Guild Wars 2

Obtena.7952:

PHEW! I see little point in arguing about what amounts to garbage science. I fear for the future it this approach to logic is rampant. So little information, so many hypothesis. It’s actually scary that someone would think they could say so much based on so little information. I wouldn’t even be bold enough to make a hypothesis based on the information available to us; some people think they have the whole thing figured out.

You can only work with the information you have, and theories can always be presented if they have a logical base.

The data you do have can proof some things and can’t proof other things. Thats how science work.

However, simply because you don’t have all data does not mean you should not talk about any theories.

maddoctor.2738:

I was talking about the drop comparing LS1 and LS2. LS2 was less successful than LS1 and to me it’s because LS1 was more inclusive, it had content to satisfy most players in the game while LS2 was more focused in storyline and new pve open world maps.

I think it is a hard comparison because LS1 was win the 1,5 year of GW2 while LS2 was much later. People did complain a lot about LS1 and LS2. But in general yeah all inclusive content is likely better then content focused on one group.

maddoctor.2738:

LS3 appears to be all inclusive again (only missing WvW but that should come early 2017- I hope), so I expect some gain we’ll see how high up it will go. Q3 wasn’t a very good indicator for me because Ember Bay was released very close to the end of Q3 (September 20th, Q4 starts October 1st right?) so there wasn’t enough time to collect data for it. Of course it will include the sale too so it won’t be possible to separate what’s from the sale and what’s from the content (plus Q4 is better time for games anyway) but anyway let’s see how high it goes in Q4.

Well S3 started at July 26 so there are 2 full months of S3 in Q3. I also expect Q4 to be higher, big question then is how much. The problem with Q4 (any Q4, not only this one) is that numbers tent to be higher on average, so it’s hard to draw a conclusion from that. So if you want to see how GW2 is doing over-time Q1 would be more interesting. Q4 might give a false picture.

maddoctor.2738:

I was wondering, where can we see the numbers from the China release?

Not sure where you can get those numbers separate. btw, that reminds me, you did question about the lag of content before S2. Did the China release not have a lot to do with that.

maddoctor.2738:

Devata.6589:

Zero-content? Correct me if I am wrong, but did we not have the first feature pack and Festival of the four winds? Also the first releases of S1 where really small. So they did release content and maybe also simply needed time to set up the next season.

I doubt those working on a Feature Pack are the same creating new story content. An extra reason for LS1 releases to be smaller at first was due to the festivals. Unlike later years, the first festivals weren’t repeats of old ones, things like Shadow of the Mad King and Wintersday had lots of content that during the first year of the game, they were actually new. On the other hand the Festival of the Four Winds (between LS1 and LS2) was a repeat of the previous year, not new content at all.

We did only get one new dungeon-path during Season 1 right? Then again Season one was mainly during the first 1,5 year after release. Then everything is still fresh. After that period things start to be like ‘been there, done that’. That is also one of the reasons why I say the expansions should be released within 1 to 1,5 year.

We got 3 dungeons and 1 fractal during LS1 (excluding the fractal release which had lot more). We got the Molten Facility dungeon in April 2013, Aetherblade Retreat in June 2013, Aetherpath in October 2013 and Thaumanova Reactor in November 2013 . That’s an amazing good pace of new instanced content, approximately 1 instance every couple of months. (LS2 had 0). Even Winterday has a mini-dungeon, Halloween had a mini-dungeon, in general they used to love dungeons during the first year.

Well if you count Molten Facility and Aetherblade Retreat then I guess you’re right. On the other hand Season 2 had a lot of instanced content and two maps.
The festivals where indeed something they would now have had less work on. Maybe some of the things from S1 where partly developed during the creating of GW2?

I just don’t see a good reason to believe they would be lying and would in fact have been working on the expansion for much longer. What I see suggest to me that indeed they made that change at the end of S2.

But really you are asking me things Anet should answer.

maddoctor.2738:

Yes a gap that had only a revamp of Shatterer as content for the average player and the rest were the 3 Raid Wings and pvp seasons. It means they didn’t learn what caused the revenue drop during the previous year at all. But during that time they had to revamp the HoT zones to fix what the community didn’t like about them, that was surely not a small task.

What drop you refer to?

Vayne.8563:

@Devata

Edited to make it correct.

I predict one day Donald Trump will no longer be president of the United States. At some point, the prediction will be right. Saying you predicted something that applies to virtually every single MMORPG on the planet isn’t really anything to crow about.

You made a very general statement that the sales wouldn’t maintain their current level. That they’d go down at some point. I could have predicted the exact same thing, since it’s happened to Eve and World of Warcraft and Guild Wars 1, in fact, virtually every game that’s ever been created.

That is partly true. It was however a little more specific. While I can’t find the exact statement I also first defined that long term as around 3 years. Now you could still say that is true for most MMO’s. However I (and you) did not see GW2 as most MMO’s. I still think GW2 had the potential to be one of the big MMO’s out there. In that perspective there is no reason why results could not be much higher. For example, WoW did only get more players for the first 5 years. When they announced HoT I was more specific by saying the first half year was important because else people would leave during that time.

I put that quote in my last comment to you but can do it again: Statement: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/This-game-isn-t-as-grindy-as-other-MMOs/first#post5817481 “It’s up to Anet to fix this problem before the filter starts working again. Imho that is within the first half year of the release of HoT.”
And then the results are in the Excel.

And I made this claim multiple times.

So it’s way more specific as your example. It would be more like, if he does x, then he will leave office after 2 years.

Vayne.8563:

Sales go up for a while sales go down eventually. That’s sort of the whole deal with expansions.

Yeah obviously, however sales were going down and the expansion had to break that down-trend. However while it did manage to get a temporary bump, we are now where we would be if you would have followed the downtrend from where it was before the HoT announcement.

Vayne.8563:

During our numerous conversations in the past, where you pushed an expansion model, I made comments that there’s more risk involved in an expansion, because if an expansion doesn’t do well, its’ a huge investment for little return.

Yeah and I agreed that my model had more risk than the cash-shop model. Now I think from sales perspective the expansion itself did do fairly well. It likely did cover the cost of building it. So far so good. However it did not manage to get the people who left to stay this time. That is another thing this expansion had to fix (leaving people) but did not fix.
Now why where they leaving in the first place. In my opinion the main reason was because the content was grindy. You might think it are other reasons. Nonetheless, HoT clearly did not solve those problems.

Vayne.8563:

Look, my prediction came true too. Anet came out with an expansion that didn’t do as well as predicted and Anet has lost money.

HoT did not do as well as predicted.. Anet lost money? It did not solve the problem it should solve, but did it not do as well as they predicted (as in sales) and they lost money on it? Can you back up those claims? You always talk about ‘facts’ so I guess you have factual proof of this? Because I think you might be wrong here.

Also, saying something is more risky (what you indeed did say and I agreed) is not the same as the prediction that the expansion would not sell well and Anet would lose money. But then again, is that even true?

Please enlighten us? If HoT sales where considered bad and made them lost money, why is NCsoft then talking about more frequent expansions?

It makes no sense what you are saying here. I expect the next expansion to sell less then they hope, but I don’t think Anet of Ncsoft did see the sales of HoT as not meeting the expectations.

maddoctor.2738:

How do you explain the 4 month zero-content between the end of LS1 and the start of LS2? Or why LS2 lacked any significant repeatable content.

Zero-content? Correct me if I am wrong, but did we not have the first feature pack and Festival of the four winds? Also the first releases of S1 where really small. So they did release content and maybe also simply needed time to set up the next season.

maddoctor.2738:

Yes during LS2 the numbers were dropping. That’s because although LS2 was excellent as far as story goes (it was permanent this time) they released zero content for anyone else that plays the game. No dungeons, no fractals, even the WvW tournament they did was a repeat of the old one without anything new and it had half the duration. In contrast, LS1 was a complete expansion-like package (minus the temporary nature) with releases for all types of players. Something that they go back to with LS3.

We did only get one new dungeon-path during Season 1 right? Then again Season one was mainly during the first 1,5 year after release. Then everything is still fresh. After that period things start to be like ‘been there, done that’. That is also one of the reasons why I say the expansions should be released within 1 to 1,5 year.

maddoctor.2738:

I still don’t believe that the LS2 had their “entire focus”. Just compare what we got in LS3 over these last 6 (including Wintersday 2016) months to what we got in the entire LS2. I will never accept that their entire team can give us LS2, when a small fraction of their team (because the rest are working on the expansion) can give us LS3, either those few working on LS3 are the most talented devs of their team or something is wrong.

I don’t know if it had their entire focus. But based on what I have seen, and what they said in the past and in the link you provided I also don’t think they were working on HoT back then. Not for the biggest part at least.

Maybe they did implement elements (back then and during HoT) that helped them to now make better / faster LS releases? They made statement saying how they build things they could later better build upon. Lastly you seem to forget that there was also a gap of half a year between HoT and S3. That is bigger gap then the 4 months gap (that was not a gap because of the first feature pack and Festival of the four winds) between S1 and S2 that you mentioned.

Vayne.8563:

I like how you try to make this about me, instead of what I’m saying.

I did not go into everything you said most of what you said was not addressed to me, you did however mention me. Besides I did go into a few things that you were saying. Like about how it’s not one big problem but are many small problems according to you.

Vayne.8563:

Other people have seen me complain about things I don’t like. There is definitely blindness here, but I’m not sure I’m the one who’s actually blind.

I know you did, did I say you never had a complain? But it’s also true that you have been defending most of what Anet did.

Vayne.8563:

Take your comment that HoT isn’t good for solo players. I have a guild full of people who solo and many of them play HoT without a problem. They don’t have to group. They figured out how to get around and do the zones.

