Guild Wars 2

clay.7849:

I used that definition to show that, by definition, casual players aren’t going to play a game for long.

If someone only plays 8 hours or less a week it doesn’t mean he’ll quit sooner than another. And even if he does, it doesn’t impact revenue (no subscription).

On the flip side, the limited play time may motivate the player to buy boosts from the gem shop with real money, thus increasing revenue.

Karizee.8076:

Lol, if anyone has any questions about how well the game is doing, just open the world selection button on your character screen.

Every single US server is Very High population.
Every. Last. One!

I know of no MMO right now that can boast such a lively playerbase.

That is based on accounts, not activity.

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

I used that definition to show that, by definition, casual players aren’t going to play a game for long.

If someone only plays 8 hours or less a week it doesn’t mean he’ll quit sooner than another. And even if he does, it doesn’t impact revenue (no subscription).

On the flip side, the limited play time may motivate the player to buy boosts from the gem shop with real money, thus increasing revenue.

It may, but it may not. Your point? Casual = limited interest. How can you argue that leads to more money? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

I used that definition to show that, by definition, casual players aren’t going to play a game for long.

If someone only plays 8 hours or less a week it doesn’t mean he’ll quit sooner than another. And even if he does, it doesn’t impact revenue (no subscription).

On the flip side, the limited play time may motivate the player to buy boosts from the gem shop with real money, thus increasing revenue.

It may, but it may not. Your point? Casual = limited interest. How can you argue that leads to more money? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

You should go read your own post again, it’s limited time OR limited interest . Limited interest gamers aren’t going to play MMOs in the first place, since we’re making up facts that we can’t back up. Also show me some evidence that casual = less money, because by and large that’s wrong as hell.

Source? Look up a game called “The Sims.”

clay.7849:

casual is the opposite of making money

As Rovio wonders where all of its stacks of gold bars came from…

That is based on accounts, not activity.

Really disingenuous to make that point in this discussion. Assuming that it is in fact accounts, that means that a significant number of copies of the game were sold recently, because the servers went up from High to Very High.

clay.7849:

It may, but it may not. Your point? Casual = limited interest. How can you argue that leads to more money? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

You are having a tantrum aren’t you? Sorry. We should end the conversation before you get more upset.

By the way, the real money in gaming is now in casual games and cash shops. Its not for nothing failed mmos go free to play. But hey, if you want to believe otherwise its your right.

Hawkian.6580:

snip

Hawkian, you’re a smart dude and you do a good job of making logical posts that tie in subjective ideas, such as “this game is going to be very successful” or that GW2 has a “devoted community”.

If those things hold true, then your logic works, but if they don’t hold true, you’re argument fails.

I don’t disagree with you, but I certainly don’t think there is enough evidence to support either statement.

My argument is simply that by making a game that should cater to everyone, GW2 takes the approach of trying to make everyone happy. In my humble opinion (and evidenced by the general negatibity surrounding this game), most hardcore gamers find this game to not include enough of what they want (gear treadmill, no gear treadmill, mounts, open world PvP, raids, etc.) Therefore, as more games become available that fill their desired niche they will leave.

What this game does incredibly well is cater to casual and part time players. Both, through the content and also the F2P model.

It is my opinion that those types of players are not sufficient to either keep purchasing a game long enough to make it any more profitable than other games, or to stay with the game long enough to capitalize on their longevity.

Now, I could be completely wrong, but so could you. We will have to see how well the casual market keeps up their love of GW2. But, that is ultimately not going to be proven today or tomorrow, but in the next couple of years.

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

I used that definition to show that, by definition, casual players aren’t going to play a game for long.

If someone only plays 8 hours or less a week it doesn’t mean he’ll quit sooner than another. And even if he does, it doesn’t impact revenue (no subscription).

On the flip side, the limited play time may motivate the player to buy boosts from the gem shop with real money, thus increasing revenue.

It may, but it may not. Your point? Casual = limited interest. How can you argue that leads to more money? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

It swings both ways really.

Casual – limited interest.
Hardcore – limited content.

Both player types are guilty of absurd amount of money.

Hawkian.6580:

clay.7849:

casual is the opposite of making money

As Rovio wonders where all of its stacks of gold bars came from…

That is based on accounts, not activity.

Really disingenuous to make that point in this discussion. Assuming that it is in fact accounts, that means that a significant number of copies of the game were sold recently, because the servers went up from High to Very High.

Rovio != MMO

Also GW2 isn’t tablet based, which is a much better vehicle for casual than PC.

You can’t know how many accounts were needed to sell to make a server go from high to very high, so your point it also disengenuous.

Nappychappy.7046:

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

I used that definition to show that, by definition, casual players aren’t going to play a game for long.

If someone only plays 8 hours or less a week it doesn’t mean he’ll quit sooner than another. And even if he does, it doesn’t impact revenue (no subscription).

On the flip side, the limited play time may motivate the player to buy boosts from the gem shop with real money, thus increasing revenue.

It may, but it may not. Your point? Casual = limited interest. How can you argue that leads to more money? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

It swings both ways really.

Casual – limited interest.
Hardcore – limited content.

Both player types are guilty of absurd amount of money.

Definitely. He wasn’t trying to say that Casual players will spend more money than hardcore players. I was saying we can’t know that.

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

You can keep using conjecture to try and make your point, but it is still conjecture.

Also, player burnout has nothing to do with this conversation. I don’t know why you are so adamant about tell us about the evils of hardcore gameplay. Really, if you are so smart about how to sell things to people, you would know that a lot of unhealthy things sell really well. Cigarettes are a really good example. It has nothing to do with right or wrong.

The conversation is about money. What keeps servers running, MONEY. What keeps Arena Net running? MONEY. What makes money for Guild Wars 2? Box sales and the cash shop. Its pretty obvious who is more inclined to buy gold for GW2 via the cash shop; those with limited play time who don’t want to grind.

I put one little snippet about burnout and you go on a tantrum. And why are you talking about McDonald and cigarettes? And you call my post conjecture?

I farm Orr and other events, as per my guild I’m a hardcore gamer who plays about 10 hours a day sometimes more. At the same time I have spent around $600 between March 1 and April 1 on the game. Only 50 gems of which did I transfer to gold. So it is purely speculation that a casual gamer would spend more/less on the game based on play style. I love dropping event items around Tyria for others, those people now get to enjoy content that cost me gems. And the sole purpose of doing this is to help make the game (at least on my server) just a little more exciting for people.

My broad definition: A casual gamer is someone who can easily break away from the game, go play another, or do something irl.They do not fit into 1 concrete definition and neither do hardcore gamers. It is a broad statement usually used in attempt to completely separate one style of gaming to another, but is based on opinions not facts.

To label a person a “true” hardcore or casual player is only possible by the basic time idea, and the opinion of the actual player and no one else. Today to someone a hardcore player could mean someone who plays 50 hours a week, tomorrow it could mean you can get through all content in a few days because of strenuous work. In the end it doesn’t matter, the definitions are not true definitions. They are simply broad ideas used to separate one end of the spectrum with the other. But in no way would everyone fit on one end or the other, most (I assume) can fall anywhere in between. And in this case that makes every gamer neither hardcore or casual. On the opposite side of this, I know people who play only a few hours a week and buy gem cards regularly.

