Guild Wars 2

EdgarMTanaka.7291:

I could be wrong but… Are not these numbers all regions combined? Korea has the most and to my understanding GW2 is not as popular over there for reasons I do not know.

I just figure that the other games put more energy in the Korean market than what GW2 does. But sure, everyone does not think like me.

Many other more non-korean MMO-games does not give half as much content for free as what Anet gives GW2. Sure maby their expansions are bigger and cheaper but you will have to wait one or two years before you can play the next story. Between that they may put in one or two dungeons with a few features and bug-fixes. But it is not better than the ammount of GW2 updates.

( I may be biased as I havent had the time to play other MMO’s for over a year, so it may have changed since )

It’s not about a comparison with other games but more about how GW2 is doing over time. And even if we take other games into the equation.. Well if other games are have less ‘free’ content and if they are better at retaining people (what might or might not be true depending on the game) with expansions then that might be what works better for many people. I personally are in favor of (nore regular) expansion and just some smaller patches (maybe one big content-patch) in-between.

Behellagh.1468:

Well this is a little early.

Doesn’t surprise me. I imagine account key sales aren’t significant at all at the moment even with a 1/2 price sale before episode 3 launched, which was mid quarter. Down only 3% from the previous quarter isn’t all that bad. Of course comparing it YoY with the quarter that HoT launched makes it look a lot worse.

Of course the real loser is WildStar as it doesn’t even get called out anymore and gets lumped into “other”.

One way to spin it, ANet significantly slowed the hemorrhaging with three relatively flat quarters.

As for their sPvP e-Sports plus P4F strategy, believe it or not it’s “cheap” advertising. I don’t have a problem with it.

While I would love to give it a positive swing, the ‘only 3% drop’ does not make it stable yet, especially when you consider that this was Q4 what is usually an above average quarter for the many reasons I also mentioned in other posts.

The real drop was between Q1 and Q2 and that is imho because it’s where the first half years after HoT ended. Somehow the first half year after a release or an expansion is always a good indication. That is also why I was talking about ‘anet has to fix the issues in the first half year of HoT’ even before it released. At this moment there is no real ‘hemorrhaging’ anymore. And it will for sure stabilize at some point, but I don’t think the ’only 3% drop’ is something to base your hoped on too much.

I did not have a very optimist idea about the future results but even I expected Q4 to do better as Q3 (and then again a drop in Q1 if the announcement of the next expansion is in Q2 as I expect (April)).

But to end on a positive note, this last patch is really good. A more normal map (more traditional for GW2) in an area that many people have likely been wondering about in the past (who never wondered what was at the other sides of DR?).
If the expansion had more of these type of maps, and solved the problems the game has (that is still is a requirement) I think that would have been much better, but at least the game is now heading in that direction.
And I also noticed more people online yesterday. That is not enough to turn the tights but at least they might be going in the right direction again.
Now just find a way to get people back.

Kartel.2561:

Scripted dungeons / raids? Learn the meta and it becomes routine.

Dynamic Events / World Bosses? Learn the meta and it becomes routine.

Exploring / World Completion? More fun here than most games, but ..been there, done that.

Guild Missions? Nice team-coordinated activities, but still just more scripted content that’s always the same.

Interesting you say this, because it seems to be a design decision they made on purpose.
See: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/cdi/CDI-Guilds-Raiding/first#post4522544

I can’t find my comment on that one, but I remember making a comment that I had to disagree with that idea.

What you are ‘complaining’ about is basically this “Knowledge>Skill>Numbers”. When you place knowledge before skill, it means scripted dungeon / content that you can ‘learn’. Once learned it becomes fairly easy and so might get boring.

My idea about that is Skill > Team composition > knowledge.

You can keep increasing skill, team composition means you can make a difference and then there is knowledge.

Why can many PvP maps in games go without any updates and do they stay interesting? Because the enemy is not scripted so there is no ‘learning how to defeat the mechanic’.

Vayne.8563:

Nope lack of content arguments can’t be shredded. People stopped playing because of lack of content and not all of them came back. So unless you have some proof that everyone comes back, I’m not sure what to tell you.

Other issues are even more loudly complained about including the game becoming more “hard core” and less “casual”.

All this proves is that Anet had a really good run and now they’re falling into the pattern most MMOs fall into.

Nothing else can be gleaned from this. Not one thing.

Well it’s good to see that you have come my way a little. Remember, I said it might be too late, people did leave and are now not coming back. However, it was you who suggested back when we had the results of Q2 that we should look at the results of Q3.
(For if you don’t remember, here is a link: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/GW2-Sales-2Q16-a-new-All-Time-Low/first#post6283781 )

And you would be right when only looking to the current quarter, it might simply not help because people did not come back (then again, aren’t these LS-patches also supposed to get people back, and failing in that?). But when we look further back we see the correlation between these patches and better results does not seem to exist. Finally in addition to this the results did go down, so if the LS-patches would help why are the results still going down. Sure, they did only go down a little but this is Q4.

More hard core is something you do hear a lot lately indeed, then again those that have left are not here to complain about their reasons for leaving. You know I still blame the grind (and some mistakes like no seamless zones and no traditional quests). But whatever it is, it needs to get fixed and then they need to find a way to get players back.

“Nothing else can be gleaned from this. Not one thing.” You always say that, and make many claims of based on nothing other than your ideas. That is fine, but many people and companies make (financial) decisions based on numbers like this.

Fenom.9457:

And yet it’s #1 on the most respected gaming site of all…

You can try to keep your hopes up based on that sort of things, but it does not change the results. Things have to change (and I don’t know how because I think it’s likely already too late).

Ayrilana.1396:

Well the lack of content was still a factor. Episode 3 wasn’t that time consuming and Wintersday could be done in a couple hours. There’s also the holidays when people are with families instead of playing. Students also had finals to study for. I also don’t recall any noteworthy sales or promotions in the gemstone to warrant people to rush to buy things.

Q4 is usually a higher quarter (for this type of results) because of the holidays, not a lower one.

It looks like my ‘lack of content’ and that that argument can be shredded needs some clarification.

That was a reference to a discussion in the other thread I linked, so understandable that people misinterpreted it, my bad.

Obviously I think more content is good, no content means no players, and it is as simple as that. I have also always been very in favor an expansion-based model like GW1 had, so many expansion and every expansions is content.

I also think you need to have content to keep people busy in-between expansion, like quests-chains and dungeons, PvP-like content (Like a dungeon where two teams compete with each other) and so on. Basically, they need goals to work towards (And that should just just be some boring currency grind).

No, when I talk about the ‘lack of content argument’, it’s more the very popular notion (on these forums) that less activity, less players, lower results is the reason of no Living story releases. Basically, they see the lack of those releases as the big underlying problem, I don’t. Based on that idea multiple people expected the results to go up already in Q3 of 2016, but they did not.

And then, why do I now say that argument can be shredded based on the results of Q4. They don’t, not on this alone. In the other thread I put all results together and then you can see there seem to be no real correlation between more of these patches and better results. For example, the period of Season 2 had lower results then the half year after it, while in that half year we had almost no releases (but HoT was announced). And now the last 3 quarters we have had released but the results did keep going down.

I acknowledge that for many of the active players these patches are important, but for the bigger player base (well, used, to be player base) that just does not seem to be the case, simply the announcement of HoT (as an example) seems to be more reason for them to be active then the Living Story releases.

In that light, the ‘lack of content’ as argument for the problems can be put in the shredder. Q4 had 2 festivals and LS releases during the full quarter and still the results did go down and that is for a Q4 that is usually higher than average!

Afther the thread looking at GW2 results over a longer period ( https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Having-a-look-at-GW2-long-term-results/first that is now closed so save to link), I did want to have a look at the results for Q4 2016 and Q1 of 2017.

In that thread some people though it was too much of an ‘I told you so’ statement, well sadly this time I have to say ‘I was wrong’.

The results of Q4 did just get released, you can find them here: http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/prfile.aspx?ID=9DE70054-C1F4-43C2-842B-8A228757B8D6
I expected Q4 to go up with it being Q4, shorter days, more vacation, Halloween, Wintersday and a lot of the season 3 release. Sadly I was wrong, Q4 2016 had even lower results the the two before.

At least the ‘It’s because the lack of content’ argument as reason for lower results can now be completely shredded.

It’s really sad because the core of the game is really good.

Other than the ‘problem’ that the game has, there is an addition problem now, its how do you get the people back.

For example, the upcoming patch is really something we should have had much sooner, simply because of the location of the map, that is something that interests people. But those that left will not be likely to come back to see it at this point.

I always did think that HoT and the first half year after it was basically when Anet had to solve the problem because even if they fixed it now, people are just not here / coming back to see it. The only way I could see many people coming back if is the next expansion would be marketed as GW3 but that would be really bad if the next expansion is nothing like a GW3.

Edit: Clarification about the ‘lack of content, shredder’ comment in my first post\/.

Depends what you expect from the game. If you are afraid servers will be really closing very soon then you should not be worried. I don’t see a reason they have to close.

If you want an active MMO, known by the big audience, full of players and being actively worked on then it might be a different story. At some point GW2 was exactly that, while having its flaws. Those flaws over time where resulting in the loss of players (well income) and loss of attention by the big audience.

Imho HoT and the first 6 months after was the critical time for GW2 to solve this and stay on the radar of the big audience, being one of the big ones out there for many years to come, or to become one of the many mmo’s.

They did not solve those issues what resulted in people leaving and also getting lost from the radar of the big audience. I expect the next expansion to sell less because of this what imo will result in a shrink of the dev-team.

That said, the game will likely still continued to be worked on, just not as much as now, and you will likely have a smaller player base then GW2 had during the first years of its life.
If that is not a problem for you then sure play the game, but I would suggest not using it as a huge time-sink. Just play it as your average game.

It will likely be at least a year before we know any of this for sure.

I am afraid that HoT was the expansion Anet had to get right, not the next one as you say.
Question still is ‘what did they get wrong’. You basically blame the LS approach that resulted in a release of additional content over time and rushing out.
I am not sure of the LS is to blame for HoT not being ‘good’. I think it’s them not solving the grind issue with HoT. Rushing might be a part. I think they should be able to make an expansion in 1 to 1,5 years but it looks like they made a pretty sudden shift to the expansion coming from a pure LS approach what does not help. If they had an expansion planned from day one it might have been less ‘rushed’. And we might have had 2 or 3 expansions by now.

Grind because of a cash-shop focus. According to some players I was the only one who raised this issue. Looking at this thread (at least the first reactions) I guess not.

People ending up in grind, getting bored by it and so leaving the game is what I have been warning Anet before all along.

To OP: What you have experienced did happen to many people during the first 3 years of GW2. Then when the expansion was released (around the time you joined) many people who left came back and ‘the old times’ made a comeback. However the things that made them leave the first time where not completely solved with the expansion so they did leave again within the first half year of HoT.

I do not know if the community that you are left with is then by definition more salty or contains of more ‘normies’. But when there are less people it will obviously also be harder to find people that enjoy what you enjoy. In fact, you left because what you enjoy became less enjoyable, so it make sense that people who enjoy the same things have the same problems and so left as well.

maddoctor.2738:

Devata.6589:

Yeah that is what I said. It’s just not clear what part did change and what part would have been the same without ‘the differend guy’. That’s all.

