Guild Wars 2

Xia.3485:

Geotherma.2395:

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t believe GW2 needs any of this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Hawkian

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawkian.6580:

clay.7849:

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

:-/

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

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

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

What point do you think I was attempting to make?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, making points from conjecture is just bad.

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

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

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

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

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

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

Proof? Links?

EVE seems to be doing quite well…

Nappychappy.7046:

clay.7849:

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

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

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

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

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

It swings both ways really.

Casual – limited interest.
Hardcore – limited content.

Both player types are guilty of absurd amount of money.

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

Hawkian.6580:

clay.7849:

casual is the opposite of making money

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

That is based on accounts, not activity.

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

Rovio != MMO

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

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

Hawkian.6580:

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

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

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

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

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

Karizee.8076:

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

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

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

That is based on accounts, not activity.

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

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

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

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

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

So, you think that casual = money?

Why does EVE profit? Why did GW1 profit? Why does WoW profit?

Casual != money. In fact, casual is the opposite of making money, because casual, by definition, is limited interest in something. Limited interest = less money.

This is easy stuff.

Also, you don’t see the correlation between you saying everything is about money, then saying that hardcore play is unhealthy, and me pointing out that McDonalds and cigarettes are unhealthy but sell really well? I’m sorry if those points went over your head. I thought they were pretty easy to understand.

Nappychappy.7046:

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

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

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

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

Which player is more inclined to drop 50$ in the cash shop for an armor skin and some gold? The hardcore Orr farmer? Yeah, not really. If this game was funded on monthly sub fees and used gear treadmills and competition to keep people paying, then you’d have the potential of being correct.

From my perspective the game is designed to remove competition (no mob tagging, node sharing, etc) and offer better game-play instead. I don’t believe GW2 is meant to be the only game you play. Seriously, you can go play bioshock infinite for a few weeks and come back. You won’t loose you raid spot, you wont be behind the curve on the treadmills. You shouldn’t feel forced to play. Login when you want to login. Its.. liberating.

I’ve done the hardcore BS before in other games. You can have a server first, the gear and achievements.. but in life it means nothing. Also in game, three months later its meaningless. That kind of gaming is a disease.

You two are off topic, and using completely different meanings of a single word to fluff your own arguments. I’d find it hard to believe that most casuals have not consumed most of the games content by now if they had started at launch, or shortly after.

“I’ve done the hardcore BS before in other games. You can have a server first, the gear and achievements.. but in life it means nothing”

You’re 100% correct, it means nothing in life. While it does mean a lot to those people in their lives and in the game. Explosions of emotions that people share when completing content, not only for the first time ever, but as a group, or raid is far more exciting than killing anything in this entire game.

As a gamer, casual and hardcore are very similar. The way I see it, is that hardcore take a direct path consuming content to a goal and casual bum around soaking in content as a whole. So if a hardcore player played 8 hours a week and a casual played 8 hours a week they would have a completely different view of the game.

ArenaNet gates the direct path, but sold the game as: It’s extremely important that we stay true to our philosophy that you should be able to play Guild Wars 2 the way you want to play the game in order to reach the most powerful rewards.

Before you get mad at others for their play style, please remember that philosophy that welcomed these players who have a different opinion than yours.

I’m not getting mad. I simply used the dictionary to find the definition of the word casual. I also used a posters link to a wiki page about “video game” casual and found the same definition.

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

I mean, this isn’t that hard to understand.

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Aeonblade.8709:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Casual players won’t show the kind of dedication or devotion to a game by the nature of the definition of casual.

I’m a casual player.

I only play GW2, CS:GO, LoL, BF3 and then whatever Singleplayer AAA title happens to catch my fancy.

Out of those games, GW2 dominates my hours played. I play games maybe 10-14 hrs a week.

I’m not an outlier, either. you should drill down your definition of casual because as it stands, your point doesn’t hold water.

