Guild Wars 2

1/3 Excel with numbers.

Hello,

I would like to have a look at the GW2 financial results. We now have the numbers we need to get a good view of the long-term results.

[Skip this if you are not interesting in the history behind this comment]

First a small introduction. For a long time I have been very active on this forum. I have always seen GW2 as a game with a good core that had the potential to be one of the big MMO’s out there. Not a WoW-killer but for sure a WoW-alternative.

However, from the beginning I did notice (in my personal view) a few problems with GW2 that I did see as a possible pitfall in the way of being that big MMO, and I have been very vocal about those elements.

Some of those ‘problems’ have been fixed, like temporary content, that was a big problem during season 1.

Other big problems I did see were the missing traditional quest, no seamless zone (what basically results in loading-screen (immersion braking)) but most of all, Guild Wars moving from a Buy2Play (GW1) model to a more cash-shop model (GW2), I always suggested a focus on expansions with a new expansion every year to 1,5 year and no heavy focus on the cash-shop. The current approach resulting in decisions made based on selling items in the gem-store that effect the game negatively, mainly creating a big grind for cosmetics.

In my comments about that, I always said it would be bad for GW2 in the long-term. So it seems fair for me to also look back at it now we have the numbers over the long-term.

I also always made the comparison to GW1 what was an MMO-like game that used a Buy2Play model were the cash-shop had a much smaller role.

[Skip until here]

About a year ago I made the last post here, mainly because my comments always were supposed to be constructive criticism. In my vision HoT (and the first half year after it) was the last opportunity for ArenaNet to solve the problems that made people leave the game. People who left GW2 before, might come back for HoT, but if they leave again (somewhere in the first half year) they will not be likely to come back a third time in my opinion (for a second expansion). Because many of the suggestions made in the comments will take up to half a year to be fully implemented, it would not be very helpful to give more feedback after the first months after the release of HoT.

Getting a good idea about the results would take another year, first the first half year after the release, and then another half years to see the results after that period. That brings us to where we are now.

To get a good idea of the numbers, and being able to compare them to GW1 I collected all the quarterly reports from GW1 and GW2 and put them in Excel. (I would suggest looking at the Excel when reading this post.) In addition I tried to compare GW1 to GW2, and then mainly how they performed over a longer period. Of course keeping in mind that GW1 was a game on a way smaller scope then GW2.

To be able to compare them I used the initial sale-peak to get an idea of the scope of the game and based the results over time on that. There are however two problems I faced there. First is that GW2 initial sale was huge, but dropped fast after that. While these are the true numbers, it might be better to take that out of the equation as it does not seem to give a good indication of the true scope of GW2, depending on how you look at it.
Another problem is that GW1 pretty much lost all support after the first 3 years, while HoT did not get released till after 3 years. Only comparing the first 3 years of both games is not fair because you then do not take HoT into account, and ignore the fact that games will usually lose some popularity over-time. On the other hand, comparing both over the full period is also not fair as you are then comparing a game that is fully supported vs one that is not.

Keep this in mind when looking at the numbers. In the forum I will mainly show the graphs and talk about them. For all the numbers, have a look at the Excel.

2/3
The first graph shows the raw numbers of GW1 and GW2. As you can see we have no results from GW1 from the moment GW2 was released.
[img]https://s22.postimg.org/xtrvqyqnl/Guild_Wars_1_and_2_earings_real_time.png[/img]

This next graph are the same raw numbers, but put over each other based on time-periods. So the first quarterly numbers from GW1 are on the same place as the first quarterly numbers from GW2.
Notice how at this moment GW2 dropped under income we did see with GW1. In a way you could say GW2 has now a similar financial scope as GW1, but a way bigger team (that has to be paid) behind it. That is really concerning. If we also look at the last 2 quarters and compare that to all other NCsoft games, only Wildstar did worse.
[img]https://s17.postimg.org/xr7op6edb/Guild_Wars_1_and_2_earings_in_periods.png[/img]

One of the ways to ‘solve’ the problem of the big initial spike that seemed to be so out of line with everything since then, was simply to take out the high peak of 119013 (KRW Mn). This also helps to get a more readable trend-line. You can see that in the graph below.
[img]https://s16.postimg.org/o5j4pc8s5/Guild_Wars_1_and_2_earings_in_periods_minus_init.png[/img]
I named this the secondary initial peak. Another way I used to level out that huge peak was to take the average of the first 3 results in GW1 and GW2.

This raw data already learns some interesting things. When you look at the first tab in Excel (Raw numbers and comparision) you can see I put information about the game next to the quarterly numbers. They show what happened in Guild Wars during that period.
One of the interesting things to notice is that the big patches (like releases of seasons) do not seem to be a big driver for higher results.
This is something that seems to be a much used mistake / myth that I see a lot in the forum. Any drop in result was usually blamed on a lack of content. However looking to the period Q3 2014 until Q1 2015, it was a period there as a lot of content (Season 2, Halloween, Wintersday). Then they announced HoT and we had no ingame content for another half year, however in that half year the results were higher than 3 quarters before. So simply the expectance on an expansion seems to be more valuable then ingame patches.

The importance of expansions is something I have been screaming for in this forum since the beginning and NCsoft seems to have noticed that importance also finally, as they said they wanted to increase the release of expansion. Sadly they mainly see it as a way to increase cash-shop sales. While in my vision focusing on expansion instead of a cash-shop results in a better game, and so better result. Anyway, I’m afraid it’s too late for that now.
Also the last two quarters show that more content releases do not help a lot. When people talked about the low results from Q2 2016, I did see many comments like (it’s bad to look at these numbers, we had almost no content-releases, look at the next quarter. Many improvements have been made and new content is coming in). And they are partly right, one quarter does not say a lot. For me it was interesting as it was the first quarter I expected / predicted to be lower, and indeed was lower, but I also waited for Q3 to come to any conclusions. Sadly the last quarterly numbers where even worse.
Luckily it seems to be stabilizing now, but we end up with results in the line of GW1, but with a much bigger team. If it stays like that I cannot imagine they will be able to keep up the current scope of the GW2 team.

3/3
Now for the comparison with GW1 / the GW1 model. To be able to compare how they performed over-time I looked at the initial sale (to get an idea of the scope of the game) and set that as 100%. Then looked at how they performed based on that. So any quarter after that is shown as a percentage of the initial peak.

Like said before, because of the huge initial peak of GW2, I wanted to try and normalize that to make it a more fair comparison. I used 2 ways to do that. Simply taking out the highest number, and taking an average of the first 3 quarters. Alternatively you can also (in addition) change in the raw data 119013 by 66698 (this is based on the GW1 peak, difference between first 2 quarters).

When putting the numbers together like this we see the next 2 graphs.
[img]https://s4.postimg.org/e5xsx9t9p/GW1_and_GW2_earning_percentages_based_on_initial.png[/img] This first graphs shows 3 lines. The blue one is GW1. The purple one is GW2 but without the initial peak and red one is GW2 without any changes to normalize the initial peak.

[img]https://s13.postimg.org/lglxssf2v/GW1_and_GW2_earning_percentages_based_on_average.png[/img] Here we use the initial 3 quarters to get an average for the initial peak and then compare GW1 to GW2.
Feel free to change in the raw data 119013 to 66698 to normalize the initial peak even more. However also be aware that by removing or normalizing the initial peak we basically also erasing the positive release of the game, ignoring the fact that it was the bestselling MMO of the time. You can debate if it’s fair to do that.

Nonetheless, in all the scenario’s we see that GW1 performed better over-time then GW2 did. As in that it managed to keep better at the level where it was at the beginning.

I also found it interesting to see what would be the possible financial outcome if GW2 performed like GW1 did, but with the scope of GW2. In a way we are putting the monetizing to the test here. As in, how another approach would have possible worked out.