Only S3 is vastly different to the previous two seasons of the Living World, especially S2. We get new maps on a regular schedule, we get new PVP maps, new Fractals. We get a focus on multiple parts of the game instead of what happened with S2. It’s not certain if it’s because Colin left, but the total change in direction is rather clear.

The only thing that 100% changed after Colin left is the hype train. It left with Colin

S2 was very different from S1 and players have been asking for maps as part of the LS content so the inclusion of maps might be because of that, and not because of Mike. I don’t know.

Getting Thaumanova Reactor Fractal was part of S1 (while implementation came later, we selected that fractal during Cutthroat Politics). Then there are Molten Boss Fractal and Captain Mai Trin Boss Fractal what was content from season one, while added to the fractal at a later time. People asked for non-temporary content so now they add it directly to the fractal. But the type of content is similar.

S2 was a little different as they seem to try and combine the PS with the LS what was a mistake in my personal opinion, but that might also be because I was not a huge fan of the PS. It feels like a single player game inside an MMO. And so S2 did have the same ‘problem’.

I can’t remember when Battle of Champion’s Dusk was added, wasn’t that during S2? Nonetheless, it was added during’s Colin’s time.

So all I am saying, yes things changed but things have always been changing based on how something worked out. It’s really hard to know what changes are because of Colin or because of Mike.

You know I all about the B2P model, and that is also what Mike is always talking about while ‘his game’ was not a B2P. So I could simply blame Colin and cheer for Mike, but it is not that easy.

And then there is the issue that what people are cheering for now, they might be complaining about in half a year time.

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

It’s interesting to see many of these comments, those that cheer mainly talk about the many updates mostly referring to S3. They forget that there was a period of low content before S3 just as before S2. So did much really change on that part? Will S3 end before the next expansion and will there be another period without content? In that case it’s not that different from how S2 was, during S2 there were also many content patches.
So they forget about the lack of content we had before S3 and then compare the content from S3 to a period of lack of content during GW2 and then say its better because there are more patches.. That does not make a lot of sense. It’s really selective.
During S2 many cheered about S2 just as they cheer now about S3. Now many seems to dislike S2 so I would not be surprised that half a year from now many dislike S3. Especially considering how much of the love is based on selective observations. Who knows? I really don’t know, maybe everybody still talks positive about it, maybe not. I really don’t dear to say. But it’s something to keep in mind when reading the comments.
Personally I don’t care so much about having a period without content as long as the content we get (preferably expansions) is of a good quality and keeps me busy (in a fun way) until the next one.
It is also hard to know what changes are because of Colin leaving. He left in March of 2016 so there has been plenty of time for Mike’s changes to really come into effect and be noticeable, on the other hand, it is likely that plans for S3 where already worked out and work on it had already started.
Of course we don’t know any of this for sure just like we don’t know anything for sure in any forum discussion, but that is being used to close topics these days, if they do not like the topic. Just something to keep in mind.
I did not do any S3 so can’t say much about the content itself, I ask a player in game about it and he said the story was fine to play once but the maps where small and that the maps had their own currency you would need to grind to get stuff. That to me shows the main problem (imo) is still not solved, boring grind.
The biggest issue is that by now it does not really matter anymore. Many of the people that left GW2 and came back for HoT left again in the first half year after HoT. IMO you will not see them back even if the game gets better. For many people GW2 simply is off their radar.
This is likely also why Q2 and Q3 both had the worst results GW2 has ever had. And Q3 had plenty of S3, but that did not make a change. I expect Q4 to be better but how Q1 will do??
For the vets that are left you may hope that the game keeps dong well, and grind (imo the biggest issue) clearly is not an issue for them, else they would not be so active yet. But the question then is if those people are with enough to finance the game on a level where the team can stay at its size that is has been.
I am really curious as to what the next expansion will bring, but I am afraid that sales will be lower than hoped (even if the expansion is really good) and so you might see a shrink in the dev-team as a result. The only way I can see the next expansion to be a success (financially) is if they can put it back on the radar of people what imo can only be done by basically making it GW3 and making some radical changes (justifying it being GW3) that gets people interest and willing to give it another try.

I’m willing to wager it has changed, considering this was something that Mike directly addressed in an interview or AMA, not sure which. My guess is Mike might be better at resource management than Colin was.

Every game developer has strengths and weaknesses. There’s no good reason to believe it hasn’t changed, because there is a different guy running the show.

Yeah that is what I said. It’s just not clear what part did change and what part would have been the same without ‘the differend guy’. That’s all.

It’s interesting to see many of these comments, those that cheer mainly talk about the many updates mostly referring to S3. They forget that there was a period of low content before S3 just as before S2. So did much really change on that part? Will S3 end before the next expansion and will there be another period without content? In that case it’s not that different from how S2 was, during S2 there were also many content patches.

So they forget about the lack of content we had before S3 and then compare the content from S3 to a period of lack of content during GW2 and then say its better because there are more patches.. That does not make a lot of sense. It’s really selective.
During S2 many cheered about S2 just as they cheer now about S3. Now many seems to dislike S2 so I would not be surprised that half a year from now many dislike S3. Especially considering how much of the love is based on selective observations. Who knows? I really don’t know, maybe everybody still talks positive about it, maybe not. I really don’t dear to say. But it’s something to keep in mind when reading the comments.

Personally I don’t care so much about having a period without content as long as the content we get (preferably expansions) is of a good quality and keeps me busy (in a fun way) until the next one.

It is also hard to know what changes are because of Colin leaving. He left in March of 2016 so there has been plenty of time for Mike’s changes to really come into effect and be noticeable, on the other hand, it is likely that plans for S3 where already worked out and work on it had already started.

Of course we don’t know any of this for sure just like we don’t know anything for sure in any forum discussion, but that is being used to close topics these days, if they do not like the topic. Just something to keep in mind.

I did not do any S3 so can’t say much about the content itself, I ask a player in game about it and he said the story was fine to play once but the maps where small and that the maps had their own currency you would need to grind to get stuff. That to me shows the main problem (imo) is still not solved, boring grind.

The biggest issue is that by now it does not really matter anymore. Many of the people that left GW2 and came back for HoT left again in the first half year after HoT. IMO you will not see them back even if the game gets better. For many people GW2 simply is off their radar.

This is likely also why Q2 and Q3 both had the worst results GW2 has ever had. And Q3 had plenty of S3, but that did not make a change. I expect Q4 to be better but how Q1 will do??

For the vets that are left you may hope that the game keeps dong well, and grind (imo the biggest issue) clearly is not an issue for them, else they would not be so active yet. But the question then is if those people are with enough to finance the game on a level where the team can stay at its size that is has been.

I am really curious as to what the next expansion will bring, but I am afraid that sales will be lower than hoped (even if the expansion is really good) and so you might see a shrink in the dev-team as a result. The only way I can see the next expansion to be a success (financially) is if they can put it back on the radar of people what imo can only be done by basically making it GW3 and making some radical changes (justifying it being GW3) that gets people interest and willing to give it another try.

Quest gives you more binding with the world. You learn the NPC’s, you learn more about little areas of the game. All that helps to create a binding with the world. No quests mean many NPSC’s, are just that, NPC’s. No story to them, why care about them?
Also quests gives you goals and are a great way to reward items and at the same time have a backstory to the items. A quest-chain can send you all over the world. Great!
Yeah it is a massively multiplayer online role playing game. So it’s a massive world, where many people are playing at the same time. It does not mean they all have to be playing together all the time. In fact, most people don’t play like that. The maps in HoT try to achieve exactly that, but also seem to proof that is not what many people want. If you see how often they events fail because people are not all working together.

The personal story in GW2 feels like a single player, quest in an open world do not. While doing quests you meet new people, you group up with them. Some quests are group quest so you do them together with the people you did just befriended. Simply the fact that you see other players and interact with them makes it not a single-player game. (Of course you can do many quests together)
Phasing is not always great no. It can work at times but too much of it breaks the immersion.

“Kill quests need to disappear. Where you have to kill a certain number of enemies because they are doing something, but in reality they are not. And you are talking about a “lasting impact of traditional quests” when you will be handing in the quest to kill 10 bandits and the NPC will be grateful while at the same time he will be saying to the player next to you how they got to kill 10 bandits because they are invading the village. Yes a real impact that lasts 1.2 seconds, until the next player talks to them, even better if they are in the same party as you.”
That is the thing, if Anet talks about traditional quest they act as if all quest are like this. That is false. Yes those quest are not so great. Having a few in there is fine but not too much. However the events in GW2 are almost all like that simply because the event-system makes it hard to set up a real story.
And to you the NPC will act as if you did help it, you don’t get that quest again. While with events you see bandits attacking. So with a traditional quest it’s not 1.2 sec, but until you do it with an alt.

“Escort quests” Yeah that is something where the event-system is indeed better at. Like I said, you need a mix of the two. The two complement each other, you cannot use one to replace the other.
“Boss quests need to disappear. Similar to the above, how many times you’ve killed a “boss” that is just roaming aimlessly around and got nothing for it? In every single MMORPG I’ve ever played that’s the reality. If you are not on the specific quest to kill the boss you get absolutely nothing for engaging it. Pathetic.”
I think boss quests are really nice. Doing it as a quest means you can also reward a quest-item instead of having the boss just be a grind fess. You can place the quest-giver near the boss if you want to prevent people running into the boss, killing it and only picking up the quest after that having to do it again. There are ways to solve that problem.
“Quest chains need to disappear, permanently. Especially those that affect dungeons and in general instances. When I read how you would be able to “complete” quest lines inside dungeons was the final nail in the coffin of ESO, I don’t want that garbage in my MMORPG. You are in a dungeon to kill the big bad boss, while at the prison of the dungeon your allies and party members are saving a prisoner. But you can’t because in order to get to that quest part you need to do the 10 previous parts of this “epic” quest line. My friends are saving him but I can’t because nobody sent me to save him!”
Then you have something to look forward to, that quest-chain. It also gives more meaning, story and purpose to dungeons. In the end you are playing your personal story, and other people are playing their personal story. You are an adventures, so it makes perfect sense you are not always doing the same as everybody else.

“I see them as single player content with no interactivity between players, what I do doesn’t affect you. With events, what I do affects you, and the world, if only for a time.” Again a reason to have both.

I think that what you are talking about is not so much about hardcore vs casual. When it’s about HoT is more about solo (or 2) vs group play. HoT is all build upon content that you are supposed to do with a lot of people. Massive events. For people who play an MMO solo (or with 2 people) that is not optimal.

We only did get one new dungeon since release that is indeed a harder one, but also a really good one. The dungeons before where just a little too easy. There should be a good mix. Raids are the only real new content for hardcore players. But it is good to have content like that as well. Fractals is probably more about numbers (gear-grind) then difficulty.

GW2 hearths are not supposed to be quest, events are. But you are correct, traditional quest feel more like you achieve something, like you make a difference.

Sad thing is that when they announced the event-system they praised it as something where you have an impact on the world instead of ‘just killing some boards’ as if all quests are like that. In reality it is the other way around. (Because they repeat it does not feel like you make an impact, even if you see some temporary changes, and most are kill or collect x, y or z) Not having traditional quest is imho still one of the biggest fails of GW2. Not to say that events are bad. Events are great, as an addition to traditional quests. But events are not able to replace quests.
That events where not able to replace traditional quest was something you could already notice in the beta of GW2, years ago, but they never put normal quests in.

“The only main difference for me though was each day I feel like logging into eso there is something to do that will actually help progress my character” That is probably also because there are always quests waiting for you.