Hold on… you missed my definition of casual in my last posts? I think I made it pretty clear. Hell, I even linked to the Merriam Webster definition.

What about the definition of casual don’t you understand?

He’s telling you the video game definition of casual and the dictionary definition mean two separate things. And they pretty much always have.

No, he thinks the definition of casual is time spent in game. I disagree. Where, exactly, is your definition of “Video Game Casual” posted? Links would help.

http://bit.ly/XVYuMb

Thanks for that! I found this:

“A casual gamer is a player whose time or interest in playing games is limited.”

If your interest in a game is limited, it stands to reason that you won’t play it for long.

Thanks for helping me show you that your are wrong.

I’m sorry, next time read the material:

“The term casual gamer can also be used to distinguish between play styles of level-based character advance in nonlinear games with respect to the amount of dedicated hours of play. MMORPGs may require many hours of grinding to develop a character to maximum level and reach the endgame. Other games like Eve Online and The Lord of the Rings Online try to balance leveling so that casual gamers can play along with those dedicating more hours to the game.”

Check the part I bolded for you. “Can also” does not mean “the only definition”.

I’m sorry but, you really failed in trying to sway my opinion by using an optional definition found on a wiki page as proof of anything.

It’s not optional, it’s contextual.

Either you’re talking about facebook gamers or you’re talking about people who don’t have a lot of time. Which is it?

So, let’s just ignore all of the definitions of casual and go with yours for a minute: limited playing time.

Great! So, your playing time is limited. What happened to all the other games you used to play? Are you still playing them? No? Why? If not, how long did you play them for? Is that amount of time you played them for indicative of the amount of time you will play GW2 for? If so, does that amount of time uphold the idea that people like you will play this game for a long time? What is a long time?

So, using your definition, we are still left wondering – if you don’t have a lot of time to play video games, and you have already stopped playing video games in the past – why is GW2 so different that you think you are going to play it longer than a hardcore gamer will play another game?

Aeonblade.8709:

clay.7849:

Aeonblade.8709:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Casual players won’t show the kind of dedication or devotion to a game by the nature of the definition of casual.

I’m a casual player.

I only play GW2, CS:GO, LoL, BF3 and then whatever Singleplayer AAA title happens to catch my fancy.

Out of those games, GW2 dominates my hours played. I play games maybe 10-14 hrs a week.

I’m not an outlier, either. you should drill down your definition of casual because as it stands, your point doesn’t hold water.

Hold on… you missed my definition of casual in my last posts? I think I made it pretty clear. Hell, I even linked to the Merriam Webster definition.

What about the definition of casual don’t you understand?

He’s telling you the video game definition of casual and the dictionary definition mean two separate things. And they pretty much always have.

No, he thinks the definition of casual is time spent in game. I disagree. Where, exactly, is your definition of “Video Game Casual” posted? Links would help.

Uh…You just defined it. Amount of time spent in game. It speaks nothing of skill or anything. /thread

Link?

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Aeonblade.8709:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Casual players won’t show the kind of dedication or devotion to a game by the nature of the definition of casual.

I’m a casual player.

I only play GW2, CS:GO, LoL, BF3 and then whatever Singleplayer AAA title happens to catch my fancy.

Out of those games, GW2 dominates my hours played. I play games maybe 10-14 hrs a week.

I’m not an outlier, either. you should drill down your definition of casual because as it stands, your point doesn’t hold water.

Hold on… you missed my definition of casual in my last posts? I think I made it pretty clear. Hell, I even linked to the Merriam Webster definition.

What about the definition of casual don’t you understand?

He’s telling you the video game definition of casual and the dictionary definition mean two separate things. And they pretty much always have.

No, he thinks the definition of casual is time spent in game. I disagree. Where, exactly, is your definition of “Video Game Casual” posted? Links would help.

http://bit.ly/XVYuMb

Thanks for that! I found this:

“A casual gamer is a player whose time or interest in playing games is limited.”