As far as the game itself, well that can more easily be described using those terms. And in that essence you can use skill, time, effort to place a definition on it. But gamers will never, ever, agree on what the exact definition of either is for other gamers. Because none of us want to be labeled in a way that someday in the future could be used in a derogatory way. So the entire discussion is moot. In fact, I’d remind most posters that the title was “is guild wars 2 doing well”. To actually answer this I would say: It seems to be doing well. Financially, population, fun factor wise? Email Arenanet and ask, because they are the only ones who can answer that with facts.

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

It may, but it may not. Your point? Casual = limited interest. How can you argue that leads to more money? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

You are having a tantrum aren’t you? Sorry. We should end the conversation before you get more upset.

By the way, the real money in gaming is now in casual games and cash shops. Its not for nothing failed mmos go free to play. But hey, if you want to believe otherwise its your right.

Proof? Links?

EVE seems to be doing quite well…

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

I used that definition to show that, by definition, casual players aren’t going to play a game for long.

If someone only plays 8 hours or less a week it doesn’t mean he’ll quit sooner than another. And even if he does, it doesn’t impact revenue (no subscription).

On the flip side, the limited play time may motivate the player to buy boosts from the gem shop with real money, thus increasing revenue.

It may, but it may not. Your point? Casual = limited interest. How can you argue that leads to more money? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

You should go read your own post again, it’s limited time OR limited interest . Limited interest gamers aren’t going to play MMOs in the first place, since we’re making up facts that we can’t back up. Also show me some evidence that casual = less money, because by and large that’s wrong as hell.

Source? Look up a game called “The Sims.”

Why? I have limited interest in MMOs, yet I play.

Again, making points from conjecture is just bad.

I also never said casual = less money. I said casual = less longevity. Big difference.

Oh, but I do think less longevity = less money when compared to games with more longevity.

clay.7849:

Nappychappy.7046:

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

I used that definition to show that, by definition, casual players aren’t going to play a game for long.

If someone only plays 8 hours or less a week it doesn’t mean he’ll quit sooner than another. And even if he does, it doesn’t impact revenue (no subscription).

On the flip side, the limited play time may motivate the player to buy boosts from the gem shop with real money, thus increasing revenue.

It may, but it may not. Your point? Casual = limited interest. How can you argue that leads to more money? Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

It swings both ways really.

Casual – limited interest.
Hardcore – limited content.

Both player types are guilty of absurd amount of money.

Definitely. He was trying to say that Casual players will spend more money than hardcore players. I was saying we can’t know that.

Yeah, I don’t know the answer to that either, but I do know both player types and I must say the hardcore tend to spend. Then again, look at Farmville in the beginning.

Speaking of Farmville, it’s about time ANet removed those DR’s…

clay.7849:

Hawkian, you’re a smart dude and you do a good job of making logical posts that tie in subjective ideas, such as “this game is going to be very successful” or that GW2 has a “devoted community”.

:-/

“This game is going to be very successful” is an opinion, specifically a prediction. I presented it as such.

“GW2 has a devoted community” is a fairly demonstrable fact, unless you want to get into ludicrously stringent definitions of the word “devoted.” The GW2 subreddit has over 80,000 subscribers- not viewers- alone. Players have composed renditions of Still Alive and Billie Jean using the Wintersday bells. Others like me have written guides on an enormous number of content releases. Guild Missions hosted open to the public have been taking place every week. This forum itself is chaotically, almost horrendously active. You, right now, are a part of the devoted community I am referring to, despite your predictions running counter to mine.

You can’t know how many accounts were needed to sell to make a server go from high to very high, so your point it also disengenuous.

What point do you think I was attempting to make?

Geotherma.2395:

I farm Orr and other events, as per my guild I’m a hardcore gamer who plays about 10 hours a day sometimes more. At the same time I have spent around $600 between March 1 and April 1 on the game. Only 50 gems of which did I transfer to gold. So it is purely speculation that a casual gamer would spend more/less on the game based on play style..

Nice post. I’d like to put mine in context however. I’m offering a counterpoint to Clay who believes GW2 will fail because it lacks features for “hardcore” players.

I do agree with him that players looking for competitive raiding / pvp will be disappointing in GW2 and most likely stop playing. I disagree with him that it will cause gw2 to fail. I also disagree with his assessment that his “casuals” won’t bring revenue to gw2.

Relevant snippets:

Nappyychappy hit the nail on the head, IMO.
The definition of “casual player” doesn’t lend itself to the kind of dedication and “stickiness” you need to make a game like an MMO live for a long time.

Nappychappy.7046:

My honest opinion is that casual is popular now, but slowly dying out. It is most definitely a way to make money quickly, but not a way to make a game last. Game developers will eventually exhaust the consumers with must have AAA games of the month. As amazing as this game is, it also takes a huge step backwards, and the more casuals that it caters to, the more advanced players it will eventually disappoint.

Xia.3485:

Geotherma.2395:

I farm Orr and other events, as per my guild I’m a hardcore gamer who plays about 10 hours a day sometimes more. At the same time I have spent around $600 between March 1 and April 1 on the game. Only 50 gems of which did I transfer to gold. So it is purely speculation that a casual gamer would spend more/less on the game based on play style..

Nice post. I’d like to put mine in context however. I’m offering a counterpoint to Clay who believes GW2 will fail because it lacks features for “hardcore” players.

I do agree with him that players looking for competitive raiding / pvp will be disappointing in GW2 and most likely stop playing. I disagree with him that it will cause gw2 to fail. I also disagree with his assessment that his “casuals” won’t bring revenue to gw2.

Relevant snippets:

Nappyychappy hit the nail on the head, IMO.
The definition of “casual player” doesn’t lend itself to the kind of dedication and “stickiness” you need to make a game like an MMO live for a long time.

Nappychappy.7046:

My honest opinion is that casual is popular now, but slowly dying out. It is most definitely a way to make money quickly, but not a way to make a game last. Game developers will eventually exhaust the consumers with must have AAA games of the month. As amazing as this game is, it also takes a huge step backwards, and the more casuals that it caters to, the more advanced players it will eventually disappoint.

I can agree with the thought of games such as FFXI in mind. This is a game I used to love, it got a bit old however (for me) and I moved on. However it still holds many subs and just released yet another expansion. (8? 11?) Free to play games like Aion also hold both players who play often or don’t play often, both of which flood the cash store for “fun” things. However that game also offers advantages which by most peoples definition would be for hardcore gamers. But casual gamers use them as well. And that game is still around as well.

With Guild Wars 2 you buy and get what you pay for. You can at any time try other MMO’s, be 100% loyal to this, or leave and come back any time. Any type of player can put money into the pockets of the company. It matters more how cash shop items are sold, what is available, and the want and desire for them. And that applies to no single group. That applies to us all. I would simply say look at the fused weapon skins, to say only casual or hardcore players bought those chests based on their gameplay/style would just be silly.

Hawkian.6580:

clay.7849:

Hawkian, you’re a smart dude and you do a good job of making logical posts that tie in subjective ideas, such as “this game is going to be very successful” or that GW2 has a “devoted community”.

:-/

“This game is going to be very successful” is an opinion, specifically a prediction. I presented it as such.

“GW2 has a devoted community” is a fairly demonstrable fact, unless you want to get into ludicrously stringent definitions of the word “devoted.” The GW2 subreddit has over 80,000 subscribers- not viewers- alone. Players have composed renditions of Still Alive and Billie Jean using the Wintersday bells. Others like me have written guides on an enormous number of content releases. Guild Missions hosted open to the public have been taking place every week. This forum itself is chaotically, almost horrendously active. You, right now, are a part of the devoted community I am referring to, despite your predictions running counter to mine.