Let’s quote me

For example I do think the HoT maps are not so good for solo-players.

. That is clearly my opinion. I don’t say it can not work for any solo-player.
And in fact, even you acknowledged solo-players had complains about the HoT maps but Anet had been fixing that with the new zones. Let’s quote you.

The solo people had stuff to complain about.

and

It’s lots of little groups. ~, some solo players

and

But every new zone since that has contained more mastery points than you need, meaning more and more you don’t need to get gold on adventures. Anet went in and made the game more solo friendly

Vayne.8563:

You had an idea in your head, to start, and then you use evidence to back up your ideas. That’s not really the way research works.

No, no and again no. I repeat it again. I did never say that these results proof that the cash-shop focus is the problem. I still think it is the problem but there is no way I can proof it. The results proof my predictions where pretty accurate and my predictions where based on my theory, but that’s about as far as one can go.

Now how do you use ‘evidence’ to back-up your theory / argument? You mention solo-players complaining, then I say I also think HoT is not great for solo-playing and suddenly you seem to forget about your previous statements and use your guild as a type of evidence that solo-play is not a problem.

You been stating for years that we could not know how the numbers would be, and now we have the numbers you still try to ignore them. Last quarter you told somebody to wait for the results of Q3 partly because of S3 before making any conclusions. Now we have the numbers of Q3, they are in fact lower, not higher as you expected and still you manage to say the numbers support your idea.

Really Vayne, you are the one who can only see one truth, even if everything is pointing in another direction or you have to go completely 180 on your own previous statements.

Vayne.8563:

Answer me this one question. How can you possibly know that the game wouldn’t have done worse with the changes you’ve suggested all along?

I cannot know that, I did never suggest I could know that. However what we do know is that for season 2 they did what you suggested (keep on the LS) and that the numbers did go down. We also know that once they made a shift that did go a little in my direction (making an expansion) the results finally did go up again. We can also know (based on forum post I even linked here) that I said that if the grind would not be solved that after the first half year of HoT we would lose the returning players again and continue the downtrend. And we know that is what happened.

So there are some things we do factually know and we do not factually know. That is a fact we have to work with. You never know for a fact if a suggest will have positive or negative effects but still people (including you) make suggestions about things all the time.

Vayne.8563:

It’s always easy to be right when your theories remain untested.

I think! I am right with the theory, but I was right with my prediction. That can be tested.

Statement: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/This-game-isn-t-as-grindy-as-other-MMOs/first#post5817481 “It’s up to Anet to fix this problem before the filter starts working again. Imho that is within the first half year of the release of HoT.”
And then the results are in the Excel.

Nobody here can proof his theories, nor did I say the results proof that theory. But if that is an argument why is anybody here, why are you here? It’s not like you can proof that what you suggest will do any good.

The problem is that you act as if I say that the results proof my theory, something I never did. Maybe it’s a way for you to avoid the real discussion, I don’t know. But it’s not helping anybody and it’s not proving a point.

maddoctor.2738:

The expansion was announced at Q1 2015 and there was no “bump” there so it wasn’t the expansion announcement as much as the 75% sale.

For the whole year of 2014 every quarter the numbers were lower. Q1 2015 did start an increase, that did get higher in Q2 2015 (what might be partly because of that sale you talk about) and then shrunk again at Q3 2015. But even Q3 2015 was higher than Q3 and Q4 of 2014 what had the complete season 2.

maddoctor.2738:

And while they have likely used multiple things for HoT that they already in development, it looks like most of the development really started after Season 2 came to an end. I think there has never been an official statement about that but Wooden Patatoes has talked about that a lot because there are multiple things suggesting that.

Take a look: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/state-of-the-game-update-q1-2016/

Ah great to have an official statement. So indeed most of the work for HoT started after the announcement. Most of the content for S2 had been completed by then.

maddoctor.2738:

So I really doubt they started working on the expansion AFTER LS2, but rather AFTER LS1.

That is what they said themselves in the link you just gave.

From 2012 to 2014, we were focused on developing regular updates through our Living World and feature pack releases. In 2015 our focus predominantly shifted away from live updates and toward our first expansion.

The last chapter of S2 was released in December of 2014.

maddoctor.2738:

They started working on the expansion right after Scarlet died, that’s why there was a huge content break (from March 2014 to July 2014 we got NO content at all) until LS2 started.

I do not think so and it also go’s against what they said themselves. In my opinion back in 2014 they probably still believed they could make it work with the LS approach (Many ‘fanboys’ on the forums where also supporting that idea). However during season 2 the number did keep dropping and so they were pretty much forced (that is what I think) to go for an alternative solution, an expansion.

maddoctor.2738:

And all I was saying is that the content drop was because of the expansion. The revenue drop was because of the expansion and if they continued with their LS releases we wouldn’t have such a drop. I blame the expansion for it and I’m sure even Anet understands that and that’s why Colin said

In 2016 we aim to provide a more balanced focus, which will see efforts divided equally between providing regular updates and working toward the next expansion.

But what you are saying seems to be false. Look at the information. Numbers started to drop during the whole year of 2014, 2014 was the ending of S1 and the complete S2.

They said themselves that during 2012-2014 focus was on the LS and 2015 was mainly focused on the expansion.

Also Colin’s statement that for 2016 they aim to provide a more balanced focus makes perfect sense. If indeed they did not plan to make an expansion when they started with S2 but then where forced to take another approach because of dropping results, it did mean a sudden shift for them what resulted in almost all focus having to go to the expansion during 2015. If things had been better planned (because they planned an expansion form the beginning instead of having to make a sudden switch) they could have this better balance also in 2014 / 2015, heck from 2012 / [alternative date first expansion].

It’s likely the sudden shift that resulted in them having to switch all focus and could not do both. If only my screams that they needed expansion would have been heard back when there would have been plenty of time left.

maddoctor.2738:

Working only on the expansion was a huge mistake. Expansions don’t save games, good paced content does. And personally the LS3 is a great thing and if they keep it up until the next expansion I’ll be really happy.

True, you should not completely forget the game while building an expansion. And one bigger patch in-between expansions is also a good idea. But if they focused on LS only, numbers dropped and they then suddenly had to shift this is what you get.
That is why you always have to look ahead of things. That is why I always talked about the effect on the longer term.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Some are so blind to differing opinions, and even facts, they just can not see. It’s rude to tell me I ‘grind’ when I absolutely state I do not. I know what ‘grind’ is, and it’s not something I do in-game…or out, for that matter.

I don’t agree with your opinion that the Gem Store is the root of all evil in the game. It’s just your opinion, and not worth much more than that.

I’m happy the game has the Gem Store it has, and I’m confident it’s not going anywhere, as well as confident the game isn’t going anywhere…soon.

Good luck.

Oh, and I won’t be back to the thread (it’s a grind), unlike some that just say they won’t.

“It’s rude to tell me I ‘grind’ when I absolutely state I do not. " Did I say you grind? No I did not.
It’s rude to suggest people made claims they did not.

“I don’t agree with your opinion that the Gem Store is the root of all evil in the game. It’s just your opinion, and not worth much more than that.”
Depends really. If my theory is correct it means (or did mean) a lot, if not it’s ‘just an opinion’.

We know numbers did go down pretty close to how I predicted. If my theory is wrong then changes made based on that theory would have been useless, if my theory is correct, changes based on the theory maybe would have put GW2 in a much better place now. We will never know for sure. But that it’s ‘just’ my opinion does not have to be true, that is mainly your opinion, my theory might just be an opinion or it might be the reality as well.

“as well as confident the game isn’t going anywhere…soon.” As in, the servers will close? No I think that will not happen soon, but what you seem to forget is that for many people GW2 did already go away.

“Oh, and I won’t be back to the thread (it’s a grind), unlike some that just say they won’t.” That is fine, I never forced anybody to be here.

Vayne.8563:

The problem with western thinking generally is everyone is looking for one big reason…and a lot of times it’s not one big reason.
~
Because you have to plug lots of little leaks, rather than one big one.

There is a difference between one big reason and one main reasons with additional smaller reasons that might increase the problem. Again, also I did not only mentioned the grind / cash-shop focus but also other things like lack of traditional quests, no seamless zones and in the pass the temporary nature of content, that they luckily fixed.

Yes all those things should be addressed and there more smaller things that are an issue. For example I do think the HoT maps are not so good for solo-players.

But it’s less useful to plug lots of little leaks in a dike when the foundation has a fatal flaw. In fact imo that flaw was there for a long time and I have been here asking for 3 years to fix that flaw. We are now at a point where that flaw has resulted in the collapse of a part of the dike so plugging all the little holes won’t do much anymore. In fact, you can still fix the dike but an even then a bigger challenge is to repair the damage done by the flooding. Many people have left the area and are settling somewhere else.

Vayne.8563:

This whole thread is a Devata “I told you so” thread. It tried to make sense of why the game was not doing as well as it did and said the game could do better.

In a way that is true, but the reason that I made this thread was because I did feel that I also had to come back to take resposibility for my claims (being correct or wrong) after being so active for multiple years here. However it’s also people directly or indirectly asked me to come back. You where one of the persons that basically did that indirectly.

You always said things along the line of ’it’s false logic, things can go different’ and ’it’s not a fact that results will keep going down’. So now we have the factual data I did come back.

I would also have come back if the results would be great, in fact I made the Excel before the results of Q3 where availible and was simply waiting for the results of Q3 to complete the file. Honestly even I expected Q3 to be a little better, not a great improvement that would undo / fix the bad quarter of Q2 but a little higher. I also think that Q4 will be higher, Halloween, S3, Wintersday, more inside hours for most people and simply the fact that it is Q4 should surely help to get the numbers up. Still I don’t think the problems will be over simply if the numbers are a little higher (they must be way higher). I think there is a problem, but also if numbers had proven me wrong I was here. Else I would have not made the Excel while waiting for the last results.

