Hope is the carrot dangled before the draft horse that plods along in the vain attempt to reach it
What if the Manifesto is just wrong?
they never said they would never add it either so that argument can go both ways. wow theres vertical progression omg worlds going to end because someone has better gear then i do. i really dont care about having the best gear if im HAVING FUN.
“Here’s what we believe: If someone wants to play for a thousand hours to get an item that is so rare that other players can’t realistically acquire it, that rare item should be differentiated by its visual appearance and rarity alone, not by being more powerful than everything else in the game. Otherwise, your MMO becomes all about grinding to get the best gear. We don’t make grindy games — we leave the grind to other MMOs.”
-Mike Obrien, President of Arenanet
Is Ascended gear more powerful than exotics ?
Yes.
Is Ascended gear rarer than exotic gear ?
Yes.
Is Ascended gear rare enough that some players can’t " realistically acquire it," ?
Everything I’ve seen says yes.So it is exactly the kind of gear the manifesto promised wouldn’t be included.
using that arguement, you can also argue legendaries are “unrealistic to get” yet i dont see anyone being mad over that
Legendary weapons don’t come with any stat improvements. Meaning they are exactly what ANET promised in the manifesto: Items that are " differentiated by its visual appearance and rarity alone"
snip
My biggest question to you is what’s the point?
Whatever their intentions were with the manifesto, they turned around and gave us something different almost immediately in an MMO’s time frame. I’m sorry, but this is not something a rational consumer is going to deal with. Maybe you have a lot of money to spend and don’t mind when you get a game that not just fails to deliver but actively lies and does so in such a way that you couldn’t have waited for later reviews to find out. But we might actually value our money.
I’ve wondered this too. This whole controversy has made me re-read the manifesto and really critically look at the game and I think if you really look at it objectively— they didn’t make it. Not anywhere close. GW2, even without the lost shores patch, does not match what they laid out in the manifesto on multiple fronts.
What’s important at the end of the day is that the game is fun. The reality may be that creating an mmo that follows the principles of their manifesto religiously just isn’t feasible.
I just really want more communication from them. Before the game came out they were releasing really detailed blog posts stating their philosophy and giving examples of how that translated into their actual game design. I wish that would continue, instead of a few paragraphs briefly going over what a new system is.
“Please find my dear friends… Dead or Alive” -redmakoto
They have had a game out for 7 years based on the “no gear progression” tenet in the manifesto. They know how many bought that game and played that game. So Arenanet has real internal statistics to not only tell them if there is a market for their manifesto but also the potential revenue.
Now after a few years of seeing a certain type of customer buying into the “no gear progression” approach, they decide to make a new product. A new product, GW2, based on this same principle. That means that their stats proved there is a market for horizontal progression based MMO.
Many people who bought the game read the box or feature list. They knew about no raiding, no end game, no gear progression. The huge box sales are further proof that people liked the concept.
Before you say, how do you know? Because there was tons of internet information about it. If you are the type of buyer who does no research on a product before buying, it is your fault when you find it does not have certain features. Don’t bother complaining about things that the product lacks when the seller clearly said it would not contain those features.
It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of having reasonable financial forecasts based on 7 years of historical data. It is a matter of not overhauling your entire design philosophy after your product has been out for only 3 months. Quality CFOs and Marketing executives would be shocked at what they have just done. This is not a small change or tweak. It is a complete redesign of their product within a short timeframe. And worse, it is product that by their own admission, has exceeded their box sales projections.
Their only other source of on-going revenue right now is the cash shop. If there is concern about low purchases in that, figure out ways to get people to buy (new items, promotions, etc).
What does adding a gear treadmill have to do with cash shop purchases? What proof do they have that those people will buy anything in the store? They can not use GW1 cash shop statistics as an indicator because that game was based on horizontal progression. What is their data that supports such an assumption?
They have cannibalized their product. Within 4-6 months, they will see the financial impact of that decision. If they were right and paying customers dig the change, then it may work out. If they were wrong, it is over. Many who bought the original product feel betrayed and will not come back. Many who were singing their original product’s praises will no longer recommend it to friends/family. Brand loyalty is a valid concept in marketing. They have just tarnished their brand. It is difficult to recover once that has happened.
annnnd, you are wrong by trying to represent everyone who has bought the game not wanting an endgame. there is no way you can even say that. these forums are a small percentage of the entire game population. so thats a very odd theory.
Legendary weapons don’t come with any stat improvements. Meaning they are exactly what ANET promised in the manifesto: Items that are " differentiated by its visual appearance and rarity alone"
Right now they don’t, but soon they will have best stats. If you want proof, dig thru forums and look at the screenshots of the buffed legendaries that mistakenly got buffed when patch first went live. Since they can have any sigil, they will be superior to even Ascended which have only have a infusion slot. Thus legendaries a) become the best b) mandatory.
Time to whip out the ol credit card, eh?
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
“I think that players are starting to mature past the point of wanting to be on that
treadmill, of being in that obvious pattern of every time I catch up you are going to
put another carrot in front of me” – Mike O’Brien right before Ascended weapons
treadmill, of being in that obvious pattern of every time I catch up you are going to
put another carrot in front of me” – Mike O’Brien right before Ascended weapons
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
persistant world.
I was happy without vertical progression at level cap, and in fact I would not have minded if I had been handed level 80 gear with whatever stats I wanted on them for use in WvW and/or PVE. I would have liked that just fine.
However, other players may feel differently. If the vast majority of MMO players prefer vertical progression that is what they’re going to get from any devs/publishers intent on maximizing player base rather than carving out a niche.
Which doesn’t mean it’s smart to trade a niche market for a broader one. Sometimes that works, sometimes it fails horribly.
It also doesn’t mean those of us who are unhappy about Ascended gear are wrong, but we might be in the minority.
Which still leaves plenty of room to quibble about the method of this progression. Narrowing it to dungeons was, in my opinion, mistake #1. Tying gold to it, well, the less said about that the better. I was never in favor of gems for gold, so anything that is going to cost me in this game to progress makes me very, very unhappy.
“…we don’t expect you to be forced into dungeons at endgame.”
~ArenaNet
~ArenaNet
It worked for seven years in Guild Wars. It was working in Guild Wars 2.
They went back on their manifesto. They lied.