If your interest in a game is limited, it stands to reason that you won’t play it for long.

Thanks for helping me show you that your are wrong.

I’m sorry, next time read the material:

“The term casual gamer can also be used to distinguish between play styles of level-based character advance in nonlinear games with respect to the amount of dedicated hours of play. MMORPGs may require many hours of grinding to develop a character to maximum level and reach the endgame. Other games like Eve Online and The Lord of the Rings Online try to balance leveling so that casual gamers can play along with those dedicating more hours to the game.”

Check the part I bolded for you. “Can also” does not mean “the only definition”.

I’m sorry but, you really failed in trying to sway my opinion by using an optional definition found on a wiki page as proof of anything.

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

I don’t know who is more likely to spend $50 in the cash shop? Saying that it is casual players is pure conjecture.

I made a few hundred gold playing the trading post. I’m more inclined to use that gold I acquired to buy a skin than real currency. On the other end of the spectrum, if my play time is limited would I spend it farming orr for a goodie or would I just spend a few bucks for it? Its rather obvious and the reason the cash shop exists in the first place.

clay.7849:

I also never said that one is better than the other. You seem to take offense at the thought that casual players are casual. Hardcore players, by nature, will continue to play a game, just like casual players will “login when [they] want to login.” Like you said.

So I’m offended now? Thank you for informing me.

You do understand the cash shop and box sales fund this game yes? So you’re whole spiel about the game needing devoted players to drive its profits is… dubious at best. It needs fun content to keep players loging in and wanting to buy items in the cash shop. It doesn’t need players that grind their second legendary. (Devoted players aren’t detrimental either, spelling this out here now before you take it out of content in your next reply).

clay.7849:

It is a fact that by logging in when you want to log in is not going to favorably impact a game’s longevity. Especially, if the powers that be, such as NCSoft, see that a game’s population may be dwindling due to a casual attitude towards a game. Why would they continue to fund a game like that?

You mean box sales and cash shop sales yes? Because reduced login means less operational costs….

clay.7849:

Also, your post brings up the fact that hardcare game play is unhealthy. That really has nothing to do with the conversation. McDonald’s is unhealthy and they are still in business.

Yes because “player burnout” is such a nice thing. Because having players rage in forums because the game is their life or career is a good thing. Yes, surely.

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

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

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Aeonblade.8709:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Casual players won’t show the kind of dedication or devotion to a game by the nature of the definition of casual.

I’m a casual player.

I only play GW2, CS:GO, LoL, BF3 and then whatever Singleplayer AAA title happens to catch my fancy.

Out of those games, GW2 dominates my hours played. I play games maybe 10-14 hrs a week.

I’m not an outlier, either. you should drill down your definition of casual because as it stands, your point doesn’t hold water.

Hold on… you missed my definition of casual in my last posts? I think I made it pretty clear. Hell, I even linked to the Merriam Webster definition.

What about the definition of casual don’t you understand?

He’s telling you the video game definition of casual and the dictionary definition mean two separate things. And they pretty much always have.

No, he thinks the definition of casual is time spent in game. I disagree. Where, exactly, is your definition of “Video Game Casual” posted? Links would help.

http://bit.ly/XVYuMb

Thanks for that! I found this:

“A casual gamer is a player whose time or interest in playing games is limited.”

If your interest in a game is limited, it stands to reason that you won’t play it for long.

Thanks for helping me show you that your are wrong.

Mackdose.6504:

Are you intentionally dodging my arguement?

What is your argument, that you make up a definition for yourself as casual, say you play for 10-14 hours a week, and predict that you will never stop playing the game or play less than you do now, and then use that as a basis to define everyone else that plays the game?

Yea, I guess I am dodging that then…

Aeonblade.8709:

clay.7849:

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Casual players won’t show the kind of dedication or devotion to a game by the nature of the definition of casual.

I’m a casual player.

I only play GW2, CS:GO, LoL, BF3 and then whatever Singleplayer AAA title happens to catch my fancy.