Call of the Wild Ranger Warhorn see https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Call_of_the_Wild does the same (At least, last time I checked). Has been like that since release. I think I committed the bug once a few years ago.

Very annoying because one of the main reasons to use it, is for swiftness, but if you are too close to an enemy you do damage and so get into combat and move slower instead of faster.

maddoctor.2738:

Devata.6589:

Did you already dive into those numbers?

Not me. But I’m waiting to see if you confirm or deny what Behellagh.1468 said.

I am not going into to GW1 discussion because that will create yet another new branch.

You hate the cash shop because it causes grind. You love an expansion model because you believe it has less grind. I point out that a game with expansions (GW1) had more than enough grind, in many cases worse than GW2. Expansions don’t equal less grind, and cash shop doesn’t equal more grind.

Well I made a start with the numbers Behellagh provided. But it is complex. For example I wanted to also compare 2013 with 2014 and 2015. But then in those years ArenaNet does not show up in the table that shows the net income.

I wanted to see that because it is interesting to see how GW2 did after the first 1,5 year. And why is the net income for 2012 and 2013 exactly the same? Is that the max profit ArenaNet is allowed to make and the rest needs to be paid as dividends / goes to NCSOFT? I don’t know what their agreement with NCSOFT is.

I also tried to see where the results (See my sheet) fitted into the NCSOFT Audit Reports what is also hard to do. For example, 2006 shows in total a result of 52600 (KRW Mn) while the report (and specifically the table Behellagh refers to) states that sales where 13400 (KRW Mn).
The tables are condensed what makes it harder to see where what money comes from or go’s to.
Interesting to note is that in the first table it says there is a surplus, so they did make a profit?
What I cannot figure out yet is where the difference is between the results and the sales and where is the dividend paid and does the sales contain the actual money people paid when buying the game, or is the part that goes to NCSOFT (including the dividend) already subtracted from that?
I find it interesting to have a look at those numbers but this is more something for a financial person to have a look at.
However, what you should consider is that results might not be bad and money was made, but the net income was negative (That is possible when I know where they subtract the dividend).
You see, when I give you one million as an investment. You then create a company with that money and pay me money back (dividend), it might be so that after 2 years your capital is 0, and your income was negative all the time. However if that included you paying me and I earned 2 million in those two years you were profitable (to me) and I might be interested in paying you another million so you could also turn that million into 2 million.
I think that is what we might be seeing here, but that is a guess. I really have to dive into the numbers more to really make such statements as facts. This is just a possible scenario. Best would be if anybody who is in finance would look at the numbers and explain it here.
Btw, here are some definition explanations required to start and understand all the numbers:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/accumulated-deficit-balance-sheet-43886.html
http://www.accountingtools.com/selling-administrative-budget
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-surplus-and-vs-profit/

The expansion-model does not automatically equal less grind or guarantees a good game. It simply allows a game to be developed without having to make compromises for the payment-model. Well, you have a deadline (You need to make / earn money, because you run out of the money you have for development), but every model has that.

JTGuevara.9018:

I think ANet should avoid another expansion, at least until farther down the road. It just costs a lot of money and creates a lot of expectations that may or may not pay off. It’s a gamble. ANet gambled on HoT and didn’t really pay off.

HoT was ok, I liked it, but it BROKE PvP and WvW. Post-HoT, there is still a lot that needs to be fixed in this game.

I truly think these steady content releases are just what the game needs. It’s a more secure way of releasing stuff.

Anet first also believed that the steady content-releases where the best. But that did also not work out. It’s true that they broke WvW with the expansion. On the other hand, that is expansions in general. That type of mistakes can also be made with non-expansion content-releases.

It’s also true that there are things that should be fix before an expansion. However HoT came 3 years after the initial release. That is already very late and should have given them plenty of time to have fixed what needed to be fixed.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

What logic am I abandoning? … snip …

~
You can try to hide behind, “It’s my opinion.” but if that’s all this thread is you should stop touting the accuracy of your prediction and stop calling your opinion a thesis. Anyone who bothered to think at all could have predicted that MMO quarterly revenue would drop over a four year period. In the current MMO market, that would be as close as you’ll get to a safe bet.

1 I did mention that this problem that the cash-shop focus creates depends on your preferred game-play / or your point of view. That indeed in a way is a type of confirmation bias because it might be true for me but not true for you. So I see it as correct while you don’t.
Other than that, I look indeed for data that supports my theory. But I do also look at alternatives. No confirmation bias there. The problem on this part simply is that we have limited information.
2 This is just false. I did mention multiple other factors. I do believe that the issue I mention here is the big underlying problem that has been in the game from the beginning and that should have been fixed if you wanted to really get that big MMO GW2 could be. But I also mention the lack of quest and no seamless zones. I also think those two are huge and essential issues as well, especially the lack of tradition quest, but you really should also notunderestimate the impact of having no seamless zones. That are just two that I even mentioned in the OP. During the thread some other issues have been addressed as well, like how WvW has some problems. So it’s simply false to state that I ignore other possible causes for the decline.
“you have not established that the cause you predicted is the cause.” And I never stated that I did as that is impossible to prove.
3 You do understand that that possibility would be in favor of what I am saying here? You see, I am saying that the cash-shop focus is bad because it reduces the (value of) in game rewards. It makes collecting cosmetics a grind. You say, the results are lower because people have better ways of getting those rewards in game. It’s exactly the same but looked at from exactly the other perspective.
I say, the game gets effected because they try to make money with the cash-shop. You say, they might be making less money because the game does not get effected enough.
No matter how you look at it, it shows that the two conflict with each other. In both cases I am against it as a game that does not earn money is also against my best interest. I want them to make money but not have the game effected negatively by it.
So if anything this scenario you describe here is not false logic but proves the logic.
Now I do not think this is happening simply because while it indeed did get better, for the more casual player this problem still exist. But if you happen to be a raider (as an example) you are now in a pretty good place if it comes to cosmetics by content. While you then still have to grind armor. But your die-hard raider does not seem to mind that so much.
4 It does not matter if they agree. They complain about (cosmetic) grind, I try to find a reason for it. Whether they agree that what I say is or is not the reason is not relevant.
5 Again, I don’t claim people hate ‘the cash-shop focus’. I say people clearly dislike something. Many probably simply get bored by the game and don’t even try to figure out why, they simply move on. I am trying to find reason why they leave and then what might be the result for that. That ‘sudden’ drop, is after the first half year of HoT. Always an important time for a game or an MMO.
“gave up hope when HoT did not address their concerns.” How is that false logic or sloppy analysis? It might also be one of those things that cannot be proven but does makes the most sense. Let’s again look back at what happened. Numbers did go down, then HoT was announced and later release resulting in a bump again. Is it really so strange to think that a big part of this was also because of returning players? Then after half a year most left again. So mayne the problems they had with the game why they did leave before, made them leave again? Honestly, this seems to be a very logic scenario.
6 “Failure to address the glaring discrepancy between HoT’s performance and your claims that an XPac-dominant B2P model would be more profitable for ANet.” It’s still is no B2P game. It still has the cash-shop focus and the grind. Not mutch changed on that part with HoT. I did not expect HoT to perform well (after the first half year) if they did not change this.
7 I am not saying they are irrelevant. I am saying that simply saying that the fact that things have changed does also not mean it cannot work.
“In the current MMO market, that would be as close as you’ll get to a safe bet.” In the current market where they almost all use the cash-shop approach.. hmm, makes your wonder right?

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Devata.6589:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Devata.6589:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

So, I’m reading all this (and it’s a lot of words and back and forth). It seems the OP wants as an ideal

1) all/most cosmetics removed from the gemstore
2) the cosmetics placed in game as (examples) dungeon rewards, quest items, mob drops, rare drops from game chests
3) all income to come from expansions and sales of non cosmetic item

If this is correct then I think it would be useful to ask what successful games that are currently played (not games from years ago, and this considers Guild Wars 1 as not current as it is no longer supported with new expansions and updates), how they successfully fund themselves from expansions and sales of non cosmetics only while at the same time having lots of cosmetics, mounts, minis etc as in game rewards. Having names of current games that do this would be helpful to see how profitable this is.

In the MMO Genre this would be pretty unique. Ojutside of the MMO-genre it’s probably the most-used model.

Some people see the fact that ‘nobody’ uses it, as proof that it would not work. But then they forget that indeed GW1 used it as the only one back then. And there was a time that no company wanted to use the F2P model and now they all seem to want to use it.

There will always be one company first.

Being the only one aly gives opurtinity. They would be first to market with that model for this gerne. That alone has a big advantege. The simple question would then be ‘is it a viable option to earn money’. That is what we / I am trying to figure out / proof with the information we have. While it is indeed limited information.

If there must be somebody else ‘who already did it’ before you are willing to give it a try, there would be no progress in the world.

In other words, no MMO successfully uses the model you’re saying would be so profitable. None of the people who design or build MMOs or the ones who design the business models have looked at the numbers and seen they could make more money and pull in more people using your suggested business model.

About what I figured. Thanks for the clarification.

Indeed. Just as no company did do anything to be successful with it, before the first one did and got successful with it. And then many followed.

Of course for the model we are talking about that is not even true. GW2 did get big with it, because Anet got big with it with GW1. This model made GW2 possible. But you did not want to take GW1 into the pool. With your way of thinking (never go for something new) we would still be living in the Stone Age. But I understand how you think this proof your idea that it cannot work.

Ofcourse it does not. But if it makes you feel better.

And then just one last thing… Anet did try to implement a lot of new things. Like the event-system (to just name one). You must have been also against all those implementations right? Because you know, before Anet did it, nobody did so it must be bad! Here I was thinking so much of you loved this daring approach of Anet. Silly me.

No problem, I have no problem, it’s always good to clarify things.

If it was so very successful in making them money they wouldn’t have switched to a gem store model.

A cash-shop is easy and low-risk way to generate money. From a company perspective there are many obvious reasons to go for a cash-shop model (again something I acknowledged many times in this thread). That does not mean other models cannot work, other models cannot be even more successful and other models are better for the game / the player while also supporting the company.

Simply because one model is easy and low-risk and so favorable with companies, does not mean other models are bad. Yes, I am also looking at the perspective of the player. How rude of me.

maddoctor.2738:

Devata.6589:

Some people see the fact that ‘nobody’ uses it, as proof that it would not work. But then they forget that indeed GW1 used it as the only one back then.

And you seem to forget that according to data the GW1 model wasn’t profitable and that’s why they changed it. Now you are asking them to go back to a model that wasn’t successful? What’s the point?

Also you are saying that the cash shop focus leads to grind but GW1 is the prime example of expansions being all about endless grind. Or you forgot how every worth getting skin in GW1 was behind an excessive grind? A grind that you could skip with gold by playing what you liked btw, similar to how you get gems in GW2

Did you already dive into those numbers? Just wondering. I still have to look into them deeper. But a quick look for example shows there are 3 tables. Only one shows the negative numbers that where posted in here. I still have to look into the complete numbers.

If a company is not profitable, why do you think investors would put more money in it? Again, I have to still dive into the numbers but I wonder if you did.

Also, even if they were not profitable it does not mean GW2 could not be profitable with the same model. What we did see was that GW1 was able to keep a more steady income over its life-spawn that GW2 did. So if the raw numbers of GW2 (with the B2P model) would be enough to make a profit, then it is very possible that over a longer period the B2P model would be more profitable. Sadly we do miss the numbers to make those more exact calculations.