Many people who bought the game read the box or feature list.
Does anyone have the box art ?
I have been suggesting people check out their local consumer protection laws to see if there is anything that they can hit ANET with. Problem is I’m in New Zealand, so I doubt my local laws have any power over an internet purchase.
But if it’s on the boxes, then that means it becomes false advertising that my local authorities can take action on.
It also shows how Steam has affected my buying habits that I didn’t even think of checking a box, because I’ve been buying games online for years.
they didnt lie they want to do more with the game
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
persistant world.
And a persistent world has literally nothing to do with gear grind, so this whole “GW1 was not an MMO” semantics insane argument has no bearing whatsoever without the reality of the discussion.
To the people who are saying “I didn’t buy this game to grind dungeons I just wanted to stroll about in the world and do my thing and enjoy dynamic events la la la”…
Are you actually doing that? Are you actually going back to zones and re-experiencing the events and the world? Or is this just an ideal that you wish you could do, but never actually could get yourself to do?
Yes I am and did. You can search on my name for old posts. About a month ago, I stated that I was finished with my personal story. I decided to roleplay returning home to Divinity’s Reach. As a part of that, I was going to go back to all the zones I went in to get to Orr. I did that right before the Halloween event. Then that came around. I did the Halloween stuff but also stayed in those zones to do more DEs and group events. Now with Lost Shores, I am re-exploring Kessex Hills.
I actually like their content and don’t mind playing it again. Yes, I get less Karma than Cursed Shore but my approach is making it not feel like a grind (i.e. not doing the same thing over and over). I had planned to work on my map completion next. But now with this change in product, I have not decided how long I will play.
Can you feel it? HOT HOT HOT
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
persistant world.
And a persistent world has literally nothing to do with gear grind, so this whole “GW1 was not an MMO” semantics insane argument has no bearing whatsoever without the reality of the discussion.
new dungeon is completely optional. spvp cant use pve gear. pretty sure the game isnt a gear grind.
First they got the money of the “stupid casuals” and the even “more stupid” GW1 veterans and now they are trieing to get the money from WoW kiddies. thats the point
actually no, theyre just improving the game.
Many people who bought the game read the box or feature list.
Does anyone have the box art ?
I have been suggesting people check out their local consumer protection laws to see if there is anything that they can hit ANET with. Problem is I’m in New Zealand, so I doubt my local laws have any power over an internet purchase.
But if it’s on the boxes, then that means it becomes false advertising that my local authorities can take action on.
It also shows how Steam has affected my buying habits that I didn’t even think of checking a box, because I’ve been buying games online for years.
i hope this is a joke.
Different countries have different laws concerning these things so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s right in the country he lives in. In the US or most of Europe you’re SOL tho.
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
persistant world.
If GW1 did not have gear progression and the only reason why it was not a MMO is the lack of a persistant world, wouldn’t it mean that a game just like GW1 but with a persistant world would basically be a MMO without gear progression?
“I think that players are starting to mature past the point of wanting to be on that
treadmill, of being in that obvious pattern of every time I catch up you are going to
put another carrot in front of me” – Mike O’Brien right before Ascended weapons
treadmill, of being in that obvious pattern of every time I catch up you are going to
put another carrot in front of me” – Mike O’Brien right before Ascended weapons
Many people who bought the game read the box or feature list.
Does anyone have the box art ?
I have been suggesting people check out their local consumer protection laws to see if there is anything that they can hit ANET with. Problem is I’m in New Zealand, so I doubt my local laws have any power over an internet purchase.
But if it’s on the boxes, then that means it becomes false advertising that my local authorities can take action on.
It also shows how Steam has affected my buying habits that I didn’t even think of checking a box, because I’ve been buying games online for years.
i hope this is a joke.
Different countries have different laws concerning these things so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s right in the country he lives in. In the US or most of Europe you’re SOL tho.
but they didnt falsely advertise anything. its a completely optional dungeon, just like world vs world and structred pvp is completely optional. i mean COME ON
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
persistant world.
And a persistent world has literally nothing to do with gear grind, so this whole “GW1 was not an MMO” semantics insane argument has no bearing whatsoever without the reality of the discussion.
new dungeon is completely optional. spvp cant use pve gear. pretty sure the game isnt a gear grind.
AND same with GW1. It had completely optinoal dungeons, pvp didn’t use pve gear. So what does a persistent world and whether it was really a “true” MMO have anything to do with the manifesto being improbable? It worked in GW1, GW2 was designed around it, and they just lied. Boom.
And by your logic the entire game is optional. You’re just spouting nonsense words.
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
persistant world.
If GW1 did not have gear progression and the only reason why it was not a MMO is the lack of a persistant world, wouldn’t it mean that a game just like GW1 but with a persistant world would basically be a MMO without gear progression?
thats why this is guild wars 2 and not guild wars 1.
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
game is gw2 not gw1. boom
persistant world.And a persistent world has literally nothing to do with gear grind, so this whole “GW1 was not an MMO” semantics insane argument has no bearing whatsoever without the reality of the discussion.
new dungeon is completely optional. spvp cant use pve gear. pretty sure the game isnt a gear grind.
AND same with GW1. It had completely optinoal dungeons, pvp didn’t use pve gear. So what does a persistent world and whether it was really a “true” MMO have anything to do with the manifesto being improbable? It worked in GW1, GW2 was designed around it, and they just lied. Boom.
And by your logic the entire game is optional. You’re just spouting nonsense words.
no its just common sense. dont like the new dungeon? dont do it. lol
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Why?
Not in the “Because ArenaNet said it isn’t one” meaning, but rather, what features does GW1 have, or what features is the game missing, that makes you claim it is not a MMO?
persistant world.
If GW1 did not have gear progression and the only reason why it was not a MMO is the lack of a persistant world, wouldn’t it mean that a game just like GW1 but with a persistant world would basically be a MMO without gear progression?
thats why this is guild wars 2 and not guild wars 1.
Regardless, doesn’t this prove how yes, it’s possible to make a MMO without gear progression, thus the OP’s point about the Manifesto being wrong is false?
