Why waste resources on this unwanted game mode that is "Living World" — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Living World

Why waste resources on this unwanted game mode that is "Living World"

283 discussions 4.7K comments. Look at any other game mode forums and tell me again why ANET wastes resources on this. Just end it already and spend time on game modes we actually want to play.

<1

Comments

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 1, 2021

    Number of threads and comments don't show that a gamemode is "unwanted", if anything, It show that this "gamemode" don't have to many issues.

    • sPvP is a permanent brawl for balance arguments, lack of PvP diversity, shrinking player population and ever rising bot population.
    • WvW is quite similar to sPvP, being thanksfully free from the bot issue.
    • GW2 discusion is an extremly wide subject box.
    • Fractal and donjon is all about bugs and arguments between players that want to get in and players that want to finish their run quickly.
    • Player helping player is for random questions about the game.
    • Lore is all about, well, LORE.
    • Profession is the outlet for disappointed players in which each and everyone know that they can argue for hours about their professions there, in the end it's in the sPvP subforum that balance will be decided.

    Ultimately, the truth is that sPvP, WvW, fractal and donjon subforums taken together express the concern of maybe 5% of GW2 population (yeah I'm extremly generous there). Ultimately, whether these 5% want the LW or not isn't important, what's important is that the other 95% are kept busy and satisfied.

  • SunTzu.4513SunTzu.4513 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 1, 2021

    I just strongly claim that Anet knows what is played most and you can see that in what they put their attention on it. Living World. Whether you like it or not is of course the other thing ^^.

    This is a real good point. I honestly think LW is the main content and people which play this content are main player base of this game. I assume those are also the players which spend the most money on the in game store. Also i recognized there are not this much heavy complains about LS overall. To me it seems ANet delivers suitable content to the main player base which is reagarded at least as okayish. Also i think LS and how it works and is concepted attracts a lot of mmo hopper and just play the new episode type of players. Those kind of players are imo not that passionated about the game than players which plays comeptetive game modes or do the high tier pve endgame content. Also i feel that the raid/high end tier fractal runners/pvp/wvw population is shrinking overall. I see more and more really dedicated people not loggin on regulary or at all. I had a really big dip on those players on my friend list about 4 months ago and it seems to continuing that more and more people i know wich are or was really invested into this game take a really long break or just left to another game.

    Edit: I like the LS stuff. I would even promote to get more people into LS design in hope to get a better quality out of it. ATM it feels like they mainly focusing on the next xpac and miss the opportunity the get a big hit on the rebranding from LS into the saga stuff....

    Caelden - Necromancer - https://fraktion13.com/ - Non TS Community - Abaddons Maw - EU/DE -

  • Hypnowulf.7403Hypnowulf.7403 Member ✭✭✭

    The primary content in any game is going to be the narrative. I could speculate on why this is but it'd be madness. I mean, most games wouldn't be fun to play unless they had a good narrative. Even games with mechanics as interesting as the older Thief titles might not have been so compelling were they not rife with interesting tales and wonderful characters.

    I think it's because if a person plays a video game that isn't just a run-of-the-mill triple-A mainstream title, they're probably playing it for escapism. I'd imagine this could suggest what's generally a more introverted audience who're less competitive on average. I see competition more commonplace in titles more geared towards extraversion. I think this is something that the industry has noticed going by the games they're making now. It's my opinion that—moving forward—any new MMOs probably won't deal with PvP, WvW, or anything of its ilk.

    I will stress here... Disclaimer: This is all my opinion and speculation based upon observations.

    The only thing I can tell you for sure is that it's obvious that raids, PvP, and WvW aren't that profitable. That's what we can observe for certain. The reason why? I can only guess, I suppose that's true for all of us. We can only guess.

    If we look at the evidence, however, it's obvious where the profitability is based upon ArenaNet's focus. They can clearly tell which content is played most, which is the most profitable, and thus which is the most popular. On top of that? They can probably use the data they have to link who pays more money with what content is played. I can't imagine they wouldn't have that data.

    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold. So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    What I'd like to see is more dragon outfits and armour for roleplaying—suited to all of the dragons, including Aurene, as the largest contingent of roleplayers in GW2 seems to be dragon-branded. It's hardly surprising. On top of that? I'd like to see player-housing. I think that guild halls are a bit of a failure and this is one thing that both ESO and FF XIV did better. Player-housing is a better commonual space than guild halls.

    Anyway, no amount of sound and fury on the forums is going to change ArenaNet's data. As someone who wants to see this game survive, I offer this: If you want your favourite content to become more popular? Put your money where your mouth is. Buy gems.

    That's all I have for you. If you never put any money towards the ongoing needs of the game—to sate the greedy corporate beast that is NCSoft—then don't you think it might be a little obnoxious to make demands and hand down edicts to ArenaNet about what they should or shouldn't be developing? The reason they aren't focused on the game modes you like is because... they aren't profitable.

    That's all there is. It's logic. If what you wanted was profitable, ArenaNet would be working on it already because their data would tell them that it's profitable. That their data is saying the exact opposite is what you need to deal with. And if you don't care to put your money where your mouth is, your favourite content will continue to be unprofitable because you make it that way. This is what every MMO develope rhas to realise in the end, either that or they sink—like WildStar.

    I don't want Guild Wars 2 to be another WildStar, so I'm personally glad that ArenaNet has their priorities in order. You can't blame them for this. As I said, they have a greedy corporate Master to appease, there's no avoiding or getting around that.

    So it's up to you to fix how profitable you appear. It's clear that right now? It isn't very.

    As of now: The people who play PvE and roleplay are the most profitable groups, those who crave the escapism of Guild Wars 2 and are happy to pay for the experience. The reason I'm here is because people who're happy don't bloody post, that's a really troublesome human habit. People only post to air dissatisfaction.

    ArenaNet knows what's profitable, so they ignore it, but you don't. That's why we keep getting these threads of sound and fury, from posters who have to know they'll result in nothing. You have to know a forum post won't change things, right?

    You can take this as an attack, if you like, but I'm actually trying to help. Well... I don't like raiding because operant conditioning chambers are unhealthy and the addiction cannot be maintained over time, as I've explained elsewhere. It leads to new difficulty modes being added until the ceaseless climb becomes unavoidably ludicrous. Hard, Very Hard, Super Hard, Ultra Hard, Mega-Ultra Hard, X-Edition L33T Hard... It doesn't stop. That's how it is with any drug, you just need a bigger hit. It's unsustainable and a bad idea.