I am not going into to GW1 discussion because that will create yet another new branch. But let’s keep it at a good model does not mean a good game. And no, I am not saying that GW1 was a good game or s grind. If you want to have that discussion, make a ‘GW1 was a grind’ thread to discuss that with the true GW1 vets.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Devata.6589:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

So, I’m reading all this (and it’s a lot of words and back and forth). It seems the OP wants as an ideal

1) all/most cosmetics removed from the gemstore
2) the cosmetics placed in game as (examples) dungeon rewards, quest items, mob drops, rare drops from game chests
3) all income to come from expansions and sales of non cosmetic item

If this is correct then I think it would be useful to ask what successful games that are currently played (not games from years ago, and this considers Guild Wars 1 as not current as it is no longer supported with new expansions and updates), how they successfully fund themselves from expansions and sales of non cosmetics only while at the same time having lots of cosmetics, mounts, minis etc as in game rewards. Having names of current games that do this would be helpful to see how profitable this is.

In the MMO Genre this would be pretty unique. Ojutside of the MMO-genre it’s probably the most-used model.

Some people see the fact that ‘nobody’ uses it, as proof that it would not work. But then they forget that indeed GW1 used it as the only one back then. And there was a time that no company wanted to use the F2P model and now they all seem to want to use it.

There will always be one company first.

Being the only one aly gives opurtinity. They would be first to market with that model for this gerne. That alone has a big advantege. The simple question would then be ‘is it a viable option to earn money’. That is what we / I am trying to figure out / proof with the information we have. While it is indeed limited information.

If there must be somebody else ‘who already did it’ before you are willing to give it a try, there would be no progress in the world.

In other words, no MMO successfully uses the model you’re saying would be so profitable. None of the people who design or build MMOs or the ones who design the business models have looked at the numbers and seen they could make more money and pull in more people using your suggested business model.

About what I figured. Thanks for the clarification.

Indeed. Just as no company did do anything to be successful with it, before the first one did and got successful with it. And then many followed.

Of course for the model we are talking about that is not even true. GW2 did get big with it, because Anet got big with it with GW1. This model made GW2 possible. But you did not want to take GW1 into the pool. With your way of thinking (never go for something new) we would still be living in the Stone Age. But I understand how you think this proves that it cannot work.

Of course it does not. But if it makes you feel better.

And then just one last thing… Anet did try to implement a lot of new things. Like the event-system (to just name one). You must have been also against all those implementations right? Because you know, before Anet did it, nobody did so it must be bad! Here I was thinking so much of you loved this daring approach of Anet. Silly me.

No problem, it’s always good to clarify things.

Obtena.7952:

We aren’t really discussing the idea that some random player somewhere has a good idea. If that’s your game here, you can wax on academic all you like. I’m not really sure what the point is to doing that. You’re woodenpotatoes example is simply pointing out a factual discrepancy … that’s not what you are doing here, so that example is a bad one.

All this stuff you are talking about is past. OK, Woodenpotates pointed out a story/lore mismatch … who cares? You’re suggesting that Anet should go back and fix it? As a business decision, why would they bother? What is the return on the investment on that activity? Everything we are talking about here impacts this as a business and if you aren’t prepared to recognize that, there is little point to any of this discussion.

The same applies to how they implement the gemstore … you think they did it wrong so you have a whole new idea on how that should work with subscriptions and less gemstore content … so what? You think Anet should give your idea a try based on an admittedly very shallow assessment of revenue over time? That’s nonsense; why would they even consider that high risk proposition … Even your hypothesis is completely out to lunch. You haven’t given Anet any reason to listen to you whatsoever other than ‘random players can have better ideas’. That’s not how successful business works.

“If that’s your game here, you can wax on academic all you like.” You know, when you have a discussion people ask about examples, numbers and so on. So you try to provide anything as good as possible.

It’s funny, the one person wants more data, and the other complains you come with data.

“You’re woodenpotatoes example is simply pointing out a factual discrepancy … that’s not what you are doing here, so that example is a bad one.” OMG really, not even sure why I would go into this. Anyway, Obviously I take an example of something that can be proven (factual discrepancy) because if I took an example of a player’s suggestion that I could not prove it was right, you would say.. ‘Well you can’t prove Anet was wrong, they might also be right with that as well.’

The WoodenPatatoes example is perfect because it’s a factual discrepancy. Because it proves Anet was wrong and WoodenPatatoes was right. Because you can prove a player was right and they were wrong, because it proves that players can be right while they can be wrong.

Simply the fact that you cannot prove all ideas of players to be right or wrong does not mean they can’t be right.

“You’re suggesting that Anet should go back and fix it?” No I am not. I am proving that they can be wrong while a player can be right. If anything, I think Anet might have sometimes listen a little bit to much to him. You are completing moving away from the subject here. Maybe because it proof your idea about how Anet by definition knows better is proven wrong with this example?

“you think they did it wrong so you have a whole new idea on how that should work with subscriptions and less gemstore content … so what?”
Are you just here to complain? Because you clearly have not been paying attention.. Subscription.. WHAT???

“You haven’t given Anet any reason to listen to you whatsoever other than ‘random players can have better ideas’. That’s not how successful business works.” At this moment I am not trying to get them to listen to me anymore. It’s most likely to late anyway. I did try them to pay attention the first 3 years of the game. And I am not telling them a player knows better as a reason. I tell (proof) people like you that players can have betters idea when you act as if Anet knows better simply because they are Anet. When you try to use that false argument in a way to dismiss an idea. Now that is some false logic and can be proven wrong. Sometimes players know better, simply because Anet is Anet does not mean all their decisions are better then what a player should have made.

So no I am not telling them that, or trying to proof anything to them by saying them. I am simply telling you that to show you that your argument for dismissing an idea is wrong.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

This is simply yet another way of saying “The numbers we have are not 100% accurate”. Yes we know that by now. There is only limited information so that is what I work with. I could also just throw my theory out there without any numbers and logic. You know, like 99% of the comments on the forum.

Instead, you throw your WAG (not a theory, not really even a hypothesis) out with numbers, then abandon logic by claiming that the numbers validate your “prediction.” All the numbers prove is that ANet made less money via the store. They don’t validate any position. The preponderance of forum posts suggest that some of the alternative explanations offered for the reduction are more likely, and the relative lack of support for your position suggests that the reason for your unhappiness is not shared by as widespread a population as you seem to think.

I have to wonder, what’s the point of this thread? It fails as a validation of your predictive reasoning. It’s not going to convince ANet to change to a different business model at this late date. So, what’s the point? You’d do better by preparing a comprehensive list of things you think should be in the store and a similarly comprehensive list of things you think should not be. At that point, people could agree or disagree with your personal preferences. Since that’s all that’s happening anyway, it would at least be more honest than the misrepresentation of your personal preferences as an “analysis.”

What logic am I abandoning?

“The preponderance of forum posts suggest that some of the alternative explanations” Yeah sure.. You know, complains about grind used to be a big returning subject on this forum. I might be looking at the possible cause for it while most post did not go much further then complaining about the grind itself.

Of course with so many people having left the game (you know, like those who disliked the grind) mainly the die-hard fans are here. Funny thing is, many of those people (including you) were also here back when more people were still active. And many of those people would back then say ‘It’s just a vocal minority’. And now that most of them have gone and only this selection of HC players / fans are left suddenly the preponderance of forum posts is what we should look at.

Well yes, we should look at what people complained about. But not now that they left but in the time they were leaving. So let’s say starting 2 years ago and then grind is a big returning thread and so a preponderance of forum posts.

Those complains did not go away because Anet solved the problem but because the people with those complains left.

Or is the problem that I try to find the underlying reason for a problem instead of keeping it shallow?

“and the relative lack of support for your position suggests that the reason for your unhappiness is not shared by as widespread a population as you seem to think.” Based on the dropping results and more empty LA, and seeing how this trend had been in the game pretty much from the start.. At the very least we can concluse that many people (who are not here anymore (to agree or disagree)) have something they are unhappy about. Let’s say it’s not what I am saying the question remains.. why do people leave? What do they not enjoy, why do they not enjoy it and why it is in the game as it is.

“what’s the point of this thread?” In the past all my threads had the point of trying to prevend where we are now, so feedback to help the game. At this moment I think it will be very hard for Anet to recover so the main reason for this thread is because I want to take responsibility for the claims / predictions I had made.

I would have been here if my predictions would have been wrong and I am here now that my prediction did become true. Why? Well I am not the type of hit and run person. When I make a claim I am also willing to stand by it. Secondly it’s just decent. I was very active for 3 years on this forum always talk about the long-term. It would be stupid to now that time is finally here, I would be nowhere to be find. Lastly people directly or indirectly ask me to stand by these numbers. So here I am.

So the thread is not really about the cash-shop focus itself. It’s more about the results, what we know now that we did not know 2 years ago, but also the stuff we still do not know.

Btw, I also answer the question what imho should be in the shop. Things like additional char-slots, total-make-over, race change. That sort of services. Perferably no cosmetics, no power, no gold, nothing that interfers with the game-play itself.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

So, I’m reading all this (and it’s a lot of words and back and forth). It seems the OP wants as an ideal

1) all/most cosmetics removed from the gemstore
2) the cosmetics placed in game as (examples) dungeon rewards, quest items, mob drops, rare drops from game chests
3) all income to come from expansions and sales of non cosmetic item

If this is correct then I think it would be useful to ask what successful games that are currently played (not games from years ago, and this considers Guild Wars 1 as not current as it is no longer supported with new expansions and updates), how they successfully fund themselves from expansions and sales of non cosmetics only while at the same time having lots of cosmetics, mounts, minis etc as in game rewards. Having names of current games that do this would be helpful to see how profitable this is.

In the MMO Genre this would be pretty unique. Ojutside of the MMO-genre it’s probably the most-used model.

Some people see the fact that ‘nobody’ uses it, as proof that it would not work. But then they forget that indeed GW1 used it as the only one back then. And there was a time that no company wanted to use the F2P model and now they all seem to want to use it.

There will always be one company first.

Being the only one aly gives opurtinity. They would be first to market with that model for this gerne. That alone has a big advantege. The simple question would then be ‘is it a viable option to earn money’. That is what we / I am trying to figure out / proof with the information we have. While it is indeed limited information.

If there must be somebody else ‘who already did it’ before you are willing to give it a try, there would be no progress in the world.

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

Obtena.7952:

Because it’s true? I mean, they have demonstrated their ability to create, develop and run a game better than any single player in this forum … so why shouldn’t I believe they don’t know better than you or anyone else posting here? If Anet isn’t doing it right, that’s not any indication that players would do it better, so that asusmption is just crap right from the outset.

Now maybe if you claimed that another game dev could do better, you would have a point … but players? That’s a ridiculous claim. You are being very audacious.

You haven’t shown your understanding in almost any post you make that this is a for-profit business and the restrictions that imposes on the concept, design and delivery of the game. Just based on that fundamental lack of understanding, I will put my money on Anet doing better than you or any other player any day.

We are not talking about running a game but about specific elements / decisions of that.

Well, you are talking about running a game because the specific elements/decision of running a game clearly influence how well that game runs. You can’t seriously sit there, tell us you or players have better ideas than Anet to make the game run better and be more successful than they do …. then turn around and say that we aren’t talking about making a better game because your ideas are specific. I don’t think I’ve heard a more double-talked thing come from you as this. I mean, that’ sjust not being honest because your posts clearly indicate that you don’t think Anet is doing that great a job … that IS talking about how the game is managed.