The biggest problem here is that you are comparing a game that is supported for 3 years, to a game that is support for 4 years and 1 quarter (until now). There is no real good way to solve this, so what I did is compare only the first 3 years, and compare it for the full 4 years and 1 quarter and then take the average of the two.

The calculations you can see in the Excel but there are two possible outcomes. In short, we calculate what the raw numbers would be, based on the percentages of the initial peak of GW1.
When simply taking all the data the numbers suggest that the GW1 approach would have resulted in 622737 KRW Mn more income at this point for GW2.
When taking out the initial peak it would have resulted in 317816 KRW Mn more income at this point.

That is what companies and shareholders are usually most interested in.

Ofcource we can never see the alternative reality, but for me these numbers back up the idea I have that the cash-shop model they applied (the quest for more money) resulted in the long run in less money. Sadly it also resulted in a lesser game (that is why in my opinion in the end the results also got worse).

Please feel free to look at the Excel, play with the numbers, scrutinize them and ask me if you have any question.

For a comparison with GW2 we will not get any better numbers because the more we go into the future, the worse you can compare them to GW1 because of the support dropping after 3 years. Of course you can keep updating the Excel with new quarterly numbers simply to see how GW2 is doing.

Over the years my opinions where not always welcomed here, but really all I wanted to do, was preventing the downfall we are seeing right now. Is GW2 dead? No, not at all, but it is also not the game it could have been imho.

Is there hope it will retake its place, honestly I don’t think so. They only way I see them getting back more people is if they manage to basically put the next expansion on the market as GW3. But some huge changes (literally game-changers) will be needed for people to even go for that. Else I expect the next expansions to sell less then HoT. And if they make the same mistakes again even a GW3 will lose popularity fast again.

Images and links seem to not work, I will fix it.

Update: Links works, images not yet.
Test: [img]http://link.to/image.png[/img]

Update:
Hmm, the official way to link images here does not seem to be working. You can still see them by clicking on the link.

Nice data, but I’m guessing there’s confirmation bias there.

Again, as I’ve said many times in the past, Guild Wars 1 is a 10 year old game that existed in a very very different marketplace than today. Comparing what Guild Wars 1 did ten years ago with what games do today is going to be meaningless because the entire industry has changed.

There’s not even evidence that Guild Wars 1 would have been successful or as successful if it came out today.

In Guild Wars 1’s time virtually every multiplayer fantasy game has a sub, and there were a lot less of them. There were no free to play MMOs back then. Nothing to compare to the situation that exists now.

Even after 2 disappointed quarters, Guild Wars 2 is one of the more successful MMOs of the last five years. It doesn’t matter if you agree, or if you think it could have come closer to beating WoW, because there’s no evidence to support that doing it differently would make more profit.

The biggest issue Guild Wars 2 suffered, in my opinion, it the really bad publicity around HoT. Part of that came from the mistake of HoT bring priced to high and part of it came from the mistake of not giving a character slot as part of the base package. Those are mistakes and Anet paid for those mistakes with bad publicity. Instead of there being hype and excitment, there were angry veteran players screaming on the forums and such. And so HoT didn’t sell as well.

Charts like this can’t possibly apply this kind of data. What they can be used for is to prove anyone’s point about anything, when taken in different contexts.

“However also be aware that by removing or normalizing the initial peak we basically also erasing the positive release of the game, ignoring the fact that it was the bestselling MMO of the time. You can debate if it’s fair to do that.”
Devata

The initial sales number is too big a data point to ignore, especially if we are debating long-term profitability. To normalize the role of that initial sale, you would need to spread that revenue across time, not remove it.

edit: The revenue from the ‘initial sale period’ of GW2 also includes cash shop sales. I would not be surprised if that period was also the most profitable period for the cash shop as well.
The revenue ‘slope’ for GW2 declines faster than the revenue slope for GW1, but as others have pointed out, GW2’s slope covers a much larger area.

Just a point: GW1 have never been Pay2Play, neither GW2.

GW1 is a Buy2Play game that had, at the end, some store revenues.
GW2 was a Buy2Play game with a lot of store revenues that became Free2Play with restrictions (as usual).

So, GW2 was the evolution of GW1 model in that days. But GW1 is not an MMO, it’s more similar to Diablo than to WoW. So, server requirements are not the same, bussiness model is not he same and had no LS-like content until the very end (GW Beyond episodes). GW1 was evolving to what GW2 was at launch.

Without labels all I see is mountains, oceans and possibly lava

Talking about a biased view

Looking at the raw figures I see that GW 2 had higher earning in the first 15 quarters than GW 1 ever had in any quarter. Only the last two quarters GW 2 made less than the highest two GW 1 quarters. So I see a much more successful game than GW 1 has ever been looking at quarterly earnings.

The graphs GW1 & GW2 earning percentages based on initial sale and GW1 & GW2 earning percentages based on average initial sale are there to create confusion. It suggests that GW 2 did worse than GW 1 but that is not true. Because GW 2 had such a successful initial sale almost all the other quarters had better earnings then GW 1 ever had. In the end the total earnings are what matters not percentages of initial sales.

Again biased views: I see a much more successful game then GW 1 has ever been.

Vayne.8563:

Nice data, but I’m guessing there’s confirmation bias there.

It’s simply the data directly coming from the NCsoft quarterly reports. I made the data available in the Excel, so you can easily check it. So far there cannot be any bias.

The calculations I did you can also see back in the Excel, and if anything, I did use multiple methods to make GW2 look better! by reducing the initial spike.

So not bias here, it’s just raw data and math.

Vayne.8563:

Again, as I’ve said many times in the past, Guild Wars 1 is a 10 year old game that existed in a very very different marketplace than today. Comparing what Guild Wars 1 did ten years ago with what games do today is going to be meaningless because the entire industry has changed.

You did indeed say that. Nonetheless we can conclude now that what I suggested that would happen, did in fact happen. The question if another approach would work better we can never know for sure. On the other hand.. 10 years ago GW1 also used a model that was completely out of place back then as most of these games used a payment-model now. Now most of these games used a cash-shop model. So why would a different model then what most use now, not work? In both cases it’s a different form the status quo.

Do with it what you want. I always made claims, and it seemed just fair to come back now and look how far those claims came true. And yes, I would also have come back if I turned out to be wrong.

Maybe it’s time that people defending GW2 in any way, and trying to dismiss any negative feedback try to look objective at the numbers. Because with all respect, defending some of those decisions might have helped getting to where we are.

Anyway, like I said. Do with these numbers what you want. I delivered on my part. (Some people explicitly ask me to come back in the future to stand by my claims. I have done that now.)

I don’t even expect people to be willing to look at the numbers, as most people who would back me up, will have most likely left by now.

Vayne.8563:

Even after 2 disappointed quarters, Guild Wars 2 is one of the more successful MMOs of the last five years.

I did not put GW2 next to a lot of other games, but I think that if you take out those first 2 quarters, this is false. A game like AION seems to be able to keep a more stable income.
It’s great that GW2 sold so good at the beginning, but with an MMO it’s important to look at it in the long run. That is also what I have always been focusing on as you know.

It’s also not at all about those last two quarters. I put up all the numbers and you act as if I only talk about those last two results. I don’t. If you look at all the numbers you basically see a never-ending drop, until the announcement of HoT, but then half a year after HoT it did come into a free-fall again. Basically picking up the downward line it was following before the announcement of HoT. This is exactly what you would not want to see.

Vayne.8563:

It doesn’t matter if you agree, or if you think it could have come closer to beating WoW, because there’s no evidence to support that doing it differently would make more profit.

No, but these numbers are the closes we can get. You have been using this argument since the beginning. Only difference, we were then also talking about the future. Well at least we know have the numbers of ‘the future’ and know that part came true.

You can never know an alternative reality, or future. Nonetheless, a lot of decisions are based on calculating possible outcomes for that future or alternative realities. Simply ignoring them (because you can never know for sure) is to say the least being stubborn.