    PvP however, whilst it can still be quite toxic due to bad actors competing, it doesn't have the inherent insustainability of raids. For raiders, I'd suggest just... chase the inverse-meta. Find the most ludicrously underpowered builds and win with those, then brag about it on YouTube. It's not profitable or sustainable for ArenaNet to produce ongoing raids. Even strikes will die soon, I can guarantee that. That's someone pushing for this content in ArenaNet despite their lack of profitability. I worry they'll have the sense to realise before it hurts them.

    The thing is? NCSoft wants money. They're a business, a publisher, one full of executives that see the bottom-line as their only consideration. They killed City of Heroes because it wasn't profitable, they killed off WildStar for the same reason. They've been good about Guild Wars 2, but I can only guess that's because thus far it's managing to be profitable. So that's something we can feel fortunate for.

    This is also why, to wit, it's harmful to you to be negative about whales. They're the ones sating and appeasing the appetite of the ever-hungry NCSoft. A good portion of GW2's profitability comes from them. I whale whenever I can afford it. I know the cold, hard truth of capitalism. I don't like it, but I want Guild Wars 2 to survive.

    So to say this until I'm blue in the face: ArenaNet must do what's profitable. If they don't, the game dies. Living World is profitable, expansions are profitable, any story-based content is profitable. The next most profitable content is open world. After that? Errr... Nothing. Raids aren't. PvP isn't. WvW isn't. That's not ArenaNet's fault, that's the fault of those who take advantage of being able to convert gold to gems and never put out any money on the game.

    I'm trying my best to explain this. All ArenaNet can do is look at their data and think_ah, these are the players who give us the most money, and this is the content they play_. Right now, that's story content. it's clearly story content.

    If you want PvP or WvW to be profitable? Make it so. Only you have that power.

  • mindcircus.1506mindcircus.1506 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 1, 2021

    @Hypnowulf.7403 said:
    The primary content in any game is going to be the narrative. I could speculate on why this is but it'd be madness. I mean, most games wouldn't be fun to play unless they had a good narrative.

    You really should watch your generalizations.
    There are millions of Fortnite players who do not pay for advancement in the narrative of their game. They pay for cosmetics and are retained through changes to the map, mechanics and gameplay each month.
    League of Legends makes a lot more money for Riot than GW2 does for Anet. I promise you the number of players who stick around that game for the story are not a viable number to sustain their business model.
    The number of players playing CS:GO for the narrative? Overwatch? Hearthstone? Minecraft? The Sims? Call of Duty? DoTA?
    Even in this game there are a sizable number of players who find the story of little value and who's engagement may come from gameplay or even just grinding rewards. I know plenty of people for whom Living World Season 4 was nothing but "something I had to do to get my Skyscale"

    I think it's because if a person plays a video game that isn't just a run-of-the-mill triple-A mainstream title, they're probably playing it for escapism. I'd imagine this could suggest what's generally a more introverted audience who're less competitive on average. I see competition more commonplace in titles more geared towards extraversion.

    Checks how many people are playing Among Us.

    I think this is something that the industry has noticed going by the games they're making now. It's my opinion that—moving forward—any new MMOs probably won't deal with PvP, WvW, or anything of its ilk.

    This of course is why Ashes of Creation is completely eschewing any form of competitive....right?
    Nope.
    An MMO by it's nature needs to appeal to a wide range of players in order to be financially viable. Particularly one that is not funded by the deep pockets of Blizzard or Square-Enix.

    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold.

    Players who convert gold to gems are every bit as important to the mechanic and profitability of the game than those who gems to gold. The currency in this process is player driven.
    Did you "interview" any WvW players in your travels? You know...the ones who hang out in 50 person groups without a single person on default mount skins and every bit as many gemstore cosmetics as you see in Eye of the North all while earning what?...5 gold an hour?... 8?
    You think those players are Gold to Gemming their cosmetics en-masse?

    So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    And yet competitive has seen far more development time over the past 4 years than roleplayers.
    In addition to a number of balance updates, we've seen a couple of passes at rewards, a mount in WvW, legendary armor for both game modes... the list goes on.
    Roleplay specific features? The ability to sit in chairs and three new (objectively low quality) emotes.
    What does this tell you, based on your own logic, about the financial viability of roleplayers in this game?

    What I'd like to see is more dragon outfits and armour for roleplaying—suited to all of the dragons, including Aurene, as the largest contingent of roleplayers in GW2 seems to be dragon-branded. It's hardly surprising. On top of that? I'd like to see player-housing. I think that guild halls are a bit of a failure and this is one thing that both ESO and FF XIV did better. Player-housing is a better commonual space than guild halls.

    And here we get to the crux of your post.
    An overstatement of your financial impact on the game in order to make requests for new features.
    Predictable

    As of now: The people who play PvE and roleplay are the most profitable groups,

    Again with three emotes and the ability to sit in chairs, I have serious doubts about your claim that the RP community has any significant impact on the bottom line of this game. I often see a dozen or so RPers on one or two maps at any given time. A few people in DR, a couple in Ebonhawke sometimes. A few rogue asura here or there.
    Now crunch the numbers and tell me how many people are in WvW at any given point. Or the fact there are multiple packed instances of the PvP lobby at any given point and tell me... do you really think this group you are attempting to speak for are some economic juggernaught that should be exclusively catered to?

    You can take this as an attack, if you like, but I'm actually trying to help.

    No you're not. You're attempting to bend the narrative with numerous instances of false rhetoric, hyperbole and anecdotes

    I don't agree with the OP.
    I think it's a blatant troll.
    I recognize that the PvE experience is largely what fuels this game financially.
    But I find your post pretty off base and an attempt to advance an agenda.

    "We recognize that some players are not able to complete all content." Gaile Gray 01.10.19

  • Paradoxoglanis.1904Paradoxoglanis.1904 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The forums arent representative of popularity. As much as I dislike the focus on living world development, its the gamemode that the majority of players actually play. The real question is whether or not gw2 could have focused on other gamemodes and been more successful, but it just ends up being speculation. This is the state of the game, like it or not.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:
    The forums arent representative of popularity. As much as I dislike the focus on living world development, its the gamemode that the majority of players actually play. The real question is whether or not gw2 could have focused on other gamemodes and been more successful, but it just ends up being speculation. This is the state of the game, like it or not.