“I think that players are starting to mature past the point of wanting to be on that
treadmill, of being in that obvious pattern of every time I catch up you are going to
put another carrot in front of me” – Mike O’Brien right before Ascended weapons
treadmill, of being in that obvious pattern of every time I catch up you are going to
put another carrot in front of me” – Mike O’Brien right before Ascended weapons
I was happy without vertical progression at level cap, and in fact I would not have minded if I had been handed level 80 gear with whatever stats I wanted on them for use in WvW and/or PVE. I would have liked that just fine.
However, other players may feel differently. If the vast majority of MMO players prefer vertical progression that is what they’re going to get from any devs/publishers intent on maximizing player base rather than carving out a niche.
Which doesn’t mean it’s smart to trade a niche market for a broader one. Sometimes that works, sometimes it fails horribly.
It also doesn’t mean those of us who are unhappy about Ascended gear are wrong, but we might be in the minority.
Which still leaves plenty of room to quibble about the method of this progression. Narrowing it to dungeons was, in my opinion, mistake #1. Tying gold to it, well, the less said about that the better. I was never in favor of gems for gold, so anything that is going to cost me in this game to progress makes me very, very unhappy.
I argue against this as you’re citing a relatively recent trend in MMO history. WoW is not the only game that has ever existed, I think the GW1 people would agree with me on that. I’m a person who’s played UO/EQ/AC/WoW/RO and a slew of others, tried GW1 but in WoW’s prime it just didn’t thrill me.
Carrots on sticks are nice, but they dont keep players. Throwing endless easy challenges that reward +2 awesome instead of +1 awesome do not keep players in a game. The key to the gear grind in MMOs was the appearance and exclusivity, what makes the hat of +2 awesome better then the hat of +1 awesome was that it showed off how good I was at the game and was something others didnt have. It’s why players will pay for a sparkling flying horse that adds no functionality but to an extent looks neat.
Gear progression is neat, but it doesnt really add to the game, nor does it keep players playing. There are countless more enjoyable and better carrots on sticks that will encourage more people to play then a gear progression system. I will say firmly that PvP should never, in anyway have a gear based progression system.
However, other players may feel differently. If the vast majority of MMO players prefer vertical progression that is what they’re going to get from any devs/publishers intent on maximizing player base rather than carving out a niche.
Which doesn’t mean it’s smart to trade a niche market for a broader one. Sometimes that works, sometimes it fails horribly.
The broad market for MMOs has been WoW. Every attempt I’ve seen for someone to take WoW’s market has failed.
In fact, when I look at MMO subscription numbers I notice that all the games it tracks are in decline, with two exceptions:
– Eve Online. An MMO older than WoW that is targeted for a Niche audience. It’s still growing.
– WoW. The Panda expansion did up it’s numbers, but the charts are out of date and don’t show the effect.
So trying to attack WoW head on looks like a bad idea. The only other MMO I know is still growing is one that will never attract the WoW audience.
(edited by Snoring Sleepwalker.9073)
Legendary weapons don’t come with any stat improvements. Meaning they are exactly what ANET promised in the manifesto: Items that are " differentiated by its visual appearance and rarity alone"
Right now they don’t, but soon they will have best stats. If you want proof, dig thru forums and look at the screenshots of the buffed legendaries that mistakenly got buffed when patch first went live. Since they can have any sigil, they will be superior to even Ascended which have only have a infusion slot. Thus legendaries a) become the best b) mandatory.
Time to whip out the ol credit card, eh?
True. But that change is a result of Ascended items. If there were no Ascended items, there would be no stat change to Legendary weapons.
Even after the change, Legendary weapons are still no better stat-wise than Ascended weapons. So the manifesto would still hold regarding them.
annnnd, you are wrong by trying to represent everyone who has bought the game not wanting an endgame. there is no way you can even say that. these forums are a small percentage of the entire game population. so thats a very odd theory.
Sorry but unless you were a buyer that did no homework before buying this game, you knew there were no raids or end game. I read articles, interviews and gaming site forum posts that talked about this. Also, Arenanet created a video that said there is no end game. Their soundbyte was “anything you can do at lvl 1, you can do at lvl 80.” This video was shown on many sites besides Arenanet’s.
That is one of the main reasons I bought this game. People knew. Some people said they would not buy it because it did not have “raids” or “end game” or “gear progression.” That means they knew it. You can google now on those words and GW2. See how many results come up that address this. Finally, Arenanet has been saying this for years not just months. So again, if you bought this game expecting the typical gear progression, you did not exercise due diligence.
Can you feel it? HOT HOT HOT
They did the interviews advertising this as a new kind of mmo, for people who don’t like grinding etc. They came out with it, it was their idea and their vision.
The people who quote the manifesto became interested because they were touting all these features they were implementing and because it was unique.
Sometimes it sounds like people think we forced Anet’s hand in to making something they didn’t want. The manifesto was made by A-net to promote and market their game and interest potential customers.
So after 2 months, when they backtrack on this manifesto, I do think the customers invested in the product should get a few reasons on what on earth happened to their own philosophy.
“Otherwise, your MMO becomes all about grinding to get the best gear. We don’t make grindy games.”
-Mike Obrien, President of Arenanet
-Mike Obrien, President of Arenanet
@Hawkmoon:
While it’s true that a manifesto can be likened to a philosophy and not a business plan, I think people are missing the bigger problem. The problem was not necessarily that ANet deviated from the manifesto; the problem is that they did so, and then chose to not tell anyone about it.
I absolutely agree with you. Trust is a form of player capital that is incredibly hard to regain once lost. The thing is, the basis of my original post is not to make a judgement call about whether or not going back on their manifesto is a good thing or a bad thing. Because there are a billion threads on that subject.
My basic argument is that the manifesto doesn’t work. It doesn’t describe an MMO. It describes an amazing game, one I’d very much like to play, but Guild Wars 2 is fundamentally designed to resemble an MMORPG in so many ways that it’s not surprising that gear progression becomes part of the equation.
It’s not that it’s okay for ANet to break away from their manifesto (it’s really not okay), but that their manifesto is unrealistic vis a vis the game they actually created, even before Ascended armor became an issue.
@Greep
My biggest question to you is what’s the point?
The point of my thread? I’m trying to figure out the underlying cause to all the outrage, with which I sympathize. People say they’re upset because ANet went back on their manifesto. I’m trying to advance a different idea: the manifesto was wrong because it never reflected the kind of game ANet made in the first place. The inclusion of Ascended gear is less shocking that way, and seems more inevitable, if that makes sense.