You can’t know how many accounts were needed to sell to make a server go from high to very high, so your point it also disengenuous.

What point do you think I was attempting to make?

1. Of course the game needs to keep selling to make it profitable. What about it being a casual game lends it to selling more copies, especially as newer games get released?

2. I’m not quite sure how we are saying anything different. You say that longevity is not explicitly linked to revenue, but say that the game needs a stable and ideally growing playerbase. I think that longevity and stable/ideally growing playerbase are synonymous.

3. http://www.kdbdw.com/bbs/download/169600.pdf?attachmentId=169600

This is as good of a prediction of revenue I can find for NCSoft, as you can see the predicted revenue from GW2 is predicted to fall 85% in Q1 and Q2. The Q3+ numbers are based on an expansion that, so far, doesn’t seem to be in the works any longer. Without an expansion, I really don’t think you can expect to see sales numbers continue like they did around, and shortly after, launch. In fact, if nothing drastic happens to the game (like a major update adding serious content or an expansion), it would be natural to see the sales numbers dwindle.

I don’t really want to argue about the devoted community thing. I disagree, but it isn’t worth discussion as it realtes to this conversation IMO.

Last, the part about the servers. The part I replied to suggested that the game is doing well because server population is up. You simply cannot deduce that from server population going up, because it is account based.

Calae.1738:

Mature content = blood, nudity, terror, coarse language, violence, politics, economics, moral controversy and scientific material.

I’m not trying to insult people who like Disney stuff. The psychological techniques used by Disney are well known to be effective. They’re very good at what they do.

As a 30+ gamer, I get enough of what you consider “mature” in real life that I’m not begging for it to be 100% present all of the time in my entertainment. I also don’t take myself or my age demographic so seriously that I can’t lighten up and enjoy a little bit of goofy fun now and again without disdaining it as “Disney stuff.”

clay.7849:

Still, you make points that are not refutable.

What an outrageous premise to begin with… aren’t you attempting to refute them?

The only point I made that was unable to be refuted with data was a single prediction about the future. I make no claim to knowing what will happen, it’s just a prediction. Everything else I said could be refuted with data or logical assertions.

1. Of course the game needs to keep selling to make it profitable. What about it being a casual game lends it to selling more copies, especially as newer games get released?

This question almost reads as sarcastic- are you saying you do understand this one point?

If not… the game itself appealing to casual players along with an accompanying business model (no subscription) lowers the barrier to entry and widens the prospective market of gamers to a larger group. A larger pool of potential consumers yields the potential for increased sales over a smaller pool.

I had thought this was the most obvious aspect of the entire conversation. You acknowledged that the game does a good job of appealing to casual players, but that you didn’t believe they would stick with it (“longevity”) which would result in lessened chances for success. I didn’t realize you were also contending they’re not doing a good enough job to result in more initial sales to casual players.

2. I’m not quite sure how we are saying anything different. You say that longevity is not explicitly linked to revenue, but say that the game needs a stable and ideally growing playerbase. I think that longevity and stable/ideally growing playerbase are synonymous.

You’re quite correct in that you’re not seeing how our premises differ. I’ll try to clarify further:

Imagine that players A, B, C, and D buy GW2 and play it for 2 months. They don’t buy any gems. They play a lot for those two months and then get sick of the game and stop. Because they were not paying a subscription fee, their departure does not result in a loss of guaranteed revenue (nor is it technically even a departure, because they could return at any time- but let’s just say they don’t). In the meantime, players E, F, G, and H get interested by some bit of news and buy the game or are given a copy as a birthday present. The size of the playerbase has not changed in this situation, despite it not being composed of the same individuals.

Longevity on the part of the individual player is irrelevant to that aspect of financial success. Revenue to ArenaNet only increases in the above scenario.

3. http://www.kdbdw.com/bbs/download/169600.pdf?attachmentId=169600

This is as good of a prediction of revenue I can find for NCSoft, as you can see the predicted revenue from GW2 is predicted to fall 85% in Q1 and Q2. The Q3+ numbers are based on an expansion that, so far, doesn’t seem to be in the works any longer. Without an expansion, I really don’t think you can expect to see sales numbers continue like they did around, and shortly after, launch. In fact, if nothing drastic happens to the game (like a major update adding serious content or an expansion), it would be natural to see the sales numbers dwindle.

I take this point to mean that your claim of “sales continuing to fall” was based on this analyst prediction of ongoing revenue for this year, which you note yourself is apparently based on unfounded or outdated assumptions. Even marrying it in terms of accuracy, you completely disregarded my overarching point as well.

As you seem to acknowledge yourself… quarter-to-quarter, week-to-week, and day-to-day sales will fluctuate based on what is actually occurring, such as a major update, a discount, a significant marketing push, etc. and of course they will never mirror the sales figures in the launch window; that would be absurd. But you seem to equate “having sales equitable to that at launch” with “doing well” or “financial success,” and I have no idea why.

I don’t really want to argue about the devoted community thing. I disagree, but it isn’t worth discussion as it realtes to this conversation IMO.

This is the one point that there is ample evidence to actually prove or refute; again, unless you have some specific criterion for “devoted” that I’m unaware of, this is just a plainly apparent fact. You may disagree, but if you don’t wish to back up your refutation I will simply take your disagreement as additional evidence in favor of its accuracy.

Last, the part about the servers. The part I replied to suggested that the game is doing well because server population is up. You simply cannot deduce that from server population going up, because it is account based.

Operating from the assumption that it is indeed account based, do you concede that this means the game must have sold enough additional copies in the last few days to cause that change, or not?

@ Hawkian

1. That first part was part of a different direction I was going and failed to edit out.

2. The game appealing to casual players doesn’t mean they will buy it. How many more casual players are out there that might be interested in this game? Again, you assume that this game can just keep selling copies and be fine without answering the question of why casual players will continue to buy a game that is already 6+ months old.

3. So, you assume that buyers are going to outpace quitters?

4. You also seem to think that there is a chance that 2013 will outsell 2012 without an expansion or any major update.

5. You don’t have any evidence to show that this game has any more of a devoted community than any other game that is healthy or not. For every example you want to show me, I’ll provide a counter example. If you really want to do this, let’s start a new thread.

6. I agree that the game sold enough copies to go from High to Very High. Sure. What does that matter? Games don’t go from selling copies to not selling copies. It is a gradual decline. What I don’t understand is how you presume to know that buyers are outpacing quitters.

Geotherma.2395:

I can agree with the thought of games such as FFXI in mind. This is a game I used to love, it got a bit old however (for me) and I moved on. However it still holds many subs and just released yet another expansion. (8? 11?) Free to play games like Aion also hold both players who play often or don’t play often, both of which flood the cash store for “fun” things. However that game also offers advantages which by most peoples definition would be for hardcore gamers. But casual gamers use them as well. And that game is still around as well.

With Guild Wars 2 you buy and get what you pay for. You can at any time try other MMO’s, be 100% loyal to this, or leave and come back any time. Any type of player can put money into the pockets of the company. It matters more how cash shop items are sold, what is available, and the want and desire for them. And that applies to no single group. That applies to us all. I would simply say look at the fused weapon skins, to say only casual or hardcore players bought those chests based on their gameplay/style would just be silly.