At this point, I’m not even sure you know what you’re talking about. I guess as long as it pushes your ‘neutered gemstore’ agenda, you’re willing to say just about anything.

“Well, you are talking about running a game because the specific elements/decision of running a game clearly influence how well that game runs.” Yeah among many other things.

“You can’t seriously sit there, tell us you or players have better ideas than Anet to make the game run better and be more successful than they do” Again, you talk about the complete picture. Making and runnign a game requires money, developers and much more. Here we / I am talking about one element of that all, the payment-model.

Players can for sure have better ideas about things. Maybe suggestions made on the forum about how some content should have been made is better / would have worked better then the way ArenaNet implemented it.
Or lets take a more specific example. WoodenPatatoes (who is a lore person) did point out multiple errors where the story did not match up with the lore as it was.

That does not mean WoodenPatatoes is better at creating and running a game. But it does mean he did know that part better. If they asked him how to implement that lore part his suggested implementation would have been better then the one Anet did go for.

Sure because of the nature of the payment-model that is an essential element for the financial succes of a game. And in fact I tend to focus on things that I consider to have a big impact. But in the end it’s just one element that ArenaNet (Or Ncsoft?) made a decision while I would have made another decision. Not that different from how WoodenPatatoes would have suggested something else for the lore.

With any single decision made, it’s very possible that any random player might have made a better decision then Anet would have made. That however does not mean that that person is also better at creating a game or that because he is not able to create a game, his suggestion is also not better then that of Anet.

The difference is huge, so not sure why you have trouble seeing the difference.

Shaman.4513:

the cash shop lol funniest thing i read. i agree with u mate its killing the game, we had a guild of 150 players wvw all of them, disbanded, around 90 of them quit the game because of the cash shop and the insane grinding everywhere.

Nice sarcasm. I don’t blame you for not reading everything but I did mention in the thread that WvW was a part that was not effected by the cash-shop. So I am not surprised that the cash-shop was not a problem for your WvW guild. Personally I also did go to WvW simply because that part I did still like.

That WvW had other problems making people leave I am also not denying.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Lucius.2140:

Theres a line about what should be on the gemstore (doesnt matter if is buyable with gold), what not and one about how much the game should have in relation to the gemstore, also one about how much an expa, realease could have compared to a gemstore realease. Most problems with the gemstores come from that point, that its subjective, but has some interesting common opinions, like the aetherblades armor and weapons.

The more people see that line been crossed, once a thereshold its met, the less satisfied they feel, the less satisfied, more chances to go away, not recomend, get bad reputation, etc. In the long, maybe not so long?, run, this can make a big game a niche one…

Sure, there’s a line, but it’s in different places for different people. Some people don’t care if ANet puts as many cosmetics as they want in the store, they just don’t want them selling power. The OP wants no store at all, thus all cosmetics would be rewards for play. So while there’s a line for each individual, across all players, there is instead a continuum. There’s no point in even trying to cater to that extreme a position.

There’s also a line below which the developer isn’t making enough money. The developer is in some ways walking a tightrope, trying to maintain profitability while alienating as few players as possible. No matter what they do, as long as there’s a store they’re going to lose people who are near where the OP is on the continuum. That’s inevitable.

Also inevitable is that some posters are going to paint the the financial ramifications of their recommendations in glowing colors, even if the reality is more likely to be much, much worse for the company. It’s true that ANet revenue has declined recently. There is, however, little to no evidence that the OP’s interpretation of why that happened is more than just one of many factors. There is also little to no evidence that an MMO can be made to work on a box-sale only model. It’s contrary to the MMO business model, which consists of regular periodic revenue fueled by retention.

The MMO player base is not that big. The market for non-MMO games that live off box sales and gain ongoing revenue via sequels is much larger. Those developers have the advantage of economies of scale on box sales. MMO developers — with maybe the exception of the MMO 500# gorilla — only enjoy economy of scale with subs or sales of virtual fluff in a store.

I will comment on the part that is about me.

“Sure, there’s a line, but it’s in different places for different people. Some people don’t care if ANet puts as many cosmetics as they want in the store, they just don’t want them selling power. The OP wants no store at all, thus all cosmetics would be rewards for play. So while there’s a line for each individual, across all players, there is instead a continuum. There’s no point in even trying to cater to that extreme a position.
"
First of all, I don’t want a cash-shop focus. I did not say I do not want a cash-shop at all. Preferably the cash-shop would only things like total-make-over kids, race-changers, char slots and maybe bag-slots. Heck if they sold skins I would also not complain (While I would rather not see them sell that).

I have said that many times sadly it’s one of the things that I need to keep repeating.

Now we have that out of the ways.. “Some people ~ just don’t want them selling power” > “The OP wants no store at”. Let’s turn that into “The OP won’t no cosmetics in the store”. Because that comes closer to the truth. I am also against power while it effects me personally less.

Those who care about stats don’t want them so sell stats, I care more about cosmetics (that includes things like mini’s, toys, mounts and so on) and so I do not want to sell them that. In both cases the reason is the same. We (stats and cosmetics people) don’t want it because it effects the game-play we prefer. How is that unreasonable or an extreme position. The one is not more extreme then the other.

It tool a while before P2W items got a bad name, but trust me the same will happen for cosmetics. The main difference is that with cosmetics it can be fine. For example in a pure PvP game, like shooters. But for MMO’s where both elements of the game is important for a group of the player it’s just as bad. There is nothing extreme on that.

Lucius.2140:

Hi, lts nice that you did all the excel, graphs and analysis, i think you could first improve the quality of the input you are using for analysis with three basics considerations.

Inflation:

Im not sure, but i don think, that your data its real instead of nominal. And if its real what year its based on (i will go to try to make it real with core realease date or Hot or this year date, for better significance and exposition).

This is specially important if you compare utilities over time, since you dont have rentabilities. Also for the GW vs GW2 argument, no much point if the dollars arent the same.

Trends:

For them, first eliminate all seasons effects, then jump for a trend, but i will consider check it also in a logarithmic form. The more polished the data is, the better the analysis will be.

Huge spikes:

First if you go as simply as to put it over time: Consider an interest rate, check how much you get anually for dollars in a bank, then use a geometric calculated one for Qs. Later aply, then distribute it.

However the spike can also tell you info, for instance, was a Hot spike expected?, its any correlation between the trend value and the spike?. Can spike been separeted as a different value and calculated by realese of box?.

You got the general idea, i will go to break that spike with a dummy variable, at least for a lazzy start xd.

Didnt check all of it, but yeah it needs refinment xd.

After you get good data and graphs, go to the analysis!

Pd: No my main language!.

I know I did base it on the raw data. It would be great if you find the time to make those corrections.

In that case you might also take a look at the more detailed information Behellagh.1468 provided: http://global.ncsoft.com/global/board/downloadlist.aspx?BID=ir_audit
and http://kr.ncsoft.com/korean/board/downloadlist.aspx?BID=ir_audit

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

Yeah they also invested so much money on that game because of how well the franchise does. Obviously you make an expectation on what you expect to sell and based the investment on that. WoW Vanilla was build for 65 million (Hard to translate that to todays money, but likely under 100 million).

I happened to have taken one of the biggest games / franchises out there, simply because there is also so much information about it. And the 50 million a year for running cost is also from the biggest MMO out there. That would also be lower if you have a game with a smaller player-base.

It is just to show how it can work. I don not say a MMO should invest 256 million in their game. Only The Elder Scrolls Online and Star Wars: The Old Republic came close to that with an investment of 200 million because their investors (wrongly) figured that the IP would be strong enough to attract so many players.

Anyway, in the end you are now cherry-picking because you do indeed mention that the $800M is like huge and not comparable with most MMO’s. But you don’t mention that that also means those MMO’s will then also invest less money.

The exact GTA example would only work if you had some MMO that would sell just as well. The the formula also works with lower numbers, as long as they are all in balance.

Linear relationships in the finances of disparate business enterprises are similar only if the myriad of factors that make up the businesses are extremely similar — and often, not even then. That kind of synchronicity only happens in the pie-in-the-sky world of bad fiction.

This is simply yet another way of saying “The numbers we have are not 100% accurate”. Yes we know that by now. There is only limited information so that is what I work with. I could also just throw my theory out there without any numbers and logic. You know, like 99% of the comments on the forum.

Vayne.8563:

@Devata

You seem to be under the impression that lack of content cant’ be the reason that the game isn’t doing well, because there’s content now and the game isn’t doing as well. This is just bad logic on your part.

Lack of content means people stop playing. Not everyone who stops playing comes back. The combination of lack of content and emphasis on specific content like raids and the PvP seasons, is what drives a lot of casuals from playing this game.

Once people saw the game was less casual, they stopped playing, which has nothing to do with cash shop and has nothing necessarily to do with grind, since many casual players will just farm or grind because it’s an easy solo activity.

It has everything to do with the image of the game and who it’s for.

There was a post on reddit, where someone said just about every post is about raids, and so me and may casual friends are scared to start playing this game. It’s a real problem. There’s evidence that people felt the game became too difficult for them.

At the end of the day, the content drought could very well have caused a downturn in sales, because people who leave games, they sometimes find other games.

Two of my guildies went to BDO and they’re still there. They didn’t come back even though the content drought ended.

Edit: You’re pretty much arguing that stuff taht has been wrong the whole time has finally., after four years, caught up with the game. My argument is that changes to the game have caused people who had been enjoying it more to become more disillusioned with it?

Which do you think is more likely and why?

“You seem to be under the impression that lack of content cant’ be the reason that the game isn’t doing well” No, obviously no content is not good. Heck my B2P model is based on the idea that people want more content.

Most people still active these days seem to believe that the main or only reasons results are down / GW2 is not doing so well is because of the lack of those big season-patches what people then refer to as ‘lack of content’.

What I am saying is that this ‘lack of content’ does not seem to be the main reason for people leaving / results going down. I based this purely on the results. Like how season 2 had lower result as during the time just after season 2 when we had a completely no content-patches. Or how last Q3 did have the lower numbers as the content-free period before.

“Edit: You’re pretty much arguing that stuff taht has been wrong the whole time has finally., after four years, caught up with the game. My argument is that changes to the game have caused people who had been enjoying it more to become more disillusioned with it?

Which do you think is more likely and why?"

If numbers where great all the time and the now suddenly did go down your argument makes more sense. But if we look at the numbers we see they have been dropping for a long time (some seem to forget that) and then this argument does not seem to make sense.

I say it again, When you look at the numbers from release until the announcement of HoT you see a down-trend (First the initial huge drop and then after the first 1,5 year). The announcement and release of HoT seem to have break that and managed to create a temporary bump. However if you would follow that down-trend from there you would end up where we are now.

That there is a bigger drop half a year after HoT is mainly because of those people that did return (because as you say, many won’t come back, but something like a first expansion will get many people back). Clearly whatever they left for before is still in HoT and so they left again. That is also why I did say ‘whatever is wrong, Anet better fix it with HoT’.

I am also not saying that now after 4 years the problem caught up with the game. I always talk about how the approach was bad in the long-term because people would get burned out by the game and then start leaving. Some people can take more grind then others. So you do see results going down over time. Exactly as we see. At some point that becomes to much.