@Wasselin
I’ve wondered this too. This whole controversy has made me re-read the manifesto and really critically look at the game and I think if you really look at it objectively— they didn’t make it. Not anywhere close. GW2, even without the lost shores patch, does not match what they laid out in the manifesto on multiple fronts.
See, this is exactly how I feel. It’s not that ANet had been following their manifesto up until the Lost Shores patch. It’s that the manifesto just didn’t work. It didn’t at all reflect the kind of game they were trying to make. MMOs have, among other things, gear progression. It’s how MMOs work. If GW2 were to follow the ArenaNet manifesto, then GW2 ought not have resembled an MMO as closely as it did.
@Greep
The point of my thread? I’m trying to figure out the underlying cause to all the outrage, with which I sympathize. People say they’re upset because ANet went back on their manifesto. I’m trying to advance a different idea: the manifesto was wrong because it never reflected the kind of game ANet made in the first place. The inclusion of Ascended gear is less shocking that way, and seems more inevitable, if that makes sense.
.
Yes, I know that. Could you respond to my post though? I’m saying, who cares whether it was what they planned. I bought a game that was falsely advertised, hence I was pissed. I bought it with money I could have used elsewhere, and I am not rich. I do not care about their failed good intentions, they are a company and a business and I expect results and not lies.
i really dont understand the hate. wow they introduced a new tier of gear and a amazing dungeon that all players can participate in…so what? grow up. obviously they thought they can do more with the game. is it gear progression? no. is it fun? hell yes. best new dungeon hands down. stop being so negative. my god. “OMG MANIFESTO MANIFESTO MANIFESTO” Hey guess what? things change. welcome to reality.
How in any way is being falsely advertised to acceptable?
Somehow I can’t imagine that many of the people saying it is just a change, it’s fine, would have the same attitude if it was a change they didn’t like and was in direct opposition to what Anet had sold the game on, say introducing open world PvP on every server.
(edited by Sylosi.6503)
@Hydrophidian:
I’ve played a lot of MMORPGs over the years. I’m not discounting what you say, but my experience has been more or less consistent with my claim that gear progression is a defining element of the MMORPG. If you have any examples of games that refute this point, please let me know. This isn’t sarcasm—it is a sincere request.
If you put aside text-based environments, I cut my teeth on Ultima Online. You might want to also look into the history of Dark Age of Camelot, Anarchy Online and City of Heroes. You can also check out current games such as The Secret World and Star Trek Online. Really… you don’t have to look very far for alternative spins on gear progression, or no progression at all. Which says to me you haven’t actually tried.
You can say it’s a defining attribute of the conventional model, as it exists today. But it’s never been essential to the genre itself.
Also, I’m not saying that GW1 wasn’t successful. I played and loved GW1. I’m saying it wasn’t an MMO.
Oh my freakin’ head. I can’t believe I’m doing this again…
- Hosted, online game.
- Persistent environment (yes, I’m afraid the hubs count, sorry).
- Thousands of concurrent users.
It’s an MMO. The industry considers it an MMO. The game’s website includes it in the MMO genre right in its gameplay description. Game journalists have referred to it as an MMO (even an MMORPG) in reveiws, and the company has quoted those reviews in the game’s advertising. The game’s distributor publishes essentially nothing but MMOs: Aion, Lineage II, Blade & Soul, Guildwars 2, City of Heroes and… Guild Wars. Detecting a pattern, maybe?
The only people trying to say it isn’t an MMO are the people trying to dismiss it from their vertical gear progression argument, because it disproves the assertion that such progression is necessary. It’s a completely nonsensical position. And you want to be taken seriously?
“CORPG” was a marketing gimmick. Even if you accept the label as something meaningful, it’s never put Guild Wars outside the MMO category. It was an attempt to distinguish it from subgenre convention. That’s it.
Anybody slinging the ‘Guild Wars is not an MMO’ line is just being intellectually dishonest, or doesn’t understand the distinction between genre and subgenre.
And with that, I can’t take this anymore. Time to go play for a little bit.
(edited by Hydrophidian.4319)
Eveningstar:
I don’t think the discussion can really develop much further than this. You seem adamant that an MMO cannot exist without vertical progression.
This is what GW2 was promoted as. It is what GW1 currently still adheres to.
Unless you can explain why it is impossible for GW2 to follow the same pattern as GW1 and Anet’s own vision, how much more can we say about this?
“Otherwise, your MMO becomes all about grinding to get the best gear. We don’t make grindy games.”
-Mike Obrien, President of Arenanet
-Mike Obrien, President of Arenanet
Often times in games I see things like: game play subject to change (etc). If they have something like that in their EULA I guess then can do whatever they want…and dont have to give a refund or can be sued for changing the initial product. Just came to mind as I was reading this thread.
I was happy without vertical progression at level cap, and in fact I would not have minded if I had been handed level 80 gear with whatever stats I wanted on them for use in WvW and/or PVE. I would have liked that just fine.
However, other players may feel differently. If the vast majority of MMO players prefer vertical progression that is what they’re going to get from any devs/publishers intent on maximizing player base rather than carving out a niche.
Which doesn’t mean it’s smart to trade a niche market for a broader one. Sometimes that works, sometimes it fails horribly.
It also doesn’t mean those of us who are unhappy about Ascended gear are wrong, but we might be in the minority.
Which still leaves plenty of room to quibble about the method of this progression. Narrowing it to dungeons was, in my opinion, mistake #1. Tying gold to it, well, the less said about that the better. I was never in favor of gems for gold, so anything that is going to cost me in this game to progress makes me very, very unhappy.
I argue against this as you’re citing a relatively recent trend in MMO history. WoW is not the only game that has ever existed, I think the GW1 people would agree with me on that. I’m a person who’s played UO/EQ/AC/WoW/RO and a slew of others, tried GW1 but in WoW’s prime it just didn’t thrill me.
Carrots on sticks are nice, but they dont keep players. Throwing endless easy challenges that reward +2 awesome instead of +1 awesome do not keep players in a game. The key to the gear grind in MMOs was the appearance and exclusivity, what makes the hat of +2 awesome better then the hat of +1 awesome was that it showed off how good I was at the game and was something others didnt have. It’s why players will pay for a sparkling flying horse that adds no functionality but to an extent looks neat.