Totally agree. In fact, you helped make my point. Also I’d like to point out it wasn’t I who brought the term hardcore or casual into conversation.

I think the best virtue of guild wars 2 is the ability to leave for a few months and return without having to grind to “catch up” to other players. The lack of effective gear treadmill is liberating. Even though some can argue that ascended gear began a treadmill none of the content appears balanced around gear (except for agony resistance, which is acquired where its used anyway).

I believe that if Arena Net wasn’t doing well financially, we’d see more gear and skins in the cash shop with talk of an expansion. Instead we are greeted with free content (the living story) and fun holiday events (Halloween, Christina and now this April Fools day game).

I don’t believe GW2 needs any of this:

… most hardcore gamers find this game to not include enough of what they want (gear treadmill, mounts, open world PvP, raids, etc.) Therefore, as more games become available that fill their desired niche they will leave.

Nor does it need the term hardcore pasted all over its forums.

Xia.3485:

Geotherma.2395:

I can agree with the thought of games such as FFXI in mind. This is a game I used to love, it got a bit old however (for me) and I moved on. However it still holds many subs and just released yet another expansion. (8? 11?) Free to play games like Aion also hold both players who play often or don’t play often, both of which flood the cash store for “fun” things. However that game also offers advantages which by most peoples definition would be for hardcore gamers. But casual gamers use them as well. And that game is still around as well.

With Guild Wars 2 you buy and get what you pay for. You can at any time try other MMO’s, be 100% loyal to this, or leave and come back any time. Any type of player can put money into the pockets of the company. It matters more how cash shop items are sold, what is available, and the want and desire for them. And that applies to no single group. That applies to us all. I would simply say look at the fused weapon skins, to say only casual or hardcore players bought those chests based on their gameplay/style would just be silly.

Totally agree. In fact, you helped make my point. Also I’d like to point out it wasn’t I who brought the term hardcore or casual into conversation.

I think the best virtue of guild wars 2 is the ability to leave for a few months and return without having to grind to “catch up” to other players. The lack of effective gear treadmill is liberating. Even though some can argue that ascended gear began a treadmill none of the content appears balanced around gear (except for agony resistance, which is acquired where its used anyway).

I believe that if Arena Net wasn’t doing well financially, we’d see more gear and skins in the cash shop with talk of an expansion. Instead we are greeted with free content (the living story) and fun holiday events (Halloween, Christina and now this April Fools day game).

I don’t believe GW2 needs any of this:

… most hardcore gamers find this game to not include enough of what they want (gear treadmill, mounts, open world PvP, raids, etc.) Therefore, as more games become available that fill their desired niche they will leave.

Nor does it need the term hardcore pasted all over its forums.

Why did you edit my post to exclude “no gear treadmill?”

You are mis-representing my post. I don’t think that GW2 needs those things either, but GW2 doesn’t think that. They have said specifically that they don’t intent Ascended Gear to be the end of the gear treadmill. They said that they don’t intent level 80 to be the max level forever.

The purpose of the post was to show that ANet tries to give a little to everyone on both sides of the aisle, which doesn’t really appease anyone as most people are firmly on one side or the other. Ascended gear pretty much kitten off everyone.

Thanks for taking the time to not only purposefully exclude parts from my post, but to misrepresent it as well.

As good as a once pay game can hope to achieve. Gw2 is still lively, but only in lions arch and WvW(with the occasional dragon). Go to divinity’s reach, black citadel, the grove, it’s abandoned and depressing. The game is still strong, but we need a real expansion, and soon.

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

Geotherma.2395:

I can agree with the thought of games such as FFXI in mind. This is a game I used to love, it got a bit old however (for me) and I moved on. However it still holds many subs and just released yet another expansion. (8? 11?) Free to play games like Aion also hold both players who play often or don’t play often, both of which flood the cash store for “fun” things. However that game also offers advantages which by most peoples definition would be for hardcore gamers. But casual gamers use them as well. And that game is still around as well.

With Guild Wars 2 you buy and get what you pay for. You can at any time try other MMO’s, be 100% loyal to this, or leave and come back any time. Any type of player can put money into the pockets of the company. It matters more how cash shop items are sold, what is available, and the want and desire for them. And that applies to no single group. That applies to us all. I would simply say look at the fused weapon skins, to say only casual or hardcore players bought those chests based on their gameplay/style would just be silly.

Totally agree. In fact, you helped make my point. Also I’d like to point out it wasn’t I who brought the term hardcore or casual into conversation.

I think the best virtue of guild wars 2 is the ability to leave for a few months and return without having to grind to “catch up” to other players. The lack of effective gear treadmill is liberating. Even though some can argue that ascended gear began a treadmill none of the content appears balanced around gear (except for agony resistance, which is acquired where its used anyway).

I believe that if Arena Net wasn’t doing well financially, we’d see more gear and skins in the cash shop with talk of an expansion. Instead we are greeted with free content (the living story) and fun holiday events (Halloween, Christina and now this April Fools day game).

I don’t believe GW2 needs any of this:

… most hardcore gamers find this game to not include enough of what they want (gear treadmill, mounts, open world PvP, raids, etc.) Therefore, as more games become available that fill their desired niche they will leave.

Nor does it need the term hardcore pasted all over its forums.

Why did you edit my post to exclude “no gear treadmill?”

You are mis-representing my post. I don’t think that GW2 needs those things either, but GW2 doesn’t think that. They have said specifically that they don’t intent Ascended Gear to be the end of the gear treadmill. They said that they don’t intent level 80 to be the max level forever.

The purpose of the post was to show that ANet tries to give a little to everyone on both sides of the aisle, which doesn’t really appease anyone as most people are firmly on one side or the other. Ascended gear pretty much kitten off everyone.

Thanks for taking the time to not only purposefully exclude parts from my post, but to misrepresent it as well.

I disagree with this part bolded. There is really no proof of this, and people are generally believed to be open to change and change in behavior or moods. Which means anyone at any time can sway to either side. If anything I would say more people are swaying in the middle slightly to either side depending on the games content and theme. But thats an opinion, just like the above stated is. And as is true with that statement and mine, neither can be proven at this point.

Doomdesire.9365:

As good as a once pay game can hope to achieve. Gw2 is still lively, but only in lions arch and WvW(with the occasional dragon). Go to divinity’s reach, black citadel, the grove, it’s abandoned and depressing. The game is still strong, but we need a real expansion, and soon.

Unfortunately there’s nothing to do in divinity’s reach or the other capital cities. Lions arch has the fractals and all the gates (and is easily reached via the mists, wvw or spvp making it the best hub).

Unfortunately (and fortunately) there is no login queue mechanic to give us a clear indication of concurrent users on a busy night.

Doomdesire.9365:

As good as a once pay game can hope to achieve. Gw2 is still lively, but only in lions arch and WvW(with the occasional dragon). Go to divinity’s reach, black citadel, the grove, it’s abandoned and depressing. The game is still strong, but we need a real expansion, and soon.

An expansion this early in the game kind of proves that the game is failing in the longevity department, I have seen many, many posts on the internet about this.

Geotherma.2395:

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

Geotherma.2395:

I can agree with the thought of games such as FFXI in mind. This is a game I used to love, it got a bit old however (for me) and I moved on. However it still holds many subs and just released yet another expansion. (8? 11?) Free to play games like Aion also hold both players who play often or don’t play often, both of which flood the cash store for “fun” things. However that game also offers advantages which by most peoples definition would be for hardcore gamers. But casual gamers use them as well. And that game is still around as well.

