Name:
Pass:

The first year of Guild Wars 2 – 3.5m players and a nice Infographic

How well is Guild Wars 2 doing? Quite well it seems according to Mike O’Brien’s latest blog update which celebrates the first year of Guild Wars 2.

In the blog update Mike looks back at the first year, how they approached the game and also talks a little about the changes they have made to make the game great for players. Here’s a snip and check out he great infographic below.

So in this first year we’ve ramped up to make Guild Wars 2 the best-supported, most-updated online world in the industry. And if you ask me what stands out most about our first year, I’ll tell you, I think the number one thing we accomplished was reorienting our company to be able to update the game so much. In the first eight months after launch we shipped eight major releases, and then in the subsequent four months we shipped eight more major releases. We’re releasing new content every two weeks. Think about the power of that. We’re now updating Guild Wars 2 about five times as often as the typical MMO.

Anniversary Infographic


You can register an account to comment or fill in the forms below to comment.
  • 3.5 mill sold, nothing says they are actual active players.

  • Or second/third/fourth accounts.

    Still, that’s a lot of games sold.

  • Some nice facts (but I want to know that):

    >> Humans being the most played is what I had expected; Norn in second place not. Charr at last place? Must be because they suck at JPs so much. :) >> I think a lot of people created a variety of professions, but it would be interesting what profession is the most played
    >> Top crafting professions; A kind of mixed picture, but it shows that the lack of decent jewellery from drops made that profession desirable
    >> Points come from Yaks. Is this statement really true and are top tier servers killing yaks more than lower tier servers?
    >> 8.6 mio votes cast during the election; If you assume that every person spend one stack of support tokens, the number of actual voters is far less; what can we learn about the active player base in LS events?
    >> I would love to see how much people out of the active population actually get a full LS meta and which LS chapter was the “most successful”

  • QUOTE=Gorani;5849458]I would love to see how much people out of the active population actually get a full LS meta and which LS chapter was the “most successful”[/QUOTE]I suspect that it was the karka thingy (since people actually went back to the game after having gotten tired o
    What does “45 petabytes of content” even mean? Is it quest (sorry, “event”) text, is it control data for enemies, is it the size of gw2.dat multiplied by number of players, or what?

    I find it interesting that the “election” was so close to even. How were votes counted?

    I would love to see how much people out of the active population actually get a full LS meta and which LS chapter was the "most successful"

    I suspect that it was the karka thingy (since people actually went back to the game after having gotten tired of it) and that that’s why it’s not there.

    And I think norns are in second place because they look like humans.

    It’s funny that mesmers are the least played though. They are vastly simplified compared to their GW1 counterparts and people still don’t understand them?

  • QUOTE

    It's funny that mesmers are the least played though. They are vastly simplified compared to their GW1 counterparts and people still don't understand them?

    Maybe most people simply don’t like them? Why would people not playing a certain profession mean they don’t understand it?

  • QUOTE

    It's funny that mesmers are the least played though. They are vastly simplified compared to their GW1 counterparts and people still don't understand them?

    Attention!

    The number is not the number for profession played, but profession created (that’s why I want to know the professions played)

    The numbers for races are easier to interpret, as we had 5 character slots & 5 races. I think it is fair to assume that 90% of the player population has not more that 5 slots. So 36% Humans vs. 13% Charr is relatively easy to compare.

    Professions are different, as we have 8. So if people picked professions randomly there is only a 62,5% chance that you have a specific profession on your account.

    Perhaps Mesmer players are more rare than Warrior players, but they could spend way more time on their Mesmers and use Warriors as mules. We don’t k now that from the numbers.

  • QUOTE

    >> Humans being the most played is what I had expected; Norn in second place not. Charr at last place? Must be because they suck at JPs so much. :) >> I would love to see how much people out of the active population actually get a full LS meta and which LS chapter was the "most successful"
    
    About professions, I think the data is probably very solidly correlated with what people have and play. On a population like that, what matters is average players who log in when they can, casually, and play whatever they want. It's people who don't go on gaming forums except if they have a problem (and even then). It's people who don't know about complaints that the ranger is underpowered.
    
