 20 list!

People say only a small number of people use these 3rd party apps and wrong, etc, however look at the relative percentages to the other games within the stats, then compare with the Steam stats:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Beware not all the games in the Raptr list is in the Steam list because those games aren’t released on Steam.

(At the time of last month) You’ll notice eg. DOTA2 ~2-3 times the numbers of Counter Strike, CS ~4 times higher than Civ 4, etc, so the Raptr stats do seem to provide a reasonable estimate in terms of relative positions.
Now looking at where GW2 lies in the Raptr ranking, it’s about the same as Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim, so looking at those games concurrency, you get peak of ~50k-60k and normal of ~20-30k, so GW2 is probably around those number, so it’s fairly small.

TLDR: GW2 concurrency is probably around the same as in Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim on Steam.

There’s an updated Raptr.

http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-august-2014-league-of-legends-world-of-tanks-get-an-esports-boost/

I’m in the boat that doesn’t believe 3rd party applications are a good way to measure players. If anything I would base popularity off of twitch.tv, that’s even the site that Arenanet directs its players to.

I never believe RAPTR numbers because it only counts people who have RAPTR installed. Some games actually install RAPTR when you install the game so their numbers are inflated over others. I look at the WvW map queues as a clue that this game is doing well.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Fernling.1729:

BlueZone.4236:

Copied and modified from a previous post I made back a month ago:

From the latest Raptr stats:
http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-july-2014-summers-winners-and-losers/
GW2 is in the top 20 list!

People say only a small number of people use these 3rd party apps and wrong, etc, however look at the relative percentages to the other games within the stats, then compare with the Steam stats:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Beware not all the games in the Raptr list is in the Steam list because those games aren’t released on Steam.

(At the time of last month) You’ll notice eg. DOTA2 ~2-3 times the numbers of Counter Strike, CS ~4 times higher than Civ 4, etc, so the Raptr stats do seem to provide a reasonable estimate in terms of relative positions.
Now looking at where GW2 lies in the Raptr ranking, it’s about the same as Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim, so looking at those games concurrency, you get peak of ~50k-60k and normal of ~20-30k, so GW2 is probably around those number, so it’s fairly small.

TLDR: GW2 concurrency is probably around the same as in Garry’s Mod, Civ4, Skyrim on Steam.

There’s an updated Raptr.

http://caas.raptr.com/most-played-pc-games-august-2014-league-of-legends-world-of-tanks-get-an-esports-boost/

I’m in the boat that doesn’t believe 3rd party applications are a good way to measure players. If anything I would base popularity off of twitch.tv, that’s even the site that Arenanet directs its players to.

I never believe RAPTR numbers because it only counts people who have RAPTR installed. Some games actually install RAPTR when you install the game so their numbers are inflated over others. I look at the WvW map queues as a clue that this game is doing well.

Well, most servers probably don’t have queues, I’d guess. But then, I think this game has more PvE players than PvP players. Polls seem to indicate that.

Raptr has been pretty accurate in predicting game trends for a long long time. It doesn’t matter if it makes logical sense. If you follow the industry and you follow Raptr, it’s always been a fair indication of what’s going on. Not perfect, but fair.

What leads you to believe GW2 differs wildly from the norm?
For a game that’s sold 3.5-4 million and is 2 years old, this concurrency seems reasonable even if you think the margin of error is large.

It may “seem” accurate, but if we’re going by that then you can just make up a random number and it would “seem” accurate. The question is whether it is accurate, and I don’t believe that there’s any reason to consider Raptr data to be accurate to this game, until such time as ANet releases data to corroborate a link. It’s perfectly reasonable that Raptr might have higher or lower player concurrency with GW2 than with other games, any correlation between the two is circumstantial at best.

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Guild Wars 2 is the #11 game on Xfire. Go to games and search on Guild Wars 2. It says Guild Wars 2 is ranked 11 in the Xfire rank box.

That means on Xfire, Guild Wars 2 is the second most popular MMO. Only WoW is more popular.

Now Xfire, Raptr and Overwolf all seem to be saying much the same thing.