Obtena.7952:

Because it’s true? I mean, they have demonstrated their ability to create, develop and run a game better than any single player in this forum … so why shouldn’t I believe they don’t know better than you or anyone else posting here? If Anet isn’t doing it right, that’s not any indication that players would do it better, so that asusmption is just crap right from the outset.

Now maybe if you claimed that another game dev could do better, you would have a point … but players? That’s a ridiculous claim. You are being very audacious.

You haven’t shown your understanding in almost any post you make that this is a for-profit business and the restrictions that imposes on the concept, design and delivery of the game. Just based on that fundamental lack of understanding, I will put my money on Anet doing better than you or any other player any day.

We are not talking about running a game but about specific elements / decisions of that. Yeah they are better at creating, developing and running a game better than any single player in this forum. Then again, they are also not one person but a company. So the comparison is false.

“Just based on that fundamental lack of understanding, I will put my money on Anet doing better than you or any other player any day.” Yes I would also put my money on a company with employees and capital over any average single person.

The company however might make some bad decisions that some players would have made different. And we know they made some bad decisions else the game would not be in the down-trend it is in.

They have not demonstrated they are better in making those decisions because then the game would be doing better at this time.

But really it is a non-discussion. Believe what you want to believe. Companies can make bad decisions and that might be things any single other person would have done in another way possible resulting in a better outcome. Now you acknowledge that fact or you don’t. I do not really care to be honest. If you want to ignore any statement / idea / suggestion / theory because ‘they know better’ that is fine by me.

And maybe I should remind you that what I am suggesting is a huge part of what made GW1 big, what made it’s name big. GW1 getting that name is in turn what made GW2 possible in the first place. Without the model I am talking about here, you would not be here because GW2 would not be here. It’s also what Mike O’Brien is talking about all time time, while at the same time it’s not what his company is providing.

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

Obtena.7952:

The only consolation … Anet ignores this kind of nonsense. If they were to take business advice from players, the game would try to be everything to everyone, becoming nothing to no one. Thankfully, Anet’s acumen doesn’t come from gleaning the forums for armchair business analyst ‘conclusions’. Thank goodness some people still believe in the scientific method.

Well I try to do it as scientific as I can with the limited information I have.

Anyway.. Anet indeed does not take this advice. And where are we now… With lower results then ever.

Again, assuming that we are at this position because Anet doesn’t take players advice is exactly what you don’t understand the nonsense approach of your argument. There is nothing that would ever tell you they would be better off listening to players because it requires the assumption that players know better than Anet does … and they don’t. The only thing players know is what they want. Very few players know what is required for Anet to give that to them. Therefore, the assumption is poor.

Calling what you have done here as anything close to having scientific rigor is simply ridiculous.

Maybe, but companies do the same, with more information that is but they are still working based on assumptions. And as you can see by the many failures or now in case of dropping results with GW2 they are not always doing a very good job at it.

That might be so, but to think that players would do better with even less understanding of the business and information than Anet has is just pure nonsense. Essentially you’re telling us that people guessing could do better than Anet does … I mean, that’s just silly.

The way you put it now is as if I say that your average person will know better then your average company. And that is not what I am saying or trying to say. I am just saying that just because your average person is just an average person, does not mean he can be correct and a company can be wrong. Because that clearly can be the case.

And the way you put it, that is the case. You dismiss the arguments on the forum because Anet knows better. That is not by definition true. In fact we see that Anet is struggling to do it right.

So why believe so strongly that they know better and be so happy that they don’t listen to people on the forum (If it comes to these kinds of things)?

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

We can look at other non-MMO games to also get an idea. For example GTA cost €256 million to build. It earned about €800 million in the first 24 hours…

Self-serving cherry-picking at work.

At $60 per that $800M revenue represents 13,333,333 sales. To put that in perspective, WoW’s high-water mark for subs was ~12,000,000. All that proves is that a lot more people buy and play non-MMO’s than buy/play MMO’s.

Yeah they also invested so much money on that game because of how well the franchise does. Obviously you make an expectation on what you expect to sell and based the investment on that. WoW Vanilla was build for 65 million (Hard to translate that to todays money, but likely under 100 million).

I happened to have taken one of the biggest games / franchises out there, simply because there is also so much information about it. And the 50 million a year for running cost is also from the biggest MMO out there. That would also be lower if you have a game with a smaller player-base.

It is just to show how it can work. I don not say a MMO should invest 256 million in their game. Only The Elder Scrolls Online and Star Wars: The Old Republic came close to that with an investment of 200 million because their investors (wrongly) figured that the IP would be strong enough to attract so many players.

Anyway, in the end you are now cherry-picking because you do indeed mention that the $800M is like huge and not comparable with most MMO’s. But you don’t mention that that also means those MMO’s will then also invest less money.

The exact GTA example would only work if you had some MMO that would sell just as well. The the formula also works with lower numbers, as long as they are all in balance.

maddoctor.2738:

Devata.6589:

That however removes the game-play value of them and undermines the few that you can get in-game.

Since we agree that cash shop games get way more skins than non-cash shop games, the real question then is:
“Do we have too few items available in-game compared to expansion-based games?”

If the amount of items we get in-game in GW2 is similar to the amount of items you get in an expansion-based game then the cash shop isn’t exactly hurting the game compared to an expansion. If the amount of skins we get in-game in GW2 is way lower than the amount of skins expansion-based games give then yes the cash shop does indeed detract from the game in terms of shinny reward choice.

It’s really hard to make such a comparison though

I think we do indeed have to few, while the distribution is also hard because of the way the game is build. Only one new dungeon since the beginning, no traditional quest and so on.

That leaves achievements as primary way to reward such items. That works but is just a little less interesting as getting it for completing something / as a drop.

Nonetheless. Even if a game would have enough. If at the same time there are so many, and maybe even better ones available for grind then that undermines the ones that are in the game.

If you had a few in the cash-shop that would not yet be a huge problem. But with so many it is.

Just look back at content that was well received and see how their rewards where.

A lot of the time the combination of good content and good rewards is what you need. It is in my opinion why the Molten Facility dungeon was so well received at the time. Just as Aetherblade Retreat.

For the people who like a challenge the raids are well received. Just as the Aetherpath and The Queen’s Gauntlet.

That where all examples of good content with good rewards. You need both. Just good rewards with bad content does not work but in many cases good content without good rewards will also not work. (This is mainly true for PvE where people can usually eventually learn how to outsmart the AI. With PvP that is not so much of a problem. People fighting people is less likely to get boring.)

Nonetheless, even if you have a lot of that in-game, when at the same time you can simply buy even better looking stuff for gold / cash that completely undermines the ones you get in-game. While it would be less of a problem as when you have to few in-game and a lot for sale (what is now the case imho).

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

Obtena.7952:

The only consolation … Anet ignores this kind of nonsense. If they were to take business advice from players, the game would try to be everything to everyone, becoming nothing to no one. Thankfully, Anet’s acumen doesn’t come from gleaning the forums for armchair business analyst ‘conclusions’. Thank goodness some people still believe in the scientific method.

Well I try to do it as scientific as I can with the limited information I have.

Anyway.. Anet indeed does not take this advice. And where are we now… With lower results then ever.

Again, assuming that we are at this position because Anet doesn’t take players advice is exactly what you don’t understand the nonsense approach of your argument. There is nothing that would ever tell you they would be better off listening to players because it requires the assumption that players know better than Anet does … and they don’t. The only thing players know is what they want. Very few players know what is required for Anet to give that to them. Therefore, the assumption is poor.

Calling what you have done here as anything close to having scientific rigor is simply ridiculous.

Maybe, but companies do the same, with more information that is but they are still working based on assumptions. And as you can see by the many failures or now in case of dropping results with GW2 they are not always doing a very good job at it. All I am saying is that you should not always think they know better because time has proved they do not.

As you say “The only thing players know is what they want.” (while some might not even know what they want) this is the basis of what you need to know. You want to sell a product so you better make sure you make something they want.

Knowing what players want might be the most important part of the puzzle. Sure a kittenty game with good marketing can still sell good and the other way around. But especially when you want to keep things going over a longer period this is the key information you need.

And in a way those monetize people at Anet know that, because that is why they are selling these items right? But they seem to forget (or don’t care) then they then also end up with a game that a lot of people do not want.

maddoctor.2738:

Devata.6589:

The cash-shop model on the other hand at least grantees that compromises in the content had to be made.

This is what you fail to understand. The cash shop model adds extra items that wouldn’t exist in game otherwise there is no reason to believe that without the cash shop those items would’ve been given inside the game. They wouldn’t even exist.

Do we really need a festive mini Aurene in-game?
Isn’t the regular version which you get from a collection enough?

Do you really believe that those outfits, back items and black lion weapons added would’ve been added in game if the game was using an expansion model? Because I don’t think that would make any kind of sense because they’ve added a billion skins in the game and they’d require 100+ expansions to provide all of them in-game.

And the next failure is how you get those rewards you so like in other games. More often than not it requires grind and repetition, more than enough of it. Just take a look at Guild Wars 1 and how much grinding you had to do to get any of the pretty skins. With abysmal low chance of getting anything remotely interesting, you had to play the same type of content a bazillion times to get the rewards you wanted. The alternative they used in Guild Wars 1 so you wouldn’t need to bleed to death getting those rewards? They made them available with gold.

“This is what you fail to understand. The cash shop model adds extra items that wouldn’t exist in game otherwise” I already acknowledged that fact multiple times. So not sure why you still say I do not understand that? Do I have to acknowledge it 10 times before you accept it? Ok, here we you.

“The cash shop model adds extra items that wouldn’t exist in game otherwise” correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct, correct.
Now happy?

All I am saying is that without a cash-shop you would still want such items in the game and have them as rewards. Maybe instead of 150 skins we only would have 100 or 50. But at least those would be cool rewards to go after in the game. That is what I am saying.

Now if you selling such items you better make sure that most of the good looking ones are in the cash-shop. That however removes the game-play value of them and undermines the few that you can get in-game.

"
Do we really need a festive mini Aurene in-game?
Isn’t the regular version which you get from a collection enough?
"
Nice that you take this example. No, this is exactly how it should be. The regular version that you earn by doing content. Perfect. Now if all the cosmetics (even if ‘all’ is then a lower number) would be in-game in a similar way, so as a reward for completing content. That would make a huge positive difference.

And I must say GW2 did make progression with this over the years. (adding more of these rewards in-game). But overall, collecting such items still is a grind.

“They made them available with gold.” What results in people doing the most gold-rewarding content to get all the items they want and so they get burned out. Because doing one dungeon many times for one reward might get boring indeed. But then once you get it you can go do another dungeon for another reward. In fact, you might be mixing both dungeons up (as you want both rewards) and also go for a few that do not require doing a dungeon many times but completing a quest-chain. Once you have the reward there is other content for other rewards.

Now with the gold-approach there are maybe 5 best ways to get the gold and so people will go do that over and over again. What in the end means more grind because you keep doing the same thing for everything instead of doing one thing a lot for one item and then another thing a lot for another items and so on. And then there is the fact that is removes the value of those items. The item does not say you completed x or y. It just means you spend a lot of money on the game or grinded a lot. Nothing to really be proud of.

Astralporing.1957:

Devata.6589:

Vayne.8563:

And since the expansion wasn’t well received by Anet’s own admission,. that doesn’t mean anything at all.

Again you repeat something that has been proven wrong. Most active players did buy the expansion. (And likely many old) So the expansion itself did fine.