Gear progression is neat, but it doesnt really add to the game, nor does it keep players playing. There are countless more enjoyable and better carrots on sticks that will encourage more people to play then a gear progression system. I will say firmly that PvP should never, in anyway have a gear based progression system.
I really hope you’re right, but a lot of corporate psychologists have doubtless made their living giving advice on the Skinner Box method of keeping players around. Not just WoW, I’m sure, but WoW is the best known example.
However, a study did come out recently on how to keep gamers around. Here is part of their conclusions:
The study focused on two strategies of player retention. The first observed that player loyalty was increased when gamers were given more control and ownership of their in-game character. Sanders advises that one way to do this is to “provide equal opportunities for any character to win a battle.” The second strategy found that cooperation between fellow players through guilds helped to increase loyalty and social identity. Sanders urges developers to “build more selective or elaborate chat rooms and guild features to help players socialize.”
Source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120693-Research-Paper-Investigates-Gamer-Loyalty-to-MMOs
I wanted to quote this yesterday, but it has some vagueness that bothers me. Such as: “provide equal opportunities for any character to win a battle.”
I can imagine this having different meanings based on the questions they asked gamers and the responses they got. Gamers might have said things like, “Nerf thieves, I’m sick of losing to them so I’m quitting!” But they could have as easily said, “I don’t raid, and I’m tired of losing in PvP to people who do!” Maybe they said both of these things.
Also, it confirms what I’ve suspected for awhile, that gamers who join guilds and socialize a lot are more likely to stick around. Ironically, this new gear makes me even less willing to be social because I don’t want to compete with other players’ gear or measure up to their gear standards for pvp and pve teams. That’s not fun for me. Also, WvW was the most social I’ve ever been in any MMO, but being forced to team for loot and badges plus this new gear disparity has put an end to that.
Oh well, at least this study doesn’t seem to point to vertical progression at level cap as a means to keep players around. But did they really look into that or just factor it in as the MMO norm?
“…we don’t expect you to be forced into dungeons at endgame.”
~ArenaNet
~ArenaNet
Regarding 1)
I don’t believe that it’s wrong. I’ve made the argument a few times in the trashcan thread that getting caught up in What did ArenaNet really mean with the Manifesto or Are they actually breaking their word with it, or Can this fit the Manifesto within such-and-such interpretation style arguments is a massive red herring.
Simply, the issue of whether or not ArenaNet ‘lied’, or if people should be angry about them over a perceived betrayal is entirely separate from the issue of “Does this decision make Guild Wars 2 a better game?”
In the same breath, if these changes represent a conscious, deliberate shift in design ethos on the part of ArenaNet, then ArenaNet owes it to their player base to be communicative and open about this shift.
ArenaNet is not a fledgling indie studio, making newbie mistakes and launching failed initiatives because they’re exploring new space that they have no experience in. They are a large, triple-A development studio, who have had multi-million selling games in the Online RPG space, for seven and a half years. Guild Wars 2 represents their fifth boxed product launch, and this update is only the latest milestone in seven and a half years of post-release support and expansion.
Nobody owes ArenaNet the benefit of the doubt in this situation, and they have been extremely vague and evasive about responding to player concern ever since Ascended equipment was announced.
Regarding 2)
This isn’t a particularly persuasive argument, because We have absolutely no way of knowing this, and neither does ArenaNet.
Even if Guild Wars 2’s model would have eventually failed, it is absolutely, totally ridiculous to claim that anyone could have known that it would do so and prepared this update in response to it.
They didn’t start working on this update last week. It’s entirely possible that this was planned before the game even launched, meaning that it couldn’t have been in response to anything. But let’s assume that ArenaNet works extremely quickly, and that the scope of the update’s progression was started only a month ago. If that were the case, there would have been only two months of data to go on. That’s not enough to establish any sort of meaningful long-term trend, for anything as dire as ‘this model has failed’.
What metric would they even use? Player retention? Who’s to say that a player not logging on every day is necessary to the success of the model – maybe they’ll show up, play, complete all the ‘fresh’ content that they want, accomplish whatever goal milestone they were after, then log off until the next content update? Nothing about that implies that the game would have failed – in fact, it was a selling point of the game.
Boxed/Digital sales? There would have to be on precipitous drop-off for anyone to be able to scramble some sort of last-ditch turnaround initiative in the space of two months – and we’ve heard nothing but impressive sales milestones when it came to boxed copies, anyway.
Gem store purchases? Again, how would they know that Gems wouldn’t drop off as players completed old content, only to spike again when new content was released (This is pretty much exactly what happened during the Halloween event, and from a cursory glance at an exchange rate tracker, it’s happened again with this event, to a slightly lesser degree)? How would they know that the problem wasn’t simply that their gem-only purchase options weren’t good enough (Three combat-usable armour skins, one of which looks half-finished, all of which can only be used once, on one character for one set of armour), or didn’t offer enough value for money? How would they know that the number people buying gems to convert to gold wouldn’t drastically increase if the exchange rate was more favourable? How would they know that minipets wouldn’t be more popular if they were actually attainable in-game via other means? How would they know that Black Lion Chest Keys wouldn’t produce more revenue if they cost less than $1.50 each, or if Boosters wouldn’t be a more profitable option if you got enough of them for your money that you didn’t care about ‘wasting’ them?
And if the problem was just that people were completely losing interest – in the game, in gold sales, everything – in the entire concept of non-vertical progression, if they never tried actually adding sources of non-vertical progression? Player or guild housing with customization could potentially be a big draw. They never tried adding any new sources of horizontal progression to draw in progressionists – where’s the armour that holds new stat spreads, or multiple swappable stat spreads? Where’s the equipment that provides esoteric, novel new effects that are not straight upgrades of existing equipment? Where are new weapon types, or Utility/Healing/Elite skills?
They also didn’t experiment at all with localized vertical progression. If Agony and Infusion wasn’t such a dull, uninteresting kitten of a mechanic, but was actually something fleshed out and fun, they could easily have made Ascended equipment with the same base stats as Exotic equipment, but with Infusion mechanics that added a clear vertical upgrade path restricted to within that dungeon.