Out of those games, GW2 dominates my hours played. I play games maybe 10-14 hrs a week.

I’m not an outlier, either. you should drill down your definition of casual because as it stands, your point doesn’t hold water.

Hold on… you missed my definition of casual in my last posts? I think I made it pretty clear. Hell, I even linked to the Merriam Webster definition.

What about the definition of casual don’t you understand?

He’s telling you the video game definition of casual and the dictionary definition mean two separate things. And they pretty much always have.

No, he thinks the definition of casual is time spent in game. I disagree. Where, exactly, is your definition of “Video Game Casual” posted? Links would help.

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Casual players won’t show the kind of dedication or devotion to a game by the nature of the definition of casual.

I’m a casual player.

I only play GW2, CS:GO, LoL, BF3 and then whatever Singleplayer AAA title happens to catch my fancy.

Out of those games, GW2 dominates my hours played. I play games maybe 10-14 hrs a week.

I’m not an outlier, either. you should drill down your definition of casual because as it stands, your point doesn’t hold water.

Hold on… you missed my definition of casual in my last posts? I think I made it pretty clear. Hell, I even linked to the Merriam Webster definition. You seemed to have deliberately left that part out of your quote. Good job.

What about the definition of casual don’t you understand?

Xia.3485:

clay.7849:

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

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

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

Which player is more inclined to drop 50$ in the cash shop for an armor skin and some gold? The hardcore Orr farmer? Yeah, not really. If this game was funded on monthly sub fees and used gear treadmills and competition to keep people paying, then you’d have the potential of being correct.

From my perspective the game is designed to remove competition (no mob tagging, node sharing, etc) and offer better game-play instead. I don’t believe GW2 is meant to be the only game you play. Seriously, you can go play bioshock infinite for a few weeks and come back. You won’t loose you raid spot, you wont be behind the curve on the treadmills. You shouldn’t feel forced to play. Login when you want to login. Its.. liberating.

I’ve done the hardcore BS before in other games. You can have a server first, the gear and achievements.. but in life it means nothing. Also in game, three months later its meaningless. That kind of gaming is a disease.

I don’t know who is more likely to spend $50 in the cash shop? Saying that it is casual players is pure conjecture.

I also never said that one is better than the other. You seem to take offense at the thought that casual players are casual. Hardcore players, by nature, will continue to play a game, just like casual players will “login when [they] want to login.” Like you said.

It is a fact that by logging in when you want to log in is not going to favorably impact a game’s longevity. Especially, if the powers that be, such as NCSoft, see that a game’s population may be dwindling due to a casual attitude towards a game. Why would they continue to fund a game like that?

Also, your post brings up the fact that hardcare game play is unhealthy. That really has nothing to do with the conversation. McDonald’s is unhealthy and they are still in business.

Alts are boring for two reasons:

1. As there are very few defined roles, by design, for each alt, there is little to differentiate them and make them feel unique and fun to play.

2. Leveling just takes too long. It could stop at 40 and everyone would be much happier.

rizzo.1079:

Calae.1738:

Aeonblade.8709:

Calae.1738:

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

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

Most of what you listed for mature content is just stuff teenagers want and adults don’t care about. The hole grows ever deeper.

Game is just fine, and will be for many years.

Teenagers want economics and politics? Adults want teddy bear backpacks and ginger bread swords?

A surprising and somewhat depressingly large amount of adults do want teddy bear backpacks and gingerbread swords.

I love my quaggan backpack.

Hawkian.6580:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

^^

Nappyychappy hit the nail on the head, IMO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^^

Nappyychappy hit the nail on the head, IMO.

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

I don’t care what anyone says, here’s my demographics:

Male. 32. Married. Children. Middle Class. White. Protestant. White Collar Job. Suburbs.

I think GW1 was better than GW2.

I like the SAB and think that it is one of the best things ANet has put out in the last 3 months.