With Guild Wars 2 you buy and get what you pay for. You can at any time try other MMO’s, be 100% loyal to this, or leave and come back any time. Any type of player can put money into the pockets of the company. It matters more how cash shop items are sold, what is available, and the want and desire for them. And that applies to no single group. That applies to us all. I would simply say look at the fused weapon skins, to say only casual or hardcore players bought those chests based on their gameplay/style would just be silly.

Totally agree. In fact, you helped make my point. Also I’d like to point out it wasn’t I who brought the term hardcore or casual into conversation.

I think the best virtue of guild wars 2 is the ability to leave for a few months and return without having to grind to “catch up” to other players. The lack of effective gear treadmill is liberating. Even though some can argue that ascended gear began a treadmill none of the content appears balanced around gear (except for agony resistance, which is acquired where its used anyway).

I believe that if Arena Net wasn’t doing well financially, we’d see more gear and skins in the cash shop with talk of an expansion. Instead we are greeted with free content (the living story) and fun holiday events (Halloween, Christina and now this April Fools day game).

I don’t believe GW2 needs any of this:

… most hardcore gamers find this game to not include enough of what they want (gear treadmill, mounts, open world PvP, raids, etc.) Therefore, as more games become available that fill their desired niche they will leave.

Nor does it need the term hardcore pasted all over its forums.

Why did you edit my post to exclude “no gear treadmill?”

You are mis-representing my post. I don’t think that GW2 needs those things either, but GW2 doesn’t think that. They have said specifically that they don’t intent Ascended Gear to be the end of the gear treadmill. They said that they don’t intent level 80 to be the max level forever.

The purpose of the post was to show that ANet tries to give a little to everyone on both sides of the aisle, which doesn’t really appease anyone as most people are firmly on one side or the other. Ascended gear pretty much kitten off everyone.

Thanks for taking the time to not only purposefully exclude parts from my post, but to misrepresent it as well.

I disagree with this part bolded. There is really no proof of this, and people are generally believed to be open to change and change in behavior or moods. Which means anyone at any time can sway to either side. If anything I would say more people are swaying in the middle slightly to either side depending on the games content and theme. But thats an opinion, just like the above stated is. And as is true with that statement and mine, neither can be proven at this point.

You may be right, but looking around the forums, it seems that if you ask about gear treadmill you will get some pretty opinionated responses. Same with open world PvP, mounts, raiding, etc.

I agree people can change their minds, but it looks like our friend Xia is firmly opposed to some of those things. I wonder if he can change his mind?

Mackdose.6504:

Alloy.2839:

Calae.1738:

Mature content = blood, nudity, terror, coarse language, violence, politics, economics, moral controversy and scientific material. …

I am over 30 and don’t believe a family oriented game like GW2 would benefit from the addition of the items you mention. There are other games for people who desire that kind of content.

The only thing that isn’t covered by the post you replied to is nudity and coarse language.

An NPC says “ kitten #8221; in AC.

I wonder SAB or the 30% discount is the thing that really spiked sales.

Khal Drogo.9631:

I wonder SAB or the 30% discount is the thing that really spiked sales.

30% discount no doubt. SAB is a fun surprise, but anyone seriously into retro gaming can get an emulator for free >_>

clay.7849:

2. The game appealing to casual players doesn’t mean they will buy it.

Absolutely ludicrous. Did you mean to add more to the end of this sentence? We need only find a single casual player who bought this game because it appealed to them to disprove this.

How many more casual players are out there that might be interested in this game?

Millions. You must know this.

Again, you assume that this game can just keep selling copies and be fine without answering the question of why casual players will continue to buy a game that is already 6+ months old.

What…. what. First of all, why do you keep trying to inject into my argument that only casual gamers will buy new copies of the game? I’m not saying that. Any kind of gamer can buy a copy. Your $60 is worth no more or less than the one before or after you. Second of all, World of Warcraft did not hit 3 million accounts, a milestone that has already been reached by GW2, until just over a year after its release. I know you know this because you’ve referenced these very numbers in other threads. People don’t look at a bit of new information about an MMO and go, “ooh, that’s interesting! Wait, it came out 8 months ago. Screw that.” Because it’s a one-time purchase, the value of buying a copy of Guild Wars 2 increases over time. Your entire rationalization here is bizarre.

3. So, you assume that buyers are going to outpace quitters?

No…. I didn’t say anything like that…. nor does that have to happen for there to be a stable/growing population in-game. Nor is there really a such thing as a “quitter” in this context. Nor is any of that particularly relevant to the topic of financial success which is what we’re talking about.

It doesn’t seem like my example stuck, so here’s a little more:

Gamers A, B, C, and D have been playing for months and decide to stop playing. Gamer E is then given the game as a birthday present, while Gamer F sees an announcement about a sale and decides to take the plunge. Upon hearing about a new feature release, Gamers A and B decide to come back and check it out, but the feature doesn’t interest C or D. Gamer E eventually realizes the game isn’t for her and decides to leave, but Gamer G comes along and was so excited by the new feature that he buys a copy to check it out. Finally, A and B note that they still just aren’t into it, but C and D have been away for so long that they just want to see what’s changed and jump back in.

The only extra layer of complexity here is allowing for the possibility of “quitters” to come back at some point, which is more realistic than my previous, simpler example making the same point. The total population of the game remained relatively stable during that entire period, without the “stickiness”/longevity of any individual player being particularly relevant. That’s my point. Without a subscription, it’s far less important- at no point during any of that stuff above did ArenaNet lose out on any money.

4. You also seem to think that there is a chance that 2013 will outsell 2012 without an expansion or any major update.

No, I never said anything remotely close to that.

5. You don’t have any evidence to show that this game has any more of a devoted community than any other game that is healthy or not. For every example you want to show me, I’ll provide a counter example. If you really want to do this, let’s start a new thread.

There is no need for a new thread. I’m contending that a devoted community is part of what ensures an MMO “does well,” and I provided you 5 examples, both quantitative (80,420 subscribers to the GW2 subreddit, vs. 85,629 for WoW and 27,162 for SWTOR) and qualitative (people doing creative things like making real music with the choir bells, or providing community services like public guild bounties). Thus far you need to provide 5 examples of how GW2 does not have a devoted community to reach equilibrium.

6. I agree that the game sold enough copies to go from High to Very High. Sure. What does that matter?

The title of this thread is “Is Guild Wars 2 Doing Well?”

I allow for the possibility you included this question as a joke.

Khal Drogo.9631:

I wonder SAB or the 30% discount is the thing that really spiked sales.

Are we assuming there was a boost in sales because of across the board Very High server populations? First of all, going back to the activity vs. number of accounts argument, I’d say it’s almost certainly the former that’s measured. Otherwise, why would a server ever decrease in population, considering that even when concurrent users get lower, the number of accounts only steadily increases? Transfers? It doesn’t make much sense to advertise that a server has a high population if it’s inactive, either.

I’m sure sales spike when there’s a discount, but at this point I imagine GW2 would need more than a 30% price decrease to significantly move sales. On the other hand, there are almost always spikes in the population when significant new content hits because of returning players, and the SAB certainly resulted in a lot of positive word of mouth and free press.

So I’d say GW2 definitely benefited from the SAB.

Commercially it is doing well.

But it had to sacrifice manifesto, the credibility of the developers, and the experience of the players to achieve it.