    This. A lot of people go crazy for Living World and they probably never come to the forums. The excitement has tempered somewhat with recent episodes, but even the forums used to get very excited every episode. Social media tends to see a lot of positivity towards the Living World certainly

    As Para says, the forums are not representative. They are merely a section of the community. And most of us prob only see the english language forums.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 1, 2021

    Living World likely is the most popular "game mode", since it's PvE and PvE is what drives the vast majority of players.
    Less people writing on the forums about it only means there are less people complaining about it.

    Less forum posts has no bearing on the popularity.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Since when do you measure if a mode is wanted or unwanted by the number of posts in a specific subforum? The number of players sitting in LW maps just objectively proves you wrong.

    ...also the stats that anet has access to and you don't.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @Kirin.7306 said:
    ... tell me again why ANET wastes resources on this.

    Because it's the mode that makes them the most money.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Yes there are 286 discussions and 4.7k comments in the living world sub-forum. However, keep in mind that this particular forum was created on May 26th, 2020, the rest of the forums have been with us since September 12, 2017. So obviously this forum is gonna have very few discussions and comments compared to the others.

  • Infusion.7149Infusion.7149 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The original poster has no concept of how to run a business. Imagine if a developer went by the amount of complaint threads in a forum.

    Even if you just step back from this game's stats a minute you will see the reality. Casual players by definition aren't interested in power (as in stats or "winning") but the new shiny things and content that has new experiences (the RPG part of MMORPG).

    Bartle taxonomy dictates that there's four major types of players: achievers, explorers, socializers, killers. The only group that this game isn't well suited for is killers which is subdivided into politicians (people that want a big reputation ... there's only a handful of people with enough coverage for this to apply , large guild leaders would be a part of this subgroup) and griefers (people that want a reputation for being bad , mainly because PVP afking is bannable as well as hacking or botting while PKing isn't ingame so mainly the things people do that would be considered griefing are removed from the game other than WvW players throwing siege on the enemy).

    Mobile games make up 51% of the overall gaming share right now, with consoles and PC splitting the rest more or less. Of those 51% most of the revenue is off casual games which is why I don't think people invested in more niche content such as raids (which you can't win simply by out-gearing) or PVP (which you can't win simply by out-gearing or out-grinding) should get their hopes up for the same cadence as Living Story or open-world. This year we had a fractal with a CM added so "hardcore" content is still being made. As a business you go where the money is while attempting to not abandon your minor customers completely. If you go by which section of your consumer-base has the most complaints that is a sure way to go bankrupt.

    Accessibility both hardware-wise and content-wise (i.e. for max stat gear not things that just award skins , optional mastery points, or achievement points) is going to be key to set it apart moving forward. GW2 has a reputation as a casual game (and even touted it at launch as a game you can put down any time and pick up again) and they should capitalize on it to gain market-share rather than making grindy content. Even in the past I have suggested more ways to make the playing field more level: I was against having a stat bonus on ascended and legendaries (i.e. they could have just been agony resistance slots instead of straight up stronger) , easier overall access to ascended armor/trinkets/weapons now that the damage has been done, lower required WvW rank for full WvW masteries (it's over 1K rank right now and even if I am well over that it doesn't bode well for newcomers), less grind achievements for completion of story or masteries, etc.

    Imagine if the canceled GW2 sideproject was porting to mobile (recent iphones, iPads, later gen Android phones) so that people could play the Living Story and everything openworld off Geforce Now or Google Stadia as well as the actual device. The canceled project had something to do with mobile , so it is obvious that Arenanet knows that is the direction they need to be headed if they cannot gain more players off PC.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Hypnowulf.7403 said:
    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold. So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    I'm curious about your sample size for your interviews and which platform you used for it to get varied data from as many people as possible. I did a small exercise today, asking during a Thunderhead Keep meta how many players in the squad are actually buying gems, got no answer. So... meta players don't pay gems?

    They killed City of Heroes because it wasn't profitable, they killed off WildStar for the same reason. They've been good about Guild Wars 2, but I can only guess that's because thus far it's managing to be profitable. So that's something we can feel fortunate for.

    Guild Wars 2 in its WORSE quarter so far, Q4 2019, made more money than City of Heroes or Wildstar did in an entire year at the time of their closure.

    We don't need interviews with players to figure out what game modes make money ... we know based on where Anet focuses development of the game.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Hypnowulf.7403 said:
    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold. So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    I'm curious about your sample size for your interviews and which platform you used for it to get varied data from as many people as possible. I did a small exercise today, asking during a Thunderhead Keep meta how many players in the squad are actually buying gems, got no answer. So... meta players don't pay gems?

    They killed City of Heroes because it wasn't profitable, they killed off WildStar for the same reason. They've been good about Guild Wars 2, but I can only guess that's because thus far it's managing to be profitable. So that's something we can feel fortunate for.

    Guild Wars 2 in its WORSE quarter so far, Q4 2019, made more money than City of Heroes or Wildstar did in an entire year at the time of their closure.

    We don't need interviews with players to figure out what game modes make money ... we know based on where Anet focuses development of the game.

    What you are saying is that they are focusing their development on what makes money and not on what doesn't make money. That doesn't explain why their revenue is on a downward spiral though. You know if they "cut" the things that don't make money and focus only on those that make money, their revenue wouldn't suffer. That's probably because it's not the modes that make them money, after all no "mode" is monetized.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Hypnowulf.7403 said:
    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold. So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    I'm curious about your sample size for your interviews and which platform you used for it to get varied data from as many people as possible. I did a small exercise today, asking during a Thunderhead Keep meta how many players in the squad are actually buying gems, got no answer. So... meta players don't pay gems?

    They killed City of Heroes because it wasn't profitable, they killed off WildStar for the same reason. They've been good about Guild Wars 2, but I can only guess that's because thus far it's managing to be profitable. So that's something we can feel fortunate for.

    Guild Wars 2 in its WORSE quarter so far, Q4 2019, made more money than City of Heroes or Wildstar did in an entire year at the time of their closure.

    We don't need interviews with players to figure out what game modes make money ... we know based on where Anet focuses development of the game.

    What you are saying is that they are focusing their development on what makes money and not on what doesn't make money. That doesn't explain why their revenue is on a downward spiral though.