Vayne.8563:

The biggest issue Guild Wars 2 suffered, in my opinion, it the really bad publicity around HoT. Part of that came from the mistake of HoT bring priced to high and part of it came from the mistake of not giving a character slot as part of the base package. Those are mistakes and Anet paid for those mistakes with bad publicity. Instead of there being hype and excitment, there were angry veteran players screaming on the forums and such. And so HoT didn’t sell as well.

The numbers suggest your opinion is wrong. Because if it would be true you would expect the sales for HoT being bad, and you would see it immediately at and after the release. However, those sales where not bad at all. It’s the half year after the release of HoT that people started to leave. Just looking at the numbers we have to make this conclusion. Not saying that things did not go wrong there.

Vayne.8563:

Charts like this can’t possibly apply this kind of data. What they can be used for is to prove anyone’s point about anything, when taken in different contexts.

I always made the context clear. Long-term and compared to GW1, where I used GW1 mainly because of its payment-model.
I did not apply ant tricks to come to this conclusion.. and again, have a look. The only ‘tricks’ I applied was to make GW2 look better by normalizing the initial peak.

Lets talk about other things you have talked mister Krysis 2 player …

Such as :
a) ppl would love to have gear-cosmetic locked behind raids or any hard other content , rather than doing mind boglings easy things to simply farm gold for gems …
Can you show us he data about how many ppl are doing Raids ?

b) Collecting mats that have a low chance to drop (rather than sold to the trading post), are not counted like ’’farm’’ but rather ‘’friedly activity-farm’’ …..
Can you tell us the data about how many ppl like to collect 250 ’’corals’’ (that dont have 100% chance to be droped) for crafting the legendary 2-handed mace or 2-handed sword ?
Or any other HOT releated item , compared to using a WORLDWIDE CURRECNY that can be collected from anywhere and can be used to anything ?

c) Could you explain the phrase : ’’PPl would LOVE to spent more money for faster x-packs , if that means that the gear wont be sold in the Gemstores but rather ingame" ?
Can you shows us a graph (you already did) ….using real money to buy an x-pack is more loved by the community , compared to having FREE content with FREE currency exchange to buy anything from the Gemstores ?

d) Can you explain to be the phrase ‘’If the x-pack dont sell good , the problem will be that most ppl have been turned off by the directions of the game and they where forced to use real money to buy from the gemstores ’’gear’’ **** , and i will come back and say to the Devs ‘’I TOLD YOU SO’’

=you made 3 megathreads back at January 2015-March 2015 , that they shouldnt releases more armors in the gemstore …..WHILE THEY HAVE ALREADY HAVE DESIDED ABOUT THAT , 1 YEAR AGO AT MARCH-OR MAY 2014 …….

As the next x-packs releases and some ’’targets’’ come back to whine about the price …. i would advice you once more , to avoid speaking-represent ‘’a large amount of the community’’ ….
You too where fighting with those bozos too 4 months after the x-pack , that wanted the price dropped like GW1 …. you see what those foolish minds wants

Try to find ideas … that will make next x-pack more attractive for ppl to buy the x-pakc …otherwise ONCE MORE (/cast pseudo oracle 2015 skills) they will be forced to ‘’find from somewhere else’’ the money they estimate-aim for

I would think that comparing the release of 3 expansions for each game would be the more fair data analysis.

Of course, we all spent a lot of money in the first few years of Guild Wars. They kept releasing new games/campaigns (which many consider expansions) and the one expansion. Once Guild Wars 2 has released 2 more expansions, we can discuss.

Psientist.6437:

The initial sales number is too big a data point to ignore, especially if we are debating long-term profitability. To normalize the role of that initial sale, you would need to spread that revenue across time, not remove it.

Ignoring it is one of the approaches I take, I also took an approach where I spread it out over the first 3 quarters. What the initial sales tells me, is the scope the game can be placed in. In a way it shows me a possible player-base (well result-based) of the game. It also acts as a base-line to start from. What I want to know is how the game performs over a longer time. I can see what it can achieve (the base line), and then want to know how it performs with that base-line in mind.

Not ignoring it makes the numbers only be worse, spreading out them over the complete time removes my base-line. In raw numbers it is indeed not something you should ignore. I am also not debating that GW2 made much more money then GW1, and that initial peak is a big part of that. You can see that in the first graph.

However, I want to see how the game performs over-time, based on this initial sale. Like said, the initial sale gives me a look into what the game can achieve or in other words the scope of the game.

Many people talk about how GW2 was the best selling MMO of the time. So that is then also the scope in what I should look. It shows in a way that GW2 had the potential to be the biggest MMO out there. The question then is, how well was it able to keep that scope.

Hope you understand why then I can not spread that revenue across the full time. Just for raw income I can. But for the comparison with GW1 (a game on a different scope) and to see how GW2 preforms over time based on what it achieved I obviously can’t.

I think you missed what I tried to do here.

Psientist.6437:

The revenue from the ‘initial sale period’ of GW2 also includes cash shop sales. I would not be surprised if that period was also the most profitable period for the cash shop as well.

Sure, I am not trying to split the two. I compare the total of the models.

If you mean to say “But you would not have those sales in the other model, decreasing the scope and so giving a better outcome over time” you are right. That is one of the reasons why I am trying to normalize the initial peak to be a little more in line with the rest of the game. But I can’t of-course completely ignore it. By removing that peak I cut the peak effectively in more then half. Taking the average of the 3 means effectively that I use about 1/3th of the initial peak.

In addition, the cash-shop stays in there so keeps generating money… or is supposed to. So completely trying to take that out of the equation with the initial peak would also not be right.

If a cash-shop model is great for a game in the short term but bad in the long run (in fact exactly what I believe) that is also something we want to see.

If the another model would sell less in the beginning but did not drop as much, it would pay itself back overtime. That is exactly what the calculated difference in possible income shows.

Derdhal.6908:

Just a point: GW1 have never been Pay2Play, neither GW2.

Sorry, you are completely right, I talked about Pay2PLay but typed Pay2Play. My bad, I edited it.

Derdhal.6908:

GW2 was a Buy2Play game with a lot of store revenues that became Free2Play with restrictions (as usual).

GW2 was mainly focusing on the cash-shop. That is why I talk a cash-shop game. I did not use the term ‘Free2Play’ to prevent any confusion.

It’s clear that GW2 main income was supposed to come from the cash-shop. At one time they even said they would never have an expansion if they did it right. If a game focuses on expansions, you can not, not have any expansions. In fact you would need to release one every year to 1,5 year.

Both games sell the game and have a cash-shop. The big difference is where they put the focus on.

Dawdler.8521:

Without labels all I see is mountains, oceans and possibly lava

That is why I explained them in the text?

Rose Solane.1027:

Talking about a biased view

Looking at the raw figures I see that GW 2 had higher earning in the first 15 quarters than GW 1 ever had in any quarter. Only the last two quarters GW 2 made less than the highest two GW 1 quarters. So I see a much more successful game than GW 1 has ever been looking at quarterly earnings.

So far I do not yet see where I was biased. I am not saying it was not a more successful game in raw numbers. In fact, I gave you the numbers to see that in the first graph.

However, I was never talking about raw income, but talked about how they performed over time, based on their initial sale / scope.

Rose Solane.1027:

The graphs GW1 & GW2 earning percentages based on initial sale and GW1 & GW2 earning percentages based on average initial sale are there to create confusion. It suggests that GW 2 did worse than GW 1 but that is not true. Because GW 2 had such a successful initial sale almost all the other quarters had better earnings then GW 1 ever had.

Talking about bias lol. If anything is done with bias it’s how you judge the comment, likely because it’s not as positive as you would like have see.

The very first graph shows the raw numbers. Now if I did not show those you might have a point, but I do show them.