Calae.1738:

I’m not sure how long they will be able to sustain this though. Their Achilles heel is a AAA MMO targeted to a mature audience. The Disney stuff might be tolerable for awhile but; it’ll get dumped really fast. Your average MMO gamers is over 30 and is demanding mature content.

This is a very generalized statement only made by those for example, think only kids play Nintendo games.

It’s not an issue with a targeted age group. It’s the issue of whether someone is a casual gamer or a hardcore gamer. If what you’re saying is true, I wouldn’t get kids calling me the word that is also used to describe a bundle of sticks whenever I play Call of Duty.

To be honest, I prefer it if GW2 stayed more towards the casual side. The last thing I want to experience in GW2 is having someone throw a fit just because I made a mistake (not that I don’t see Call of Duty-esque behavior in sPvP already).

And by the way, it’s not a binary state. It’s a continuum.

I’m a semi-casual semi-hardcore gamer.

Calae.1738:

Naqaj.6219:

Calae.1738:

I’m not sure how long they will be able to sustain this though. Their Achilles heel is a AAA MMO targeted to a mature audience. The Disney stuff might be tolerable for awhile but; it’ll get dumped really fast. Your average MMO gamers is over 30 and is demanding mature content.

Considering that ‘mature content’ in video games is usually targeted at, and most successful with teenage boys, I sure as hell wouldn’t base an MMO around it.

MMO budget money is already flowing towards that market. Remember that MMOs have been around for about a decade. People are getting older. Their needs change.

Look at The Simpsons. It’s been around for 24 years. Do you think that show would still be around if they had continued to use Bart as the main character?

Uh, MMO’s have been around for almost two decades now.

hm, what a strange thread. I’m on Blacktide and I mostly play past 11pm and I barely meet anyone.

@ the casuals:
The game is doing incredibly well.

@ the hardcores:
The game is dying.

Calae.1738:

Mature content = blood, nudity, terror, coarse language, violence, politics, economics, moral controversy and scientific material.

I’m not trying to insult people who like Disney stuff. The psychological techniques used by Disney are well known to be effective. They’re very good at what they do.

So… you are telling me that being mature means playing with content I typically don’t want in my games (Blood, Nudity/Sexuality,Rude Language,Overexagerated violence), specifically since I see those things as immature.

Maybe we need a new definition here?

Hawkian.6580:

snip

Any chance you can reply without the whole quote wars thing?

1. So, just because something appeals to me, that means I will buy it? Not true. And, just like you say one who bought it will prove it, does that mean one that doesn’t buy it will disprove it? C’mon man.

2. So, if there are millions of other casual players that might be interested in this game, as you say, why haven’t they (see #1) bought it yet? Hmmm….

3. Why do you think that this game, which is pretty much like any other MMO, is going to do so well?

Second, you’re rationalization is that GW2 sold quicker in 2012 than WoW did 10 years ago. Bravo, you’re a genius. SWTOR sold really well too. Now, they are dead. You don’t prove anything.

How does a game’s value increase over time if there is no one to play the game with? If the game doesn’t appeal to hardcore players and casual players, be definition, don’t have any real dedication to the game, how is this game going to keep increasing in population? Why would people keep buying a dead game?

4. So people that stop playing the game aren’t really quitters because they could come back at any minute? C’mon man!

You seem to think that this game is somehow magically different than everything else because it is F2P. It’s not. It is still susceptible to dying just like any other game. Subscriptions have nothing to do with it. If the population stops turning on the game, that’s it. Finished. Done. Dead. How hard is that to understand?

5. You did say that, because you argued against my saying that sales will continue to decline. If you think that isn’t the case, then you must think that 2012 will outsell 2013. I mean kitten, you keep arguing against it. Either it declines 2012 sales < 2013, or it doesn’t. Make up your mind and stick to it. The flip flopping is out of control with you.

6. So subscribers that may or may not continue to visit reddit, and some YouTube videos constitute this super devoted community? Please, tell me more about your absurd conjecture that is based in meaningless dribble?

7. Do you really not see that because server population is based on accounts and not people active that it is impossible to know how well this game is doing? I mean, what if the number of accounts needed to push servers from high to very high was only a few. What if it was outpaced severely by people that gave up and quit? I suppose that you think this game doing well is that people keep buying the game rather than people playing it. Well, I think it is about people playing it – and we can’t simply gather that information from the information on the server pages.

I take back the smart thing. Some of the things you are trying to argue are just plain ridiculous. Your arguments are basically the following:

The game is going to continue to do well because it will continue to sell and because it is F2P then it will never die. By the way, I base this all on the fact that I like the game, there are some really awesome YouTube videos that people put up. C’mon man. Every post you make is getting more ridiculous.

How about you just get back to my point: casual players, by definition, are not devoted to any particular game, because that is the definition of a casual player. (At least one of many that are all equally viable definitions, mine just happens to have roots in the actual definition of the word casual.) And, by the fact that casual players aren’t devoted to any one game, they will have no problem moving from game to game. So, because GW2 appeals to casual players more than other players, it is logical to assume that the longevity of the game can be effected by casual players moving on to other games or growing tired of GW2 and easily being able to stop playing.

All your arguments about money and revenue and blah blah blah all don’t matter, because when the game dies, the game dies. It doesn’t matter how many people bought it.

clay.7849:

Why another thread about stuff that we know nothing about. Companies that aren’t doing well hire all the time. Companies that are doing well, lay off people and continue to watch profits skyrocket. We don’t and won’t know the numbers about this game unless ANet wants to tell us. For every argument in this regard, there is a counter-argument.

Actually that’s true for most companies, but it’s not true for MMOs. Think about this for one second. If an MMO isn’t doing well, hiring more staff isn’t going to make it do better. I’ve used as an example the last two MMOs that “performed below expectations” according to what’s said in business journals who follow them. There are articles you can look up if you’re interested.

Every single MMO has certain expectations when it launches. If it performs below those expectations, which are based in part at least on the money spent to bring it to market, then they’ll have to restructure the staff. It’s just logical. If you can’t afford to pay staff on your income, the money has to come from somewhere.

In the case of SWToR, there was an expectation based on Bioware having a certain amount of renown and TSW appealing to more than the niche market it has found. Of the two TSW probably deserved the success more.

Further, how Guild Wars 2 is doing is a matter of public record. If you care to do even the smallest amount of research, you could look up the NCsoft quarterly report that they provide to their stockholders. While Blade and Soul under-performed, Guild Wars 2 was NCSoft’s most profitable game by far. And that’s without even revealing what the cash shop makes.

One last thing. Based on speculation, Guild Wars 2 was predicted by a Korean company, the kind of company to set the expectations to sell 3.2 million copies in the first year of business. It hit the 3 million mark before the half year was up. We don’t know how much more it sold, but I’d be willing to wager that it’s hit the .2 by now, and that means it’s exceed the expectations which were quoted for it. This very likely makes it a successful game. Again this is all a matter of public record.

If an MMO, any MMO, under-performed, particularly after the amount of time and energy and money that goes into it, you don’t start hiring more people to make it perform better. You start to cut your losses, as other MMOs have done recently and in the past.

And we’re not even talking about hiring one or two specific people. They’re hiring artists and programmers…it’s too broad a spectrum of hiring to assume anything but that the game is doing well…surely well enough to hire more people to create content.

Anet has no games other than Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2. Are you seriously suggesting the money to pay the new people is coming from Guild Wars 1?