Vayne.8563:

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Guild Wars 2 is the #11 game on Xfire. Go to games and search on Guild Wars 2. It says Guild Wars 2 is ranked 11 in the Xfire rank box.

That means on Xfire, Guild Wars 2 is the second most popular MMO. Only WoW is more popular.

Now Xfire, Raptr and Overwolf all seem to be saying much the same thing.

No. 11, they have reached the summit :S

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Painting pretty picure without context….tsk tsk…on xfire GW2 is currently no.11 with regular dips to top 10. Only WoW is above GW2 on XFire for MMOs.

Vayne.8563:

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Guild Wars 2 is the #11 game on Xfire. Go to games and search on Guild Wars 2. It says Guild Wars 2 is ranked 11 in the Xfire rank box.

That means on Xfire, Guild Wars 2 is the second most popular MMO. Only WoW is more popular.

Now Xfire, Raptr and Overwolf all seem to be saying much the same thing.

they are all rigged and lying! it just cannot be…it cannot

MikaHR.1978:

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Painting pretty picure without context….tsk tsk…on xfire GW2 is currently no.11 with regular dips to top 10.

Stop riding on Vayne’s coattails

Paul.4081:

Vayne.8563:

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Guild Wars 2 is the #11 game on Xfire. Go to games and search on Guild Wars 2. It says Guild Wars 2 is ranked 11 in the Xfire rank box.

That means on Xfire, Guild Wars 2 is the second most popular MMO. Only WoW is more popular.

Now Xfire, Raptr and Overwolf all seem to be saying much the same thing.

No. 11, they have reached the summit :S

I’m sure Anet is quite happy that the only MMO more popular or played on Crossfire than Guild Wars 2 is WoW. I’d be happy.

Considering many of the other MMOs that aren’t there are newer and some have been popular in the past, I’d say that it’s not a bad summit to have reached.

Even books that are on the NY Times bestseller list that were number four or five don’t stay there for two years usually.

Paul.4081:

MikaHR.1978:

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Painting pretty picure without context….tsk tsk…on xfire GW2 is currently no.11 with regular dips to top 10.

Stop riding on Vayne’s coattails

But my coattails are very comfortable. I just had AC installed.

Seriously guy, you mentioned Crossfire to try to mislead people, peopled called you on it. You mentioned it to try to disprove the Raptr numbers. But Guild Wars 2 is higher on Xfire than it is on Raptr. And it’s even higher on Overwolf.

Anything past that feels a bit like you’re trying to incite people, which would, if I’m not mistaken, be against forum rules.

BlueZone.4236:

What leads you to believe GW2 differs wildly from the norm?

What leads you to believe that what GW2 differs wildly from is the, “norm?”

Yep, very interesting that GW2 back 2 years ago had 89,310 hours logged at ranked 2 and now it’s ranked 11 at 1,473 hours. What a massive drop.
Knowing the first year ANet touted the 460k peak concurrency, and knowing that there was a big drop (normal) in players after the hype, I think it’s understandable where the ballpark of concurrency lies.

BlueZone.4236:

Yep, very interesting that GW2 back 2 years ago had 89,310 hours logged at ranked 2 and now it’s ranked 11 at 1,473 hours. What a massive drop.
Knowing the first year ANet touted the 460k peak concurrency, and knowing that there was a big drop (normal) in players after the hype, I think it’s understandable where the ballpark of concurrency lies.

What’s so massive about a game having higher concurrency on launch than two years later. That’s business as usual dude.

More telling is that it’s still the second most popular MMO and other MMOs have launched around the same time and in that time period

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Yep, very interesting that GW2 back 2 years ago had 89,310 hours logged at ranked 2 and now it’s ranked 11 at 1,473 hours. What a massive drop.
Knowing the first year ANet touted the 460k peak concurrency, and knowing that there was a big drop (normal) in players after the hype, I think it’s understandable where the ballpark of concurrency lies.

What’s so massive about a game having higher concurrency on launch than two years later. That’s business as usual dude.