Also I explain exactly how the other graphs are created, so it should not be very confusing. It for sure it not put there ‘to create confusion’. But if anything shows something you don’t want to see it’s put there for confusion? Come on, it’s just the outcome of the numbers, nothing more and nothing less.

Also your comment about the initial sale being so big being a problem as if I ignore that makes no sense. It’s one of the first things I mention in my OP. Not only that, I did multiple things to reduce that difference.

However I can also not completely ignore that. Doing so would be ignoring the numbers. Turn it as your want, but it does say something about the scope of the game.

Now what would be bias, is if people would say things like

Guild Wars 2 is one of the more successful MMOs of the last five years.

for a big part based on that initial peak, but then if you show the decline, wanting to ignore the peak because it would result in a big drop. Now then you are picking what you need to make your story correct.

I did my best to, in a fair way, normalize the initial peak without completely removing it.

I also provide all the information in the form of the Excel where it is done. You can check it all. No bias in there what so ever.
[/quote]

Rose Solane.1027:

In the end the total earnings are what matters not percentages of initial sales.

Again biased views: I see a much more successful game then GW 1 has ever been.

That depends. If you want the game to be and keep being successful over a longer period, then no all that matters. So for players that stay with the game for a longer period (like you) it should in fact matter least. Sure for somebody invests money in it, it might be all that matter.

However even then, the results might have been higher if they used a difference approach.

And it was never about if GW1 was more successful then GW2, or the other way around. Not the point of the numbers. Maybe you just don’t understand them. That is fine, but then don’t come with claims as if people are bias.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

Lets talk about other things you have talked mister Krysis 2 player …

There you are. You know, you asked me to come back with these numbers remember. Well here they are.

I see you still want to go to ‘other things’ instead talk about what we are talking about. Not to mention that many of the things you mention here you also asked / talked about many times getting them answered multiple times. Of course you are also still changing what I said a little (or a lot, or completely).

You know what. I will answer this post here, but future post will have to go about the subject or I will not go into them.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

A ppl would love to have gear-cosmetic locked behind raids or any hard other content , rather than doing mind boglings easy things to simply farm gold for gems …
Can you show us he data about how many ppl are doing Raids?

I said they should be behind content, including but not only hard content instead of being behind a boring grind because a boring grind burns out people being bad for the game in the long run.

I don’t have numbers about how many people do raids, it’s also only a small part of where content would be locked if things would be implemented like I said. Most would likely be locked behind quests. That means only looking at how many people do raids is irrelevant. The only numbers available and (possibly) relevant is to see how the game performs over a longer period as my idea was, that the approach GW2 took, would be bad in the long run. Well, this thread is about those number, so have a look.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

Collecting mats that have a low chance to drop (rather than sold to the trading post), are not counted like ’’farm’’ but rather ‘’friedly activity-farm’’ …..
Can you tell us the data about how many ppl like to collect 250 ’’corals’’ (that dont have 100% chance to be droped) for crafting the legendary 2-handed mace or 2-handed sword ?

I did never say this, in fact I said exactly the opposite. I said, if you have an item you need only one of (a skin, or a recipe or an item you need only 1 of in a recipe) than it is not a problem to have it behind RNG with a low drop-rate. However, if it’s something you need a lot of, it should be easy to farm. Like, you go to some mine, and mine the 250 iron ore you need in 30 min.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

Could you explain the phrase : ’’PPl would LOVE to spent more money for faster x-packs , if that means that the gear wont be sold in the Gemstores but rather ingame" ?
Can you shows us a graph (you already did) ….using real money to buy an x-pack is more loved by the community , compared to having FREE content with FREE currency exchange to buy anything from the Gemstores ?

I said something along those lines yes. I think I did use some other words. Of course we did not do a survey and so those opinions are not measured. However in a way, the graphs I do show here says something along those line.
What you see is that with the game (GW1) that used that x-pact model, the playerbase was more loyal during the full life-spawn of the game, then they are with the game (GW2) that used the model where many things are sold with gems or gold. Remember, I also talked about how gold was the way to get most things in GW2 instead of doing specific content for it. And gold being linked to gems. It’s basically what you mention in A.
1/2

2/2

d) Can you explain to be the phrase ‘’If the x-pack dont sell good , the problem will be that most ppl have been turned off by the directions of the game and they where forced to use real money to buy from the gemstores ’’gear’’ **** , and i will come back and say to the Devs ‘’I TOLD YOU SO’’

Again, something along those lines. I think I did never say HoT would sell really bad. I said the second expansion would sell bad (so the next one, if HoT would not fix the problems) and if HoT did not solve the grind-problem the game would likely decline after the release. Something we would see after the first half year.
I also said something like ‘I could make a ’I told you so post’‘, was that not even in a response to you where you asked me to proof what I was saying? Or maybe it was about Crysis? Can’t remember exactly. Anyway, you can then see this as the ‘I told you so’ post if you like.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

you made 3 megathreads back at January 2015-March 2015 , that they shouldnt releases more armors in the gemstore …..WHILE THEY HAVE ALREADY HAVE DESIDED ABOUT THAT , 1 YEAR AGO AT MARCH-OR MAY 2014

Not sure what threads you are talking about. I talked about how I think they should place items behind content, not in a gems-store. That is what you have been referring to in almost all your comments here. You mean that? Maybe you should link the threads.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

As the next x-packs releases and some ’’targets’’ come back to whine about the price …. i would advice you once more , to avoid speaking-represent ‘’a large amount of the community’’ ….
You too where fighting with those bozos too 4 months after the x-pack , that wanted the price dropped like GW1 …. you see what those foolish minds wants

I did my best but are not able to translate what you are saying here.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

Try to find ideas … that will make next x-pack more attractive for ppl to buy the x-pakc …otherwise ONCE MORE (/cast pseudo oracle 2015 skills) they will be forced to ‘’find from somewhere else’’ the money they estimate-aim for

I did made such suggestions the 3 years I was very active on this forum. Also talking part in some of the CDI’s including the one about Guild Halls. Now I do not know if they did listen to me, but if you go in there https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/cdi/CDI-Guilds-Guild-Halls/first you can see I mainly talked about 2 things. 1 having guild-halls in the open world. That was never implemented. The second one, was have blue-prints for blocks we could place and so basically build our own guild-hall. We did in fact get that.

So I also did my best to come with suggestions to make a better expansion.

It’s good to see you. I do think you are pretty rude, also because you change what people said, but as you where one of the persons that most actively asked me to come back with these numbers, I like it that you where able to see my post where I in fact did do what you asked.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

I would think that comparing the release of 3 expansions for each game would be the more fair data analysis.

Of course, we all spent a lot of money in the first few years of Guild Wars. They kept releasing new games/campaigns (which many consider expansions) and the one expansion. Once Guild Wars 2 has released 2 more expansions, we can discuss.

I have to disagree. The complete approach was the difference between many expansions and a low focus on the cash-shop versus none or a few expansion versus a heavy focus on the cash-shop.

I am trying to compare the two approaches.

Thanks for responding.
I would take some of Vayne’s criticism more seriously. Your modeling does not, can not, distinguish between the effects of a studio’s business model and the game’s content (though in GW2’s case the two are often difficult to distinguish). A counterfactual world where the studio released more popular cash shop/LW content could produce as flat a slope as one where the studio released expansions every 1.5 years.

Devata.6589:

If the another model would sell less in the beginning but did not drop as much, it would pay itself back overtime. That is exactly what the calculated difference in possible income shows.

Not if you assume a game with a finite lifespan, which is a reasonable assumption. If you assume a finite lifespan and your criteria is which game is the most profitable over that finite lifespan, then GW2 beats GW1. If you are comparing actual GW2 with a counterfactual GW2, then it really is just a coin toss.