Nappychappy.7046:

Of course the game is doing well, Guild Wars 2 is the most seriously taken niche AAA mmorpg for the super casual, ever. This game is beautiful, has a simple UI and even more simple combat system.

As for why they are hiring, well, from what little I know about the company, I read somewhere that it is very small. What I do know is that ArenaNet is behind schedule on things they said would be in game shortly after release. Almost none of that is even being talked about all the while tiny bits of content is being released. In order to make ends meet in the game with new content and old they most likely need to expand the pay-roll.

My honest opinion is that casual is popular now, but slowly dying out. It is most definitely a way to make money quickly, but not a way to make a game last. Game developers will eventually exhaust the consumers with must have AAA games of the month. As amazing as this game is, it also takes a huge step backwards, and the more casuals that it caters to, the more advanced players it will eventually disappoint.

This game is very young, if it wasn’t doing well, we are all in trouble.

Casual dying out? What evidence do you have of this claim? Casual, if anything, is growing. Because the average age of the gamer is growing. People have families, jobs, responsibilities. They are more casual because there are more demands on their lives.

If anything I’d say the casual explosion will last for many many long years.

clay.7849:

^^

Nappyychappy hit the nail on the head, IMO.

The definition of “casual player” doesn’t lend itself to the kind of dedication and “stickiness” you need to make a game like an MMO live for a long time.

Based on what evidence. It’s funny because I could actually make an argument for the opposite. I’m old enough where I don’t really want to bounce back and forth between multiple games. I’d rather go further in a single game.

The older you are, the less you tend to “bounce around”. That’s a young person’s game. It’s an attention span thing too.

The younger generation grew up with youtube and the internet, but the older generation really hasn’t. It’s the younger generation that tends to game hop. I’m quite happy to buy one game and stick with it, because I don’t want to keep going out and buying more games. And this would be even more true of people who have less time to play. They’d play a game, get a tiny tiny bit done weekly and not run out of content. It’s not the older, more mature people who run out of content, I’m guessing. It’s the content locusts. The people who tend to be younger, and not have a family.

We have a wide range of people in my guild, from 17 up until people in their sixities. The people who are older don’t play MUCH fewer games and stay with the longer on the whole than the people in their teens and early twenties. So if the average age of a gamer now is over 30 (which apparently it is according to studies), there’s less reason for many of these people to run out and continually buy new games.

There’ll be exceptions of course, but I think older people will stay with something they like longer, on the whole and they’ll have a longer attention span.

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

^^

Nappyychappy hit the nail on the head, IMO.

The definition of “casual player” doesn’t lend itself to the kind of dedication and “stickiness” you need to make a game like an MMO live for a long time.

Except when you’re a casual MMO player, then it doesn’t matter what your contrived definition of “casual” is.

You don’t to be a hardcore gamer (read: lots of free time) to stick with an MMO.

Casual doesn’t mean “unskilled” or “idiot.” It just means you don’t have lots of free time.

I don’t think it means unskilled or idiot. I think it means not dedicated or devoted. In fact, that is what it means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casual

Casual players won’t show the kind of dedication or devotion to a game by the nature of the definition of casual. That has nothing to do with unskilled or idiot.

Please tell me again how my contrived definition of casual is not like the actual definition of casual?

You can’t use a dictionary definition to apply to a specific usage of the term. Casual vs. hard-core players does NOT use the standard industry definition of the term casual. In fact, you can’t really use a dictionary for any specialized term for any industry.

Mob is a perfect example. By dictionary definition a mob is a group of people, as in a lynch mob. It’s not a single individual, but in gaming parlance you can have a single mob. So what the dictionary says about casual is all but useless in this conversation. It’s one of the things editors learn early in their studies. You can’t look up everything in a dictionary because context matters.

A casual player in an MMO can have multiple definitions but it’s usually used to counter-point the word hard-core. In on one’s imagination can I be considered a hard-core player, but would you call me casual about the game? I wouldn’t. But to most people I’m a casual player. I’m not hard-core, I don’t compete. It’s just a different usage of the word.

Vayne.8563:

Nappychappy.7046:

Of course the game is doing well, Guild Wars 2 is the most seriously taken niche AAA mmorpg for the super casual, ever. This game is beautiful, has a simple UI and even more simple combat system.

As for why they are hiring, well, from what little I know about the company, I read somewhere that it is very small. What I do know is that ArenaNet is behind schedule on things they said would be in game shortly after release. Almost none of that is even being talked about all the while tiny bits of content is being released. In order to make ends meet in the game with new content and old they most likely need to expand the pay-roll.

My honest opinion is that casual is popular now, but slowly dying out. It is most definitely a way to make money quickly, but not a way to make a game last. Game developers will eventually exhaust the consumers with must have AAA games of the month. As amazing as this game is, it also takes a huge step backwards, and the more casuals that it caters to, the more advanced players it will eventually disappoint.

This game is very young, if it wasn’t doing well, we are all in trouble.

Casual dying out? What evidence do you have of this claim? Casual, if anything, is growing. Because the average age of the gamer is growing. People have families, jobs, responsibilities. They are more casual because there are more demands on their lives.

If anything I’d say the casual explosion will last for many many long years.

Based on what? Just like you don’t like my opinion, your opinion is just as right or wrong.

Vayne.8563:

clay.7849:

^^

Nappyychappy hit the nail on the head, IMO.

The definition of “casual player” doesn’t lend itself to the kind of dedication and “stickiness” you need to make a game like an MMO live for a long time.

Based on what evidence. It’s funny because I could actually make an argument for the opposite. I’m old enough where I don’t really want to bounce back and forth between multiple games. I’d rather go further in a single game.

The older you are, the less you tend to “bounce around”. That’s a young person’s game. It’s an attention span thing too.

The younger generation grew up with youtube and the internet, but the older generation really hasn’t. It’s the younger generation that tends to game hop. I’m quite happy to buy one game and stick with it, because I don’t want to keep going out and buying more games. And this would be even more true of people who have less time to play. They’d play a game, get a tiny tiny bit done weekly and not run out of content. It’s not the older, more mature people who run out of content, I’m guessing. It’s the content locusts. The people who tend to be younger, and not have a family.

We have a wide range of people in my guild, from 17 up until people in their sixities. The people who are older don’t play MUCH fewer games and stay with the longer on the whole than the people in their teens and early twenties. So if the average age of a gamer now is over 30 (which apparently it is according to studies), there’s less reason for many of these people to run out and continually buy new games.

There’ll be exceptions of course, but I think older people will stay with something they like longer, on the whole and they’ll have a longer attention span.

Oh yea, there are so many “older” people playing video games. Keep in mind I’m in my thirties, so when you talk about the people that didn’t grow up with the internet, it is over the age of 40.

Everyone I know that is 50 and over think video games are for little kids.

So, if you think that your generation is some great target for video games, especially something as complex as MMO’s, compared to say, Wii bowling, then go ahead and think that is some untapped gold mine. I’ll be over here laughing.

But, the only thing you keep saying is that my opinion is wrong and your opinion is right. Guess what, they are both opinions. You don’t like mine, and I don’t like yours. Neither is right or wrong until we find out. Which, by the way, I would think the population of this game after Xmas 2013 is a good indicator of how well this game is doing, but again, that is just my opinion.

clay.7849:

Hawkian.6580:

It’s also a particularly silly argument because (unlike a subscription model) prolonged playtime is not explicitly linked to revenue. All ArenaNet expects from any given account holder is that they paid retail or discounted-retail price for the product. Economically speaking it matters almost none at all that the existing casuals keep playing long-term if new casuals are buying copies and replacing them (even if they, in turn, don’t stick with the game that long).