Frankly, we don’t know if an MMORPG can succeed and survive without vertical progression, because it’s never been tried before, and it still hasn’t been tried.
Regarding 3)
The only way for Vertical and Horizontal progression to exist together, in any meaningful capacity, is for one to subsume the other, or for both to be completely optional. Period.
If Vertical progression continues past the established maximum values of the game, then horizontal progression is meaningless. It doesn’t matter how many options I have, if all of them are weaker than the one that you have.
I can learn and perfect every fencing technique in the world, and it doesn’t matter if we get in a fight and you have a rifle.
You can be the best rifle crackshot in the world, and it won’t matter if I’m in a tank.
I can be an expert in all models, varieties, strategies, and tactics that involve tanks, but it doesn’t matter if you can drop bombs on me from higher than I can see or shoot back.
Your tactical bombers won’t help you at all if I have a nuclear arsenal that turns your entire continent to dust – and so on, and so forth.
And turning this back to the game: If I have eight classes and five viable builds on each one, that doesn’t matter if it’s going to take me hundreds of hours to max out power on each of those builds for each of those characters – I have to essentially stick to one build and one character and just keep stacking my blocks higher and higher to keep up.
For those very same reasons, if Horizontal progression is given precedence, then Vertical progression is meaningless. If all options are to be equal, then every option has to be capped at a very specific power level, so that balance between those levels can be fine-tuned. And the amount of time needed to achieve each equal option must be low enough that it is viable for one person to raise multiple characters, with multiple builds.
The only instances of Vertical progression that will not inherently ruin Horizontal progression are when Vertical progression is strictly and aggressively localized. For instance: Vertical progression in the game, pre-Ascended gear, was limited strictly to the 1-80, Whites-to-Exotics endurance run. After that point, any and all vertical progression on top of that is actively detracting from Horizontal progression. Continual, one-tier-after-another Vertical progression simply renders Horizontal progression meaningless, as in the fencing/rifle example, and creeping, one-time-only-we-swear Vertical progression will very quickly start to erode the Horizontal requirement that each equal option be attainable within a reasonable amount of time.
The only way for Horizontal and Vertical progression to coexist without stepping on each other’s toes is for each one to be totally and completely independent of the other. Making Horizontal progression optional is very, very easy: Simply don’t change your build, ever. Making Vertical progression optional requires more unorthodox methods: Every character would require a toggle that flips them between PvE/WvW character persistence/advancement, and an sPvP-style “everything is unlocked and available, get new things any time you want” mode – but that mode would have to be updated to be consistent with the highest strength/quality gear available, every time a new tier is added.
Add that option, so that I don’t ever have to participate in a gear/level grind again? Then yeah, absolutely I would be fine with a new tier of equipment any time people started getting bored of the old one.
The anti-grind part of the manifesto they got right… The no-holy-trinity part they got wrong. They correct the wrong aspect IMO.
To the people who are saying “I didn’t buy this game to grind dungeons I just wanted to stroll about in the world and do my thing and enjoy dynamic events la la la”…
Are you actually doing that? Are you actually going back to zones and re-experiencing the events and the world? Or is this just an ideal that you wish you could do, but never actually could get yourself to do?
Maybe this is why Anet is being flexible now with their original philosophy, because they see that despite their own ideals of having players go out into the world and just “having fun” people simply don’t do that anymore.
Yep. But not just that, also spvp, wvw, alts, crafting, helping friends, and so on. For me the fun doesn’t start until the character is DONE. The character isn’t done in most games ever, which is why I played GW1 and why I bought GW2. Anet set the bar as to where “done” was, and I slogged through 80 levels of ugh to get there, then did the dungeons for exotics and bought some weapons that I reskinned (seriously, instance weapons are a bit overpriced). Finally, character done, time to play! No more gear grind hanging over my head!
Oh well, not anymore.
It is a matter of not overhauling your entire design philosophy after your product has been out for only 3 months.
This patch didn’t just happen overnight. It was thought out, discussed, math was done, presentations and meetings, and so on. This was not pulled out of a hat. They’ve known about this for several months at least.
(edited by Shieldbreaker.4012)
@ Rejam and Hydrophidian:
I’m not adamant that MMORPGs can’t exist without vertical progression, as evident in the fact that I’m rethinking my position in light of the points Hydrophidian just brought up. This is the argument I’m taking, the position articulated in my original post. But if I were adamant about it, I wouldn’t be having this discussion with you.
If you put aside text-based environments, I cut my teeth on Ultima Online. You might want to also look into the history of Dark Age of Camelot, Anarchy Online and City of Heroes. You can also check out current games such as The Secret World and Star Trek Online. Really… you don’t have to look very far for alternative spins on gear progression, or no progression at all. Which says to me you haven’t actually tried.
I admit I actually don’t know much about Ultima or DAOC. I started online gaming with NWN (which remains my favorite game, but the subgenre to which it belonged seems to have disappeared). I have, however, played City of Heroes for years, and while CoH had a brilliant alternative to traditional gear progression, it did have a gear progression system—it was just abstract: enhancements, rather than equipment. And it did grow over time, especially with the introduction of the Incarnate system.
However, at this point I’d just be splitting hairs; I haven’t played Ultima or DAOC. If you say they’ve eschewed the vertical gear progression, then I’ll take your word for it. These are good counterpoints.
@Rejam
Unless you can explain why it is impossible for GW2 to follow the same pattern as GW1 and Anet’s own vision, how much more can we say about this?
It isn’t impossible. This is the big hole in my argument I just haven’t been able to mitigate yet. I’m arguing from a de facto definition of MMORPGs, which is to say: MMORPGs have gear progression systems. That’s how they’ve been done. We don’t have examples to the contrary, therefore MMOs are by definition games that have vertical progression.
Except as Hydro is pointing out, this isn’t necessarily true. It’s just mostly true given recent games. Since GW1 seems to be the big point of contention, let’s take a closer look at it.
“CORPG” was a marketing gimmick. Even if you except the label as something meaningful beyond that, it’s never put Guild Wars outside the MMO category. It was an attempt to distinguish it from subgenre convention. That’s it.