Exactly right. So we know the number be well below the 460k peak, because it’s just business as usual. It’s been 2 years already, so the 50-60k peak sounds a bit reasonable.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Yep, very interesting that GW2 back 2 years ago had 89,310 hours logged at ranked 2 and now it’s ranked 11 at 1,473 hours. What a massive drop.
Knowing the first year ANet touted the 460k peak concurrency, and knowing that there was a big drop (normal) in players after the hype, I think it’s understandable where the ballpark of concurrency lies.

What’s so massive about a game having higher concurrency on launch than two years later. That’s business as usual dude.

Exactly right. So we know the number be well below the 460k peak, because it’s just business as usual. It’s been 2 years already, so the 50-60k peak sounds a bit reasonable.

I’m not sure why anyone would think peak concurrency around launch time isn’t the highest concurrency a game ever has. I’ve never made specific comment on how many people I think are playing. I’ve never refuted anyone else’s numbers until they were stupidly low…like when people say 2.

I’m only saying that the game is healthy and doing well. Certainly compared to other MMORPGs at this time. There’s no one source I can find in tracking games that doesn’t put it at the second or third most popular MMO. It’s more played than all free to play MMOs as far as I can tell from the data I’ve seen.

The game is doing fine. That’s all. Beyond that, I don’t much care what people say.

It’s the people who try to say that it’s doing bad, simply because they personally don’t like it that I take issue with. I have no opinion on concurrency numbers specifically.

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Yep, very interesting that GW2 back 2 years ago had 89,310 hours logged at ranked 2 and now it’s ranked 11 at 1,473 hours. What a massive drop.
Knowing the first year ANet touted the 460k peak concurrency, and knowing that there was a big drop (normal) in players after the hype, I think it’s understandable where the ballpark of concurrency lies.

What’s so massive about a game having higher concurrency on launch than two years later. That’s business as usual dude.

Exactly right. So we know the number be well below the 460k peak, because it’s just business as usual. It’s been 2 years already, so the 50-60k peak sounds a bit reasonable.

I’m not sure why anyone would think peak concurrency around launch time isn’t the highest concurrency a game ever has. I’ve never made specific comment on how many people I think are playing. I’ve never refuted anyone else’s numbers until they were stupidly low…like when people say 2.

I’m only saying that the game is healthy and doing well. Certainly compared to other MMORPGs at this time. There’s no one source I can find in tracking games that doesn’t put it at the second or third most popular MMO. It’s more played than all free to play MMOs as far as I can tell from the data I’ve seen.

The game is doing fine. That’s all. Beyond that, I don’t much care what people say.

It’s the people who try to say that it’s doing bad, simply because they personally don’t like it that I take issue with. I have no opinion on concurrency numbers specifically.

Whew, thankfully no one said that it’s bad then.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

Yep, very interesting that GW2 back 2 years ago had 89,310 hours logged at ranked 2 and now it’s ranked 11 at 1,473 hours. What a massive drop.
Knowing the first year ANet touted the 460k peak concurrency, and knowing that there was a big drop (normal) in players after the hype, I think it’s understandable where the ballpark of concurrency lies.

What’s so massive about a game having higher concurrency on launch than two years later. That’s business as usual dude.

Exactly right. So we know the number be well below the 460k peak, because it’s just business as usual. It’s been 2 years already, so the 50-60k peak sounds a bit reasonable.

I’m not sure why anyone would think peak concurrency around launch time isn’t the highest concurrency a game ever has. I’ve never made specific comment on how many people I think are playing. I’ve never refuted anyone else’s numbers until they were stupidly low…like when people say 2.

I’m only saying that the game is healthy and doing well. Certainly compared to other MMORPGs at this time. There’s no one source I can find in tracking games that doesn’t put it at the second or third most popular MMO. It’s more played than all free to play MMOs as far as I can tell from the data I’ve seen.

The game is doing fine. That’s all. Beyond that, I don’t much care what people say.

It’s the people who try to say that it’s doing bad, simply because they personally don’t like it that I take issue with. I have no opinion on concurrency numbers specifically.

Whew, thankfully no one said that it’s bad then.