I geuss I expected some people to at least look at things a little different when they had the full picture. To late, but it’s better to open your eyes to late then to not open your eyes. I figured you simply was somebody who was very critital of logic and common sense.

But your comments in this thread have shown different. I mean, not only did you say such things to me 2 years ago, even last quarter you told somebody “It’ll be more interested to see the next quarter, since they put the game on sale for half price. That might have a positive affect on sales, particularly with the LS 3 coming out.”

And now we have the numbers, they are lower and still you somehow manage to see the numbers as supporting your theory. While the numbers did something else as you predicted.

Really that proofs to me it is and always has been completely blind love from your perspective, that also puts all your comments ever on this forum in another persective. It basicaly removes any value of them imo.

Also what you might forget is that you are not an everage player. Most people will not (like it to) complete VB on 20 characters.

If Anet makes this game so it would be good for you it would probably be a huge failure because it’s not something most people would like.

maddoctor.2738:

Yes but the sudden change to the expansion led to a considerable drop due to the lack of content.

Sorry but you are completely wrong here. Look at the results again. Season 2 had lower results then the results during that lack of content because they where building the expansion. After the announcement of HoT (what was followed shortly by a half year without content) the results did go up! Not a drop! So simply the hype of the expansion did the game better then the season 2 release did.

maddoctor.2738:

The next expansion needs to be better planned, with lots of filler content, something that the pre-HoT period severely lacked.

I agree on that (while I still think it’s to late, I think the next expansion will sell less even if it’s better. People simply lost interest. Only if they can market it as basically being GW3 I can see it doing well). That is also why I have been screaming for a focus on expansions since like half a year after the initial release. There was no doubt in my mind that results would go down and that was likely to results in them making an expansion. However by then many damage would already be done and indeed making an expansion suddenly creates many problems. I can’t help it they did not listen to me. I wish they did. Then they would have had plenty of time.

maddoctor.2738:

You are saying that if they followed their previous way of doing things we’d be around here.

No I say that is what the numbers suggest and indeed is also something I believe.

maddoctor.2738:

I disagree, if they continued the LS1 way up to now the game might’ve been at a much better spot.

Based on what? The results where already going down, they where down at the end of season one and continued that trend during season 2.

maddoctor.2738:

The sudden change of “mmm maybe we should make an expansion” led to a long period of nothingness.

A period of nothingness in what the numbers did go up again, and the sudden shift was likely because numbers where going down.

maddoctor.2738:

I wish they’d never even think of expansions and release HoT in episodes, 1 map at the time every 2 weeks like LS1.

Likely, but they had to do something to stop the downtrend and where not able to do everything they wanted in with the LS.

maddoctor.2738:

The data suggest that the major drop in revenue started after the conclusion of LS1. Maybe at that time they decided to dedicate most resources to an expansion and that’s why releases became so rare that we got nothing for long periods?

It was already happening during Season 1. Q12014 already had lower results and was in the middle of season 1 (well the second part of season 1, the first part they did not even named it seasons)

And while they have likely used multiple things for HoT that they already in development, it looks like most of the development really started after Season 2 came to an end. I think there has never been an official statement about that but Wooden Patatoes has talked about that a lot because there are multiple things suggesting that.

Like you said yourself, it seemed like a sudden shift. If it’s sudden they would not be building it during season 2. So there you are conflicting with your own statements.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

They didn’t have to.

You think they where fine with the downing trend of their results? I do think they had to. I am not the only one who makes these graphs, companies do that as well, it’s names Business Information. In fact I do it for them as well. They will also look at trend lines and if they notice a downtrend they have to react. If they don’t they will get into financial problem in the future, and while some people here don’t want to look at the possible future based on data (because you can’t proof it for sure) companies do.

Now of course this sort of negative news is something they will not communicate with us. However I do remember statements from ArenaNet where they also said they had to, not for financial reasons (while I still believe that was an important reason) but because the LS did not allow them to create some things they wanted to create. I can’t find the direct quotes now but it was mentioned multiple times.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

The playerbase asked for an expansion.

True

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

As for expansions coming out at a faster pace, anything short of 3 years will be faster, and as Mike said himself, don’t put much stock in what NCSoft has to say.

Sure, and maybe NCsoft is bluffing, however it does show that they also see expansions as (part of) the solution.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Perhaps, if they had stayed with the Season One format, we wouldn’t be where we are today. I certainly preferred Season One. Though, I have to say, Season Three is a vast improvement over Season Two.

Season 1 without the temporary nature was better as season 2. I am with you on that. Personally I still think things would still have gone down because those seasons don’t create enough hype and to support it would mean cash-shop focus what as you know imo results in grind what burns people out.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

I don’t believe the Gem Store is the root of all evil, especially since we can obtain items without spending real cash. Almost everything I’ve acquired from the Gem Store has been with in-game Gold.

What means grinding gold. Like I said, I blame the cash-shop focus indirectly. The focus on the cash-shop creates grind and the grind is what scares people away or burns them out. That is my theory. That takes time and is why I always talked about the longer term, also back in the day when I first made those claims.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I’ve yet to experience any of this much-lamented ‘grind’. I mostly do Dailies, the occasional mapping, and whatever current live content is on offer. I think some confuse ‘grind’ with ‘playing the game’. /re

That would be worse as that means the game would be bad. Maybe you are fine with the grind (and so don’t even notice it). Not everybody has a problem with grind, some even like it. Look at how some people where brainlessly running around in dry-top. While I think even most of them will burn out at some point. The longer it takes the more people get bored by it.

Just make the following comparison.
I want some item, lets say a weapon-skin. One possible way to get that in an MMO is to complete a dungeon, or do a quest chain, or maybe boringly farm some mob that drops it. Secondary there is the way to grind gold for it and buy.

For the next item you want it means completing another dungeon, completing another quest-chain or boringly farm some other mob.

In Guild Wars 2 there are items where this is the same. But for many if not most it’s different.

They might drop in the world, but there is no good direct way to get them. Not one specific mob that drops it, not a reward from a dungeon and not a reward from the quest chain.

No it’s a random drop and so your best way to get it is to grind gold (or buy gold with cash), or it’s a gem-store item so your only way to get it is to grind gold or buy it with cash. Same for the next item and the next and the next.

IN practice this means people will look at what content is the best gold-grind, and start grinding that.

This is especially true for cosmetics.

That means that everybody who likes this hunt for cosmetics (And because GW2 has such a focus on cosmetics especially those people where attracted to GW2) are likely to get hit by the grind a lot and get bored by it.

That is not a problem all players will have but it are likely a big part of the players. This is also what my theory is based upon.

Also look at Psientist.6437’s comment and how it fits with my example.

Vayne.8563:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Devata.6589:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Considering we will be able to purchase a whole slew of new licensed merchandise, I don’t think we have to worry about ArenaNet’s business model.

ArenaNet isn’t likely to close its doors anytime soon.

ArenaNet is indeed not likely to close its doors anytime soon. But that does not mean GW2 is in the pace it could or should be. Especially from the gamers perspective.

Nor, again, worry about its business model. Unless, of course, you speak for all gamers. I know lots try to do so.

Devata, you simply have no evidence at all that the reasons you’ve stated previously are the reasons Anet is in this position and I strongly suspect if they launched the game the way you suggested they launch it, they probably would have done worse sooner.

Your suspicion is not based on evidence, in fact the evidence we do have strongly suggest you are wrong and strongly indicates that expansions are a good thing. NCsoft seems to agree as they said expansions would come with shorter intervals. Not that I and NCsoft agree on everything as they also still believe in a strong focus on the cash-shop. Anyway, NCsoft probably beliefs in those expansions based on the same numbers / evidence.

So if it comes to evidence it might not proof I am right but at the very least it shows expansions seem to be a good direction while the LS is not. And that same evidence seems to completely go against your believes.

2/2

Vayne.8563:

My guess is, and it’s just a guess, that the shift more toward your philsophy is what hurt the game, rather than the living story focus, which was gone for the content drought.

In other words, your numbers seem to back up my theory a whole lot more than they back up your theory.

Omg really Vayne.. Really? Anet did plan to not make an expansion… May I remind you about that: “So right now we’re not really looking at expansions as an option” – “If we do this right, we will probably never do an expansion and everything will be going into this Living World strategy.” Source. http://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-may-never-get-an-expansion-pack-new-achievement-rewards-coming-soon/ However they did not do it right, considering that the results did pretty much go down and down Source, the Excel. Following that trend they would now be.. well basically where we are now. Then they made an expansion and results finally did go up again. But also did go down again after it.
Anet did not shift just for fun, they did that because they were not able to do what they wanted / needed to do with the LS. I am pretty sure they even made such statements.

You really see the numbers as you want to see them. If you continue the line as it was going from before the HoT announcements we would now be exactly at the same place only without the temporary increase because of the expansion. So in raw numbers we would be off even worse.
When Anet made ‘the shift more toward my philsophy’ the numbers finally did go up again. In fact the quarter after the announcement we had results we had not seen for a year again.
In excel you can also make a trend-line to ‘predict’ the future. Simply take out the first 2 quarters (to not have the effect of the initial peak) and use the numbers until Q4 2014 (moment before the announcement of HoT). Then make a trend-line and continue that another 7 periods so we end up in the Q3 2016. I don’t say that like is perfect because at some point things will start to stabilize (a trend-line would go into negative numbers). But still it gives an indication and if we follow that line we would now be worse.
That is no factual data, but it’s the best the data can show us.
So if you manage to see these numbers to back up your idea then you really only see what you want to see. That is why I said before, please open your eyes.