    About races, it's well-known that most-often played races are the ones closest to humans, with monsters placing last. So that's a solid human>norn>sylvari>asura or charr. Asura seems a bit high, perhaps people just love cute little things. I doubt lore or jumping puzzles had much to do with it for most people (e.g. my main guardian is still main charr, lore is bonus for me, and jp didn't stop me).
    
    LS data would be nice, especially if they have some way of accounting for how difficult each LS was, by giving hours played instead of meta completed for example.
    
    
    What does "45 petabytes of content" even mean? (...)
    
    It's funny that mesmers are the least played though. They are vastly simplified compared to their GW1 counterparts and people still don't understand them?
    
    I think the 45 peta is the download size of LS and other added events, multiplied by the number of players. That would be my guess.
    
    As for mesmers... I think they are doomed even before the game releases. It's a great profession for people who like complexity, but most people want a profession that is pretty straightforward in concept, that is intuitive. If you go from most popular to least popular, and try to explain what the profession is about, your description will get more and more wordy. That's my explanation anyway.
    
    
    Perhaps Mesmer players are more rare than Warrior players, but they could spend way more time on their Mesmers and use Warriors as mules. We don't k now that from the numbers.
    
    I'd think the tendency would be to make a mule of whatever profession you don't have. So mules would tend to even the distribution.
    
    My bet is that those data are pretty well correlated with play time. I don't think anomalies would be able to bias the population that much.
  • QUOTE

    Maybe most people simply don't like them?  Why would people not playing a certain profession mean they don't understand it?
    Yeah, you're probably right. The mesmer is still quite unique to GW1, and looking at the graph, the more "standard fantasy archetype" a profession is, the more popular it seems to be. The engineer isn't very fantasy-ish either, with her contraptions and rifles and what not.
    
    
    Attention!
    
    The number is not the number for profession played, but profession created (that's why I want to know the professions played)
    Good point! Yeah, something like the number of hours played for each profession would tell us much more.
  • QUOTE

    Maybe most people simply don't like them?  Why would people not playing a certain profession mean they don't understand it?
    Yeah, you're probably right. The mesmer is still quite unique to GW1, and looking at the graph, the more "standard fantasy archetype" a profession is, the more popular it seems to be. The engineer isn't very fantasy-ish either, with her contraptions and rifles and what not.
    
    
    Attention!
    
    The number is not the number for profession played, but profession created (that's why I want to know the professions played)
    Good point! Yeah, something like the number of hours played for each profession would tell us much more.
    
    
    - - - Updated - - -
    
    
    About professions, I think the data is probably very solidly correlated with what people have and play. On a population like that, what matters is average players who log in when they can, casually, and play whatever they want. It's people who don't go on gaming forums except if they have a problem (and even then). It's people who don't know about complaints that the ranger is underpowered.
    
    (...)
    
    I think the 45 peta is the download size of LS and other added events, multiplied by the number of players. That would be my guess.
    
    As for mesmers... I think they are doomed even before the game releases. It's a great profession for people who like complexity, but most people want a profession that is pretty straightforward in concept, that is intuitive. If you go from most popular to least popular, and try to explain what the profession is about, your description will get more and more wordy. That's my explanation anyway.
    Well if the data counts the professions of created characters, the correlation is weakened... Because I for sure tested a lot of professions early on, deleting characters that I didn't like, and I think more people did. That would even the numbers out, so the most popular professions might actually be even more popular.
    Then again, it should be noted that the picture doesn't actually say what data is counted exactly. It might be the number of characters per profession that exist right now.
    
    If 45 petabyte is the download size of the living story and added events, multiplied by the number of players, it would basically be the amount of data uploaded by the update servers... Yeah, sure, that makes sense.
  • QUOTE

    Well if the data counts the professions of created characters, the correlation is weakened

    Technically, that doesn’t drop the correlation. It only adds an intercept to your regression line.