Personally, I think the Arenanet studio was willing to push the cash shop model as far as it would go revenue wise in order to make as much new content as possible available for free. I think they also really wanted to explore the concept of the Living World. I would not trade that studio for one that played it safe.

Psientist.6437:

Thanks for responding.
I would take some of Vayne’s criticism more seriously. Your modeling does not, can not, distinguish between the effects of a studio’s business model and the game’s content (though in GW2’s case the two are often difficult to distinguish). A counterfactual world where the studio released more popular cash shop/LW content could produce as flat a slope as one where the studio released expansions every 1.5 years.

Your modeling does not, can not, distinguish between the effects of a studio’s business model and the game’s content.

Thank you for taking the time to read it

In my opinion the two are linked. It’s not like the one by definition results in a good game and the other by definition results in a bad game. But I do think they are linked.

Like with a Buy2Play model, the focus is on getting expansions (including future expansions) sold to the people. This will likely result in expansions that are supposed to keep people busy and happy over a longer period. For example by having many quest with items being locked behind them.

The cash-shop model will try to get people to buy items from the store. There are multiple ways of doing that, in the case of GW2 that (imo) is to give the player the choice of grind vs paying.

So they are linked.

I am not saying Vayne is wrong as he says you can not know what would be the result in the other scenario. In fact I even mention that in my OP. However, completely ignoring it is also not smart imho. Numbers like this do give an idea.

Devata.6589:

If the another model would sell less in the beginning but did not drop as much, it would pay itself back overtime. That is exactly what the calculated difference in possible income shows.

Not if you assume a game with a finite lifespan, which is a reasonable assumption. If you assume a finite lifespan and your criteria is which game is the most profitable over that finite lifespan, then GW2 beats GW1. If you are comparing actual GW2 with a counterfactual GW2, then it really is just a coin toss.

Personally, I think the ArenaNet studio was willing to push the cash shop model as far as it would go revenue wise in order to make as much new content as possible available for free. I think they also really wanted to explore the concept of the Living World. I would not trade that studio for one that played it safe.
[/quote]

“Not if you assume a game with a finite lifespan” True, but I am also not talking about infinitive life-spawn. I make the comparison to where we are at this moment. And so after about 4 years this already seems to be true. As far as the numbers show us… yes you can not be 100% sure.
GW1 was discontinued so they could build GW2. That is why you can not look are the actual life-spawn of GW1. They did not stop because a lack of income.

It’s not free content, it’s payed by that cash-shop. It’s good that you like their approach. I expect most people who are still active here agree with you. The problem is the many people that did seem to leave (based on the dropping results) likely because they did not like this approach (what it resulted in).

You haven’t established a relationship between the cash shop and it being the reason that GW2 is supposedly performing poorly. I’d blame content drought long before I would ever blame the cash shop.

Ayrilana.1396:

You haven’t established a relationship between the cash shop and it being the reason that GW2 is supposedly performing poorly. I’d blame content drought long before I would ever blame the cash shop.

I did not, I simply compared GW1 to GW2. I did that to compare the models and I think it has to do with the cash-shop. In fact I based the predictions (that came true) on that same idea (that cash-shop focus being a problem), for myself that increases the likely-hood that this indeed is the reason. But your right, these numbers don’t proof that relationship.

In theory there could be other reasons that resulted in the same outcome.

About the content drought. The numbers seem to disprove that theory (I know it’s the most used reason on these forums). I did mention that in the post. I do not blame you for not reading it all. Anyway, the moments of most content drought do not always match with the lowest results.

The half year after the end of season two, we had an almost complete content drought but the results where higher then during season 2. At the end of season 2 HoT was also announced, so that announcement alone seem to create a bigger result then season 2 itself did.

Also Q3 did have more content then Q2 but the results where lower.

Devata.6589:

It’s the half year after the release of HoT that people started to leave.

Can you please provide data to support your claim that you know when people leave the game (as opposed to not spending money)?

Interesting info, sorry if I missed it but there’s a lot to take in, have you adjusted for CPI?

Devata.6589:

I don’t have numbers about how many people do raids, it’s also only a small part of where content would be locked if things would be implemented like I said. Most would likely be locked behind quests

Nope , you where whinning that the pet of the Tentraquil shouldnt be sold in the Traiding posts , because ppl whould get bored to farm gold to get …and ,it should be soulbound even with low chance , so it can be a ’’journey’’ to the player and not a grind from buying from the TP
And other things should be locked in spesicif hard content with higher chance
Just like your third bolded comment bellow….

Devata.6589:

I did never say this, in fact I said exactly the opposite. I said, if you have an item you need only one of (a skin, or a recipe or an item you need only 1 of in a recipe) than it is not a problem to have it behind RNG with a low drop-rate. However, if it’s something you need a lot of, it should be easy to farm. Like, you go to some mine, and mine the 250 iron ore you need in 30 min.

Again , farming gold = grind leading to boredom
’’Hunting’’ item -gears that cannot be sold in the TP even for low amount of chance = ‘’happy farming’’

Just like you where whining that there wasnt a 100% chance to get the lower Tier materials …..
And you always using the Example of WoW : ‘’if i want it i can farm cloth there’’

…regadles of how many times Vaynes what telling you to open the bags on the lower lvl characterand you (6 min playtime)
Or you can trade you current mats for some silver in the TP and buy the mast you needed
Or you can buy with glory items with various amount of lvl requiements , combine them in the Mystic forge andsalvage them for the exactly mats you want

….but when they implanted the Map bonus (do 10 quest and you get 5x Tier 4 Cloth….40 min playtime) you where smilling and said that was thinking about something like that

Devata.6589:

What you see is that with the game (GW1) that used that x-pact model, the playerbase was more loyal during the full life-spawn of the game, then they are with the game (GW2) that used the model where many things are sold with gems or gold. Remember, I also talked about how gold was the way to get most things in GW2 instead of doing specific content for it. And gold being linked to gems. It’s basically what you mention in A.
1/2

See the bolded parts

And what megathread was when HoT launch ?
PPl arguing about the price ?
PPl arguing about the you need to farm gold to buy items ?
The data is angainst you …. ppl have voted with their wallet …. that why we have the HOT Price megathreads at launch and various sites writing ‘’the fans starts uproar for GW2 price’’

Lets not create once more 3 different threads with 47% of your answers belonging to you , while Me and Vayne where feeding your thread to the top ………

AND YOU DID AN 180 DEGREE MARVELOUS BACKFLIP..(something that even sun wukong from smite , get jealous)… AND TOLD US THAT THE THREAD WOULD BE DEAD IF THE MAJORITY OF PPL DIDNT AGREE WITH YOU !

personal advice Keep giving advices ideas abou what they impanted , so ppl love more 60 euro x-pakcs and less focus on the gemstores ….
But avoid the silly mentality like these :

I did not, I simply compared GW1 to GW2. I did that to compare the models and I think it has to do with the cash-shop. In fact I based the predictions (that came true) on that same idea (that cash-shop focus being a problem), for myself that increases the likely-hood that this indeed is the reason. But your right, these numbers don’t proof that relationship.

I never forget ’’targets’’ :P
If they wanna destroy-sabotage something , then they should .hire..-help some sabotaged .
Otherwise I might use my charming/demagogue self to achive something..

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

It’s the half year after the release of HoT that people started to leave.

Can you please provide data to support your claim that you know when people leave the game (as opposed to not spending money)?

Technically it could be possible that people only started to spend less, while it’s more likely that less income is also linked to number of players (not exclusively). In the end it does not really matter what the reason is, it’s the results we are looking at.
What I see a lot of people do here is trying to find possible other explanations to explain the results, or saying they don’t have to proof one or the other. That is fine, but if you do that to much, it looks like denying the obvious. In the end it does all not really matter.
It does not matter if the model or lack of content is to blame. It does not matter if less income is because of less people or people spending less. What matters is that results have dropped a lot, and have been dropping from the start where HoT did not manage to structural fix that. It only created a temporary increase.
What is also interesting, is to see how GW1 was able to keep a more equal flow of income overtime.
I simply give the numbers as they are and give my vision with them. Do with that what you want.

morrolan.9608:

Interesting info, sorry if I missed it but there’s a lot to take in, have you adjusted for CPI?