1/2

Vayne.8563:

@Devata, yes, I did defend the LS approach. Anet changed that approach with the expansion which I never claimed to be in favor of, though I understand why they did it.

The FACT remains, there’s a trend that the game isn’t doing as well, but there’s not even nearly enough data to suggest anyone one cause or even any major cause for it.

True, but you can still find trends in the data that give an idea where to look. Anet did go for the LS approach and numbers did only go down. Then Anet did go for an expansions and the results go up. Sadly half a year later we are back where we were (if you continue the downtrend from before HoT).
The data also does not show a correlation between lack of content and lower results.

This is all information you do have and can use. There might not be one reason you can factually proof by the data, but you can make educated guest / ideas based on the data. The fact that you cannot proof one this does not mean you can ignore all the data.

Vayne.8563:

However, whether the forums are a vocal minority or not, it stands to reason that the more people complaining on the forums, the more likely it is to be a problem to more people not complaining.

So, if a bunch of people are complaining that the game is too hard, for some people it is. We’re not seeing and have never seen major complaints about the cash shop.

There’s simply no evidence here except that the trend is less income,. after an expansion that didn’t do well.

“it stands to reason that the more people complaining on the forums, the more likely it is to be a problem to more people not complaining.” That is what I have been trying to tell you for 3 years. Your defense always was that the majority is playing so they like it, the forum are a vocal minority that do not represent the player base.
I am happy to see that you finally changed your mind on that.
I already said that I did see the cash-shop as a reason for the grind. There have been many, many complains about grind on the forum.
Btw, while I do think the forums give a good indication of the problems, we are now getting to a point where most people with complains simply left the game, including the forum. So if you only now start looking at what people have to say you might be a little late. You should have already done that the first 3 years.

Vayne.8563:

But you were the one arguing for the expansion model and I was the one arguing against it. As it stood too many people on the forums spoke too loudly about having an expansion, Anet changed it’s path mid-way leading to all sorts of issues, including a content drought and the result is less sales.

Ah funny, now the expansion is the problem. Really Vayne, you are creating your own truth here. If sales where stable Anet would most likely not have made the expansion. They were forced to, in an attempt to stop the downtrend. That indeed leaded to issues. If only they listed to me when half a year after the initial release I started to scream for a focus on expansion. Back then they had plenty of time to make a good expansion not having many of the issues you get when suddenly having to make that shift.
Then again, you mention the content drought problem. But I remind you again about the fact that the half year before HoT, the big content drought clearly related to the building of the expansion the results did go up compared to the period before. So that ‘problem’ was not a huge problem.

DeceiverX.8361:

The bigger problem isn’t about generating new content fast enough but instead making that content enjoyable enough to keep coming back for.

Right now, a majority of the game’s systems simply aren’t fun, and the few that may be are locked behind ones which aren’t fun.

They could start with profession design considering most elements of combat aren’t even a good time anymore.

True, scribing / building the guild-hall with decoration is a lot of fun but locked behind a huge grind. Raids are fun but you need specific armor what is a grind as well, this game is great with cosmetics (fashion wars) but getting many of the skins for that are locked behind a huge grind.

I do not think the professions itself are bad, but the new masteries have the same problem. I did complete the first 3 maps of HoT exception of the area’s I could not reach without special masteries. However, after having done those 3 maps I still did not have the required masteries to visit all places. That did mean that I would have to start grinding for the masteries.

This btw I do not blame on the cash-shop focus but bad design.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Devata.6589:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Considering we will be able to purchase a whole slew of new licensed merchandise, I don’t think we have to worry about ArenaNet’s business model.

ArenaNet isn’t likely to close its doors anytime soon.

ArenaNet is indeed not likely to close its doors anytime soon. But that does not mean GW2 is in the pace it could or should be. Especially from the gamers perspective.

Nor, again, worry about its business model. Unless, of course, you speak for all gamers. I know lots try to do so.

They clearly did. After the initial release their plan was to not have any expansion, purely working with the Living Story approach. So basically that would mean that after the initial sale it would go full cash-shop (that was their model).

However they had to come back on that. Their numbers did keep going down so they had to go for an expansion. NCsoft also said (With the presentation of the results of Q2 2016) that they now plan to push out expansions with a smaller interval. So at the very least they changed the model from mainly a focus on the cash-shop to a model where it’s more a mix of the cash-shop and expansions.

Sadly after HoT we did not see a big improvement in shrinking down the cash-shop and so the grind did stay as well, so I feel their main problem still exists. But it does show that also Anet or Ncsoft did worry about their model and had to change it.

Behellagh.1468:

But lack of traditional quests was a selling point, I just recently watched the Gamescon presentation from 2010. As for seamless zones, that’s a day 1 design decision on both the server and client side.

I know they tried to use it as a selling point and I think that was a mistake. If you look at how they announces the events (maybe also in that 2010 GamesCom presentation?) they talked about how it would make the world feel alive, how you had an impact on the world, how it would not be like events where you kill 5 of x and 5 of y.
Problem is that events did not manage to live up to that. With a traditional quest you even feel more like you made a change / you had an impact because it’s something that completed. When you talk to an NPC after you completed its quest, it will react different to you. The events are just happening again and again. As soon as you notice that events start to feel useless.
Also almost all events still are basically kill x and kill y just with the difference that now the sum counts instead of having to kill 5 of x and 5 of y, 10 of any will do as well.
Biggest problem however is that the traditional quest were also able to tell a story. They were not all kill 5 of x and 5 of y. Some told a nice story, made you feel connected to the world and the NPC. Quest-chains where a good way to earn fun / good unique reward. Anet has been struggling from the beginning to deliver this, but events just did not manage to do this. So the big positive about quests is not delivered by events.
I still remember some of the stories from NPC’s I did meet in other MMO’s and once went back to an NPC after they changed that zone to know where the NPC was now and if the text had changed. That is a connection that you do not get so much with events.
Events are great, don’t get me wrong. But they are just not able to replace traditional quests completely. They are however now supposed to do that and that’s a problem. Events might also be harder to implement and so we might have less? Also they are maybe up 1/3th of the time, so you would need 3 times as many. I have crossed maps without seeing a single or only a single event. Even walking pass villages and houses with NPC’s. Traditionally you would find multiple quest at those NPC’s. So I clearly see multiple problems there.

About the seamless zones. I have seen early images of the map that suggest that initially they did not want to have seamless zones. (The part between Vivinity’s Reach and Queensdal was visible on that map, showing how roads went from one place to the other) Probably they had technical reasons for not implementing / abandoning seamless zones. Nonetheless I think that is a bigger problem than many people think. Entering a new zone in an MMO is always (or was for me) somewhat of a special memorial moment. You walk in there and see this new land, new beast, new buildings. Now with portals there is this loading screen that completely breaks the immersion.
I would also not be surprised if waypoints have been introduced because of the seamless zones. If you want to cross multiple zones and have a loading-screen for every map that will get frustrating. Waypoints solve that but also make the world feel small. You lose a connection with the world. Waypoints also never really where a thing in the lore (until S2 at least) they even go against the lore as Asura portals make no sense anymore. That makes me think they have been slammed in there to fix something else.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Considering we will be able to purchase a whole slew of new licensed merchandise, I don’t think we have to worry about ArenaNet’s business model.

ArenaNet isn’t likely to close its doors anytime soon.

ArenaNet is indeed not likely to close its doors anytime soon. But that does not mean GW2 is in the pace it could or should be. Especially from the gamers perspective.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

Again no, imo it’s the grind, the grind make people bored and that is why they leave. It’s not because of the cash-shop. The cash-shop is in my opinion the underlying reason for it.

IndigoSundown.5419:

In short, you looked at numbers and drew a conclusion without any consideration for other available data. That’s flawed analysis.

No it’s more that you drew (or Vayne) the conclusion that I said that these results proof that the cash-shop is to blame. I never did do that.

I still think this is the reason, but there is no way I can factually proof that. Nor can any other reason be proven by the data we have.

I did not say you claimed to prove anything. I said, to rephrase it, your conclusions are largely unsupported by the data because you ignore many reasons stated by many posters.

See, you can have an opinion all you like. However, when you post that opinion in a thread in which you offer facts, you’re attempting to convince others that your opinion is correct. Since you (now) cite one complaint (perceived grind) and ignore the remainder, your argument is unconvincing — except perhaps to those who already believe as you do.

I do not ignore the remainder. Everybody is free to give their opinions about it. Why would I be required to sum up all the opinions that people have? That make no sense.

I simply provide data and do so because I have been making claims in the past (based on my ideas) about how things would go / be where we are now.

In addition to that I also mention my opinion why that is.

Now the fact that my predictions came true and where based on the assumption that the cash-shop focus was to blame (That is the link between the two and why both are mentioned here by me) might support that theory a little. But other then that I do not say these numbers proof that.

And obviously I always try to debate with people and so also try to convince people of my point.
I am open for other suggestions, but the main reason I hear here (content drought) just does not do it for me. Thats what you do in a debate. But again, I don’t feel I have to point out everybody opinion.

So this “Since you (now) cite one complaint (perceived grind) and ignore the remainder” makes no sense. I do not ignore other complains. In fact, I did provide two addition reasons other then the cash-shop focus myself in the OP. Lack of traditional quests and no seamless zones.

Everybody is free to comment their ideas and we can debate them as well. The main other opinion I do see here is the content drought, but the numbers do suggest that is incorrect. So they might not proof my theory is right, they do however suggest (not proof) that the content drought theory is false.