    That's true it doesn't ... but it doesn't make what I said any less true. Anet focusing development on parts of the game that make them money doesn't say anything about what direction revenues will go.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Hypnowulf.7403 said:
    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold. So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    I'm curious about your sample size for your interviews and which platform you used for it to get varied data from as many people as possible. I did a small exercise today, asking during a Thunderhead Keep meta how many players in the squad are actually buying gems, got no answer. So... meta players don't pay gems?

    They killed City of Heroes because it wasn't profitable, they killed off WildStar for the same reason. They've been good about Guild Wars 2, but I can only guess that's because thus far it's managing to be profitable. So that's something we can feel fortunate for.

    Guild Wars 2 in its WORSE quarter so far, Q4 2019, made more money than City of Heroes or Wildstar did in an entire year at the time of their closure.

    We don't need interviews with players to figure out what game modes make money ... we know based on where Anet focuses development of the game.

    What you are saying is that they are focusing their development on what makes money and not on what doesn't make money. That doesn't explain why their revenue is on a downward spiral though.

    That's true it doesn't ... but it doesn't make what I said any less true. Anet focusing development on parts of the game that make them money doesn't say anything about what direction revenues will go.

    If they indeed are focusing on what -content- makes them money then their revenue would go up. The only parts of the game that make them money are expansions and gem store items and yes they've been focusing a LOT on gem store items for a long time now.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Hypnowulf.7403 said:
    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold. So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    I'm curious about your sample size for your interviews and which platform you used for it to get varied data from as many people as possible. I did a small exercise today, asking during a Thunderhead Keep meta how many players in the squad are actually buying gems, got no answer. So... meta players don't pay gems?

    They killed City of Heroes because it wasn't profitable, they killed off WildStar for the same reason. They've been good about Guild Wars 2, but I can only guess that's because thus far it's managing to be profitable. So that's something we can feel fortunate for.

    Guild Wars 2 in its WORSE quarter so far, Q4 2019, made more money than City of Heroes or Wildstar did in an entire year at the time of their closure.

    We don't need interviews with players to figure out what game modes make money ... we know based on where Anet focuses development of the game.

    What you are saying is that they are focusing their development on what makes money and not on what doesn't make money. That doesn't explain why their revenue is on a downward spiral though.

    That's true it doesn't ... but it doesn't make what I said any less true. Anet focusing development on parts of the game that make them money doesn't say anything about what direction revenues will go.

    If they indeed are focusing on what -content- makes them money then their revenue would go up.

    That's not necessarily true. Revenue is a much more complicated function of many things.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Hypnowulf.7403 said:
    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold. So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    I'm curious about your sample size for your interviews and which platform you used for it to get varied data from as many people as possible. I did a small exercise today, asking during a Thunderhead Keep meta how many players in the squad are actually buying gems, got no answer. So... meta players don't pay gems?

    They killed City of Heroes because it wasn't profitable, they killed off WildStar for the same reason. They've been good about Guild Wars 2, but I can only guess that's because thus far it's managing to be profitable. So that's something we can feel fortunate for.

    Guild Wars 2 in its WORSE quarter so far, Q4 2019, made more money than City of Heroes or Wildstar did in an entire year at the time of their closure.

    We don't need interviews with players to figure out what game modes make money ... we know based on where Anet focuses development of the game.

    What you are saying is that they are focusing their development on what makes money and not on what doesn't make money. That doesn't explain why their revenue is on a downward spiral though.

    That's true it doesn't ... but it doesn't make what I said any less true. Anet focusing development on parts of the game that make them money doesn't say anything about what direction revenues will go.

    If they indeed are focusing on what -content- makes them money then their revenue would go up.

    That's not necessarily true. Revenue is a much more complicated function of many things.

    Revenue is complicated but what is making them money is not. How exactly does that work?

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kirin.7306 said:
    283 discussions 4.7K comments. Look at any other game mode forums and tell me again why ANET wastes resources on this.

    why you think that people who create discussion and comment a same who play LS ?? I am sure most LS players at all don't know that this forum exists.

    want solid balance ? - play chess.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Hypnowulf.7403 said:
    I've interviewed PvPers and raiders, even casual raiders, and there's one conceit that I found quite commonly—they don't buy gems, they convert gold. So what of PvE players and roleplayers alike? They buy gems. I buy gems and I am of that latter group! There are things I wish they would add as well to profit upon their most profitable users, since what their data can't tell them is what we want to buy.

    I'm curious about your sample size for your interviews and which platform you used for it to get varied data from as many people as possible. I did a small exercise today, asking during a Thunderhead Keep meta how many players in the squad are actually buying gems, got no answer. So... meta players don't pay gems?

    They killed City of Heroes because it wasn't profitable, they killed off WildStar for the same reason. They've been good about Guild Wars 2, but I can only guess that's because thus far it's managing to be profitable. So that's something we can feel fortunate for.

    Guild Wars 2 in its WORSE quarter so far, Q4 2019, made more money than City of Heroes or Wildstar did in an entire year at the time of their closure.

    We don't need interviews with players to figure out what game modes make money ... we know based on where Anet focuses development of the game.

    What you are saying is that they are focusing their development on what makes money and not on what doesn't make money. That doesn't explain why their revenue is on a downward spiral though.

    That's true it doesn't ... but it doesn't make what I said any less true. Anet focusing development on parts of the game that make them money doesn't say anything about what direction revenues will go.

    If they indeed are focusing on what -content- makes them money then their revenue would go up.

    That's not necessarily true. Revenue is a much more complicated function of many things.

    Revenue is complicated but what is making them money is not. How exactly does that work?

    I don't get your question ... I didn't claim what is making them money isn't complicated ... I'm not even sure what that means. Complicated how?

    I do know that Anet can measure what people are doing and what they spend money on though. That will tell them where to focus development. I don't really understand whatever point you are trying to make here. Maybe you are just agreeing with me somehow?

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I do know that Anet can measure what people are doing and what they spend money on though.

    What I'm saying is that content is -usually- not monetized, unless we are talking about an expansion. Meaning, what I spend my money on has very little to do with what content I play.

    As for my question, you claim that revenue is complicated

    Revenue is a much more complicated function of many things.

    yet you also claim that we can figure out which game modes make more money.

    We don't need interviews with players to figure out what game modes make money ... we know based on where Anet focuses development of the game.

    "Make more money" means "higher revenue", otherwise what do you think "make more money" mean? If you have a choice between A and B, and you pick A because it makes more money than B, then isn't it obvious that revenue would also go up?

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I do know that Anet can measure what people are doing and what they spend money on though.