Anybody slinging the ‘Guild Wars is not an MMO’ line is just being intellectually dishonest, or doesn’t understand the distinction between genre and subgenre
My first response to this was: Why does “CORPG” have to be a marketing gimmick? Why can’t it be a valid description of GW1’s genre? Dismissing GW1 as a CORPG is as arbitrary as dismissing the term “CORPG” as a marketing gimmick. However…
Anybody slinging the ‘Guild Wars is not an MMO’ line is just being intellectually dishonest, or doesn’t understand the distinction between genre and subgenre.
You’re half-right. It’s not that I don’t understand the distinction between genre and subgenre—it’s that I hadn’t considered the distinction between genre and subgenre. If you’re willing to define Guild Wars as a sub-genre of the MMO, one which does away with certain tropes (including, but not limited to, gear progression), then you’ve made a perfectly valid argument.
Not considering subgenres was my mistake, and I admit to that. I don’t have a rebuttal for you. I want to expand the question, though, and this is a speculative question which will presumably have a speculative answer:
Shouldn’t it follow that, if GW2 were to actually fulfill the principles outlined in ArenaNet’s manifesto, it would resemble GW1 more closely? We have a game saddled with most of the tropes of a typical MMORPG: Quest hubs, a high level cap, even a talent tree system, or at least a close analogue. GW2 bends the tropes but never really breaks free, certainly not as radically as other games we’ve seen.
We can use City of Heroes as an example, since this is common ground for us. CoH almost completely did away with a traditional leveling system; its gear system was wholly abstract and directly improved abilities, rather than stats. Even the way you progressed in abilities was non-linear. Endgame wasn’t really a “thing,” and the game aggressively promoted having alts.
The game described in ArenaNet’s manifesto is a radical departure from the vein of a traditional MMORPG. Guild Wars 2, in practice, is not all that different from what we’ve seen recently. Consequently the inclusion of gear progression should seem almost inevitable.
And with that, I can’t take this anymore. Time to go play for a little bit.
I’m sorry if I offended you; it wasn’t my intention. I have to take a contrary position in order to have a meaningful argument. If you decide to come back, I hope you take me up on my responses, because your point on subgenres was well-taken.
Yes, I know that. Could you respond to my post though? I’m saying, who cares whether it was what they planned. I bought a game that was falsely advertised, hence I was pissed. I bought it with money I could have used elsewhere, and I am not rich. I do not care about their failed good intentions, they are a company and a business and I expect results and not lies.
I don’t know. I’m sorry; I don’t have a clear answer for you. I started the thread because I wanted to take a closer look at the manifesto, and what it means and whether it’s even realistic, rather than to express my indignation toward Ascended armor and everything it means.
If it matters at all, I do sympathize a lot with how you feel.
Yes, I know that. Could you respond to my post though? I’m saying, who cares whether it was what they planned. I bought a game that was falsely advertised, hence I was pissed. I bought it with money I could have used elsewhere, and I am not rich. I do not care about their failed good intentions, they are a company and a business and I expect results and not lies.
I don’t know. I’m sorry; I don’t have a clear answer for you. I started the thread because I wanted to take a closer look at the manifesto, and what it means and whether it’s even realistic, rather than to express my indignation toward Ascended armor and everything it means.
If it matters at all, I do sympathize a lot with how you feel.
Well sure.. it’s just I’m still struggling to understand is why you care. It’s just a commercial. I don’t care about the details or special arguments of a hot dog commercial, but if it says it is made of beef and it’s not, then it’s a blatant lie. And if the commercial doesn’t affect me then I don’t make massive arguments about it. You don’t need to construct some grandiose philosophical argument when this has a simple solution.
Yes, I know that. Could you respond to my post though? I’m saying, who cares whether it was what they planned. I bought a game that was falsely advertised, hence I was pissed. I bought it with money I could have used elsewhere, and I am not rich. I do not care about their failed good intentions, they are a company and a business and I expect results and not lies.
I don’t know. I’m sorry; I don’t have a clear answer for you. I started the thread because I wanted to take a closer look at the manifesto, and what it means and whether it’s even realistic, rather than to express my indignation toward Ascended armor and everything it means.
If it matters at all, I do sympathize a lot with how you feel.
Well sure.. it’s just I’m still struggling to understand is why you care. It’s just a commercial. I don’t care about the details or special arguments of a hot dog commercial, but if it says it is made of beef and it’s not, then it’s a blatant lie. And if the commercial doesn’t affect me then I don’t make massive arguments about it. You don’t need to construct some grandiose philosophical argument when this has a simple solution.
Because I’m past the point of being angry about it and trying to figure out where things went wrong. That ANet implemented something into their game that’s blatantly and obviously contrary to the Manifesto is a given. We know that happened, and it’s been pointed out frequently.
But what I’m trying to ask is whether MMORPGs are basically defined by gear progression de facto. Just about every MMORPG has gear progression as part of their endgame and it’s almost expected by default. ANet’s manifesto said that gear progression doesn’t have to be a “thing.” It turns out that wasn’t the case, because now we have Ascended gear.
So my question is: Was the Manifesto unrealistic in the first place? Is gear progression just something we’ve come to expect from our MMOs? Hydro and a few other posters say “No, not necessarily, because we have a few examples of MMORPGs that either have no gear progression, or do it differently.” That’s a perfectly valid argument, but it leads me to wonder why so many games nonetheless opt for vertical gear progression, unless that’s become a trope of MMORPGs.
You’re asking me why I care about something that obviously doesn’t affect me. But this does affect me. I didn’t want to mention it in my original post, but a history of my recent posts shows that I’m pretty demonstrably upset about the Ascended gear. Also I happen to really love the MMORPG genre, so the question of vertical gear progression being essential to the genre is an important issue for me.
Yes, I know that. Could you respond to my post though? I’m saying, who cares whether it was what they planned. I bought a game that was falsely advertised, hence I was pissed. I bought it with money I could have used elsewhere, and I am not rich. I do not care about their failed good intentions, they are a company and a business and I expect results and not lies.
I don’t know. I’m sorry; I don’t have a clear answer for you. I started the thread because I wanted to take a closer look at the manifesto, and what it means and whether it’s even realistic, rather than to express my indignation toward Ascended armor and everything it means.
If it matters at all, I do sympathize a lot with how you feel.