Behellagh.1468:

ProtoGunner.4953:

Well, everything shows the same. Sinking revenue, sinking interest (big game sites like Gamespot not even tested HoT – imagine that…). Popularity is down to nothingness, on Twitch GW2 is behind almost all major competitors. They usually get 20 views, compare that to WoW – 10 years old – with tens of thousands of viewers…

No, they misconcepted it right after release not going for expansions but living story and then decided to actually make an expansion, but only half-baked which was clearly initially though as living story releases. Then we get the expansion with only 4 maps and a high price tag. Bam! That’s why people leave. That’s why they do now everything to change that and I really, really hope they will release the next expansion next year. Otherwise even less people are returning.

Looking at Twitch right now, None EST. WoW – 15,700; Runescape – 6,100; Black Desert – 1,400;; Lineage II – 1,200; SWTOR – 750; Elder Scrolls – 530; Guild Wars 2 – 510

So we have MMOs that are old and have millions of players and ones that came out F2P this year in NA/EU. Also Twitch viewer ship for a game is very caster based as 40% of the viewers for any particular game listed above are from a single caster. If a caster’s following was built playing a particular game, of course they will continue to play that game. Also Twitch is international so games more popular outside of the NA, for instance nearly all Lineage II streams aren’t in English reflecting the fact that Lineage II isn’t popular in NA.

I think what he is saying, is that GW2 is starting to be invisible for the masses out there. It’s one of the many MMO’s that ones was a thing, instead of being one of the big MMO’s.

Of course you would prefer it to be one of the big MMO’s. Imho GW2 had the possibility to be one of those big ones, also still today. That is why I did get into GW2 and not in the many other MMO’s.

Vayne.8563:

Still not really sure why the actual complains we see about HOT are ignored by you to fill in the pet theory you’ve been shopping for years now, with relatively little support.

You know what, lets turn the tables here for a moment.

About since half a year after release I have been suggested the road they where on was bad. That they should focus on expansion-sales instead of cash-shop sales.

People like you, including you have been defending the LS approach (and so indirectly the cash-shop focus) for all that time.

That was the struggle going on, on these forums between us.

Of course Anet always new better what they where doing according to you.

What happened? Results for GW2 did go down and down. You guys (people who defended the LS approach) where still defending it when also Anet came to the conclusion that it was not working. More then 2 years after I first stated it would not work.

Anyway, by that time Anet announced an the expansion. So finally they did at least a part of what I suggested and that was the first time since release that the numbers did go up again!

I also said, great. It’s a little late but still good that they finally have an expansion. However HoT should solve this grind-problem. Anet should finally move back to a true expansion model. Because else half a year after the release we will end up where we left of.

Anet did fix things with HoT but not the thing that I personally did see as the main problem. And now we are exactly where I predicted we would be.

No I can not proof that that is also the reason I gave. But my track record is pretty good. I said the LS approach would not work, and it did not work (Not as Anet wanted it). I said we needed expansions and when they announced an expansion the sales finally did go up (Something their approach (that you supported) was not able to do!), and I said if they did not fix this cash-shop focus, that after the first half year of HoT we would be where we are now.

Now the track-record of you? You (and people like you) have been defending the LS and results only dropped. Only when Anet changed there mind on that what you defended the sales did go up again.

Last quarter you suggested Q3 might go up because of S3, but it did not.

You have been proven wrong for 4 years strait. However you still keep on to your own reality. Please wake up.

Stop trying to dismiss anything people are saying you disagree with. Take a step back and look what you have been saying and how that worked out so far!

You can hope Anet did not do what they did partly because they did feel supported by people like you.

2/2
“It isn’t over till it’s over. HoT had a lot of issues that had nothing to do with HoT that absolutely affected HoT sales. You can say I told you so all you want but I bet the next expansion is going to be a different story, because that’s how Anet tends to roll. They learn from the first one and the next one gets better.”

Wondering if you are willing to keep this claim up? Because I expect the next expansion to do worse, with the exception if they manage to market it basically as GW3. (Now it’s commented here we can later use that as a fact of what has been said).

“Living Story Season 1 was arguably the worst grind because it was time limited. People had a month to get what they wanted and then it was gone forever. How is that friendly to casual players?
Living Story Season 2 had hard bosses and hard achievements with an armor set locked behind it that you could only get if you banged away at it.”

Heey look, even you acknowledge the grind. Something you did forget to mention in this thread. How convenient.

And now for the holy grail!
Page 5, the end of one of your comments
“It’ll be more interested to see the next quarter, since they put the game on sale for half price. That might have a positive affect on sales, particularly with the LS 3 coming out.”
You did feel this Q3 might have been better. Partly because of S3. What make sense because you believe in this content drought theory. So you where interested in Q3. And now we have Q3 and the numbers are in fact negative?? Well, now you still won’t change your mind. You still hold on to this content drought theory without any good facts to back it up and you still dismiss people like me who come with other reasons. This is blind love at work right here. Please Vayne, for your own sake, open your eyes.

1/2

There were tons of complaints about HoT. Not just a few, but a lot. Considering how many complaints their were, I’m not sure how you can conclude that HoT isn’t one of the reasons sales are down.

Because if we look back to before the announcement of HoT, GW2 was already in a downtrend. If you would ignore the HoT part and simply continue that trend we would now be at a similar place. That is why. It’s not that hard.

Vayne.8563:

Aside from the fact that there’s almost never one reason for anything, in this case we have a bevy of reasons that have been covered again and again on these forums, from content drought to the price of the expansion, to the power creep to the dungeon nerf to the new WvW map to the small guild issues…it’s all been covered in excrutiating detail.

It´s funny. All these years you have been mainly using the defense “people on these forums are the vocal minority” and ANET had better numbers as us so they knew what they where doing. And now suddenly when you can use the comments on the forum this is not a problem anymore? And then you dare to say that I am bending the facts so they better fit my theory? No, you are now here bending things so they best fit your ideas.

Also you forget about that other complain you did hear a lot, the grind!
Obviously there are multiple reasons, but that does not mean there can be one main reason.

Vayne.8563:

We rarely see complaints about the cash shop. Certainly not in any kind of numbers.

No, but we did hear a lot of complains about the grind. The difference is that many people complain about what they dislike while I try to find the reason for that thing. In this case I consider that the cash-shop focus.

Vayne.8563:

All this bears out is that the game is struggling with player retention and I’m pretty sure a content drought combined with lacklustre expansion sales is more than enough of a reason to cause that kind of drop in revenue.

You are sure that it’s the content drought combined with lackluster expansion sales. Well I don’t think the sales where not that bad at all, if you consider where the game was at that moment. And the results clearly suggest that the content drought is not the main issue. I know it’s what many of the people here think (No wonder, they tent to be the ones who did love the LS approach) but the numbers simply do not back this up. And yes, the numbers do show something about this. During the content drought we had the half year before HoT the results where better then during the Season 2 releases just before that. And this last quarter (Q3 2016) had lower results then Q2 while Q3 had two full months of season 3. In fact in the discussion about Q2 many people (those that believe in the content drought being the problem) including you suggested it would likely go up in Q3.

In that thread you where using the same arguments you have always done.. you know something along the lines of ’It’s a fact that you don’t know how it would have been if (alternate reality)…’ and ‘you don’t have the numbers to back that up’. You have been refusing to look at numbers and at logic since the beginning. Only trying to dismiss anything.

But let’s also look at some other things you where saying.. Here is that thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/GW2-Sales-2Q16-a-new-All-Time-Low/first (I finally found it)

“Do you know what a trend is? What will you say if you come back next quarter and the sales are higher? ”

Well here we are with the numbers of Q3 are lower. The question is, what do you say now. Ah yeah, still the same.

“A long content draught with nothing but raids will do that to you. ”

Ah here is the content drought reason again. So can you proof that? I do my best to come with as much as objective data as I can and you only try to dismiss everything. But you make statements without any form of proof or data to back it up. In fact the data suggest you are plain wrong! So please proof this claim!

Btw, I want to make clear that I am not blaming HoT for where we are now. HoT simply did not fix the problem. Imo without HoT we would be at a similar point today. Simply take the down-going trend from before the announcement of HoT (so until Q1 2015) and continue that. If you do that we would now probably be at the similar place.

HoT was imo not the problem, but it should have been the cure for the problem. Sadly whatever was the problem with GW2 (you know what where the main reasons for that according to me) did not get cured with HoT. That resulted in the people who came back for HoT leaving again and the game simply returning to the ongoing downward trend it was on before HoT.

maddoctor.2738:

The problem is if they released an expansion every 1 year wouldn’t that mean we get nothing in-between? Remember that between expansions we didn’t get much in GW1.
I think releasing something every 2 months, like the LS3 release schedule, is better than releasing bigger chunks of content over longer periods. It keeps people interested and playing, instead of playing for a week or two then stop and wait for the next expansion.

There are of course a few ways they could address the period between expansions. I can only say how I would address it. I don’t know if you remember the very start of season 1, even before it was named season 1? We did have very small patches back then that added a house somewhere or put some signs up (to show refugees the way).
I would mostly do such small patches, they might not even have content attached to them but simply tell a story, something for the player base to talk about. Maybe a road that is being constructed. You could even have minor unrelated side-stories like a family house that did go up in flames.
That keeps the game-world alive without required to much work from the devs. Right in-between the patches (so 6 to 9 months after the release of the last expansion and before the next one) I would put out one bigger patch that does have more content. Maybe a new dungeon or some other event.
All those patches together simply set up the story for the next expansion.
If the expansion itself is good enough it should hold enough content to keep players busy for 1 to 1,5 year. And then there are also the holiday-patches and the one bigger patch in-between to keep people busy.
Personally I think that would work just fine. As we could see from the Q2 and Q3 of 2015 the lack of content is not the biggest problem especially if people have an expansion on the horizon.
Of course all this can be nice but only works if people enjoy the content. If people get bored by it (what imho is happening because of the grind) it does not really matter. Then again, with a focus on expansion there is less reason for the game to be grindy as I personally blame the cash-shop focus for making the game grindy.
So I do think you could make it work and keep the players happy between the expansions. I think even WoW only has like one mayor content-patch between expansions, and used to have an expansion once every 2 years. Still that worked fine for them.