    What I'm saying is that content is -usually- not monetized, unless we are talking about an expansion. Meaning, what I spend my money on has very little to do with what content I play.

    Right ... I'm not saying your spending is influenced by what content you play ... but there is still a relationship. For example, if all revenues come from players and total playing time in PVE and WvW is 80% and 20% respectively ... it's pretty obvious where Anet should focus development.

    yet you also claim that we can figure out which game modes make more money.

    Yes ... Anet can measure played time each player spend in various game modes and can track how much each one of those players spend in the game. Do that for every player and add up the results. Done.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    For example, if all revenues come from players and total playing time in PVE and WvW is 80% and 20% respectively ... it's pretty obvious where Anet should focus development.

    But Anet's revenues are dropping based on what they are currently focusing on, compared to what they had before.

    Yes ... Anet can measure played time each player spend in various game modes and can track how much each one of those players spend in the game. Do that for every player and add up the results. Done.

    You are saying that time spend in various game modes is how we can figure out how much money a player is spending? This is ridiculous, as time spent on any content doesn't prove that content is successful (or good) in the first place.

    Let's say a player spent 200 euro in 2020 on Guild Wars 2. Let's also say that same player spent most of his time farming Silverwastes, does that mean that player LIKES Silverwastes the most? No. He might enjoy completing jumping puzzles instead, while spending so many hours in the Silverwastes to earn gold. Basing any kind of argument, and worse claiming that the developers base the game's further development, on how much time is spent on various activities is faulty.

    And this becomes even more important when we consider that many parts of the game are daily or weekly locked. How many times can I finish the Thunderhead Keep meta to be rewarded (something that I do a lot lately)? Once. Then I'll spend the rest of my playtime elsewhere, like spending time on Wintersday activities. What kind of marvelous information does this give Anet?

    And this "time spent" argument becomes even worse, considering where this community has been spending their time. From CoF P1, Penit/Shelter farm, SW CF, Auric Basin ML, Istan ML the "farms" of this game were a gigantic number of players congregated and played for hours every day are well known. Time spent on content is meaningless.

  • Moradorin.6217Moradorin.6217 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kirin.7306 said:
    283 discussions 4.7K comments. Look at any other game mode forums and tell me again why ANET wastes resources on this. Just end it already and spend time on game modes we actually want to play.

    As others have pointed out poeple post all over the forums about Living World.

    Personally, I think LW has been pretty great over the years. The Saga content is less elaborate and not as great as lw3 and 4 to me. Mostly the thing that has kept me from getting into Saga as much is the way MPs are dealt with. Its the first time I have ever just literally decided I dont care if I don't re-max my MPs because I dont want to do all the meta achievement grinding and map grinding and crafting required JUST for MPs that are pretty useless, at least outside Saga. That said, in general, I have always really enjoyed LW content on release and on revisit and I know many others do too. Not everyone likes every release, but I think LW is pretty darn popular overall.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    For example, if all revenues come from players and total playing time in PVE and WvW is 80% and 20% respectively ... it's pretty obvious where Anet should focus development.

    But Anet's revenues are dropping based on what they are currently focusing on, compared to what they had before.

    OK ... that doesn't have anything to do with being able to attribute revenues to played time categorized by game mode (or anything else they want to track)

    Yes ... Anet can measure played time each player spend in various game modes and can track how much each one of those players spend in the game. Do that for every player and add up the results. Done.

    ... time spent on any content doesn't prove that content is successful (or good) in the first place.

    You're right ... and I'm not claiming that the content is successful or good in the first place ... because that's just a subjective opinion based on who you ask ... and to be clear, that's a detail YOU are pushing not me because you have an axe to grind. I'm making NO claim about the quality of the content and how it relates to revenue at all.

    I'm simply saying Anet can attribute revenues to time played in whatever way they want to categorize the content. That kind of determination will tell them what kind of content paying players are most interested in. I mean, obviously you have a issue with this ... but it can be done and it is meaningful in how companies can continue to deliver services/products customers want.

    I mean, I don't think it's a huge stretch of the imagination to think that if most of the time spent ingame is a specific game mode ... then that's the game mode of most interest to the current population of players. Somehow you dispute that ... but the contrary is absurd ... that customers spend the most time in the game modes that are LEAST interested in. So the only other option is that you want us to believe that the game modes customers spend time is somehow completely random then? Sure ... that's as absurd as thinking customers spend the most time in game mods they aren't interested in ...

    So bottomline, you dispute the MOST REASONABLE assumption about how game mode appeal determines how much time players spend in those modes ... OK ... if it pleases you to have an opposition to that kind of obvious thing, whatever floats your boat.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • So 1000 people are on the street demanding change and immediatly the 100.000 people who are at home being sattisfied should be ignored.
    The fact that people voice themself does not say anything bout the popularity of this subject.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... that doesn't have anything to do with being able to attribute revenues to played time categorized by game mode (or anything else they want to track)

    You cannot attribute revenue to where they focus, but you can say what is making them the most money by where they focus? How does that work exactly? You didn't answer the question I asked earlier, what does "make the most money" mean?

    I'm making NO claim about the quality of the content and how it relates to revenue at all.

    Of course you aren't and that's the problem, you are simply saying that the content players are spending the most time on, is the content Anet should focus on.

    I'm simply saying Anet can attribute revenues to time played in whatever way they want to categorize the content.

    I already provided examples on why attributing revenue based on time played is meaningless.

    I mean, I don't think it's a huge stretch of the imagination to think that if most of the time spent ingame is a specific game mode ... then that's the game mode of most interest to the current population of players.

    Again, I already examples on why where the most time is spent is a useless metric for any kind of comparison. And why spending time on specific mode means nothing about what is the most interesting for the current population of players.

    Somehow you dispute that ... but the contrary is absurd ... that customers spend the most time in the game modes that are LEAST interested in. So the only other option is that you want us to believe that the game modes customers spend time is somehow completely random then? Sure ...

    Maybe I need to repeat the examples from my earlier post?
    Here, I will repeat them for easy reference:

    Let's say a player spent 200 euro in 2020 on Guild Wars 2. Let's also say that same player spent most of his time farming Silverwastes, does that mean that player LIKES Silverwastes the most? No. He might enjoy completing jumping puzzles instead, while spending so many hours in the Silverwastes to earn gold. Basing any kind of argument, and worse claiming that the developers base the game's further development, on how much time is spent on various activities is faulty.

    and

    And this becomes even more important when we consider that many parts of the game are daily or weekly locked. How many times can I finish the Thunderhead Keep meta to be rewarded (something that I do a lot lately)? Once. Then I'll spend the rest of my playtime elsewhere, like spending time on Wintersday activities. What kind of marvelous information does this give Anet?