No.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

Nope , you where whinning that the pet of the Tentraquil shouldnt be sold in the Traiding posts , because ppl whould get bored to farm gold to get …and ,it should be soulbound even with low chance , so it can be a ’’journey’’ to the player and not a grind from buying from the TP
And other things should be locked in spesicif hard content with higher chance
Just like your third bolded comment bellow….

Pet of the Tentraquil? What? Do you mean Mini Tequatl the Sunless? That does drop from a world-boss not from a raid. Because that boss gets farmed a lot many of those mini’s end up on the trading post devaluating the item.

That results in the fact that you can indeed better buy it from the TP then doing the boss itself.

With a lot of items it’s indeed that you can better grind gold and buy the item that try to get the item by doing the content that drops it.. if it even drops.

Instead I indeed said that collecting these items should be more of a journey then a grind.

I talked about that in the past and think I did use the Tequatl mini as example yes. But what is your point or question?

Killthehealersffs.8940:

Again , farming gold = grind leading to boredom
’’Hunting’’ item -gears that cannot be sold in the TP even for low amount of chance = ‘’happy farming’’

Just like you where whining that there wasnt a 100% chance to get the lower Tier materials …..
regadles of how many times Vaynes what telling you to open the bags on the lower lvl characterand you (6 min playtime)
~
Regadles of a russian that had some guides , with 470 Magic Find about farming in the Karka island and was bickering with you too

Trying to translate what you are saying here.
“grind leading to boredom”. Yes according to me, grinding results in people burning out. So?

“’’Hunting’’ item -gears that cannot be sold in the TP even for low amount of chance = ‘’happy farming’’” Not sure what you try to say, but I think it’s similar to what was talked about in the first part. I do agree that there should be a journey / hunt for items, not a grind.

“Just like you where whining that there wasnt a 100% chance to get the lower Tier materials …..
regadles of how many times Vaynes what telling you to open the bags on the lower lvl characterand you (6 min playtime)” I guess this has to do with the idea that mats should (according to me) be pretty easy to get. If you need 100 of something, it should not be hard to get those as that would be boring.

“Regadles of a russian that had some guides , with 470 Magic Find about farming in the Karka island and was bickering with you too” A Russian with a guide? What the heck are you talking about?

With most of the rest of your comment I am like ‘what the heck is he talking about’. ‘Megathread’s, ‘you and Vayne feeding a thread’, ‘a blackflip’. Whut?? Anyway, I can make up that (as always) it’s not about subject we talk about here and like I said, I will not go into all your side comments. Want to talk about anything, talk about the numbers that you! asked for.

I do not mind being your target. It’s not like what you say makes a lot of sense. I do find a kind of amusing. I even have the feeling you think you are making a point here or winning a debate, what is really funny. That is why I was also so happy to see you pop up here, it’s always amusing to see your post. I am not trying to destroy-sabotage anything. The opposite in fact.
Have luck achieving something, whatever that something might be.

And remember, if you come black, please talk about the subject.

Keep giving advices ideas about should they impant (like you Guild Halls or somethng) , so ppl love more 60 euro x-pakcs and the company wont need to offer more items in the gemstores ….
WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION IS THE kittenING 2015

But avoid the silly mentality like these :

I did not, I simply compared GW1 to GW2. I did that to compare the models and I think it has to do with the cash-shop. In fact I based the predictions (that came true) on that same idea (that cash-shop focus being a problem), for myself that increases the likely-hood that this indeed is the reason. But your right, these numbers don’t proof that relationship.

I told you in february 2015 … in an pseudo-oracle game , i am the best and you can call me Ilithia(stupid:P) sister or Pythia
I too love love our naive-circular conversation , just like the old times :P

About number:
My personal numbers based on the chart you made , is that in a decade the mentality of the ppl change and want different things .
Such as paying less real money to buy x-packs ,which in return the companymust aim in a different revenuein the same time
Such as the HoT Price Megathread indicated and each Video Site that had the tittle’’GW2 fans rise angaint the price’’

Edit: More ideas …. less i was right …. less i repressent the community…. dont steal my pseudo oracle job ….you know generally 2015 stuff ….

Killthehealersffs.8940:

My personal numbers based on the chart you made , is that in a decade the mentality of the ppl change and want different things .
Such as paying less real money to buy x-packs ,which in return the companymust aim in a different revenuein the same time
Such as the HoT Price Megathread indicated and each Video Site that had the tittle’’GW2 fans rise angaint the price’’

Strange way of looking at the numbers as there is a clear increase at the release of HoT. So people did seem to be fine buying it.

About the complains about the price. I completely understand that. Thing is, GW2 had not released an expansions for 4 years and did go full cash-shop. With a game like that people don’t expect expensive expansions. Now if GW2 would have been B2P from the beginning, and no cash-shop (or with little focus). Then I don’t think many people would be so upset about the same price when 1,5 year after GW2, the first expansions was released.

What people are willing to pay is also based on what they are getting for it.

They must have the reason they didnt followthe GW1 formula of 8 months x-packs from the start , forcing the gamers to pay each time real money .
But rather see the success of the newcomming LoL(B2P with a F2P option) as a sign that the gamers and time drasticly change , and focusing more in the Gemstore and Free Updates would be the best option .
When the population , finds more ways to farm gold and hey dont feel pressured to pay any money , then any company must find a way to force them (releases a paid x-pack)

Time changes …. and its the worst enemy of a woman … (not for Milf’s)
Just like WoW where you are not forced to pay sub , but you can collect gold to pay it

If the next x-pack costs 25 euro , then you have 2 options :
a) propose major ideas to implant , regadles of how costy they are , but they get attractive so the community is willing to pay 60 euros
b) get used to 25 euros with more gemstore outfits

This is the last time i will sound resonable :P

I only see a bunch of cash numbers surrounded by a massive amount of unknown factors, without enough behavioral data to give useful conclusions.

What’s the point in comparing GW1 with GW2 in the first place? The two games are too different in content, aesthetic, commercial strategy, technology and time location to extract anything valuable from comparing them. They aren’t even competitors.

Ardid.7203:

I only see a bunch of cash numbers surrounded by a massive amount of unknown factors, without enough behavioral data to give useful conclusions.

Well this is pretty much the information that shareholders are supposed to base their decisions on. In the first tab I also did put game-related info next to the result of that quarter. While not part of what I was trying to calculate / proof, it did suggest that the lack of content is not to blame for lower results.

Something that is a reason I see popping up in pretty much all discussion about results. It was also mentioned by WoodenPatatoes in a video some time ago.

So the numbers do provide information that is supposed to give you an insight into how the company is doing and is used by investors / shareholders. So I think it’s not reasonable to act as if this information is useless. But sure, I would love to have much more information. However this is what we have, so this is what I can work with.

Ardid.7203:

What’s the point in comparing GW1 with GW2 in the first place? The two games are too different in content, aesthetic, commercial strategy, technology and time location to extract anything valuable from comparing them. They aren’t even competitors.

Yeah it’s different, but some of those differences are exactly why I wanted to compare those. Basically I wanted to compare both commercial strategies with each other. I think many of the other differences are simply an evolution of the game Guild Wars.

Well, I think shareholders are doing a very weak job at obtaining data, then. There are other tools that would give much better guides for decision making.

Shareholders listen to the analysts and the analysts listen to NCSOFT. Stock price is down because the China strategy didn’t live up to hype as well as mobile and the next Lineage and MxM has yet to hit. And everything is waning except for Lineage.