Behellagh.1468:

And I’ve always contented Devata that during the extended development of GW2 ANet realized that a paid “box” B2P business model similar to GW couldn’t support the size of the team required to meet such a release schedule. Especially if you expected a similar amount of content for each expansion following the model set by GW’s campaign releases.

Now you are going to scoff at that but you only have to look at how fast ANet is delivering content in the last four years and honestly ask yourself if they could pull off a Cantha or Elona GW like expansion. The latest AMA stated it takes each of the LWS3 teams 6 months for each episode. Content that takes less than 6 hours to do the story and how long to get all the achievements and grow tired of the area? And you think that all the content creation groups except a “live team” could create another core Tyria size, level 1-80 MMO in 12 to 18 months? It’s going to take two years to see another HoT sized expansion. Blizzard still relies on monthly subs to provide the cash flow for their expansion release schedule and you think ANet could do it on just game sales which exponentially drop off over time? Right.

It’s clear that to maintain ANet’s “buy once, play forever” philosophy, no subscriptions or even the “voluntary” subscription approach with a monthly VIP level would be allowed. That left a cash shop or winning Powerball when it’s over $500 million every few years.

We don’t know for sure but it looks like most of the content for HoT was built within 1,5 year (Based on comments made by Anet). The LS team is not the complete development-team.

“And you think that all the content creation groups except a “live team” could create another core Tyria size, level 1-80 MMO in 12 to 18 months? It’s going to take two years to see another HoT sized expansion.
~
and you think ANet could do it on just game sales which exponentially drop off over time? Right.”

Thing is, if they would focus so much on expansions instead of other things not only could expansions come faster but would likely also be of a higher quality. That might then have resulted in less of a drop. In fact that is what we did see with GW1. Mainly expansion-based, less of a drop over time and most expansions / campaigns well within 1,5 year. GW1 released its expansions in 0,5 to 1 year. Also an expansion is usually not as big as the original game. So no, I am not talking about another core Tyria size, level 1-80 MMO.
Of course GW2 is much bigger so it takes more time. Then again, they also have more time (when following my approach), instead of 0,5 to 1 year, 1 to 1,5 year and have a much bigger team. And then yes I do think they can push out a full expansion (not the size of the core game) in 1 to 1,5 year.

“It’s clear that to maintain ANet’s “buy once, play forever” philosophy, no subscriptions or even the “voluntary” subscription approach with a monthly VIP level would be allowed. That left a cash shop or winning Powerball when it’s over $500 million every few years.”
If you do not believe in the expansion approach yes. You don’t believe in it because you think they cannot push out expansions with that speed. I think they can.

Neural.1824:

Nice information, Devata. Unfortunately it is wasted here in this forum. The responses here are almost as predictable as the sun rising.

Well I expected a lot of negative feedback. Like I said in my OP “Over the years my opinions where not always welcomed here” and I did not expect it to be much better now. In fact, I expected that most people who would back me up back then had left the game by now only leaving those who mostly defend the game to be left in the forums.

That is fine. I have been active in these forums for multiple years, something I usually am not in game-forums. To me it seemed fair to come back when we had the numbers about the period I always talked about. In fact, some people even asked me to do so. That is why I am now here.

I am sure that most of the people here do like this game a lot, but they also must see things are not going so great. One would hope that they came to their senses and after having defended 90% of any decisions over the last years (and see where that did bring us) they are now willing to look a little more critical to things. Blind love does not help.

In fact, defending almost everything out of blind love might be part of the problem.

Anyway, it does not matter. I did what I did feel I had to do. It’s up to them what they do with it.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Devata.6589:

Vayne.8563:

No Devata, you’ve been the one using flawed logic.

Where?

Devata.6589:

That is right. I can proof they drop, I can make a comparison to GW1 and I can look at what I predicted in the past. That is all I can do because that is what we have data for, and so that is what I do with the data. I also give my opinion about why that is the case. I do not say this data proofs that.

Your analysis offers no reason whatsoever for why your opinion should be preferred over other reasons.

I never said it does.

IndigoSundown.5419:

In fact, those other reasons have appeared in abundance on these boards and elsewhere since HoT launched. Until this thread dropped, I hadn’t seen any overall complaints about the cash shop since you stopped posting almost a year ago.

There have been many complains about grind over the years. It’s really the grind that I blame, but I also say that the focus on the cash-shop is the most likely reason for the grind. That is my opinion.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Sure, I see complaints about items being too costly, gold conversion to gem rates, outfits v. armor and other store issues, but not, “The store is bad and why I stopped playing.”

Again no, imo it’s the grind, the grind make people bored and that is why they leave. It’s not because of the cash-shop. The cash-shop is in my opinion the underlying reason for it.
It’s like if you have soup and people don’t like it, they will not eat it. The reason they don’t like it might be some ingredient (they might not even know that is in there). If they complain it’s about the taste of the soup, not that ingredient that is to blame for the taste.

IndigoSundown.5419:

In short, you looked at numbers and drew a conclusion without any consideration for other available data. That’s flawed analysis.

No it’s more that you drew (or Vayne) the conclusion that I said that these results proof that the cash-shop is to blame. I never did do that.

I still think this is the reason, but there is no way I can factually proof that. Nor can any other reason be proven by the data we have.

—

Also noticed how I talked about the multiple weaknesses in the data (see OP). If I was just trying to proof a point by playing with data I would not mention those things. I simply try to show the results and made a comparison with GW1 in an as fair possible way.

Behellagh.1468:

But let me look at something a little different than just GW2 sales.

Below I’ve included three charts. The first shows game income by region, as NCSOFT breaks them into. Note that after 1Q2014 they combined NA and EU sales which I think was do to the restructuring that created the NC West Holding company as well as NCSOFT licencing off day to day operation and localization of AION and Lineage 2 in Europe, shifting any income from those games to royalties than income to an NCSOFT subsidiary.

Notable dates on the region chart. AION came out in South Korea 4Q08 which is that surge. AION came out everywhere else 3Q09 which is the surge in NA+EU. Also as you can see before GW2, NA+EU wasn’t a strong region but after it became their 2nd largest region. The income bump 2Q14 in NA+EU was Wildstar being released, the bump in 1Q16 was partially due to HoT but primarily due to Blade &Soul being released in region.

This is illustrated in the 2nd and 3rd charts. Since reported GW2 income as well as Wildstar is limited to the NA+EU region, if you factor them out you can see how NCSOFT’s remaining games are doing in the region, which was roughly between $2.5-5 million a quarter until Blade & Soul was released. But, with very limited data, next quarter will tell, it looks as if B&S will follow AION’s boom-bust pattern in NA+EU. The last chart shows a percentage breakdown of income source from the region.

My point here is that in the big picture, NA+EU are very relevant in NCSOFT’s income and GW2 makes up the bulk of that. NCSOFT has had very limited success here until GW2. And if B&S burns out as I expect it to, GW2 will still be the cornerstone of it’s income from NA+EU. I don’t think they will interfere with their one very successful NA studio and game.

I fully expect 4Q16 to see GW2 to be once again above 70% of the source of NA+EU region’s income, bolstered by the game license sale, a returning population and B&S income continue to fall.

That’s my 2 copper.

“Guild Halls were expensive to build. Scribing was super expensive to level. Crafting precursors were expensive and time consuming.” Expensive, not hard or challeging. This relates to my complain about grind.

“My point here is that in the big picture, NA+EU are very relevant in NCSOFT’s income and GW2 makes up the bulk of that. NCSOFT has had very limited success here until GW2. And if B&S burns out as I expect it to, GW2 will still be the cornerstone of it’s income from NA+EU. I don’t think they will interfere with their one very successful NA studio and game.” You are right. GW2 was very proffitable for Ncsoft and stillis profittable. From an investor’s viewpoint GW2 was a succes. They made there money. However I am not simply looking from that perspective. Many MMO-gamers want their game to be popular over many years. Many people are still playing Lineage 1 and WoW so I am also looking from that persepctive.

When GW2 will now get stuck around the 15 million a quarter it means the game is in a much smaller scope then it used to be. You will likely see that in the number og players but it might also result in the team having to shrink down. All things I would expect most people where would prefer not to see happening.

2/2

All you can state is that sales have dropped. That’s it. You can’t offer any real evidence of why they’ve dropped.

That is right. I can proof they drop, I can make a comparison to GW1 and I can look at what I predicted in the past. That is all I can do because that is what we have data for, and so that is what I do with the data. I also give my opinion about why that is the case. I do not say this data proofs that.

Vayne.8563:

The fact is, the cash shop and the system in place has been around since launch and you’ve had to wait four years to “prove your point”.

You started with that and you also now since the beginning I talked about the long-term. I liked a old post to proof that as well. Luckily we do have the data to proof that.

Vayne.8563:

That’s not how logic works. Logic works by taking facts and they figuring out how those facts came to be. It is absolutely a fact that Guild Wars 2 has had it’s lowest quarter profits since launch. You don’t have to prove that, because that’s right.

Logic also falls apart when you take facts out. Like how you trying to win this debate by saying I had to wait for years to proof my point as if it simply took this long for the numbers to do down and I was always saying it was failing. That sounds logical. It sounds like you have a point. Until you put the fact that I always talked about the long-term and I talked about how the first half year after HoT would be important. Now with that fact you logic falls apart. Because with that fact you see I have not just been waiting for it to fail but always look to this moment in time.