    So, like… (attempt to use english follows)

    It means that if you want to know the distribution for hours played per profession, it would probably be the same distribution but with every bar having an equal chunk taken out of it at the bottom. Hard to tell by how much.

    So yes, your assumption that “the most popular professions might actually be even more popular” is probably correct.

  • the survey i did showed something entirely different, guardians are the #1 with the warrior, necro and mesmer as shared second.
    this can mean something, like that ppl who play such professions are the most likely to be seen on forums.
    another difference is that rangers are on the lowest place while here it’s on #2, that shows that most ranger players simply don’t care what forums have to tell.

    However, the race part is accurate both here and the Anet version, charr is at the bottom while human is #1 and norn #2.
    the most logical reason i can think of is that beside humans being popular, norns are practically 2X the size but still human.
    the sylvari looks way to human to be ignored and thus is on #3, i think it’s simply because we rather play something we are familure with then a creature that is ether strange or has a bad rep in a previous game.
    the charr has always bin the bad guy in GW, making them all sunshine and roses with humans is kinda a bad move.
    the asura is completely out of context, the only time we saw them in the original GW is in EotN, it’s nice they’re there but it doesn’t make them a part of the GW universe.
    tengu has bin in GW from proph and beyond, the tengu would’ve bin a better move.
    they’re not my favorite but it’s still more fitting, ppl rather play that what they always wanted to play then a creature that only came in far after everything.
    better yet, they would’ve made the game better if dwarfs were in GW2, that would boast allot more popularity then some mix of a gremlin and ET.

  • QUOTE

    Technically, that doesn't drop the correlation. It only adds an intercept to your regression line.
    
    So, like... (attempt to use english follows)
    
    It means that if you want to know the distribution for hours played per profession, it would probably be the same distribution but with every bar having an equal chunk taken out of it at the bottom. Hard to tell by how much.
    
    So yes, your assumption that "the most popular professions might actually be even more popular" is probably correct.
    :huh: ... :scratch: ... :confused2:.... :idea: Yeah, that's exactly what I meant! Sorry for being inexact. Except also that "test" characters tend to get deleted after less than 30-50 hours of playing them, at least mine does.
    
    But there's one more effect that... eh, affects the number of hours played. It's a little more hazy but probably powerful. Like this: Why are certain professions more popular? Well, to a certain degree it's because they are more "classic fantasy", easier to understand, whatever. But it is also because of, 1) Recommendations from friends, and 2) more rarely, they recreate a character of a profession that they like (to have a different starting story). In both cases, it's because people in general find certain playstyles more fun than certain others. And of course that'll lead to that people play those characters even more. So likely the number of hours played are percentually even greater for the popular professions.
    
    Note: I'm not saying that mesmer isn't fun, just that a lot of people are likely to prefer warrior.
    
    
    the survey i did showed something entirely different, guardians are the #1 with the warrior, necro and mesmer as shared second.
    this can mean something, like that ppl who play such professions are the most likely to be seen on forums.
    another difference is that rangers are on the lowest place while here it's on #2, that shows that most ranger players simply don't care what forums have to tell.
    Yeah, I definitely think there is a difference between forumgoers and the average player. Though it would be interesting to see what a poll on the official forums would show. 
    
    About the races, I think you are right. It's a shame really that ANet spent so much time building up a whole biology of various intelligent species in Tyria and then replace the whole thing with the ones introduced in Eye of the North. And I don't mean just norns, asura and sylvari. For example why didn't we see any quaggans in GW1, and so on. Yes it's been 250 years but on the other hand, you know what swam around in various African rivers 250 years ago? Hippos, that's what, just like now. Things really doesn't change that much in 250 years. Creating new things is ok, but it does make it feel as if the continuity has been broken. This basically started in EotN (Hylek in southern Kryta? How come no one noticed those before?).
    Keeping the dwarves and making something better out of the tengu are just a few things that would have been better for continuity. Also picking other main villains would be good; the dragons came totally out of left field. Meanwhile, the GW1 mythology still contained megabaddies such as Menzies and Dhuum. And whatever happened to the titans, did we really kill every last one of them? They seem to be gone, and so do the eidolons (except in name, I guess). 
    