Well, except there are people in this thread who claim the game isn’t doing well. Chuo for example, came into the thread and said (even though the game up up five) that Guild Wars 2 slipped into 12, I wonder why?

I think the implication of that is rather clear. And there’s plenty said by implication in other posts.

Vayne.8563:

Paul.4081:

Vayne.8563:

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

Well, sites usually post numbers when they’re good. Not saying that necessarily makes GW2’s bad but I keep an eye on the Xfire numbers from time to time and they have dropped by a lot as with posters on GW2 Guru. They blame circular threads (?).

One of the main reasons (I personally believe) why people stop posting on Guru is because that forum is even MORE toxic than this one and they don’t have the same level of moderation as here.

I don’t know anything about Xfire so I can’t comment on that. But also, most games like THIS do not post their numbers ever, and when they do mention it they almost always put it in ballpark generic figures.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Guild Wars 2 is the #11 game on Xfire. Go to games and search on Guild Wars 2. It says Guild Wars 2 is ranked 11 in the Xfire rank box.

That means on Xfire, Guild Wars 2 is the second most popular MMO. Only WoW is more popular.

Now Xfire, Raptr and Overwolf all seem to be saying much the same thing.

No. 11, they have reached the summit :S

I’m sure Anet is quite happy that the only MMO more popular or played on Crossfire than Guild Wars 2 is WoW. I’d be happy.

Considering many of the other MMOs that aren’t there are newer and some have been popular in the past, I’d say that it’s not a bad summit to have reached.

Even books that are on the NY Times bestseller list that were number four or five don’t stay there for two years usually.

The state of the MMO genre is just ruin, okay that might be embellishing a bit. At the very least the MMO landscape is just sad. You have the reigning giant slowly dieing. All “new” titles are basically rehashing that dying giant with some new paint and shiny baubles, they also want to charge a monthly fee. People buy the new game, realize it’s the same old crap and don’t want to pay $15 a month for it. If a MMO company is going to do a themepark game they simply can’t have a subscription on it anymore. Both ESO and wildstar will learn this lesson quickly as I am sure they are scrambling to go F2P.

The position of GW2 on lists says more about their monetization than anything else. The cash shop isn’t invasive like most F2P games so people don’t feel forced into buying stuff from it thus it doesn’t ruin the experience. I really hope that other game studios see this and realize they don’t need to lock everything behind nickle and dime cash shop sales.

Then of course you have alternatives. What other newer F2P games are really out there? Archeage is poised to do really well if their cash shop isn’t invasive and gameplay off-putting, I haven’t played it to know. SWTOR has definitely seen a popularity increase. That’s about it really.

It’s no wonder why GW2 is ranked where it is, however it also shows how GW2 was mismanaged. In the current MMO landscape they could have taken the ball and ran with it. They had no major competitors and plenty of time, they could have built on this game and made it very hard to compete with. Instead they just sat there dribbling it waiting for some new MMO to take it from them. I can honestly say the only thing that ArenaNet has done really well at is monetization, everything else like class balance, endgame, PvP, WvW, Dungeons, etc is all par or sub-par.

Distaste.4801:

Vayne.8563:

Paul.4081:

Vayne.8563:

Paul.4081:

Paradox.1380:

Paul.4081:

snip

.

Xfire’s numbers have dropped from tens of thousands to 400, unless the Xfire community are special snowflakes….

And (personal opinion) about guru, you can have a discussion over there without a mod deeming your post locky McDeletable!

I’ve rambled here and I’ve rambled there, I’ve only ever felt punished for it here.

Guild Wars 2 is the #11 game on Xfire. Go to games and search on Guild Wars 2. It says Guild Wars 2 is ranked 11 in the Xfire rank box.

That means on Xfire, Guild Wars 2 is the second most popular MMO. Only WoW is more popular.

Now Xfire, Raptr and Overwolf all seem to be saying much the same thing.

No. 11, they have reached the summit :S

I’m sure Anet is quite happy that the only MMO more popular or played on Crossfire than Guild Wars 2 is WoW. I’d be happy.