Erm… Yes, most of current active non-f2p players have HoT. That’s not because the expansion did good. That’s because a lot of players that didn’t like it stopped playing and are active no longer.

The sale estimation for HoT from around year ago was around 300-400k boxes sold. That wasn’t good numbers for a game that, at some point during first year, boasted of greater concurrent usage numbers and managed to sell over 5 million of core boxes.

Additionally, both Anet devs and NCsoft management have flat out admitted that the HoT sales weren’t that good.

No, the ones that where active around the release of HoT.

“That wasn’t good numbers for a game that, at some point during first year, boasted of greater concurrent usage numbers and managed to sell over 5 million of core boxes.”
Now that is completely true. But then you again forget that results dropped very fast in the beginning. Many players where long gone even before HoT came back. And it came to late to get them all back. It did manage to get a lot of old players back but by far all.
But is that because of HoT of because how GW2 performed right after those initial huge sales?

“Additionally, both Anet devs and NCsoft management have flat out admitted that the HoT sales weren’t that good.” You have a source for that? All I did see is the statement that the numbers of F2P players buying the game / expansion where much lower then they had expected.

GW2 just alienated a lot of people over the first 1,5 year and then took another 1,5 year before it came with it’s first expansion. That was the problem. But looking at where the game was before the announcement of HoT, HoT still did pretty well.

Obtena.7952:

The only consolation … Anet ignores this kind of nonsense. If they were to take business advice from players, the game would try to be everything to everyone, becoming nothing to no one. Thankfully, Anet’s acumen doesn’t come from gleaning the forums for armchair business analyst ‘conclusions’. Thank goodness some people still believe in the scientific method.

Well I try to do it as scientific as I can with the limited information I have.

Anyway.. Anet indeed does not take this advice. And where are we now… With lower results then ever. So one thing that we know for a fact: What they do is not working out. And who knows, maybe some of the ideas that where on the forum would have worked out. Maybe not. Again, we do not know that we only know that what they are doing now (not based on the forum) is not working out.

I am not sure why you are thankfully for that. But that is fine by me. I guess dropping results make you happy.

——

I keep finding it interesting to see how some people so strongly believe that all those companies know better because they are companies. They don’t see so many companies fail? Heck, they don’t even see the current results drop? It is really amazing. They are cheering for the people who are messing up.

Vayne.8563:

Nope, working with no information and drawing conclusions isn’t the best you can do. That’s literally the worst thing you can do.

All you can do when given not enough information, really all you can do, is say I don’t have enough information. You don’t have enough information period. Not a guessing game. Not a theory. Not an opinion. Enough information to draw your conclusions doesn’t exist outside Anet themselves, and maybe not even there. It’s entirely possible that even with their information they don’t know what went wrong.

Here we go again. Yeah then nobody on this forum should make any suggestion or put up any theory again (including you) because they can never proof a 100% that what they suggest / say / claim is correct simply because we all do not have all the numbers.

And of-course all companies should stop doing what they do because they all make decisions based on the limited (almost never 100%) information they have.

I can keep repeating this. But the whole economy and almost everything we do is based on partial information, on theories, on ideas and so on.

Oldirtbeard.9834:

Here’s my take on why we had two crumby quarters, a lot of skillless casuals that were used to facetanking Core Tyria mobs/events/World Bosses got angry and quit the game after Heart of Thorns was released. Granted all I have is assumptions but let’s think about this here, Season 3 was delayed because a ton of man power went into the April Duct Tape patch which made major corrections to experience gains for Masteries and major difficulty reductions for open world Maguuma content ( you can’t tell me they did this and delayed Season 3 for laughs), why nerf your expansion content if your cash shop is making money and people are playing it, then the other quarter was crumby because again Season 3 was delayed for almost a year. I have talked to a fair amount of former GW2 players through MassivelyOP a lot of them quit because they felt GW2 had turned their backs on them in favor of a Hard Core minority due to harder Open World, less maneuverability dictated by masteries and convoluted path ways (think Moria expansion), and Raids which were the only new content for almost a year.

Money Talks,
Yours truly the Gray Knight (meaning I’m a fanboy but I won’t blow smoke up any ones *).

It might be part of it, but is PvE really more HC? It was mainly focused around group-content. That was my main problem with it, and that after completing a map I had not unlocked everything I needed to explore the next map, and even after completing all I could explore I still had not unlocked the abilities needed to unlock the part that I could not get to. So the only way to do that was to join up with the group events (that spawned once every 2 hours or so?) then be in there for a full hour and do that multiple times. That I did not like (And so did not do) but it was not really hard content. It just took look, was not that fun and you needed a lot of people to complete it with success.

Also this ignores the fact that results where dropping before HoT. Like I mentioned multiple times before. When you would follow the down-trend the results where in before the announcement of HoT, you would now be at similar results as you are now. In fact I believe that the dropping results where one of the reasons Anet did go for an expansion.

But it might be true that the direction Anet did go in with HoT was not great, while HoT does have some great additions.

2/2
“Guild Wars 1 didn’t make the money you think it did, that’s one of your biggest sources of evidence and it turns out you were incorrect. How are you even still arguing this?” If you lose money that means your expenses are higher then your income. What I have been looking at is how good both games where able at retaining people / income. GW1 was way better at that. Now if GW2 was as good at that as GW1, GW2 would have made more money then it did now.

The part I can not answer is how much less would it make without the cash-shop. But if a game is able to keep income more stable over a longer term it will also earn more money over a longer term. So as long as the earning are still enough to be higher as the cost (per quarter) you are fine. GW1 actual cost do not say much about that. Sadly I do not have the data to make that final calculation.

We can look at other non-MMO games to also get an idea. For example GTA cost €256 million to build. It earned about €800 million in the first 24 hours, Running the servers of WoW cost about 50 million per year (Source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.288735-This-WoW-Infographic-Presents-Quite-a-Few-Really-Big-Numbers ) So lets do the following. 800 – development-cost of initial game. 800 – 256 = 544. You know what, they make an expansion 2 years later and it’s an big MMO so have two years of server cost. So lets subtract the development-cost for the next expansion from the money we have left. 544 – 256 = 288. Then let’s subtract the running-cost of the servers. 288 – 100 = 180 million. So with that model you would have the money to pay the development of the first expansion, pay of the investment of the last one and keep the servers running until the next expansion and still have a profit on 180 million just from what you earned in the first 24 hours.

That is really the most simply way of explaining my proposed model. But it only works if your game is a huge success (Like GW2 was), and that is why it is a high risk model.

If GW1 lost money it’s likely that it’s initial cost where higher then it’s income. (I really have to go over the numbers). But that is a separate issue. What is interesting to see about GW1 is that is was able to retain similar results over a longer time (Unlike GW2). With other words. Going back to GTA 5 and applying the GW1 model, the next expansion would also make about the same amount of money as the initial game. With the GW2 model you did see numbers going down overtime.

Hope this explains to you why the model is still viable, even if GW1 would nett have not made any money. Still have to dive into those numbers btw, only had a fast look at what Behellagh linked.

1/2

Vayne.8563:

You’re really stretching what was said. I said that one bad quarter does not represent a trend, two bad quarters would certainly start to represent a trend. I stand by that. I see a trend. I see that this game isn’t doing as well now as it was a year ago.

Now, it just so happens that that tiny little bit of information that supports what you believe exists. But it’s only a tiny bit of information. You can see elsehwhere where I’ve complained about the image of the game which used to be casual, becoming harder and harder core due to the focus or seeming focus on raids and PvP. The most visible parts of the game.

What you’re doing here is completely misrepresenting something I said to try to prove a point, I now agree the game has issues with either player retention or getting people to spend money in the gem store compared to a year ago. That’s obvious.

That has nothing at all to do with this argument and trying to make it so makes you look terribly desperate. How does that one fact even begin to prove what caused it?

You’re stretching it. Guild Wars 1 didn’t make the money you think it did, that’s one of your biggest sources of evidence and it turns out you were incorrect. How are you even still arguing this?

“What you’re doing here is completely misrepresenting something I said to try to prove a point” I did not mention that to proof a point. I mentioned that because you expected the these quarters to do better (in a way that was your prediction) based on the idea that the ‘lack of content’ was the problem.

And obviously additional content is good. It’s not like I think added content does not help (More content is also part of why I expect Q4 to do better, next to it being Q4). I just don’t think it’s the big issue. It’s also not strange that most active happy players want that content and so see lack of it as the big problem. But that does not seem to be the thing that is in the end driving people away so much.

What I am saying here is that you talk about that quarter, then your ‘prediction’ is false, the numbers go down and you are still blaming lack of content as one of the biggest reasons. However at the same time when I have a theory you complain that I can not factually proof it. That is also why I talk about you living in a dream-world. You only see what you want to see.

“Now, it just so happens that that tiny little bit of information that supports what you believe exists.” Well the thing is, what many people here seem to misunderstand is that I am saying “Look my prediction is correct, so that proof my theory was correct.” That is false. I might be saying.. My prediction was right and it was based on that theory but I do not claim that that proofs the theory. I do ask you all to please wake up and at least look at other possibilities.

I mean, look at this thread. You see all the same arguments being used that have been used over the 3 years I was active here. Most have validity to them but are not 100% correct or ar just minning the point. Like ‘cosmetic in the cash-shop makes for optional grind what is fine’. Well, you see how the results are doing. So maybe people should start to consider the option that ‘optional’ cosmetic grind is nog a good thing? Maybe people should finally be able to look outside of their own ideas. Because what they have been defending all those years has been getting lower and lower results.

Many of those where against the expansion while that was the only time we did see the results go up again.

I know you all love this game, but maybe it’s time (and to late imho) to set of the pink glasses and look at the things for what they are. Don’t dismiss every complain. Something is wrong ant the lack of content does not seem to be the main thing that is wrong. So you should try to remove the pink glasses and be open for other possibilities that can be reason for the dropping results.

Behellagh.1468:

Devata.6589:

Behellagh.1468:

Devata.6589:

Behellagh.1468:

Vayne.8563:

You say having a less intrusive cash shop is the answer, so if expansions cant’ be made as quickly, how are you planning on paying rent, insurance, electricity and 300 plus employees?

That’s because @Devata believes at the core of his being that ANet “could” do it.

I might be wrong. We do however know that their current approach was good for the first 1,5 year or so and then started to drop off more thenthey had hoped.

Didn’t want to resort to this. Air the dark dirty secrets of ArenaNet but if this doesn’t change your mind I don’t know what will. All you have to do is examine the audited annual reports from NCSOFT which breaks out the income and profit of their subsidiaries including ArenaNet.

Looking at the audited annual reports reveals an ugly truth. ArenaNet as an entity never made a profit from Guild Wars.

In 2005 GW sold 41,308 million KrW. ArenaNet only saw 10,608 million KrW of that and almost made a profit, their loss was only 168 million KrW.

In 2006 GW sold 52,560 million KrW. ArenaNet only saw 13,400 million KrW of that and their loss was 2,022 million KrW.

In 2007 GW sold 42,058 million KrW. ArenaNet only saw 12,020 million KrW of that and their loss was 2,975 million KrW.

In 2008 GW sold 26,228 million KrW. ArenaNet only saw 8,131 million KrW of that and their loss was 10,148 million KrW.

In 2009 GW sold 17,127 million KrW. ArenaNet only saw 5,254 million KrW of that and their loss was 21,658 million KrW.