    So yeah. The races, yes, but a lot more could have been done to make GW2 a real sequel to GW1.
  • There were so many warriors because of CoF farming, :azn:

  • QUOTE

    (...)

    Yeah, I agree with what you said. Making multiple characters of the same profession, I’m sure that happens too. I may be a counter to this, I made one character of each profession and actually played them all (except I play more those I prefer more).

    Well, I do have a mule which is the 9th character I have, and that happens to be a warrior. Coincidence? I THINK NOT. I hereby claim that 50% of warriors are likely mules, because I assume that whatever I do is super representative of everyone else’s behavior.

    Jokes aside, I think a lot of those effects tend to cancel each other, so whatever bias there remains isn’t going to wildly change the distributions. As much as I prefer mesmer to warrior, I can see valid reasons as well as not-so-valid-yet-still-prevalent reasons why people would pick warrior over mesmer: (1) easy to understand, (2) more weapon choices, (3) classic stereotype, (4) dual wielding swords*, and (5) wtf is with butterflies.

    *I know mesmers can dual-wield swords too, but many people don’t know that.

    Also, I love fighting dragons. So there, I said it.

  • QUOTE

    I love fighting dragons. So there, I said it.
    Yeah, me too. Going up against a dragon in almost any game is, like, you know that it's going to be good. And it usually is. For example, fighting Glint in GW1 was really cool. Dragon Age. Skyrim. All the D&D games, both on computer and actual D&D on paper. All good. Even fighting dragons in Talisman where all you need to do is roll dice is kind of exciting. And then of course there's this dude.
    
    
    http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=243464&type=card
    
    Fighting Zhaitan though was sort of well yeah you know. But looked cool.
  • Best dragon fight for me so far (I didn’t play Dragon Age or Skyrim) was in the Dungeon Siege series, I think Dungeon Siege 2. It was a multi-stage affair where you first fought its minions on a castle while using an arrow cart to shoot down the dragon. Then you thought you were done with it, walking in the castle, and it bursts through the wall and you have to fight its head on a long corridor, which meant you’d also have to avoid its fireballs.

    I admit, Zhaitan was mechanically boring even if cinematically pretty cool. Most GW2 dragons were like that, although generally more fun than Zhaitan.

    There’s nothing wrong with the monster choice. I just wish they implemented it better. Like in Shadow of the Colossus.

  • answer me this, where are the gargoyles in GW2?
    only a handful of GW monsters returned and they replaced most of them with ether useless or overpowered ones that has absolutely nothing to do with the GW universe.

  • QUOTE

    There's nothing wrong with the monster choice. I just wish they implemented it better. Like in Shadow of the Colossus.
    Didn't play DS2. But I have heard others too say that it was awesome. :grin: 
    As I said, dragons are really good monsters and they should be in the game, sure. But choice of big monster is one thing, choice of main villain in an installment of an already existing franchise is another. It doesn't need to be as obvious as Shiro and the Lich making a comeback in Nightfall; I thought that the Fury being the leader of Foundry was much more awesome, considering his first appearance (as you recall, it was during Dragon Festival 2006). 
    
    
    answer me this, where are the gargoyles in GW2?
    only a handful of GW monsters returned and they replaced most of them with ether useless or overpowered ones that has absolutely nothing to do with the GW universe.
    Exactly... It really feels strange. I mean, I understand why they did it, it's much easier to just create new than to make details fit with the existing stuff. But it still feels 

    wrong. It's ok to do it, but in that case they should not call it "Guild Wars 2".

  • I generally like seeing new monsters than reskinned old monsters…

    But yes I think keeping more of the original old monsters would have been good.

  • How many purched multiple accounts and are active daily.There would probably be more if the game was an exactly the same with thier accounts mergered over.

    Human is popular becasue most do pick it same goes for Warrior.