Considering many of the other MMOs that aren’t there are newer and some have been popular in the past, I’d say that it’s not a bad summit to have reached.

Even books that are on the NY Times bestseller list that were number four or five don’t stay there for two years usually.

The state of the MMO genre is just ruin, okay that might be embellishing a bit. At the very least the MMO landscape is just sad. You have the reigning giant slowly dieing. All “new” titles are basically rehashing that dying giant with some new paint and shiny baubles, they also want to charge a monthly fee. People buy the new game, realize it’s the same old crap and don’t want to pay $15 a month for it. If a MMO company is going to do a themepark game they simply can’t have a subscription on it anymore. Both ESO and wildstar will learn this lesson quickly as I am sure they are scrambling to go F2P.

The position of GW2 on lists says more about their monetization than anything else. The cash shop isn’t invasive like most F2P games so people don’t feel forced into buying stuff from it thus it doesn’t ruin the experience. I really hope that other game studios see this and realize they don’t need to lock everything behind nickle and dime cash shop sales.

Then of course you have alternatives. What other newer F2P games are really out there? Archeage is poised to do really well if their cash shop isn’t invasive and gameplay off-putting, I haven’t played it to know. SWTOR has definitely seen a popularity increase. That’s about it really.

It’s no wonder why GW2 is ranked where it is, however it also shows how GW2 was mismanaged. In the current MMO landscape they could have taken the ball and ran with it. They had no major competitors and plenty of time, they could have built on this game and made it very hard to compete with. Instead they just sat there dribbling it waiting for some new MMO to take it from them. I can honestly say the only thing that ArenaNet has done really well at is monetization, everything else like class balance, endgame, PvP, WvW, Dungeons, etc is all par or sub-par.

This is your opinion. I’m not sure that it’s completely true.

Could Guild Wars 2 have been “better” or “managed better”. Absolutely. But I’ve never seen a company that you couldn’t say that about. But changing design decisions is a tricky business and trying to figure out what would make more profit and make you more successful is another tricky business.

There are people who swear adding open world PvP to this game would make the game more popular. I don’t believe that at all. There’s just no way to know if the game was different, say the way you envision it, that the game wouldn’t be less successful. It’s such an easy thing to say but it’s an impossible thing to prove.

I’ve found very often, things in the real world are counter-intuitive. Things that would seem to be right are often in fact wrong…but you never really know why.

MMOs are making companies millions of dollars a quarter and people keep making new ones. I’m not sure I’d say that genre was in the shambles you think it is.

But more importantly what WoW did, they did because of when and where they were, not because it’s some amazing product. They had relatively little competition when they came out so they got a huge percentage of the market, and then they had a boatload of money to advertise which they did. Once they were that far in front, it was going to be very hard for anyone to dislodge them. Because new games have to deal with far more competition.

I wonder if you added everyone together who plays MMOs right now if the genre isn’t more popular than ever.

WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.

BlueZone.4236:

WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.

There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.

We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.

I would have guessed there are about 1000 concurrent players but how could that be possible if there are only 500 people on the planet?

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.

There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.

We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.

The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

BlueZone.4236:

WoW was successful because it was an amazing product at the time. Blizzard understood polish and maximize their games’ potentials. That’s why their 3 franchises (Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) are (were?) amazing. Of course, Blizzard today is not the same as Blizzard back in the old days.
ANet never figured out how to truly tap into GW2’s potential. That’s why it’s following the normal trend.

There’s simply no evidence available that if WoW didn’t have major competition and major funding for advertising that it would have done much worse.

We only know what happened. Attributing their success to any one thing and not an entire combination of factors is just theory.

The evidence is in their game, but thanks for derailing this topic because it’s not heading your way.

The evidence of what makes a game good is not opinion? Okay have it your way. You’re right. WoW is objective amazing and that is the sole reason for it’s success. You do realize that making topics calling people out for derailing a thread is further derailing a thread.

On topic: The concurrency figures for Guild Wars 2 are far lower than they were when the game launched, but if I had to guess, and this is just a guess, I’d say that 50,000 concurrency with the exception of patch days is probably not a bad guestimate.