I like Disney Movies as well as Quentin Tarantino movies.

I also play Madden and Battlefield/CoD games on XBOX.

So, am I a carebear that likes disney movies or someone that hates my life because I don’t like GW2 as much as GW1?

The amount of insults being thrown around in this thread about what people like and don’t like is really out of control.

darkace.8925:

Calae.1738:

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

I’d be willing to bet the majority of players who play MMOs hardly pay any attention at all to the actual form of the content. As long as the content is fun and the rewards worthwhile, I’ll bet most players really don’t pay attention to how cute, silly, or grim the world around them might be. It’s a bet I might lose, but it’s a bet I’d make.

I would be willing to agree. I never liked the cartoonish look of many MMO’s but nudity, graphic violence? Nah. Give me good, interesting gameplay and I’ll be happy.

Creating barriers to new content behind gear progression just doesn’t make sense logically.

Mounts, meh, I could care less.

Grind? Well, ya, about that. This game seems grindy to a lot of people because there is a ton of stuff locked behind “do this instance X number of times to receive Y”. That kind of implies a grind with no way to get around it. I understand that if you don’t want to do it, that is up to you, but the fact that it is there kind of implies grind which the ever hated and debated Manifesto appears to disagree with.

This game was made with a very general and casual audience. Nothing is done to one extreme or the other, which is really what makes it a good game. The problem is that while it has little elements in it for everyone to like, it has little elements in it that people don’t like. So, it is going to create lots of negativity and debate.

GW2’s biggest downfall is that in trying to make a game for everyone, they kind of left out making a game for anyone in particular. Jack of all trades – master of none mentality.

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

Well you get laurels from doing your daily and monthly PvP now so you don’t need to do PvE dailies. Overall, I play PvP for the challenge and the glory. I’m good with skins being the reward. Although, the PvP in GW2 is kind of lacking, so I can understand that the incentive to play is rather low.

Just another reason to bring back GvG. I didn’t need any rewards for that to be fun.

@HiddenNick

1. By the definition of it being a game, there is always something to do.
2. Players that play the game, regardless of why they play, should be bothered when the game changes negatively. Such as when power creep gates content for new players.
3. You don’t need gear progression to make content more difficult or exciting.
4. You can’t please all the people all the time.
5. You don’t need rewards to overcome a challenge. That just creates gating, not real challenges.
6. Rewards should be exciting. I agree.
7. Aesthetic rewards aren’t meaningless, ask GW1 players.
8. Your points 7 & 8 contradict each other.
9. If you can do everything in GW2 in one day only to repeat it tomorrow, you need to take a break. Also, no one is making you do anything.
10. No one makes you do anything, but for the record a majority of FPS players play competitively online and enjoy the kitten out of it.
11. I play games to have fun, not to work. If you want to work for a goal, get a job. The rewards are a hell of a lot better IRL than in your digital life.
12. That is why they have PvP and WvW.
13. Getting gear isn’t competition, it is kitten measuring. No one wins the “gear competition”. Go play PvP or WvW if you want competition. That’s why it is there.
14. Making activities fun should encourage people to participate in different activities. Just giving them better rewards is a lazy approach to making people want to play them. If the reward is taken away and no one plays it, it wasn’t good to begin with.

If you like the WoW treadmill, I’m pretty sure that game is still available to play.

The gear treadmill isn’t evil, it just provides problems for games and isn’t necessary. Everything that you perceive to be good about a gear treadmill can be solved by making better content.

Namu.5712:

clay.7849:

@Namu

I’m sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes. Don’t get mad. Find a new game that makes you happy so you can work for some digital pixels that “reward you for time spent”.

Now your just trolling.

Your truth is not mine, I even said in my last post im perfectly fine with the game. But its silly to be against gear progression where grind and all that already exists.

More types of content like fractals would be great because you get progression but its not “required”.

Come back and post when you grow up a little.