    The idea that time spent on content is a metric to what players find exciting is absurd. Content can be very rewarding, but not enjoyable, so someone spends more time in content they don't find particularly exciting for the rewards. OR content simply has daily/weekly lockout timers disallowing re-running it in the first place. In your logic, any content that has a daily/weekly lockout is meaningless and shouldn't exist, because by its nature it won't have much time spent on by the playerbase.

    And we can also discuss the most useless content of all, story. How much time do you think players spend playing the story of every episode? Oh right, Anet shouldn't create anymore story because it's a waste of resources, since players don't re-play the story parts of an episode daily, or even weekly.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    The idea that time spent on content is a metric to what players find exciting is absurd.

    Ok ... Again, that's not what I'm saying. Seems to me the only issue here is you're misunderstanding because I didn't say "exciting" ... that's just your interpretation. I'm simply saying Anet can link revenues to content played time. I'm making NO claims about how much people like that content or not ... even though there isn't anything unreasonable about believing most people are choosing to spend most of their game time doing things they want to or like doing. Anyone arguing against that reasonable belief has some kind of hidden agenda.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    unwanted or not, it seems strange to build an mmo around content that will mostly be played once. not counting the public lw maps that everyone farms since you could just as easily release one of those every 6 months while focusing on other end game content. its interesting that this model is successful.

    te lazla otstara.
    fingers crossed meta ~

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    unwanted or not, it seems strange to build an mmo around content that will mostly be played once. not counting the public lw maps that everyone farms since you could just as easily release one of those every 6 months while focusing on other end game content. its interesting that this model is successful.

    Again, I don't think it's about how often you play it ... it's about time spent. You could do something 'once' like completing map for a HoT map for instance ... and spend many DAYS doing it. That's a pretty good amount of content for most people. really, I think the model works because the things that generate revenue are independent but not limited by the content being provided. For instance ... you can use a chair mostly everywhere but you don't need chairs to play the game.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm simply saying Anet can link revenues to content played time.

    If they are focusing on content that is supposed to be "making money" and ignoring the bad content that doesn't making them money, why is their revenue struggling? And you failed to answer the simple question of what "making money" mean.

    I'm making NO claims about how much people like that content or not.

    Never said you did. In fact my problem is that you didn't. You claim they base the future development of this game based on how much time played is spent on content, disregarding the quality of said content and how much players like it or not.

    Nevertheless, I am going to say it's very reasonable to think that most people are going to spend most of the time ingame doing things they like doing the most.

    Even when what they enjoy the most is locked behind a daily or weekly lockout. Gotcha. So only content that can be repeated constantly has any chance of being developed. Oh wait that's not what is happening.

    Therefore there is nothing absurd in making the assumption that played time has some meaningful measure of what people want to do in the game. Your examples don't invalidate that.

    Actually my examples do invalidate that because what people "want" to do in the game can be impacted by external factors. Rewards, daily/weekly lockouts, and one-time content being a few of them, as provided in the examples above.

    And to provide one more example:
    When Auric Basin Multi-loot was a thing, there were 25-30 instances open at a time. After it was nerfed, you are probably gonna see 1 during meta, and not all the time. What happened to the content there, did it lost its excitement and became unenjoyable when the loot was nerfed?

    Meanwhile, interviews with players would tell Anet all the relevant info (to go back to the original post).
    I play another game and the developers offer questionnaires to every player after every new event or game release they make, asking players how they enjoyed particular aspects of a patch/event. In order to focus their efforts on what their playerbase actually enjoy in their game. It has rather interesting results. Anet used to do something similar back in beta, but stopped shortly after, relying on flawed data like "time spent" to give them insight on what's enjoyable or not, and the results are in front of us.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm simply saying Anet can link revenues to content played time.

    If they are focusing on content that is supposed to be "making money" and ignoring the bad content that doesn't making them money, why is their revenue struggling? And you failed to answer the simple question of what "making money" mean.

    Because revenue isn't just about where Anet focuses their development. Anet can still see a revenue drop even if they appealed EXACTLY to the people that spend the money in the right places. Focusing development on content people want and like is a smart move to increase revenues ... but that's not a guarantee. Revenue depends on lots of things.

    I mean, you realize the alternative is absurd right? If you believe what I'm saying is wrong, then you are of the belief that Anet focusing on content that most people DON'T want or like is somehow a good way to increase revenues. That's crazy.

    You claim they base the future development of this game based on how much time played is spent on content, disregarding the quality of said content and how much players like it or not.

    See that part in intalics ... that's the part YOU are inventing I'm saying just to argue. I said nothing of the sort and I keep TELLING you you are arguing in this manner in bad faith as well. There isn't anything absurd about focusing development on product lines that make the most revenue if the goal is to increase it. That's a typical thing to assess in any business.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Focusing development on content people want and like is a smart move to increase revenues ... but that's not a guarantee. Revenue depends on lots of things.

    Focusing development on content people want and like is a smart move. There is no debate there. But what people want and like isn't showing on time spent on particular content. Examples already provided on why.

    You claim they base the future development of this game based on how much time played is spent on content, disregarding the quality of said content and how much players like it or not.

    See that part in intalics ... that's the part YOU are inventing I'm saying just to argue. I said nothing of the sort and I keep TELLING you you are arguing in this manner in bad faith as well.

    Of course you said nothing of the sort, if you did we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your words here (and the rest of your posts, but this is a prime example):

    I do know that Anet can measure what people are doing and what they spend money on though. That will tell them where to focus development.

    You are focusing on the what players are doing and completely disregard the why they are doing it. Btw where, in which post specifically, did you take into account the quality of content and what players enjoy/like in the game as what should drive future development, instead of where players are spending their time on.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Focusing development on content people want and like is a smart move to increase revenues ... but that's not a guarantee. Revenue depends on lots of things.

    Focusing development on content people want and like is a smart move. There is no debate there. But what people want and like isn't showing on time spent on particular content. Examples already provided on why.

    A few examples you have simply show that time spent isn't a 100% indicator of what people want and like. But even if it's not a 100% correlation, it's still going to be very high and a reasonably good estimate because it's very reasonable to assume most people are spending time in game modes that they want and like to play in.