ArenaNet had to pay off the development cost of GW just like an author or a band paying off their advance. And in 2009 they announced work on GW2. [sarcasm]It sure looks like that box expansion plan for GW really worked out for them.[/sarcasm] By the end of 2012, the last time ANet was broken out as it was “absorbed” into NC West Holdings along with NC Interactive and Carbine, ANet had liabilities, aka debt, of 128,000 million KrW. That’s the year GW2 sold 164,854 million KrW and ANet saw 68,000 million of that and actually had a profit of 28,000 million KrW.

This is part of the reason they decided that to maintain their B2P/no subscription approach, went with the cash shop.

Edit: This also makes the taking over of distribution by ANet for HoT a lot of sense so they could book more of that income without letting NC Interactive suck up a sizable cut.

You have a source for that? While it’s mainly interesting to see the development-cost vs the profit. You want to know the nett profit, not what part did go to NCsoft or what part did go to ArenaNet. Was the model profitable or not is the question. As far as I know development-cost have never been disclosed. So I wonder what you base your numbers on.

Like where in those reports. I would like to have a look at it.

It would also be interesting to see those numbers with all the results. Just to see how well the game is really doing.. or not doing. How do these dropping results really effect the game / ArenaNet. Maybe they are losing money right now as well?

How good is your Korean? I’ve been following NCSOFT since 2004 and they use to have the audit reports on the global site in English but now they only exist on the Korean site in Korean, in a PDF so even Google Translate can’t “read” them for you".

http://kr.ncsoft.com/korean/board/downloadlist.aspx?BID=ir_audit

EDIT: —-————————————

Well look at that, NCSOFT’s global site no longer has a navigational link to audit reports in English in the menu but they did leave the location to the English versions in the sitemap.

http://global.ncsoft.com/global/board/downloadlist.aspx?BID=ir_audit

The numbers I used were the sales income that ArenaNet got to book as income in comparison to the income NCSOFT stated the game made that year, and the profit/loss after expenses on the condensed income statement. Overall debt can be seen in the condensed balance sheet. As the years go by, the format and data required to be reported about the subsidiaries got more and more condensed. Last few years before the folding into NC West Holdings was pretty much bottom lining assets, debts, sales and profits.

Thanks a lot! I will look into those numbers one I have the time. I think it’s just interesting to see what more I can extract from that.

Any idea what is all part of “Selling and administrative expenses”. Because the part you are taking these numbers from (Condensed Income Statement) where you see the negative, I do miss a few things like running / development cost. Or is that part of the administrative expenses. I am also missing the investments and paying off the investments.

It’s probably all there, but under what name.

JTGuevara.9018:

Looking at gw2 results as a whole, PvE is doing well. PvP and WvW are not.

PvE has steady content, fractals, raids, gem store, etc. I find that PvE players are more satisfied overall with the game. With PvP and WvW players it’s the exact opposite.
ANet does PvE best. They just have no idea what to do with PvP and WvW.

As in the content they keep adding you are right. Nonetheless we do see a down-trend in the results and likely in the number of players. So they are still losing players.

And if you are not really into cosmetics or have no problem with grinding but do like the story then PvE also is really good. However in that case Anet is not likely to earn a lot of money from you.

With the model they used, those that they potentially earned the money from also got bored of the game the fastest I think. Simply because the cash-shop focus on the people who like cosmetics, but did not like grind. But if that is what you like, the content does not have much to offer.

2/2

“The other two B2P MMO’s have stores modeled to some degree after ANet’s because they though it was a successful model. Just why is that?”
Lol, now GW2 was the first with this cash-shop model? No GW2 did copy it from others as well. Anyway, from a financial viewpoint the cash-shop-model is indeed great because it is low risk and high return. Even if the game fails, you will usually have some player-base. You can then leave a few devs behind to only make some items for the cash-shop and so squeeze the last money out of the game.

It however might not be so great if you look at the longer-term. But also that is not a problem for many companies. They put up their game, earns their money and move to the next project. However, from a gamer-perspective the model is better and if you do manage to get a good game out with a B2P model it will be better over the longer term. Simply because it is better for your customer and so you will keep more customers over a longer period. You might have a problem with it, but as a customer I do not only look at it from the perspective of the company, but also from the customer.

But that means you need a very successful game and keep that running over a longer period. With all the games failing that is a very high rist and maybe even a higher return but over a longer period. That is why companies are more likely to go for the cash-shop approach. Low risk and high return over a shorter period.

“Just why is that? Maybe the GW model was not as successful as you want to believe. No one seems to be emulating it, after all.” Because they found out the low-risk cash-shop model. Also GW1 was not big enough to get companies attention. You need one huge success with a model and then suddenly companies are massively going to jump into that model. That is how P2P and later the cash-shop became so popular.
At that point it does not even matter if it is still a good idea (look at the many P2P fails) but once those companies see that one big success they all jump on it.

“From my time there, I’d say their XPac rewards consisted of an armor tier or two (three weights), some mounts and maybe a few other things. Of course, a lot of that was hidden behind RNG grind (drops in raids/dungeons) or rep grinds (OIHWD “Oh I hated WoW dailies).” Some where indeed grindy, many where not. You say there are some. But there was enough to keep you busy for a long time. There was one profession / craft dedicated to it (Engineering) and later a second craft that also did go for many of that type of rewards (Archeology). There where many ‘toys’ or special items you could go for. They even had a collection of pet-stones. Just useless items but for people who like something like that it was great. Many, many mounts. You talk about a few but there are like 65 mounts per expansion you could get. Some easy, some hard, some as a quest-reward some as behind grind, some as a dungeon-reward, some you had to craft and so on. There are like 100 companions / mini’s per expansion. For rangers / hunters there are special beast to catch.

There are lot of these types of items. In WoW it was basically what I played. I did the quest and hunted for such items. The fact that you think there are not so much is because you clearly don’t care much for such items. And that is exactly why you have no problem with the cash-shop model and why you defend the current model and can not see that this is a problem for many people. Fact is, especially because GW2 focuses so much on cosmetics the absence of that (other then from grind) is even worse then it would be if it was not in a game like WoW. It’s part of what made that game such a success.

You say that there would be no reason for Anet to put them in. But tell me, if people are not interested in them, why do you think Anet uses such items to try and earn there money. They know people are interested in them, and so it makes perfect sense to give them as rewards for content… If you are not selling them for money that is. Now they sell them for money but get content that feels unrewarded and will bore people out over time. Maybe you had to do a dungeon x times in WoW to get an item. In GW2 if that dungeon does not reward enough gold there is no reason at all. So you jump to what ears the most money and will do that 1000 times. Way better :S

1/2

IndigoSundown.5419:

Again, you have nothing except your pie-in-the-sky hope that ANet would continue to add cosmetics/rewards to pursue in game at any rate higher than they are already doing. The standard in the industry does not support that hope. Rewards come in with new content, and except very infrequently, that’s that until the next new content. A new outfit or new weapon skins biweekly/monthly is purely an artifact of the store.

You say that if they went full B2P as you prefer they would have no competition. That’s correct. The other two B2P MMO’s have stores modeled to some degree after ANet’s because they though it was a successful model. Just why is that? Maybe the GW model was not as successful as you want to believe. No one seems to be emulating it, after all.

You can say that most of the stuff in WoW is earned in game and that you don’t want the stuff in their store enough to complain about it. From my time there, I’d say their XPac rewards consisted of an armor tier or two (three weights), some mounts and maybe a few other things. Of course, a lot of that was hidden behind RNG grind (drops in raids/dungeons) or rep grinds (OIHWD "Oh I hated WoW dailies). The kittens had their hands on my credit card every month in addition to the XPac fee and they didn’t really add a lot more stuff to pursue in game than ANet has.

Sure, it is not a fact that they would add them in. But it would make perfect sense. It’s what MMO’s do. It’s how rewards work in an MMO. But this comes back to what I said before. A B2P model allows for a good game, it indeed does not guarantee one. The cash-shop model on the other hand at least grantees that compromises in the content had to be made.

“The standard in the industry does not support that hope.”? Your average P2P MMO game does that. So I would say the standard in the industry does support it.

“Rewards come in with new content, and except very infrequently” Are we going to do another straw-man? Now suddenly we are talking about when it comes in? Yes it would indeed come in with the new content, that would then come in with the expansions. I never said it would come in at any other point. I always said it belongs to or is part of the content. So yes, it comes in with the content (In the case of a B2P model).

“A new outfit or new weapon skins biweekly/monthly is purely an artifact of the store.” It is. That however does not mean that is does not undermine the content-rewards. Because it does.
The reward-system in GW2 is boring to say the least, and that simply is because most nice items are behind a grind-wall, not behind interesting content. All rewards and the best rewards should come from the content. But with this current model, most and some of the best come from the cash-shop. That completely undermines all other rewards and so makes the content feel unrewarding and so boring. Want to go for rewards? Well then buy them or grind for them what in total makes the game boring. And that is just sad for a game that had so much potential.
Now it does not matter a lot anymore. People already lest and it;s not likely they will come back. So believe what you want to believe. I think this is a big reason for the people to leave. Fact is, many left.

IndigoSundown.5419:

You cited the complaints about grind as evidence that there’s support for your position. Your assertion ignores the fact that most of the complaints about grind in GW2 come from people who want rewards with less time spent.

The majority of earn-able rewards in HoT were not that hard to get, and the XPac did not hold peoples’ attention long enough for Anet to ramp up LS3.

WoW is an aberration in the industry. It was a game that got into the market at the perfect time with a developed IP, and developed a following. Despite that, its population crested during Wrath and by late 2015 was around half of its peak. It gains players after XPacs, and loses them in the valleys between. All WoW numbers prove is that it’s the right business model for that game.

You propose a business model in which ANet would cut its revenue stream. So where are they going to get the funds to create those rewards? All MMO’s make the minimal number of rewards they think they can get away with when its one price buys all — even WoW. The only reason ANet cranks out more than that minimum is precisely because they produce a revenue stream.

I assume you mean guarantee. If you genuinely believe that the ANet cash shop is intrusive, then I invite you to go try games by GPotato, Aeria, Nexon, or Perfect World. The Anet store is nearly invisible by comparison.

You’re dreaming. It’s fine to want what you want, but you’re not going to see it from any MMO.

“Your assertion ignores the fact that most of the complaints about grind in GW2 come from people who want rewards with less time spent.”
No, that is an assertion you are making. In any thread about grind I always did see people comming in talking about how people wanted things for free. Of course that never was what most of the people complaining about grind asked for.

HoT did have much of the same problems. It did try to do better. Raid rewards are good and the new legendary system is partly better (while it still contains the grind part what also destroys it again)

But other then that? What rewards? I can’t say I was able to go on a hunt for interesting rewards in HoT.

Ah, I am sure there will be an MMO that will have this at some point.

“You propose a business model in which ANet would cut its revenue stream. So where are they going to get the funds to create those rewards? "
It’s more like spreading the revenue out over a bigger period. Less in the beginning more overtime. Less in the beginning still does not mean ‘not enough’. It could still be enough to develop the next expansion and so that is when rewards get put in. You know, as part of the content. You seem to already separate the two.

“The Anet store is nearly invisible by comparison.” The fact that some do worse does not makes this good. Anyway this is again just based on the perspective you are looking from. For anybody who likes the hunt for these type of items, the GW2 cash-shop is extremely intrusive because it effectively destroys that part of the game.