So, you think it is OK to take a game that gates skins behind repetitive content and use that as a basis to create a gear grind that will lock content behind the gear grind gate?

I’m sorry, but not only does that make no sense, it would go against the entire principles of the game.

Like I said, this game isn’t for you. Say what you want, but your whining clearly says you don’t like the game. WoW is waiting for you. Sieze the moment!

@Namu

I’m sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes. Don’t get mad. Find a new game that makes you happy so you can work for some digital pixels that “reward you for time spent”.

Important legal documents rarely make anyone feel valued. That is not their purpose.

Veldan.4637:

True, but how does one find a fitting guild? I’ve been in 5 or 6 so far, and none of them was the sort of guild I was looking for. The main reason is that in other games, there were ways to rank/sort guilds. For example, in Aion you had total abyss points. Then if you were really hardcore, you could apply for the 1) guild and if you were very casual you’d pick something like 20). In RIFT you had raid progress which could also give you this indication. In GW2 there is nothing, so all you can do is shout LF GUILD in Lion’s Arch, and hope you can find some people with your mindset. So far, I have not succeeded.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/guilds/guilds

That’s a good start.

The other is to do what you like and be a little social while you do it. Add some friends to your list. Contact them when you need players to run content with. Tell them to contact you too. Join their guild or form your own.

Veldan.4637:

Jovel.5706:

If you feel unmotivated, leave and come back 2 years later.

You’re not paying a subscription fee, the game will still be here when you come back.

… but if enough people follow this advice, the players won’t be

Then we will have proof as to whether GW1 was a better game or not.

It’s a great game that has pretty much run its course. If you find people to play with, it will still be fun, but not up to today’s graphics.

It’s like that time those hippies gave me a slice of their mushroom pizza.

@Namu

Instead of simply bashing the game, some critics of GW2 actually think there is a game worth playing and give their opinions of what they think would and would not make the game better.

All you are doing is saying that the game sucks so it’s not worth discussing. So why are YOU bothering to discuss it? Do you enjoy being a hypocrite?

You gotta stop killing poor mobs and kill some rich ones.

I played 5 classes for the first few levels and ended up with my Mesmer at level 80 while everything else was sub 20.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates

@Namu

What kind of meaningful thing are you looking to “work” towards? Better gear?

I don’t disagree that there are many things that are repetitive in this game, especially if you choose to capitalize on the rewards that are available for repetitive play. But, I can’t tell if you think that we should add more repetition to the game with a reward that is better suited to what you want or if you think that the game itself could be less repetitive and reward driven.

HiddenNick.7206:

clay.7849:

HiddenNick.7206:

Astralporing.1957:

HiddenNick.7206:

Lately I’ve done the new F&F Instances – just for the fun playing it… But what did I get at the end? Karma and Gold(extrinsic rewords). And it felt like a slap in my face. It wasn’t exciting in any regard. Just the same boring reward as for anything else. Why is it bad? Because it took the meaning of what I’ve just achieved.

There are two separate problems here – meaningful rewards and eq treadmill. Do you think that having meningful rewards requires introducing treadmill, or can you perhaps imagine other ways you could be rewarded without it necessarily be better stats?

Read my posts… I don’t like to repeat myself.

PS. And do you?!

HiddenNick, it is kind of difficult to read your posts. I don’t want to insult you if you are not a native English speaker, but they are difficult to interpret.

So maybe I could clarify myself? Could you quote me the parts that are difficult to interpret?

Ok, for example, you say the following:

Lately I’ve done the new F&F Instances – just for the fun playing it… But what did I get at the end? Karma and Gold(extrinsic rewords). And it felt like a slap in my face. It wasn’t exciting in any regard. Just the same boring reward as for anything else. Why is it bad? Because it took the meaning of what I’ve just achieved.

I just don’t understand what you are trying to say. At first, I think you are saying that the F&F instances are boring and only good for the reward. But, then I think that you are saying that the reward is bad and the mission is bad. Finally, I’m left feeling that you think the only reason for doing anything is for the reward regardless of whether the actual content was satisfying. I am also led to believe that you think that rewards should be driven by better stats (vertical progression) from the tone of the thread.