Well sure.. it’s just I’m still struggling to understand is why you care. It’s just a commercial. I don’t care about the details or special arguments of a hot dog commercial, but if it says it is made of beef and it’s not, then it’s a blatant lie. And if the commercial doesn’t affect me then I don’t make massive arguments about it. You don’t need to construct some grandiose philosophical argument when this has a simple solution.
Because I’m past the point of being angry about it and trying to figure out where things went wrong. That ANet implemented something into their game that’s blatantly and obviously contrary to the Manifesto is a given. We know that happened, and it’s been pointed out frequently.
But what I’m trying to ask is whether MMORPGs are basically defined by gear progression de facto. Just about every MMORPG has gear progression as part of their endgame and it’s almost expected by default. ANet’s manifesto said that gear progression doesn’t have to be a “thing.” It turns out that wasn’t the case, because now we have Ascended gear.
So my question is: Was the Manifesto unrealistic in the first place? Is gear progression just something we’ve come to expect from our MMOs? Hydro and a few other posters say “No, not necessarily, because we have a few examples of MMORPGs that either have no gear progression, or do it differently.” That’s a perfectly valid argument, but it leads me to wonder why so many games nonetheless opt for vertical gear progression, unless that’s become a trope of MMORPGs.
You’re asking me why I care about something that obviously doesn’t affect me. But this does affect me. I didn’t want to mention it in my original post, but a history of my recent posts shows that I’m pretty demonstrably upset about the Ascended gear. Also I happen to really love the MMORPG genre, so the question of vertical gear progression being essential to the genre is an important issue for me.
Ah, I see. Well, I think you’re acting under the false premise that all MMOs seem to need gear grind. You might be correct about all AAA high population persistant MMOs, and that is a bizarre phenomenon. This MMO was kinda the last hope that there might ever be an exception.
(edited by Greep.6394)
1. A Manifesto Is Not A Binding Contract
I don’t think you have a good idea of how contract law actually plays out IRL. Emails can be construed as part of the promise/contract in court. You are correct that it is a document that is not in the form of a contract, but it could easily be construed as part of a contract’s promise if a buyer was relying on the promises a company made in a manifesto concerning a product that was to be purchased. Once you have been in the business world you understand quickly that a contract is the starting point in a legal dispute, not where it ends.
The anti-grind part of the manifesto they got right… The no-holy-trinity part they got wrong. They correct the wrong aspect IMO.
On this tangential subject: Frankly, as long as re-implementing “the trinity” didn’t involve taunt and aggro mechanics, it wouldn’t be half the sin that implementing a gear grind is.
I mean, Guild Wars 1 did have the trinity, in the sense that there were extremely effective dedicated healers, extremely effective dedicated “Screw you, I’m not dying” guys, and a bunch of classes that provided support and damage. And Guild Wars 1 had an incredibly fun and engaging combat system.
The only trinity-related problem that GW1 had is that since content had to be balanced with incredibly effective healers in mind, and the party size was eight people, you needed to have two dedicated healers (and 95% of the time, you specifically needed two Monks) to have a reasonable go at any of the content. The problem was that, in theory, 10% of the possible class choices had to make up at least 25% of the human players in a group.
(This wasn’t even close to the case in reality, though, since you had access to Henchmen and then later Heroes)
Honestly, while I’m not at all sad to see it go, simply having “the trinity” is not enough to make a combat system turn to crap. What ruins most games that operate under that principle is that they use easily-manipulable “aggro” mechanics, and the game becomes a total joke, because suddenly you’re effectively controlling your own characters plus the enemies that you’re fighting.
The reason that every non-Guild Wars game that uses the Trinity has awful, boring combat is not really because you have defined combat roles and you need to assemble a proper spread of classes – it’s because those games let you play both sides of the chess board, which is so braindead and dumb that I’m amazed it ever gained traction.
Having a gear treadmill, on the other hand, is a death sentence for any chance that a game might be good enough to be worth your time.
Ah, I see. Well, I think you’re acting under the false premise that all MMOs seem to need gear grind
Yes, I agree and realize this may be a false premise as well.
You might be correct about all AAA high population persistant MMOs, and that is a bizarre phenomenon.
Agreed, and this is what baffles me. It’s just bizarre. Why do so many MMORPGs unabashedly advertise vertical gear progression and gear treadmills? LOTRO did it (and later apologized). DC Universe Online. Champions Online (sorta?). The Old Republic. Warhammer Online. Age of Conan. Aion. Even City of Heroes joined in with its Purple enhancements and eventual Incarnate system.
It makes me seriously wonder if it’s fair to say that gear progression is an accepted element of MMORPGs, and games without vertical gear progression are therefore outliers.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation.
Agreed, and this is what baffles me. It’s just bizarre. Why do so many MMORPGs unabashedly advertise vertical gear progression and gear treadmills? LOTRO did it (and later apologized). DC Universe Online. Champions Online (sorta?). The Old Republic. Warhammer Online. Age of Conan. Aion. Even City of Heroes joined in with its Purple enhancements and eventual Incarnate system.
A large part of why they do that is because for a long, long time, it was just a given that to make an MMORPG (or at the very least, a “quality” MMORPG), you needed to support the costs with a monthly subscription fee. EverQuest is almost fourteen years old . The idea that a mainstream, high-budget MMORPG could not just survive but be successful on a free-to-play model didn’t start being taken seriously until the last two or three years. That’s a lot of time for design inertia to take hold, and for a lot of genre staples to become entrenched via tradition and ‘me-too’ copycat design, and not a lot of time for free-to-play design to really take hold as a business model.
On top of that, a major, triple-A MMORPG takes longer than two or three years to develop. Every ‘big’ MMORPG that’s been released to date started production long, long before the idea of free-to-play took hold. Despite how many games are free-to-play now, that’s been a post-release change, or a sharp turn made halfway through development, in almost all of them. The core design principles that support a subscription model – namely, endless carrot-chasing – aren’t that easy to change.
It’s just cultural inertia. Home console games didn’t start to get rid of ideas like lives, continues, extremely high difficulty, and Score until long after development priority had shifted away from the arcade quarter-muncher business model. It’s going to have to take a few cycles without the subscription model before you start to see any industry-wide shifts in MMORPG design tropes and mores.
That’s really no excuse for a developer with the talent, reputation, and clout that ArenaNet has, though.