Vayne.8563:

But there have been many many complaints on these forums about a multitude of issues, including balance issues, the game becoming more grindy and less casual, the price of the expansion for the amount of content offered, the perception that casuals have been left behind, the way dungeons had been nerfed, there are so many ways to explain a loss of income (which probably coincides with two things, loss of a player base combined with veterans finding ways to farm that allow them to buy gems with gold instead of cash).

Yeah multiple things probably have played a role. I just say what in my opinion plays the biggest role. In my opinion the cash-shop focus is a big reason for the grind, and the grind is what makes people bored and if people get bored by a game they will leave.

But I also added some other issues myself in my own OP. (No traditional quest, no seamless zones) So it’s not like I act as if the cash-shop focus is the only problem. I do however think is the base of the problem. Because imo it makes the game grindy and so boring and if a game is boring the rest also does not matter much anymore. You can have great balancing in a game, but if the game is boring that is imo a biggest problem.

Vayne.8563:

There’s no way you can actually draw the conclusions you draw, unless you’d already made up your mind that was the reason in the first place.

Only I did not draw that conclusion based on the results as you are suggesting in this post.
The numbers show what they show and not more. The cash-shop focus is my opinion about it. It’s not something these numbers factually proof nor did I say that they did.

Vayne.8563:

If you were right, you wouldn’t have had to wait four years to make your post.

Now please explain this one.

You are the one who wants factual data. I always talked about the long term and later more specific about how the first half year after HoT would be important. That means the first possibility to make this post is when the results of the first quarter after the period I talked about is available. That would be Q2, but one quarter does not say that much, besides back then there was a lack of content that many people where blaming it on so now with the numbers of Q3 (that includes 2 months of S3) it’s the only moment for me to make this post.
There has never been a better moment and there will never be a better moment.

1/2

@Devata

No Devata, you’ve been the one using flawed logic.

Where?

Vayne.8563:

The stuff you’re saying you’ve been saying for years. You had to wait four years before you could even post that oh look, I’m right. Sales are down.

That is the thing with long-term. It takes a long time to take effect. In all those years I talked about the long term. I always said, this is bad for the long term. I made it a little more specific when they announced HoT, then I said HoT should be good (in my opinion that means less grind yes) or people would leave during the first half year after that. And that would be bad because I also believe people would not come back if they god disappointed after the first expansion.

And I do think HoT came just in time (well, the announcement) else in my opinion things would have goon down sooner.

Have a look here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/RNG-A-Soultion-For-All/first#post2243092 a from of me from a few years ago (Can’t see the post, but it’s one of my earlier post). I then already clearly talk about the long-term.

“So unless you are only focusing on making some fast money on the short run (that is mostly not what MMO’s are about, they are supposed to make money over a longer period) it is just bad management.” I think I even mentioned in a few post that the longer period I talked about was > 3 years or something.

And here is one of my last post (to you!) before this thread, almost a year ago now: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/This-game-isn-t-as-grindy-as-other-MMOs/first#post5817481 “It’s up to Anet to fix this problem before the filter starts working again. Imho that is within the first half year of the release of HoT.”

You act like if I have been stating the game was failing and now after 4 years that the numbers are down are coming here to show that I am right. But of course we both know that is not true. I have always talked about the longer term, I made it more specific with the release of HoT that the first half year of HoT would be important. And now that we have 2 full quarters after that first half year I am back to come and look at the results.

Vayne.8563:

You draw the conclusion they’re down because of the gem store or because of the way Anet didn’t make a buy to play game in the exact image you said would work. There’s no evidence, not one shred of it, that your way would have provided greater sales even now, but there’s more.

I think it’s because of the cash-shop approach yes. I do not say these numbers proof that. I did however use the numbers to compare it to GW1 and looked of what the results would be if GW2 would manage to keep as popular (in comparison to it’s initial peak) as GW1 did. In that case it would have made much more money.

That is no factual proof, but it’s the closes we can come when making the comparison on the models based on objective data.

Vayne.8563:

You went in looking for the flaw. Looking for it. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Let me ask you the simplest question.

Like how? Just as I always talked about the long-term I also talked a lot about the comparison with GW1 because of it’s model. So I now made that same comparison. That is not looking for a flaw.

Vayne.8563:

How do you know the content drought isn’t responsible for lost sales. How do you know the dungeon decision isn’t responsible for lower income? How do you know that the difficulty change between HOT and the core game aren’t the issue?

Like I said before. I never said these numbers proof that the cash-shop approach is the reason. In my opinion it is, I always talked about how that would be bad for the long term and now we do see a drop pretty much where I predicted it would be. But that does indeed not proof it.

Go back to my OP and read it again. I clearly say that in my vision or my idea this approach is (partly, or for a big part) the reason. But at no point do I say these numbers proof that.

So you are trying to debate with me about something that I did not say. They call that a straw-man.

Obtena.7952:

Frankly, I think they should make us pay for LS … I don’t see a problem with that. I can’t actually believe they can make this model work with all the free content we get. If anything, that’s an impressive feature they should promote.

People seem to not bother even if it’s free. Sure they could earn more money with selling from from those who are but you are creating a extra barrier.

With an expansion it works different, people are more excited, they also expect and (usually) get more for it. There tends to be more for everybody. That might also be part of the reason you now see that multiple game companies sell there DLC bundled together (season pass) so you can still sort of buy it like an expansion (for FPS’s where it’s mainly new maps that can work, for an MMO not so much imho because people expect a wider range of content).

Selling seasons as DLC creates a new barrier for something people are less interested in, but still it will feel like they are missing parts of the game by not buying it. So that does not feel good. I think it might create a bigger reason to not play for anybody other then those who really like these season patches. So ArenaNet would be able to make more money on most of you guys (those still playing) but having an even harder time getting and holding other / new / old players.

Also don’t forget that the seasons are for a big part about story telling. Sure there is now a new map every part but still it’s for a big part about the story. That is great for the WoodenPatatoe’s under us (the lore and story people) but there are many who don’t care as much about that, probably most.

So I don’t think that selling that as DLC is a good idea. If anything it should be the ‘bigger free patch’ in-between expansions. The way they now also seem to use it. Problem is that people already got bored by the game (I still blame the grind) before the season was released.

carabidus.6214:

maddoctor.2738:

tl;dr The reason there was a massive drop in revenue was the lack of content, not the gem store or that they didn’t follow the expansion model.

100% agree. The long content drought really hurt this game in the long run. I left for a time, too. I would not have come back at all, but I have an unusual and ‘special’ connection with this game – I actually met my wife here!

I can only hope that the recent influx of content (and perhaps another expansion?) is sustainable. Otherwise, people will loose interest yet again. GW2 might be able to come back from a bad year, but two? According to the analysis presented in this thread, ANET really needs to continue their current course of content updates for the foreseeable future.

The results don’t support this. Season 3 had been running for 2 of the 3 months of Q3, however Q3 had lower results as Q2. Also Season 2 had lower results then the half year after it, while that half year there was an almost complete content drought. The reason it likely did get up is because of the announcement of HoT.

Sure it’s better to have stuff to do in the game (Other then just grinding) and content patches do help with that, but it’s not the only / complete solution.

People need to be busy (that can also be with things like quests and running dungeons, does not have to be something like a season release), they have to like what they are doing and must be exited for what is to come.

If you make good content and have an expansion every year – 1,5 year with maybe one bigger batch in-between the expansions and a minor story (small patches like the beginning of season 1) working towards that expansion then imho you have a pretty healthy and over the longer term sustainable player-base.

Now if you make grindy content partly because you try to get people to buy Ingamar stuff (and so get people boring), some patches once in a while that some people like and other don’t, and an expansion every few years then you slowly see people leave.

Problem then is that even if S3 or Expansion 2 is good, people are not playing, so they don’t see it. People will come back once or so, that is why HoT was so very important. But most of the people who where disappointed with HoT or the first half year after is (basically, most people who left by now) will not come back for S3 or even the second expansion. In that manner it sadly just is to late.

Vayne.8563:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Vayne.8563:

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

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

Guild Wars Beyond did come out with several chapters after that, though. We’re only a year off the last expansion, which wasn’t as well received as expected, and the next expansion hasn’t come out yet.

But as I said, this data is pointless data,. because it’s comparing a 10 year old non-MMO with a new MMO with a completely different set of sensibilities.

Suppose for argument sake that Guild Wars 1 had 20 free competitors. Not buy to play, but free to play? Do you really think it would have had the same sales anyway?

Pointless comparison is pointless. It proves nothing. Literally nothing. It suggests that ten years ago, there was less competition for the gaming dollar.

“Guild Wars Beyond did come out with several chapters after that, though. We’re only a year off the last expansion, which wasn’t as well received as expected, and the next expansion hasn’t come out yet.”
Yeah that was released more as two years after the real last big patch. It was also a story to set up for GW2. Simply because of that patch, you can’t suggest that GW1 was basically still a fully supported game for all that time. For many people (including Anet) GW1 was basically end of life as after Q1 2008 and then slowly people start leaving. That is likely also a reason why Guild Wars Beyond was not very popular. Many people had left, waiting for GW2. They could not be bothered going back 2 years later for a few more storylines.

You can dismiss the data as much as you want. You have pretty been dismissing most negative data, logic and common sense in every discussion on these forums since the beginning. Usually with an argument like “Anet has better information” and “You don’t know for sure how it would have been if things where different”. That is of course always true, and the numbers obviously are not perfect. GW1 was not a true MMO, while many people did see it as an MMO-like game. And yes, things do change over time. Nonetheless, it’s the best data we have and it does say something. Data to make predictions or to show alternative realities are never 100% accurate but are use on a daily basis to make business decisions, predict the weather and much more. Again, yes it’s not perfect but it’s still useful, it tells us something.