    You are focusing on the what players are doing and completely disregard the why they are doing it.

    That's not true ... The WHAT can be objectively measured and if we assume (reasonably) that most people are doing things they like and want, then that covers the WHY as well. I don't think there is anything unreasonable about assuming the "WHY" most people do something in a leisure activity like playing an online game is because ... they like it. So no, I'm not disregarding it ... I'm just making a VERY REASONABLE assumption that the WHAT people are doing is strongly correlated to the WHY they are doing it.

    See, you aren't going to escape the absurdity of the contrary point here which you seem to be arguing for since you disagree so vehemently ... because even you can't be so unreasonable to think that most people playing a game are mostly doing content they don't want to do or don't like to do to the level where measuring time played in various game modes isn't reflective of people's want's and likes. That's just crazy. If you disagree that time spent ingame isn't a good indicator of what most people want and like ... then you MUST be of the opposite and absurd point of view.

    The best part is that if you actually believe this opposing POV where most people are just doing ANYTHING whether they want/like it or not ... then the argument can be made we don't need any new OR good content ... just pump out more shinies in the GS because the whole argument is based on the fact that people don't care about what they want or like. That too is absurd. The fact that people are VERY vocal about things they like/want or not is PROOF that the time they spend in the game is mostly doing things they choose to do based on what they like/want. Any path you want to take down this "time spent is not indicative of what players want/like" is fully of absurd contradictions.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    unwanted or not, it seems strange to build an mmo around content that will mostly be played once. not counting the public lw maps that everyone farms since you could just as easily release one of those every 6 months while focusing on other end game content. its interesting that this model is successful.

    no, it makes total sense. most people prefer prefer easier content, and most of us hate repetition.
    end game content sucks for the same reasons, at best they can make it rewarding and tolerable
    and in order to be REplayable, it has to be PLAYABLE at first. which it isnt, to most of us.

  • Linken.6345Linken.6345 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    unwanted or not, it seems strange to build an mmo around content that will mostly be played once. not counting the public lw maps that everyone farms since you could just as easily release one of those every 6 months while focusing on other end game content. its interesting that this model is successful.

    no, it makes total sense. most people prefer prefer easier content, and most of us hate repetition.
    end game content sucks for the same reasons, at best they can make it rewarding and tolerable
    and in order to be REplayable, it has to be PLAYABLE at first. which it isnt, to most of us.

    Then your not looking for a mmo the single player play once games are over to your left.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Living World and Festivals are predominantly what I play. I dabble in WvW and Fractals, but if you took away the living world, I wouldn't be around very long. I assure you I'm not alone.

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2021

    @Vayne.8563 said:
    Living World and Festivals are predominantly what I play. I dabble in WvW and Fractals, but if you took away the living world, I wouldn't be around very long. I assure you I'm not alone.

    Same, though I prefer expansions over Living World episodes, for I am not a fan of the inconsistent quality and quantity of Living World releases. I'd rather see small Side Stories released in between expansions than LW episodes.

  • Solvar.7953Solvar.7953 Member ✭✭✭

    Anet can really only sell stuff to people that are playing the game (if you are not playing the game, why would you spend money on it). So anything that keeps players playing, even temporarily, gives Anet some money. So even if players show up for 1 week each time a new LS shows up, and then go away and play other games until the next LS shows up, that is a 1 week opportunity to sell them some stuff.
    I'm not quite sure where else Anet should invest resources. Would new PvP or WvW maps really attract new players, or (at this point) keep players from leaving? I suppose it may get some players to return for a time.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    A few examples you have simply show that time spent isn't a 100% indicator of what people want and like. But even if it's not a 100% correlation, it's still going to be very high and a reasonably good estimate because it's very reasonable to assume most people are spending time in game modes that they want and like to play in.

    Well that's obviously your opinion and I can't change that. But since it's not player choice that prevents them from spending more time in what they actually like/enjoy I beg to differ. The game is full of lockouts in a lot of its content.

    That's not true ... The WHAT can be objectively measured and if we assume (reasonably) that most people are doing things they like and want, then that covers the WHY as well.

    Again, that's your opinion, which I find entirely flawed and completely absurd. Also gave examples on why. Yes, the WHAT can be objectively measured but you cannot infer the WHY from the WHAT. I'm of the opinion that they should focus development on what the players actually like, not what gets the most attention and playtime.

    See, you aren't going to escape the absurdity of the contrary point here which you seem to be arguing for since you disagree so vehemently ... because even you can't be so unreasonable to think that most people playing a game are mostly doing content they don't want to do or don't like to do to the level where measuring time played in various game modes isn't reflective of people's want's and likes. That's just crazy. If you disagree that time spent ingame isn't a good indicator of what most people want and like ... then you MUST be of the opposite and absurd point of view.

    What's crazy about it? Do you acknowledge that dungeons, fractals, meta events, jumping puzzles have daily lockout timers or not? . How is a player that enjoys any of those going to spend most of their time there if they cannot physically do so, as they are prevented by the game's design? Are you proposing that a player that likes a particular meta design will go and repeat that all day, even after they get the daily reward, simply to inflate the numbers and tell Arenanet that they like that specific piece of content more than others? The absurd part here is you ignoring actual facts, and then calling the sensible argument "absurd".

    The best part is that if you actually believe this opposing POV where most people are just doing ANYTHING whether they want/like it or not

    No. It's about where they spend most of their time. I'd wager a player does indeed play what they find the most enjoyable, first, or when it's time is up (for a particular meta for example or PVP tournament or whatever), and then play the game in parts they don't find in any way equally enjoyable.

    ... then the argument can be made we don't need any new OR good content ... just pump out more shinies in the GS because the whole argument is based on the fact that people don't care about what they want or like. That too is absurd.

    I never claimed any of this. Players DO care about what they want or like, in fact this has been my entire point since the start. Where we disagree is that I believe the content players enjoy/like can be a lot different than the content they spend most of their time in, for external reasons that have nothing to do with the content itself.

    The fact that people are VERY vocal about things they like/want or not is PROOF that the time they spend in the game is mostly doing things they choose to do based on what they like/want.

    Actually it's not proof of that at all as what someone likes the most isn't necessarily what they spend most of their time on. The only way to know exactly what the playerbase LIKES is to poll them. No kind of data can give you that information, and especially not something like time spent on an activity.