Behellagh.1468:

Shareholders listen to the analysts and the analysts listen to NCSOFT. Stock price is down because the China strategy didn’t live up to hype as well as mobile and the next Lineage and MxM has yet to hit. And everything is waning except for Lineage.

All I am saying is that the whole idea behind these numbers is to inform them. So then it’s a little strange to suggest that those numbers are pretty much useless.

They are useless, sure I would also like more and better numbers but these are still useful.

Well, speculation aside we can say for certain, as a fact not selective inference, that GW2 has made more money than has GW1. I personally like the original better, but it did not generate revenue equal to that of the successor.

Anything else we try to pull out of the numbers will be speculation, at best.

Food for thought:

• Aging games tend to make less money, with few exceptions.
• In-game stores are a staple of the industry, and can be either a part of the way the game is monetized, or the whole thing. Even P2P games have them, so they’re likely here to stay.
• XPacs can and often do generate large infusions of cash. HoT did so also.
• HoT failed to attract a large percentage of active players, and conversions from free accounts were, according to the report, disappointing. Attributing that to the store rather than the reasons expressed on forums and fan sites is a stretch. In fact, some time ago, ANet switched over to a system where new cosmetic armor skins were obtained via play rather than gems. The beef about such skins in Hot was there were not enough of them, not that they were in the store.
• If a poster has consistently expressed an antipathy to the gem store throughout his posting history, that same poster interpreting falling revenue numbers as caused because large swaths of players share his views is both expected and questionable.

Devata.6589:

Vayne.8563:

Nice data, but I’m guessing there’s confirmation bias there.

It’s simply the data directly coming from the NCsoft quarterly reports. I made the data available in the Excel, so you can easily check it. So far there cannot be any bias.

The calculations I did you can also see back in the Excel, and if anything, I did use multiple methods to make GW2 look better! by reducing the initial spike.

So not bias here, it’s just raw data and math.

Vayne.8563:

Again, as I’ve said many times in the past, Guild Wars 1 is a 10 year old game that existed in a very very different marketplace than today. Comparing what Guild Wars 1 did ten years ago with what games do today is going to be meaningless because the entire industry has changed.

You did indeed say that. Nonetheless we can conclude now that what I suggested that would happen, did in fact happen. The question if another approach would work better we can never know for sure. On the other hand.. 10 years ago GW1 also used a model that was completely out of place back then as most of these games used a payment-model now. Now most of these games used a cash-shop model. So why would a different model then what most use now, not work? In both cases it’s a different form the status quo.

Do with it what you want. I always made claims, and it seemed just fair to come back now and look how far those claims came true. And yes, I would also have come back if I turned out to be wrong.

Maybe it’s time that people defending GW2 in any way, and trying to dismiss any negative feedback try to look objective at the numbers. Because with all respect, defending some of those decisions might have helped getting to where we are.

Anyway, like I said. Do with these numbers what you want. I delivered on my part. (Some people explicitly ask me to come back in the future to stand by my claims. I have done that now.)

I don’t even expect people to be willing to look at the numbers, as most people who would back me up, will have most likely left by now.

Vayne.8563:

Even after 2 disappointed quarters, Guild Wars 2 is one of the more successful MMOs of the last five years.

I did not put GW2 next to a lot of other games, but I think that if you take out those first 2 quarters, this is false. A game like AION seems to be able to keep a more stable income.
It’s great that GW2 sold so good at the beginning, but with an MMO it’s important to look at it in the long run. That is also what I have always been focusing on as you know.

It’s also not at all about those last two quarters. I put up all the numbers and you act as if I only talk about those last two results. I don’t. If you look at all the numbers you basically see a never-ending drop, until the announcement of HoT, but then half a year after HoT it did come into a free-fall again. Basically picking up the downward line it was following before the announcement of HoT. This is exactly what you would not want to see.

Vayne.8563:

It doesn’t matter if you agree, or if you think it could have come closer to beating WoW, because there’s no evidence to support that doing it differently would make more profit.

No, but these numbers are the closes we can get. You have been using this argument since the beginning. Only difference, we were then also talking about the future. Well at least we know have the numbers of ‘the future’ and know that part came true.

You can never know an alternative reality, or future. Nonetheless, a lot of decisions are based on calculating possible outcomes for that future or alternative realities. Simply ignoring them (because you can never know for sure) is to say the least being stubborn.

Actually we can’t really conclude that you were correct. or rather, we’d have to look at Guild Wars 1 four years after launch and compare.

I’m almost 100% certain Guild Wars 1 had a rapid fall of as well four years after lauch, because, get this, it was a four year old game.

Now I’m pretty sure if you took every single MMO every made and looked at their numbers four years after launch you’d see similar falls.

The only thing maybe you’d find is that it took Guild Wars 2 far longer to drop after launch than most MMOs. That’s a success not a failure.

All your I told you so figures probably proves is that Anet was right all along.

Anet is afraid of trying new things, I think they are relying on the gem store too much as a measure of success.

Just got ESO for ps4 for 10$ and people are having a blast dueling in the new-character zones and stealing loot from npcs. Simple things done right go a long way to bring new life into a mmo.

its an interesting analysis, and you probably have a bias, but the data does follow what you believe. however it is not the only possible explanation.

People who say you shouldnt be using this data to make those assumptions…, well you take what data you have and you try to make assumptions, it may be nice to have more data, but you really cannot get infinite data.

Psientist makes a valid point though, which boils down to this, it may be possible that they just arent as good at making content that the people who bought the initial game want, as they used to be with gw1.

Which is a real possibility, the initial game was created by the gw1 team, and the early gw2 team. The living world and after was created by a gw2 team, and hot by a sort of different gw2 team.

So perhaps, an even simpler answer is that they just werent as good at making content.
Many people say the game is improving in various ways, so its possible that the current, or future gw2 team may stabilize the curve.

Vayne.8563:

I’m almost 100% certain Guild Wars 1 had a rapid fall of as well four years after lauch, because, get this, it was a four year old game.

Now I’m pretty sure if you took every single MMO every made and looked at their numbers four years after launch you’d see similar falls.

The only thing maybe you’d find is that it took Guild Wars 2 far longer to drop after launch than most MMOs. That’s a success not a failure.

All your I told you so figures probably proves is that Anet was right all along.

most MMOs fail, but most MMOs never come close to gw2 initial hype/number/buyer confidence. So when you talk about most MMOs you are kind of comparing them to failures.
FFXI maintained less drop off and even total increases for like 7 years
WoW maintained less drop off overall for years
FFXIV is currently one year younger than gw2 and growing
Aion is still making money for them and its years older
lineage is the beast that never dies apparently.

there are a lot of successful games that have less drop off, which is indeed the goal of the people in the business.
I mean maybe the budget will get cut to be in line with your average throw away MMO, but gw2 was not invested in or built to be a throw away see if they like it MMO. They had a huge initial investment, and hype. It was in development for like 5 or 6 years. It has 260 person team, its goals shouldnt line up with champions online or black desert.

Vayne.8563:

I’m almost 100% certain Guild Wars 1 had a rapid fall of as well four years after lauch, because, get this, it was a four year old game.

Four years after GW launch? Yeah, in all likelihood the game made very little, but not just because it was old. At that point, ANet was 1.5 years past the release of Eye of the North, which was 1.5 years after they stopped development on the game. GW was on life support.

Ashen.2907:

Well, speculation aside we can say for certain, as a fact not selective inference, that GW2 has made more money than has GW1. I personally like the original better, but it did not generate revenue equal to that of the successor.

True

Ashen.2907:

Anything else we try to pull out of the numbers will be speculation, at best.

False. Things like that percentage wise GW2 dropped more when taking it’s initial sale as base-line, then GW1 did is also a fact that you can get out of these numbers.

And there is much more factual information we can get from it.