At least I did my best to come with as objective possible data as I could.

One thing that however is a fact, is that last quarter was the worse quarter for GW2 while we did get Season 3. The quarter before was the worst quarter until then and many people suggested it would likely get better the next quarter because of season 3 and that it was just one quarter.
I could not find the post on this forum that I did read back then but here is a reddit post about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4x5b9s/ncsoft_2nd_quarter_2016_revenues/

I guess that defending most decision Anet made, and ignoring logic, data and common sense did not help this game a lot.

I fear for Q1 (not so much for Q4 as Q4’s tent to be on average higher) if there is no news about a new expansion by then. And even if there is a new expansion, if people don’t see it as GW3 I expect it to be so sell less as HoT. But at least it should help for a little bump.

Feersum Endjinn.4179:

You do realise the drop off after season 1 was because of the debacle over servers crashing and kicking over 1/4 of the community on a live one time event that was handled badly by ANet and ended up with a lot of very kittened off players, some of who are only returning to the game now, don’t you? If that had been handled better, it is much more likely that the player base would still be quite high. As for content, there is plenty to keep people interested in the current market, but you will always get drop off.

The Karka invasion you mean? That was one of the best things ever in Guild Wars 2. It was amazing. But it indeed had it flaws. People getting kicked off and the fact that it was on one specific moment meaning multiple people could not be there for that event.

There would be a few good solutions for it. For example, having it take place multiple times. Not so much as leaving it go on for multiple days (like the ending of S1) but for example having it take place on 3 occasions and if you had not done it before you could then join on one of the other moments. Also make the real playable content and rewards part of the aftermath that stays in the game, not part of the one-time event, that should just be a story basically. Also simply having more of those events and recording them to watch back. Then it would not be that big of a problem if you missed a few. And of course they should solve the server problem. Instead, for season 2 we got more a personal story approach. Not a very fun solution imho.

So that event was not bad, it was really cool how we shaped the world (remember us cutting those trees?), but it had some flaws and the solution resulted in something that could in no way match with that event.

Bad solutions for problems is a trend we have also seen in GW2 a lot.

Anyway, I wonder how you come to the conclusion that that was the reason for people to leave. I don’t remember any of our guild-members leaving for that reason. The results sadly don’t help us here because it was still part of the first 2 quarters that was the initial peak because people where still buying the game at that time. Nonetheless, the quarter after it was still only outdone at a later time by the release of HoT. So I think the claim that that one event was the big problem for GW2 is not very strong.

I understand that many people who read my comments here, or have been reading the comment during the 3 years I was most active here might think I am very negative or dislike the game.

That is not really the thing. Sure I dislike things about the game, but I do think the core is great and I did think the game had huge potential. But what everybody should also understand is that I was active in these forums trying to prevent the game from going down, or at least did what I could, knowing that would not be a lot.

I did not succeed in that, and in many ways this is my closing thread about this subject. I might (or might not) be on the forums in the future, talking about any subject (patch, bug, api) or talking about the next expansions (and it’s results). But you will not see me talking about this subject of the cash-shop (that I have been repeating for over 3 years) a lot more. Simply because I my opinion it’s to late for that now.

This thread really is a look back at the last years. Maybe it can be beneficial to anybody, maybe not. Who knows. However, if I disliked the game so much I would not have taken the time to work out that sheet and come back now.

I will take the game for what it is.. now. A game in the scope of GW1. What is imho a shame as it could have been much more.

maddoctor.2738:

I disagree. LS3 has the potential of becoming expansion-like which should’ve been the answer to the expansion model in the first place. Release in the LS all content that you usually get in expansions is what they promised… I think the big failure was the change to the expansion model. They wanted to release an expansion and diverted all their resources to it, meaning the game got no updates for a very long time. If they released Heart of Thorns through an LS system, piece by piece, we might’ve had a much better experience, but we’ll never know now.

There are a few problems with this theory.

First of all, if nobody is here to see it, it is not going to be popular, and imo it will be very hard to get people back to see it. They have been disappointed twice before.

Second, you got the ‘failure because of move to expansions’ the other way around. Anet did never want to go for the expansions. But their living story approach did fail them. Numbers did keep going down. They where forced to move to the expansion.

Lastly, the problem with the LS approach is that you have to pay the game with the gem-store. What requires a focus on it, what in turn results in the many grind we did see (And what I till this day blame as the reason for the decline in the first place). That is why I have been in favor of an expansion model vs the cash-shop (LS) model. My complains about that model where here long before it financially was a problem.

Many people now may look at the last two quarters but seem to forget that the problem of sales dropping has been here for a long time. The company also did see that problem and it’s likely the reason why they did go for an expansion.

maddoctor.2738:

Half year after the expansion we got only Raids so not enough content to make things right. I’m hopeful that with the current direction of LS3 they can turn this around and revenue starts climbing. Will they succeed? My personal magic crystal ball says yes. Others might have a different view.

The last quarter should have shown that already. LS3 started on 26th of July, so Q3 have 2 full months of LS3 but numbers are lower then Q2. Q4 will possibly be a little better because it’s Q4, also an official announcement of the second expansion might help a little. But I am afraid that at this point it will be close to impossible to turn the tide.

Like I said in my OP, the only way I could see that happen, is if Anet manage to market the second expansion as GW3, but then it will also need some huge game-changers.

maddoctor.2738:

Devata.6589:

Simply knowing there will be an expansion seems to result in more income then season 2 manage to get.

That’s also because Season 2 was weak. Maybe it would’ve been much better if they used an expansion system but all I’m saying is that if their releases were able to reach expansion-like quality/quantity we wouldn’t be having this discussion because GW2 would’ve been much higher, at least in my opinion.

If you take a look at the content we got after LS1 finished you can see the real problem.

After LS1, before LS2:
From April 2014 to June 2014 we got no new content at all! 3 months of no new content, we got a Feature pack but no actual content to play.

LS2:
From July 2014 to January 2015 we got 2 maps and some Living World story (LS2)… 7 months with 2 maps which were mostly used for farming.

Content drought:
From February 2015 to October 2015 we got nothing.

Basically from March 2014 that Scarlet was defeated to October 2015, one and a half year, we got 2 farm maps and some not-repeatable LS2 story and some festivals that were basically the same old. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the gem store model was the major issue for the revenue drop. It was the lack of content that caused the drop.

That’s 1 year and 6 months of 2 zones… no fractal, no dungeon, even the WvW tournament we got lasted for half the duration. The 2014 Fall tournament lasted 1 month, the previous ones lasted 2 months.

Compare all the above to LS3 so far. Since LS3 started we got:
3 zones which are arguably bigger, filled with more events and things to do than Dry Top and Silverwastes, we also got 2 fractals, one good (Chaos) and one awesome (Nightmare), 2 new PVP maps and all that in 5 months.

In 5 months of LS3 we got MORE content than 18 months before HoT! Can they keep it up? We’ll see. But if they do I expect their revenue to go up. Now if they keep it up and at the same time announce an expansion and release it without a content drought then even better!

tl;dr The reason there was a massive drop in revenue was the lack of content, not the gem store or that they didn’t follow the expansion model.

Back when Season 2 was released people where praising it. I clearly remember that. It wasn’t until after that season that they started to complain about it. Who is not to say the same will happen with season 3?
Also many people where praising the content releases for at least the first two years. Something you are now pointing out as being negative (well after Season 1).

Personally I liked the fact that season 2 was not temporary content like season one, but other than that I preferred Season one. I did not like the PS setup of season 2.

You talk about Dry Top and Silverwaste as being farm maps, that is something I do relate to the mentality that this game did grow into and that I do blame on the cash-shop focus. Getting anything did mean grinding and so any new content was being explored as possible grind-opportunity. Those maps turned out to be good for that so people used it for that. At the same time imho they were burning themselves out.
Both theories could be true obviously. The numbers will not be able to proof any of those.
Personally I do not think that even if content would now get better, it will help a lot. Like I have said many times before (unrelated to the cash-shop). In my opinion your first expansion (and the half year after it) is the last opportunity to make things right. But people who left now are not likely to come back for a second expansion and as they will not come back they will also not see if the game has been improved even if it did.

There is indeed a spike there, but it’s a spike in the drop, compared to where GW2 was coming from. My comment at Vayne was based on his statement that GW2 took a long time to drop. The spike you talk about does not help to prevent the drop.

Hope that explains what I am trying to say.

Then about that spike. First be aware that Q4’s tent to have higher numbers. Nonetheless there clearly is a spike. The content did obviously help. I am also not saying that content patches don’t help. But they don’t seem to be able to keep GW2 at a stable result over a longer period. At least not at the result where you want it to be. Maybe it manages to get it stable round the 15000 (KRW Mn) but in my opinion that is not where you want a game like GW2 to be. It’s like phys said. GW2 should be on another level.
The Q2 spike was right after the announcement of the Expansion. So people anticipating on the expansion and so coming back to the game is likely a reason for that spike. I also mentioned that in the OP. Simply knowing there will be an expansion seems to result in more income then season 2 manage to get.

Vayne.8563:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IndigoSundown.5419:

Food for thought:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

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

Devata.6589:

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

Yes.

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

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

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

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

Ashen.2907:

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

True

Ashen.2907:

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

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

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

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

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

Behellagh.1468:

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

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

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

Ardid.7203:

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

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

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

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

Ardid.7203:

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

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

Killthehealersffs.8940:

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

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

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

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

Killthehealersffs.8940:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Killthehealersffs.8940:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

morrolan.9608:

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

No.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

Ayrilana.1396:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psientist.6437:

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

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

Thank you for taking the time to read it

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

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

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

So they are linked.

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

Devata.6589:

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

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

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

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

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