What exactly are you trying to say?

1. Are you saying that the content in this game isn’t fun because the intrinsic value is low?

2. Are you saying that the content in this game isn’t fun because you don’t keep getting better and better gear?

3. Or, are you just saying that there isn’t any meaningful difference in the loot you get from one area to the next?

4. Are you trying to say something completely different?

Raine.1394:

Boredom posts also worry me now. The first time we had a rash of these we got Ascended gear and vertical progression. What’s next?

In life there are people who bore easily and there are others who are more self-directed in seeking their own satisfaction. Game companies generally take the approach of catering to the bored player probably for the same reason that governments cater to those who ask why the government can’t do something about this, whatever the ‘this’ is. Because they can, and because it earns them praise…for trying.

But, there is ultimately no cure for boredom except to replace it with curiosity. Games can be entertaining or not, but entertainment in a game, at least in anything close to the MMO genre, can never really be passive. People will always exhaust content and people will always become bored, unless they learn to take ‘being entertained’ personally.

Agreed. There are plenty of games out there that will give you something to “work” towards. I’m perfectly happy having fun with my limited time and there is plenty of stuff I still want to do.

To the OP:

It’s OK if this game isn’t for you because the content isn’t what you like. But, do you really need something to “work” towards every day like this is some kind of job? Having something to work towards isn’t going to make you like the content any more. My advice would be to try another game.

Join your server in WvW and help them win! Get some friends and go in to sPvP and learn how to get better at sPvP. The best achievements I’ve ever felt in a game was when I was playing competitively. Getting 15k armor in GW1 was fun, but it never felt like I achieved much. Similarly, if I had a legendary, I still doubt I would feel any sense of achievement for having the same skin a ton of other people have.

Getting digital “stuff” is never as satisfying as doing fun things or overcoming adversity.

Vayne.8563:

clay.7849:

Vayne.8563:

So many people aren’t in guilds it’s not funny. You see it on the forums all the time. People have trouble with pugs, I suggest joining a guild and people say they don’t want to. They don’t have time or they don’t like people, or they like to meet random people. I don’t get it.

I’d say a much larger percentage of people in this game don’t have a guild than you’d think. which is why it worked.

Vayne, I’ve never agreed with you more…

You’ve never agreed with me at all…lmao

Oh c’mon, I think there was one thing one time.

HiddenNick.7206:

Astralporing.1957:

HiddenNick.7206:

Lately I’ve done the new F&F Instances – just for the fun playing it… But what did I get at the end? Karma and Gold(extrinsic rewords). And it felt like a slap in my face. It wasn’t exciting in any regard. Just the same boring reward as for anything else. Why is it bad? Because it took the meaning of what I’ve just achieved.

There are two separate problems here – meaningful rewards and eq treadmill. Do you think that having meningful rewards requires introducing treadmill, or can you perhaps imagine other ways you could be rewarded without it necessarily be better stats?

Read my posts… I don’t like to repeat myself.

PS. And do you?!

HiddenNick, it is kind of difficult to read your posts. I don’t want to insult you if you are not a native English speaker, but they are difficult to interpret.

Mackdose.6504:

clay.7849:

Vayne.8563:

Actually I don’t argue against people who say reasonable things. I argue against the unreasonable…which I find to be quite reasonable.

So it is unreasonable for GW1 players to think GW2 isn’t a good game?

Yes, if their reasoning is “GW2 isn’t a good game because it isn’t as good as/lacks features of/has different design goals than GW1”

So, it is unreasonable for chess players to think that monopoly isn’t a good game because it isn’t as good as chess, lacks the features of chess or has different design goals than chess?

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m glad that you think it is unreasonable for anyone to think a game is worse than another because they aren’t the same. That makes a lot of sense.