Dedication and “stickiness” will come from a devoted community alongside a stable playerbase in numerical terms. The second half doesn’t have to come from the same group of people sticking with the game forever.

By the way I’m going to try to stop saying “casuals” from now on, it’s starting to feel like a slur. :P

Your post assumes that there is an infinite amount of players willing to continue to buy the game. I really don’t think that is true.

The longevity of players playing the game is linked to revenue from people who want to buy expansions, to continued cash shop purchases, to getting friends to buy the game to play along with.

The sales of this game will continue to fall until the next expansion. That is the nature of the game. Longevity does drive revenue. I never thought that would actually be something questionable.

You don’t need an infinite amount of people willing to buy the game. You just need a steady stream of people, which is not infinite. As the game goes on, and more and more people discover it, they tend to bring more and more people in. The original group playing may have mostly left for all I know, but new people came in. But here’s the deal.

Part of the stickiness of any game is the amount of content. At launch this game has less content than it did now. Arguably, a lot of people left the game in November over the whole vertical progression issue. That’s not going to happen again, because people buying the game after the fact aren’t buying it due to a lack of vertical progression. Certainly they’re not hard-core about not having it. They’re just buying a new game.

These people have a better chance of sticking with it, not just because they weren’t so invested in the first place that they could feel betrayed, but because the amount of content available to them at this point is greater than at launch and will continue to become greater. It’s a waiting game. This is what Rift did.

Rift had a pretty good launch but not much to do over all. Two starting zones. Six races, but most of them were human or elf. Small zones and not enough of them. One raid. People ran out of stuff to do and left. They ran sales and promoted. More people bought the game. Rift is doing fine right now. They have a stable population because the gamer is stickier now than it was when I played it. Most of the people who played it early on ran out of stuff to do they wanted to do. Some stayed, but many many left. And the game is doing fine.

Guild Wars 2 did the same thing. Released too early. Had to fix bugs. Put out some new content. As they move forward and the biggest of the catch up projects are done (guesting, culling etc), then they can produce even more content. More things for people to do who are just starting. They won’t run out of stuff as fast.

So yeah, I think the stickiness of a game like this will increase over time.

Vayne.8563:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

^^

Nappyychappy hit the nail on the head, IMO.

The definition of “casual player” doesn’t lend itself to the kind of dedication and “stickiness” you need to make a game like an MMO live for a long time.

Except when you’re a casual MMO player, then it doesn’t matter what your contrived definition of “casual” is.

You don’t to be a hardcore gamer (read: lots of free time) to stick with an MMO.

Casual doesn’t mean “unskilled” or “idiot.” It just means you don’t have lots of free time.

I don’t think it means unskilled or idiot. I think it means not dedicated or devoted. In fact, that is what it means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casual

Casual players won’t show the kind of dedication or devotion to a game by the nature of the definition of casual. That has nothing to do with unskilled or idiot.

Please tell me again how my contrived definition of casual is not like the actual definition of casual?

You can’t use a dictionary definition to apply to a specific usage of the term. Casual vs. hard-core players does NOT use the standard industry definition of the term casual. In fact, you can’t really use a dictionary for any specialized term for any industry.

Mob is a perfect example. By dictionary definition a mob is a group of people, as in a lynch mob. It’s not a single individual, but in gaming parlance you can have a single mob. So what the dictionary says about casual is all but useless in this conversation. It’s one of the things editors learn early in their studies. You can’t look up everything in a dictionary because context matters.

A casual player in an MMO can have multiple definitions but it’s usually used to counter-point the word hard-core. In on one’s imagination can I be considered a hard-core player, but would you call me casual about the game? I wouldn’t. But to most people I’m a casual player. I’m not hard-core, I don’t compete. It’s just a different usage of the word.

Ah, yes, you tell me that my definition is wrong, yet fail to provide anything that proves that my definition is wrong. Instead you opt to use really poor analogies.

Vayne.8563:

clay.7849:

Why another thread about stuff that we know nothing about. Companies that aren’t doing well hire all the time. Companies that are doing well, lay off people and continue to watch profits skyrocket. We don’t and won’t know the numbers about this game unless ANet wants to tell us. For every argument in this regard, there is a counter-argument.

Actually that’s true for most companies, but it’s not true for MMOs. Think about this for one second. If an MMO isn’t doing well, hiring more staff isn’t going to make it do better. I’ve used as an example the last two MMOs that “performed below expectations” according to what’s said in business journals who follow them. There are articles you can look up if you’re interested.

Every single MMO has certain expectations when it launches. If it performs below those expectations, which are based in part at least on the money spent to bring it to market, then they’ll have to restructure the staff. It’s just logical. If you can’t afford to pay staff on your income, the money has to come from somewhere.

In the case of SWToR, there was an expectation based on Bioware having a certain amount of renown and TSW appealing to more than the niche market it has found. Of the two TSW probably deserved the success more.

Further, how Guild Wars 2 is doing is a matter of public record. If you care to do even the smallest amount of research, you could look up the NCsoft quarterly report that they provide to their stockholders. While Blade and Soul under-performed, Guild Wars 2 was NCSoft’s most profitable game by far. And that’s without even revealing what the cash shop makes.

One last thing. Based on speculation, Guild Wars 2 was predicted by a Korean company, the kind of company to set the expectations to sell 3.2 million copies in the first year of business. It hit the 3 million mark before the half year was up. We don’t know how much more it sold, but I’d be willing to wager that it’s hit the .2 by now, and that means it’s exceed the expectations which were quoted for it. This very likely makes it a successful game. Again this is all a matter of public record.

If an MMO, any MMO, under-performed, particularly after the amount of time and energy and money that goes into it, you don’t start hiring more people to make it perform better. You start to cut your losses, as other MMOs have done recently and in the past.

And we’re not even talking about hiring one or two specific people. They’re hiring artists and programmers…it’s too broad a spectrum of hiring to assume anything but that the game is doing well…surely well enough to hire more people to create content.

Anet has no games other than Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2. Are you seriously suggesting the money to pay the new people is coming from Guild Wars 1?

Oh yea, NCSoft is doing so well on the coattails of GW2. It has just lost over 50% of its value in the last year and a half.

And, how do you know those jobs are getting filled? How do you know that they didn’t let people go that we incompetent and need to fill their positions, thus netting no new jobs?

Thanks for pointless fact finding that means nothing.

It’s funny how when someone uses the same kind of bad logic to point to the game failing, they are wearing a tin foil hat. But, when a fanboy uses bad logic to point to the game doing well – it must be true.

The same company that projected GW2 to hit 3 million sales, is the same company that predicted that GW2 was going to have an expansion by Q3 of this year. It was also the same company that recently said that hardcore games are the way of the future in their most recent NCSoft company review.

I have looked at the financial statements, and they aren’t that telling. You can’t base the success of a game after good intial sales when the majority of those sales rode on the coattails of the success of its previous game Furthermore, you can’t even say the game is successful unless you think that 3 million is all that the developers looked to sell. From what everyone keeps telling me, this game is intended to do much better than GW1 did. So, until it reaches 6-7 million in sales, it can’t even hold a candle to its predecessor which it is supposed to blow away.