The reasons why the numbers are as they are, are speculation. But speculations based on underlying number / facts. What is different from speculations without underlying numbers?

They way you put it you dismiss the numbers to much imho.

I think from the revenue graphs for GW2 the most important things to take are the spikes and trying to figure out why they happened. The expansion release is obvious but there are some spikes that had no expansion, so what happened there and how can they replicate that?

The first spike is around Q4 2013, so October, November and December of 2013. It’s interesting that at that time we got the most instanced content in the game (other than the release of Fractals), with 1 dungeon path and 1 new fractal.
At the same time we also got the Tower Nightmares release for the open world crowd AND a World versus World Season 1 tournament. It seems that at Q4 2013 they released something for everyone, except for the sPVP crowd, and the game had some great revenue increase.

Then we got a curious Q2 2015 increase in revenue. I’m not sure why that happened because we had no releases at that point. Maybe people expected an expansion to be released in the summer so they bought GW2?

But the thing is, going from the revenue data, the best revenue for the game comes when they release things for lots of different people. You can say that the Q4 2013 WAS a small expansion in a way with content for a vast array of players.

I think what they are doing since the release of LS3 is very similar. We get regular fractals, regular new zones, regular new story. We might see a good revenue spike again. If only we got a WvW season and/or a PvP tournament soon, that would be grand, combined with the above.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Food for thought:

• Aging games tend to make less money, with few exceptions.

Correct, I did mention that in my OP. Like here:

Another problem is that GW1 pretty much lost all support after the first 3 years, while HoT did not get released till after 3 years. Only comparing the first 3 years of both games is not fair because you then do not take HoT into account, and ignore the fact that games will usually lose some popularity over-time. On the other hand, comparing both over the full period is also not fair as you are then comparing a game that is fully supported vs one that is not.

In fact I referred to that multiple times. It is also one of the reasons why I did say that the numbers will not become any better for comparisation because this becomes a bigger uncertainty.
See:

For a comparison with GW2 we will not get any better numbers because the more we go into the future, the worse you can compare them to GW1 because of the support dropping after 3 years.

So you are comparing the 3 years of GW1 to the now more as 4 years of GW2. The longer you wait the more uncertain that becomes.

I do think that this 5 quarter difference is not yet a huge uncertainty, but indeed it’s something I did take into consideration.

It is also why in the final calculation I took the average between results for 3 years vs those from 4 and one quarter. 3 years is in favor of GW1 because you have less aging. 4 years is in favor of GW2 because you are comparing it to a game that did not have support for over a year in the equation.

Devata.6589:

• In-game stores are a staple of the industry, and can be either a part of the way the game is monetized, or the whole thing. Even P2P games have them, so they’re likely here to stay.

Yes, it’s why I clearly mentioned the focus on it.

I always suggested a focus on expansions with a new expansion every year to 1,5 year and no heavy focus on the cash-shop. The current approach resulting in decisions made based on selling items in the gem-store that effect the game negatively, mainly creating a big grind for cosmetics.

Many companies indeed huge multiple sources, but usually also have one source they put most focus on. In case of GW1 the focus clearly where the expansions / campains. With GW2 the focus clearly is the cash-shop.

Devata.6589:

• XPacs can and often do generate large infusions of cash. HoT did so also.

Yes.

Devata.6589:

• HoT failed to attract a large percentage of active players, and conversions from free accounts were, according to the report, disappointing. Attributing that to the store rather than the reasons expressed on forums and fan sites is a stretch. In fact, some time ago, ANet switched over to a system where new cosmetic armor skins were obtained via play rather than gems. The beef about such skins in Hot was there were not enough of them, not that they were in the store.

I think it’s incorrect to state that HoT did not manage to attract a large percentage of active players. It did, but they did not stick. They did leave again within the first half year. (Or stopped spending money. But looking ingame I see many people simply left).

Personally I do think the way the cash-shop effects the game is a big part of the reason. These numbers will of course not be able to proof that. What they do proof is that the numbers dropped a lot. Something that I did predict based on this ‘cash-shop problem theory’.

It’s also a more indirect result imho. It’s not directly the cash-shop itself but it’s how the cash-shop effects the game.
Imo this game is very grindy (for those whole like things like mini’s, skins, toys) and I do blame that at least for a big part on the cash-shop. Best (or only) way to get most items ingame is by grinding gold. You can buy gold with gems. See the link? Multiple items you can only buy with gems so the only ingame method to get those is grinding gold.

Indeed we did see them putting some items behind content (a good thing) but as you say it’s also true that it’s not enough. If you still have the grind gold for 80% of the cosmetics it still will feel as a grindy and so boring game.

Devata.6589:

• If a poster has consistently expressed an antipathy to the gem store throughout his posting history, that same poster interpreting falling revenue numbers as caused because large swaths of players share his views is both expected and questionable.

I don’t say large players share my view. I do conclude that maybe people seem to have left. I give my vision on that.

You should be critical about my possible subjectivity. I don’t blame anybody for that. It’s also why I give all the numbers and calculations.

Vayne.8563:

Actually we can’t really conclude that you were correct. or rather, we’d have to look at Guild Wars 1 four years after launch and compare.

I’m almost 100% certain Guild Wars 1 had a rapid fall of as well four years after lauch, because, get this, it was a four year old game.

Now I’m pretty sure if you took every single MMO every made and looked at their numbers four years after launch you’d see similar falls.

The only thing maybe you’d find is that it took Guild Wars 2 far longer to drop after launch than most MMOs. That’s a success not a failure.

All your I told you so figures probably proves is that Anet was right all along.

“I’m almost 100% certain Guild Wars 1 had a rapid fall of as well four years after lauch, because, get this, it was a four year old game.” That games will drop over time I am not denying. It’s something I even mention in the comment and took into account in that last calculation. But if you suggest the drop we see in GW1 is purely because it was 4 years old and not because it stopped getting support, well then I really think you are fooling yourself.

“Now I’m pretty sure if you took every single MMO every made and looked at their numbers four years after launch you’d see similar falls.”
I don’t have numbers of all games, but did a quick search for WoW subscribers. They did keep going up for the first 5 years, and only after then that slowly started to drop.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276601/number-of-world-of-warcraft-subscribers-by-quarter/

“The only thing maybe you’d find is that it took Guild Wars 2 far longer to drop after launch than most MMOs. That’s a success not a failure.” WHAT? Did you look at the numbers. Really Vayne, I know we disagree on things but here you are completly fooling yourself.

Guild Wars 2 has pretty much only been dropping right from the beginning (only the HoT released stopped that drop temporary and make results go up again, but never coming to where GW2 ever left of). The WoW example I just gave it did only grew the first five years and in case of GW1 the real drop came after 3 years when further development was canceled.

“All your I told you so figures probably proves is that Anet was right all along.”
About what? I do not say Anet was ‘wrong’ as I don’t know what their goal was. If they never had long-term goals then this approach might have been the best. I always look it from the approach of wanting it to be good over the long term. In that case their approach was not so good. Depends on your perspective.

Edit: Now I think about it. I remember that Anet once said something like, there will not bean GW3, but GW2 will evolve into GW3. That suggest that from Anet’s perspective they also wanted to go for a MMO that would be popular over a longer period.

Really Vayne, I can understand that these numbers do not make you happy. But this comment feels more like if you are in denial.

Devata.6589:

Guild Wars 2 has pretty much only been dropping right from the beginning (only the HoT released stopped that drop temporary and make results go up again, but never coming to where GW2 ever left of).

Actually there have been 2 revenue spikes in the game’s history without counting HoT. A very noticeable one at Q4 2013 and a very minor at Q2 2015. Notice how the Q4 2013 spike looks very similar to the Nightfall spike of GW1. This leads me to believe that if done right, the GW2 model can be as profitable as an expansion model, sadly they’ve never done something similar to Q4 2013 again.