    Any path you want to take down this "time spent is not indicative of what players want/like" is fully of absurd contradictions.

    It's the opposite, anyone that goes down the path of "time spent is indicative of what players want/like" is full of absurd contradictions.

    I'm gonna repeat the examples of CoF P1 farm, Penit/Shelter farm, Silverwastes Chest farm, Auric Basin ML farm, Istan Farm, Fractal 40 farm, Swamp of the Mists farm, and all the other activities that over the years gathered a gigantic segment of the playerbase "enjoying" them. With your point of view, they did it because it was the most enjoyable/fun content the game ever had. I find that entirely absurd. You cannot possibly convince me that those mass farms where the best this game had to offer at the time of their prime. And the simple proof about that is that when they were nerfed, they died out. So much the most time spent being what players find enjoyable/fun.

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Linken.6345 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    unwanted or not, it seems strange to build an mmo around content that will mostly be played once. not counting the public lw maps that everyone farms since you could just as easily release one of those every 6 months while focusing on other end game content. its interesting that this model is successful.

    no, it makes total sense. most people prefer prefer easier content, and most of us hate repetition.
    end game content sucks for the same reasons, at best they can make it rewarding and tolerable
    and in order to be REplayable, it has to be PLAYABLE at first. which it isnt, to most of us.

    Then your not looking for a mmo the single player play once games are over to your left.

    no, this is why mmos arent going anywhere. most people wont pay for the pleasure of repeating the same content ad infinitum.
    and IF i have to grind, they better make it short, easy and rewarding. i paid for a GAME, not a JOB.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2021

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    I'm gonna repeat the examples of CoF P1 farm, Penit/Shelter farm, Silverwastes Chest farm, Auric Basin ML farm, Istan Farm, Fractal 40 farm, Swamp of the Mists farm, and all the other activities that over the years gathered a gigantic segment of the playerbase "enjoying" them. With your point of view, they did it because it was the most enjoyable/fun content the game ever had. I find that entirely absurd.

    You find it absurd because it's based on your own misunderstanding of what I'm saying. In addition, you don't have any ACTUAL data to support the idea that players didn't like playing in the game mode where those content examples exist. It doesn't disprove ANY of what I have said, which is based on a very reasonable assumption that players do content they like and those content are associated with specific game modes. Again, an example of how you are not understanding what I'm saying.

    Maybe you believe that most players in this game are spending most their time in game modes they dislike. I'm sure that's just based on an agenda you have to push development for unpopular game modes and content, but it still doesn't make sense. Players that dislike WvW are not spending most their time in WvW ... the same goes for PVE and PVP.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2021

    Living world is Anet's way of filling the game with regular content to avoid droughts between expansion's and keep people coming back and playing.
    Gw2 is for the most part a significantly PvE focused, story driven game that caters more to the casual player whom are the majority of this game's playerbase and due to that are also the ones paying the most into the gemstore and keeping this game alive.

    Catering to the majority is just good business in the end.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2021

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    Living world is Anet's way of filling the game with regular content to avoid droughts between expansion's and keep people coming back and playing.
    Gw2 is for the most part a significantly PvE focused, story driven game that caters more to the casual player whom are the majority of this game's playerbase and due to that are also the ones paying the most into the gemstore and keeping this game alive.

    Catering to the majority is just good business in the end.

    I like that you recognize this ... even if some players are spending the most time doing content they don't like (which is absurd ... but let's go with this for a bit) ... their spend is likely to be small compared to whatever players are reasonable enough to spend time doing content they DO like ... so a measurement of where people are spending playtime and it's relation to revenue is a very sound way for Anet to determine where to focus development to attract revenues from smart, satisfied players that play content they like.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    Living world is Anet's way of filling the game with regular content to avoid droughts between expansion's and keep people coming back and playing.
    Gw2 is for the most part a significantly PvE focused, story driven game that caters more to the casual player whom are the majority of this game's playerbase and due to that are also the ones paying the most into the gemstore and keeping this game alive.

    Catering to the majority is just good business in the end.

    I like that you recognize this ... even if some players are spending the most time doing content they don't like (which is absurd ... but let's go with this for a bit) ... their spend is likely to be small compared to whatever players are reasonable enough to spend time doing content they DO like ... so a measurement of where people are spending playtime and it's relation to revenue is a very sound way for Anet to determine where to focus development to attract revenues from smart, satisfied players that play content they like.

    Even the time element isn't as big of a factor I don't think.. many casual players tend to take breaks quite often or just log in for their dailies or a few hours a week here and there.. or when they come back for the aforementioned living world releases.

    New shinies on the store tend to be enough for some to just think, "I want that.. I buy" while the players investing more time grinding and farming etc are more likely to use their stockpile of gold to get the new shinies, if they even want them at all.
    That's probably one reason why Casuals end up bringing in more money than the more active players.
    If it is true then how much you play Gw2 and where you spend your time isn't all that important in the big picture.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 5, 2021

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    Living world is Anet's way of filling the game with regular content to avoid droughts between expansion's and keep people coming back and playing.
    Gw2 is for the most part a significantly PvE focused, story driven game that caters more to the casual player whom are the majority of this game's playerbase and due to that are also the ones paying the most into the gemstore and keeping this game alive.

    Catering to the majority is just good business in the end.

    I like that you recognize this ... even if some players are spending the most time doing content they don't like (which is absurd ... but let's go with this for a bit) ... their spend is likely to be small compared to whatever players are reasonable enough to spend time doing content they DO like ... so a measurement of where people are spending playtime and it's relation to revenue is a very sound way for Anet to determine where to focus development to attract revenues from smart, satisfied players that play content they like.

    Even the time element isn't as big of a factor I don't think.. many casual players tend to take breaks quite often or just log in for their dailies or a few hours a week here and there.
    New shinies on the store tend to be enough for some to just think, "I want that.. I buy" while the players investing more time grinding and farming etc are more likely to use their stockpile of gold to get the new shinies, if they even want them at all.
    That's probably one reason why Casuals end up bringing in more money than the more active players.

    That's a reasonable line of thinking; Casuals are likely to have a very high spend/playtime ratio compared to not-casuals and it's likely there is some data mining that could be done that would still allow Anet to determine what the spend is and where the time played is for these two populations of players by recognizing this ratio difference if it exists. In the end, all paths point to focusing development in game modes that contain players that spend the most who are most satisfied.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap