NCsoft 4Q 2018 earning - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

NCsoft 4Q 2018 earning

13>

Comments

  • Tiviana.2650Tiviana.2650 Member ✭✭✭

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:
    The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx.

    Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat.

    They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting.

    I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc.

    I think you misunderstand what DX actually does.

    Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato.

    Not all games are designed the same.

    Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/3ajnso/bad_optimalization_in_gw2/csdnn3n/

    You know what never mind, ill stick to what the professionals say about single threaded DX9. The game is cpu bound no getting away from that because of dx9

    Meanwhile a random nobody can simulate the game running on dx12 or w/e and provide more meaningful performance improvements than any of the updates gw2 has done to performance over the years.

    But naaah, not worth investing in that.

    I saw a wrapper for the game for dx12. Not sure im comfortable using it, and not sure of GW2 policy on it either.

  • BlueJin.4127BlueJin.4127 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 13, 2019

    @zealex.9410 said:
    Meanwhile a random nobody can simulate the game running on dx12 or w/e and provide more meaningful performance improvements than any of the updates gw2 has done to performance over the years.

    But naaah, not worth investing in that.

    I think what zealex is trying to say, is that you can't always believe the devs' reasonings. This reminds me of a certain event a long time ago. It has nothing to do with Anet and I'm not claiming Anet is lying. I just wanted to share this funny story.

    A long time ago, a decision making party saw how buggy a game sent to them was. They didn't like a particular bug and told the devs they will not approve this game until that bug is fixed. The devs, not willing to fix this bug, sent a lot of emails back and forth between each other, trying to come up with an excuse that the decision maker would buy, allowing them to get away without fixing this bug. They came up with an excuse that the code was so complex that trying to fix that one bug would cause a ripple of unintended consequences for the whole game. All of a sudden, the decision maker replied to that email chain asking, "So, you're going to fix this bug, right?" Turns out, the devs accidentally cced the decision maker in their email chain. XD The “unfixable” bug got fixed real fast after that.

    ^^

  • Malediktus.9250Malediktus.9250 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 13, 2019

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:
    The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx.

    Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat.

    They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting.

    I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc.

    I think you misunderstand what DX actually does.

    Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. DX9 will bottleneck every time on big groups, its single threaded!

    Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) and in the vast majority of titles it's superior performance wise to select the DirectX 11 version instead of 12. When selecting 12 there is a massive fps loss with no visual gain. Further, DX12 is only available on Windows 10. No, moving to DirectX 12 at its current state would be a terrible mistake (it could even make things worse instead of better). If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory.

    DX12 puts the effort on the developers instead of the driver since like vulcan it is a low level API. So if it runs worse than DX11 it is entirely the developers fault for being bad.

    Exactly why I said in theory (and benchmarks) dx12 wins over dx11, but in real game situations it almost always loses (badly if I may add), there is no hidden setting to make dx12 better than dx11, it's just not implemented properly by any game out there. Only Vulkan does what's advertised: giving performance boosts in real games.

    Sadly the nature of devs taking the easy path. Programming a good dx12 engine takes a lot more expertise than programming a dx11 or lower engine. So if it runs bad, blame the devs.

    To go back to the argument of GW2 going to DirectX 12, why should they bother? Are the Arenanet engine devs so much better than everyone else that will take advantage of what DX12 offers? I doubt it, so the most sensible solutions would be to update the engine for DX11 instead. The performance gains should be better, trusted, and apply to a higher percentage of the playerbase.

    They obviously won't bother because hirering competent devs for a dx12 engine will probably cost them 5m dollars (rough estimate, might be even higher). If they already had the devs familar with dx12 inhouse it would be cheaper, but probably take away from other tasks.
    But someone at Anet who studied economy must have come to the conclusion that investing 5m in a future proof engine costs more than bleeding players due to poor performance.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:
    The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx.

    Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat.

    They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting.

    I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc.

    I think you misunderstand what DX actually does.

    Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. DX9 will bottleneck every time on big groups, its single threaded!

    Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) and in the vast majority of titles it's superior performance wise to select the DirectX 11 version instead of 12. When selecting 12 there is a massive fps loss with no visual gain. Further, DX12 is only available on Windows 10. No, moving to DirectX 12 at its current state would be a terrible mistake (it could even make things worse instead of better). If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory.

    DX12 puts the effort on the developers instead of the driver since like vulcan it is a low level API. So if it runs worse than DX11 it is entirely the developers fault for being bad.

    Exactly why I said in theory (and benchmarks) dx12 wins over dx11, but in real game situations it almost always loses (badly if I may add), there is no hidden setting to make dx12 better than dx11, it's just not implemented properly by any game out there. Only Vulkan does what's advertised: giving performance boosts in real games.

    Sadly the nature of devs taking the easy path. Programming a good dx12 engine takes a lot more expertise than programming a dx11 or lower engine. So if it runs bad, blame the devs.

    To go back to the argument of GW2 going to DirectX 12, why should they bother? Are the Arenanet engine devs so much better than everyone else that will take advantage of what DX12 offers? I doubt it, so the most sensible solutions would be to update the engine for DX11 instead. The performance gains should be better, trusted, and apply to a higher percentage of the playerbase.

    They obviously won't bother because hirering competent devs for a dx12 engine will probably cost them 5m dollars (rough estimate, might be even higher). If they already had the devs familar with dx12 inhouse it would be cheaper, but probably take away from other tasks.
    But someone at Anet who studied economy must have come to the conclusion that investing 5m in a future proof engine costs more than bleeding players due to poor performance.

    Those familiar DX will be able to quickly understand DX12. That’s like me using Excel 97 wnd then going to Excel 2016. There will be some difference but the overall functionality hasn’t changed.

    The $5M is quite the exaggeration as you’re assuming a combination of their salaries being high enough to reach that and having extra programmers as well.

    You’re also neglecting the cost vs benefit aspect of this. You’re also assuming that this is as big of an issue to matter to the overall player base. When I say “matter”, I mean at the level that they’re actually leaving the game primarily because of it.

  • Einlanzer.1627Einlanzer.1627 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 13, 2019

    @BlueJin.4127 said:
    I can't say I'm happy about the game ATM. Any time I think I'm starting to have fun in this game...

    1) Too many camera flashes that hurt my eyes from player's own skills (I can't even play Holosmith), other players' skills, enemy skills, gathering Volatile Magic, gathering tools, story, etc.

    2) Too much visual clutter when doing large group events resulting in unengaging, boring, and mindless skill spam-fest since I can't see what the enemy is doing, or you know... even see the enemy. Too many skill effects, names of other players/minions in squad obstructing view, the enemy nameplate at the top center that can't be moved and obstructs large enemies so I don't even know what I'm targeting, etc.

    3) Ridiculous aggro range of PoF enemies (900 in PoF compared to 600 everywhere else) single handedly ruins PoF for me. I hate PoF zones with a passion because of this.

    4) No build templates.

    It's an excellent game, but the above issues (1~3) really ruin it for me since they completely negate the good parts.

    EDIT - If I use a weird analogy, it's like a very talented chef made a very delicious steak. Then, for some reason, the chef decided to pour sugar on the steak because, you know, sugar tastes good. And when people say the steak seems great, but they can't really taste it since the sugar is ruining it, AbandonNet… er, I mean, the chef just shrugs that it's annoying to fix it and has started cooking something else.

    Yeah, this is why open world stuff does not replace the need for small group stuff. The former is fun sometimes, but you can't build an entire game around it - it's chaotic and lacks immersion. It was ridiculous to ship PoF without any dungeons or small group oriented content and then go 2 years barely adding anything like that.

    There's also, as always, a serious dearth of feature updates and balance patches. And mount skins are overpriced for how many there are, as I've argued for over a year, which over time creates a burn-out effect that leads to players ceasing to spend any money at all.

  • Opopanax.1803Opopanax.1803 Member ✭✭✭

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Opopanax.1803 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Y'all are missing the real concern from that graph ... the sum of all of the PC game revenue barely adds up to the mobile game revenues. If a game dev company can make an order of magnitude more bux by switching platform ... they would be crazy to not do so. Admittedly, I don't know how many games are in that 'mobile' part of the graph, but that's the biggest concern to me.

    This is what I took away too. Anet needs to make a mobile game if they want to survive.

    ~snip~

    Not true, as long as income exceeds expenses then the company survives...or perhaps it gets to the point that NCSoft no longer wants ArenaNet and puts them on the block(offers the company for sale), or...there are numerous other possible outcomes that could result. Only if the decline in revenue continues and they start making less money than they're spending will there be a problem.

    Going to disagree. If I was a boss, I wouldn't let a company get away without developing at least a single mobile game. You are giving up too much potential and also not matching where the demand in the market is shifting.

    It would be foolish for Anet not to develop a gw mobile game.

  • Malediktus.9250Malediktus.9250 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2019

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:
    The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx.

    Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat.

    They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting.

    I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc.

    I think you misunderstand what DX actually does.

    Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. DX9 will bottleneck every time on big groups, its single threaded!

    Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) and in the vast majority of titles it's superior performance wise to select the DirectX 11 version instead of 12. When selecting 12 there is a massive fps loss with no visual gain. Further, DX12 is only available on Windows 10. No, moving to DirectX 12 at its current state would be a terrible mistake (it could even make things worse instead of better). If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory.

    DX12 puts the effort on the developers instead of the driver since like vulcan it is a low level API. So if it runs worse than DX11 it is entirely the developers fault for being bad.

    Exactly why I said in theory (and benchmarks) dx12 wins over dx11, but in real game situations it almost always loses (badly if I may add), there is no hidden setting to make dx12 better than dx11, it's just not implemented properly by any game out there. Only Vulkan does what's advertised: giving performance boosts in real games.

    Sadly the nature of devs taking the easy path. Programming a good dx12 engine takes a lot more expertise than programming a dx11 or lower engine. So if it runs bad, blame the devs.

    To go back to the argument of GW2 going to DirectX 12, why should they bother? Are the Arenanet engine devs so much better than everyone else that will take advantage of what DX12 offers? I doubt it, so the most sensible solutions would be to update the engine for DX11 instead. The performance gains should be better, trusted, and apply to a higher percentage of the playerbase.

    They obviously won't bother because hirering competent devs for a dx12 engine will probably cost them 5m dollars (rough estimate, might be even higher). If they already had the devs familar with dx12 inhouse it would be cheaper, but probably take away from other tasks.
    But someone at Anet who studied economy must have come to the conclusion that investing 5m in a future proof engine costs more than bleeding players due to poor performance.

    Those familiar DX will be able to quickly understand DX12. That’s like me using Excel 97 wnd then going to Excel 2016. There will be some difference but the overall functionality hasn’t changed.

    The $5M is quite the exaggeration as you’re assuming a combination of their salaries being high enough to reach that and having extra programmers as well.

    You’re also neglecting the cost vs benefit aspect of this. You’re also assuming that this is as big of an issue to matter to the overall player base. When I say “matter”, I mean at the level that they’re actually leaving the game primarily because of it.

    DX12 is different to older DX implementations since it is a low level API which basically replaces the work usually done by AMD's or Nvidia's drivers. A good engine developer probably also earns high 6 figures where Anet is located. And for a game like this you will probably need more than one + testers + 2 years time.
    Considering a new AAA game costs well over 50m nowadays, allocating 10% of it for the engine alone doesn't seem far off to me.
    Making an engine is probably one of the hardest things about making a game, that is why most games just license an engine (eg. unreal or frostbite). Making a proper dx 12 multithreaded implementation is not trivial.
    As someone else pointed out a lot of games run worse with DX12 than DX11. Why? Because they made a shoddy implementation just so they can claim they offer a DX12 mode.

  • Yeah... I personally went back to Guild Wars 1. That game captivates my attention like no other to this day.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2019

    @Malediktus.9250 said:
    DX12 is different to older DX implementations since it is a low level API which basically replaces the work usually done by AMD's or Nvidia's drivers.

    Earlier versions of DX are low level API as well.

    A good engine developer probably also earns high 6 figures where Anet is located. And for a game like this you will probably need more than one + testers + 2 years time.

    The average is $116K. High six figures would be approaching $1M so no, they're not making that much.

    Considering a new AAA game costs well over 50m nowadays, allocating 10% of it for the engine alone doesn't seem far off to me.

    Yeah... during the initial development of the game.

    Making an engine is probably one of the hardest things about making a game, that is why most games just license an engine (eg. unreal or frostbite). Making a proper dx 12 multithreaded implementation is not trivial.
    As someone else pointed out a lot of games run worse with DX12 than DX11. Why? Because they made a shoddy implementation just so they can claim they offer a DX12 mode.

    I agree that re-working a game engine is not trivial but neither is the decision to do it or not. Just because something may improve performance, does not mean that it is worth the costs (monetary and not) associated with it. Yeah, they can spend the cost to create an engine that runs efficiently and uses DX12. It's not plug and play so the existing game would need to be updated to use it. This would take time away from development of new content in the game. Content droughts have had a much greater impact on the game than slightly poor performance.

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Opopanax.1803 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Y'all are missing the real concern from that graph ... the sum of all of the PC game revenue barely adds up to the mobile game revenues. If a game dev company can make an order of magnitude more bux by switching platform ... they would be crazy to not do so. Admittedly, I don't know how many games are in that 'mobile' part of the graph, but that's the biggest concern to me.

    This is what I took away too. Anet needs to make a mobile game if they want to survive.

    ~snip~

    Not true, as long as income exceeds expenses then the company survives...

    Its human nature to want more and go for more, the mobile market could make them crazy amount of money far beyond their expenses.

    I mean look at the reccent layoffs in acti-blizzard. The ceo is boasting record sales but the company laidoff 800 ppl because they didnt "meet their potential" of profit.

    Apparently getting to keep your job in the game's industry goes beyond just exceeding expenses.

    You're comparing apples to oranges though, Activision-Blizzard is an American company, NCSoft is Korean, though they're both in the same industry, the way businesses are looked at in the 2 countries are different. U.S is focused on short term gain, how much money did you make for me in the last 3 months...from what I've learned about most(not all) Asian countries it's about the long-term viability and strength of the company. ArenaNet being a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft is in an unusual position as they're a U.S gaming company owned by an Asian gaming company...we actually have no idea on the relationship between A.net and NC with the exception that they were given more freedom with GW2.

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2019

    @Xstein.2187 said:
    Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think.

    When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on?
    Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store.
    Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts.
    The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well.
    Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store.

    However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game?
    It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year.
    Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money.
    All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense.

    I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety.

    The problem with this reasoning is that the GW franchise has always been sub-free. How many GW2 players would uninstall in a heartbeat if the game went sub, or even "optional sub?" Old games don't attract that many new people. Shifting to a sub model would only work on what is an old game if ANet could retain "enough" of its existing players. I strongly suspect that is not what would happen. I know I'd be gone. I am no longer willing to rent games.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • BlueJin.4127BlueJin.4127 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2019

    I can see Xstein's point, but on the flip side, a sub based game can focus too much on slowing players down to retain sub. That is why I left WoW and would never play another sub based game. I love that there are a lot of things I can do in GW2 that's not a crazy grind. A lot of the things I got in the game just require me to experience something once, instead of doing the same activity over and over and over for weeks. I can't remember the last time I wanted something in WoW that didn't involve long grinds requiring the same activity over and over and over... Shudder :scream:

    ^^

  • @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Malediktus.9250 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:
    The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx.

    Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat.

    They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting.

    I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc.

    I think you misunderstand what DX actually does.

    Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. DX9 will bottleneck every time on big groups, its single threaded!

    Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) and in the vast majority of titles it's superior performance wise to select the DirectX 11 version instead of 12. When selecting 12 there is a massive fps loss with no visual gain. Further, DX12 is only available on Windows 10. No, moving to DirectX 12 at its current state would be a terrible mistake (it could even make things worse instead of better). If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory.

    DX12 puts the effort on the developers instead of the driver since like vulcan it is a low level API. So if it runs worse than DX11 it is entirely the developers fault for being bad.

    Exactly why I said in theory (and benchmarks) dx12 wins over dx11, but in real game situations it almost always loses (badly if I may add), there is no hidden setting to make dx12 better than dx11, it's just not implemented properly by any game out there. Only Vulkan does what's advertised: giving performance boosts in real games.

    Sadly the nature of devs taking the easy path. Programming a good dx12 engine takes a lot more expertise than programming a dx11 or lower engine. So if it runs bad, blame the devs.

    To go back to the argument of GW2 going to DirectX 12, why should they bother? Are the Arenanet engine devs so much better than everyone else that will take advantage of what DX12 offers? I doubt it, so the most sensible solutions would be to update the engine for DX11 instead. The performance gains should be better, trusted, and apply to a higher percentage of the playerbase.

    They obviously won't bother because hirering competent devs for a dx12 engine will probably cost them 5m dollars (rough estimate, might be even higher). If they already had the devs familar with dx12 inhouse it would be cheaper, but probably take away from other tasks.
    But someone at Anet who studied economy must have come to the conclusion that investing 5m in a future proof engine costs more than bleeding players due to poor performance.

    Those familiar DX will be able to quickly understand DX12. That’s like me using Excel 97 wnd then going to Excel 2016. There will be some difference but the overall functionality hasn’t changed.

    The $5M is quite the exaggeration as you’re assuming a combination of their salaries being high enough to reach that and having extra programmers as well.

    You’re also neglecting the cost vs benefit aspect of this. You’re also assuming that this is as big of an issue to matter to the overall player base. When I say “matter”, I mean at the level that they’re actually leaving the game primarily because of it.

    DX12 is different to older DX implementations since it is a low level API which basically replaces the work usually done by AMD's or Nvidia's drivers. A good engine developer probably also earns high 6 figures where Anet is located. And for a game like this you will probably need more than one + testers + 2 years time.
    Considering a new AAA game costs well over 50m nowadays, allocating 10% of it for the engine alone doesn't seem far off to me.
    Making an engine is probably one of the hardest things about making a game, that is why most games just license an engine (eg. unreal or frostbite). Making a proper dx 12 multithreaded implementation is not trivial.
    As someone else pointed out a lot of games run worse with DX12 than DX11. Why? Because they made a shoddy implementation just so they can claim they offer a DX12 mode.

    Engine developers make nearly a million dollars a year (high 6 figures [low six figures = 100,000 - high six figures = 900,000)? Wow, should be everyone's choice of career, I'd say!

    Edit: (The very best I could find, and it's rare, on the internet was 150,000/year; the average is ~75,000/year, and most peak at around ~115,000.)

  • Neural.1824Neural.1824 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You should be because it won't kill it, but it will compete for resources within a game company, or the industry at large. If you still want a variety of high quality PC-based MMO's being released to the market using the latest tech, mobile gaming is a serious threat to that.

    I hope it does. PC-games need a hard reset.

    When PC based MMORPG's become so unprofitable that the AAA industry effectively "dies" as it switches to chase mobile games, the vacuum will be filled by small companies that will operate independently of faceless investors.

    Soul-binding needs to be allowed to die gracefully. It has expired. It is long past it's time to become a footnote in the history of gaming.

  • keenedge.9675keenedge.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:
    Numbers would soar through the roof if they dropped a Cantha xpac.

    Like it did with Elona (Pof)? Oh wait...

    But as was pointed out, the new stories don't require much time to finish.

    It's a push, but I've managed 1st-day story and map completion for each episode so far playing solo.

    Time gating has been a popular technique for slowing it down a bit. For a long time now, the time-gating has not been well masked by questing or story involvement. "Bring me 1,000 rats, but only 10 per day" is not creative. Imagine sprinkling a bit of 'come back tomorrow while I assemble it among various NPCs like the Jahai armor required. A few dungeon delves would also spice things up here and there. These would require killing the trash mobs and proving both the group strength and stamina.

    Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

  • Xstein.2187Xstein.2187 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2019

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Xstein.2187 said:
    Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think.

    When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on?
    Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store.
    Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts.
    The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well.
    Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store.

    However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game?
    It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year.
    Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money.
    All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense.

    I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety.

    The problem with this reasoning is that the GW franchise has always been sub-free. How many GW2 players would uninstall in a heartbeat if the game went sub, or even "optional sub?" Old games don't attract that many new people. Shifting to a sub model would only work on what is an old game if ANet could retain "enough" of its existing players. I strongly suspect that is not what would happen. I know I'd be gone. I am no longer willing to rent games.

    Ya, I agree. That is why I said that "there may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions." The point really isn't that is should be a sub game. The point is that in between expansions, there should be sources of income besides flashy PvE gem store items that are in line with other ways players get enjoyment from playing the game. I honestly don't know what would be the best way of doing this. It could even be through an expansion of the gem store so that it doesn't just focus on pve aesthetics. Some potential ideas I can think of on the top of my head are:

    1. New WvW commander tags in the gem store: Wanna sale more commander tags? Then work on developing and getting people more interested in WvW
    2. New PvP achievements you can purchase in the gem store: They don't even need to provide achievement points for achieving them, but maybe something like titles instead. Wanna sale more PvP achievement collections? Start focusing on balance so that more people wanna play PvP. In future expansions you may then even develop more game modes so that you can sale more types of achievements or goal sets in the gem store between expansions.
    3. New WvW achievements for the same reason.
    4. A MAX limit to how much a gem store item can cost for cosmetics: If you focus on selling a small thing to as many people as possible vs selling an expensive thing to just the most dedicated players, there may be a larger incentive to get a larger number of people interested in the game vs just trying to mooch off the most dedicated players.
    5. Pay to play WvW and PvP compititions: Even if you don't like the idea of locked content like this and don't play it, this would still lead to a stronger incentive for Anet to improve WvW and PvP to get more people involved in the tournaments. Additionally, there is no difference between pvp/wvw content locked off vs content locked off within an expansion.

    The key is to create new feedback loops that aren't currently there. Then it would be a win-win situation for both Anet and the players.

  • keenedge.9675keenedge.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) . . .. If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory.

    The reason being is people dont optimize dx12, i made the same mistake at first and hated it. DX12 comes out of the box . .

    A windows 10 box, which I've avoided so far - just headaches.

    A better choice of common denominator needs to be picked or created. DX12 would require too many people to move to Windows 10.

    Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

  • keenedge.9675keenedge.9675 Member ✭✭✭

    @Tiviana.2650 said:
    win 7 will go the way of the dodo next year.

    They said the same for Windows XP.

    I expect Windows 7 will last even longer than XP did. It's far more stable, manageable and lean.

    Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Xstein.2187 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Xstein.2187 said:
    Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think.

    When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on?
    Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store.
    Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts.
    The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well.
    Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store.

    However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game?
    It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year.
    Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money.
    All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense.

    I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety.

    The problem with this reasoning is that the GW franchise has always been sub-free. How many GW2 players would uninstall in a heartbeat if the game went sub, or even "optional sub?" Old games don't attract that many new people. Shifting to a sub model would only work on what is an old game if ANet could retain "enough" of its existing players. I strongly suspect that is not what would happen. I know I'd be gone. I am no longer willing to rent games.

    Ya, I agree. That is why I said that "there may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions." The point really isn't that is should be a sub game. The point is that in between expansions, there should be sources of income besides flashy PvE gem store items that are in line with other ways players get enjoyment from playing the game. I honestly don't know what would be the best way of doing this. It could even be through an expansion of the gem store so that it doesn't just focus on pve aesthetics. Some potential ideas I can think of on the top of my head are:

    1. New WvW commander tags in the gem store: Wanna sale more commander tags? Then work on developing and getting people more interested in WvW
    2. New PvP achievements you can purchase in the gem store: They don't even need to provide achievement points for achieving them, but maybe something like titles instead. Wanna sale more PvP achievement collections? Start focusing on balance so that more people wanna play PvP. In future expansions you may then even develop more game modes so that you can sale more types of achievements or goal sets in the gem store between expansions.
    3. New WvW achievements for the same reason.
    4. A MAX limit to how much a gem store item can cost for cosmetics: If you focus on selling a small thing to as many people as possible vs selling an expensive thing to just the most dedicated players, there may be a larger incentive to get a larger number of people interested in the game vs just trying to mooch off the most dedicated players.
    5. Pay to play WvW and PvP compititions: Even if you don't like the idea of locked content like this and don't play it, this would still lead to a stronger incentive for Anet to improve WvW and PvP to get more people involved in the tournaments. Additionally, there is no difference between pvp/wvw content locked off vs content locked off within an expansion.

    The key is to create new feedback loops that aren't currently there. Then it would be a win-win situation for both Anet and the players.

    All this stuff sounds great on paper, but that doesn't mean it works. The fact is, it's NORMAL to have lower income between expansion cycles and it's probably figured into business plans. No one expects, on an entertainment product, to make a constant amount of money. Saying that you can change it to make more money all the time is very nice...but not often true.

    I used to run a retail story and the money we made at three times of year sustained us for the rest of the year. We've had exactly one reduced quarter so far.

    There are other reasons why people buy gems, having nothing to do with what's in the gem store. And that's getting gems to sell for gold because they don't want to farm, but they want a legendary or something else that they can buy with in game gold.

    By the way, none of the analysis I've seen of the dollar figure takes into account the exchange rate to WON which has traditionally been bad for exchange when sales quarters are lower.

    This is just a normal part of the MMO business. Anet has said directly that stuff actually sells better when it's more expensive, which is they they do it. They have tried a number of things for an extended time.

    The fact that you can transfer gold to gems makes it harder to include cheaper items, because if people can buy with gold they may not buy with cash. That's one of the reasons items are more expensive in the gem store.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @keenedge.9675 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Aza.2105 said:
    Numbers would soar through the roof if they dropped a Cantha xpac.

    Like it did with Elona (Pof)? Oh wait...

    But as was pointed out, the new stories don't require much time to finish.

    It's a push, but I've managed 1st-day story and map completion for each episode so far playing solo.

    Time gating has been a popular technique for slowing it down a bit. For a long time now, the time-gating has not been well masked by questing or story involvement. "Bring me 1,000 rats, but only 10 per day" is not creative. Imagine sprinkling a bit of 'come back tomorrow while I assemble it among various NPCs like the Jahai armor required. A few dungeon delves would also spice things up here and there. These would require killing the trash mobs and proving both the group strength and stamina.

    The point I was making with that comment was that Elona was the other highly requested area for players to go. It didn’t have send revenue soaring beyond HoT which didn’t even have an area players were highly requesting. Cantha isn’t going to send revenue soaring any more than any other area of the game.

  • Xstein.2187Xstein.2187 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2019

    @Vayne.8563 said:

    @Xstein.2187 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Xstein.2187 said:
    Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think.

    When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on?
    Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store.
    Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts.
    The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well.
    Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store.

    However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game?
    It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year.
    Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money.
    All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense.

    I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety.

    The problem with this reasoning is that the GW franchise has always been sub-free. How many GW2 players would uninstall in a heartbeat if the game went sub, or even "optional sub?" Old games don't attract that many new people. Shifting to a sub model would only work on what is an old game if ANet could retain "enough" of its existing players. I strongly suspect that is not what would happen. I know I'd be gone. I am no longer willing to rent games.

    Ya, I agree. That is why I said that "there may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions." The point really isn't that is should be a sub game. The point is that in between expansions, there should be sources of income besides flashy PvE gem store items that are in line with other ways players get enjoyment from playing the game. I honestly don't know what would be the best way of doing this. It could even be through an expansion of the gem store so that it doesn't just focus on pve aesthetics. Some potential ideas I can think of on the top of my head are:

    1. New WvW commander tags in the gem store: Wanna sale more commander tags? Then work on developing and getting people more interested in WvW
    2. New PvP achievements you can purchase in the gem store: They don't even need to provide achievement points for achieving them, but maybe something like titles instead. Wanna sale more PvP achievement collections? Start focusing on balance so that more people wanna play PvP. In future expansions you may then even develop more game modes so that you can sale more types of achievements or goal sets in the gem store between expansions.
    3. New WvW achievements for the same reason.
    4. A MAX limit to how much a gem store item can cost for cosmetics: If you focus on selling a small thing to as many people as possible vs selling an expensive thing to just the most dedicated players, there may be a larger incentive to get a larger number of people interested in the game vs just trying to mooch off the most dedicated players.
    5. Pay to play WvW and PvP compititions: Even if you don't like the idea of locked content like this and don't play it, this would still lead to a stronger incentive for Anet to improve WvW and PvP to get more people involved in the tournaments. Additionally, there is no difference between pvp/wvw content locked off vs content locked off within an expansion.

    The key is to create new feedback loops that aren't currently there. Then it would be a win-win situation for both Anet and the players.

    All this stuff sounds great on paper, but that doesn't mean it works. The fact is, it's NORMAL to have lower income between expansion cycles and it's probably figured into business plans. No one expects, on an entertainment product, to make a constant amount of money. Saying that you can change it to make more money all the time is very nice...but not often true.

    I used to run a retail story and the money we made at three times of year sustained us for the rest of the year. We've had exactly one reduced quarter so far.

    There are other reasons why people buy gems, having nothing to do with what's in the gem store. And that's getting gems to sell for gold because they don't want to farm, but they want a legendary or something else that they can buy with in game gold.

    By the way, none of the analysis I've seen of the dollar figure takes into account the exchange rate to WON which has traditionally been bad for exchange when sales quarters are lower.

    This is just a normal part of the MMO business. Anet has said directly that stuff actually sells better when it's more expensive, which is they they do it. They have tried a number of things for an extended time.

    The fact that you can transfer gold to gems makes it harder to include cheaper items, because if people can buy with gold they may not buy with cash. That's one of the reasons items are more expensive in the gem store.

    Sounds good, I agree with you on gem store price. I don't know the details behind it. I also agree that there will always be lower quarters and then higher ones based on the expansions. I don't believe you can 100% bump that quarter up, never claimed you could. However, I do think Anet is going to try to do what they can during that quarter to make what they can. Right now PvE open world has an excellent feedback loop going for it based on the expansions alone, or at least most of it. They have an incentive to make the best open World PvE content they can because they make a lot of money from their open world PvE expansions. PvE, WvW, and balance do not fit into that equation as well, probably along with many other aspects of the game that people do or who at one point have enjoyed. Having a guaranteed oscillating quarters doesn't mean Anet can't make more money off of other areas of the game, doesn't mean they can't make more money between expansions, and doesn't mean that making more money off of those other areas of the game can't incentivize improvements into those aspects of the game for the players. My whole list was just hypothetical ideas to bounce thoughts off of. Did you have any other ideas that would help with this problem? And by problem I mostly mean lop sided resources placed into open world PvE and gem store cosmetics relative to PvP, WvW, and Balance (PvE balance included) at the expense of players who would pay money to put more recourses into those areas of the game but can't (seen it stated in the PvP forums before) because that is the area of the game they enjoy (untaped potential to increase quarter sales).

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    From reading the first page of the thread: lol you guys talk as if GW2 has failed. So there's a lull in sales across the board (except Lineage 2. not sure what happened this quarter with them). It happens.

    But I guess this is the time to micro-analyze everything you feel is wrong with the game now. Not going to criticize that since I haven't even played the game for nearly a year now. I still hold out hope that they'll put out some content that will bring me back and spend money on all the stuff they've been putting out (hinthint: new race & build templates).

    Until then, don't sign of Anet yet lol. I'm sure they can keep the ball rolling like they did with the mounts.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Opopanax.1803 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Y'all are missing the real concern from that graph ... the sum of all of the PC game revenue barely adds up to the mobile game revenues. If a game dev company can make an order of magnitude more bux by switching platform ... they would be crazy to not do so. Admittedly, I don't know how many games are in that 'mobile' part of the graph, but that's the biggest concern to me.

    This is what I took away too. Anet needs to make a mobile game if they want to survive.

    ~snip~

    Not true, as long as income exceeds expenses then the company survives...

    Its human nature to want more and go for more, the mobile market could make them crazy amount of money far beyond their expenses.

    I mean look at the reccent layoffs in acti-blizzard. The ceo is boasting record sales but the company laidoff 800 ppl because they didnt "meet their potential" of profit.

    Apparently getting to keep your job in the game's industry goes beyond just exceeding expenses.

    You're comparing apples to oranges though, Activision-Blizzard is an American company, NCSoft is Korean, though they're both in the same industry, the way businesses are looked at in the 2 countries are different. U.S is focused on short term gain, how much money did you make for me in the last 3 months...from what I've learned about most(not all) Asian countries it's about the long-term viability and strength of the company. ArenaNet being a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft is in an unusual position as they're a U.S gaming company owned by an Asian gaming company...we actually have no idea on the relationship between A.net and NC with the exception that they were given more freedom with GW2.

    Acti-blizzard has seen the success in the asian market and has wanted to heavily invest in that market for seemingly a while. DImmortal is basically the first step towards that.

    Also, short term gains? You must have not read about whats going on with activision-blizzard for the last year, year and a half.

    Acti-blizzard has been in a constant cost cutting effort with the goal to maximise production, roster and content delivery in their ip's but they've also canned ips in the name of longterm stability and income.

    Wow since legion and bfa has had mechanics introduce that heavily incentivise ppl to stay subbed for many many months to keep up with a score or a grind which self renews itself every content patch. It also has a cash shop just like gw2 which gets updated on some basis.

    Apples and oranges are both fruit with diff properties but still under the same food banner and are largelly used in the same range of recipes in cooking.

    They are both pretty meh and they should try and be more like pears. But i can still compaire them, call out each pros and cons say which i find to be superior.

    Simmilarly i can do the same with diff counts of mmos like gw2 and wow despite their diff in business model because at heart they are mmos.

  • I'm happy to see that on a yearly revenues basis, the game had a good 2018 year.

    NCSoft and Arenanet are certainly not worried about the game's future at the moment.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Blanche Neige.7241 said:
    I'm happy to see that on a yearly revenues basis, the game had a good 2018 year.

    NCSoft and Arenanet are certainly not worried about the game's future at the moment.

    We cant know that but w/e.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Neural.1824 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You should be because it won't kill it, but it will compete for resources within a game company, or the industry at large. If you still want a variety of high quality PC-based MMO's being released to the market using the latest tech, mobile gaming is a serious threat to that.

    I hope it does. PC-games need a hard reset.

    When PC based MMORPG's become so unprofitable that the AAA industry effectively "dies" as it switches to chase mobile games, the vacuum will be filled by small companies that will operate independently of faceless investors.

    Investorless small companies that happen to have tens of millions of dollars lying around?

  • perilisk.1874perilisk.1874 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ashen.2907 said:
    Investorless small companies that happen to have tens of millions of dollars lying around?

    Certainly they wouldn't be AAA quality. But I guess you could probably make a P2P model work without central servers using blockchain or something along those lines. It seems like such a game (no longer being reliant on servers) could function on a B2P model like GW1.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @perilisk.1874 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:
    Investorless small companies that happen to have tens of millions of dollars lying around?

    Certainly they wouldn't be AAA quality. But I guess you could probably make a P2P model work without central servers using blockchain or something along those lines. It seems like such a game (no longer being reliant on servers) could function on a B2P model like GW1.

    I see.

    Lower quality and less for my money as a consumer. I would probably pass, but I am sure that others would be happy with it.

  • Tiviana.2650Tiviana.2650 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2019

    @keenedge.9675 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) . . .. If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory.

    The reason being is people dont optimize dx12, i made the same mistake at first and hated it. DX12 comes out of the box . .

    A windows 10 box, which I've avoided so far - just headaches.

    A better choice of common denominator needs to be picked or created. DX12 would require too many people to move to Windows 10.

    DX11 should be standard with dx12 as an option. 9 is far far too obsolete multi core pcs are bogged down by it. Sure if you have a low end pc that isnt multi core or only dual core you can run gw2 prob better than us with 6 cores because our pcs are built to distribute among cores for better performance. Not bog down a single core and thread on the 6 or 8 core machine.

    Another thing, i didnt know this was part of NCsoft when i started, im not a fan of that umbrella company at all.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2019

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @keenedge.9675 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) . . .. If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory.

    The reason being is people dont optimize dx12, i made the same mistake at first and hated it. DX12 comes out of the box . .

    A windows 10 box, which I've avoided so far - just headaches.

    A better choice of common denominator needs to be picked or created. DX12 would require too many people to move to Windows 10.

    DX11 should be standard with dx12 as an option. 9 is far far too obsolete multi core pcs are bogged down by it. Sure if you have a low end pc that isnt multi core or only dual core you can run gw2 prob better than us with 6 cores because our pcs are built to distribute among cores for better performance. Not bog down a single core and thread on the 6 or 8 core machine.

    Another thing, i didnt know this was part of NCsoft when i started, im not a fan of that umbrella company at all.

    I have a multi core PC which runs GW2 just fine. A PC doesn’t get “bogged down” because an application uses only one core.

    I’d sooner believe it to be throttling due to a mobo that wasn’t meant for many cores before this.

  • titje.2745titje.2745 Member ✭✭✭

    @cptaylor.2670 said:
    I haven’t been spending anything lately. Maybe small stuff with gold conversion. But there hasn’t really been anything extremely enticing in the gemstone and the one thing I did want was rng loot box exalted shoulders.

    me2 i also want the shoulder skin. it’s the only item i really want ingame right now. but i can’t get it. i never ever get a 5 slot from chest 21+ keys already. i gave up playing much. i do daily’s and then i quit.
    it’s not motivating playing with this bad luck.

    about the sales of the game. np if it’s low. if ppl keep playing it’s fine. but don’t think so. and content. i mostly play for loot but new maps is nothing to do for me. the map with shatterer 2.0 i only do sometimes the boss kill for infusion further i don’t know what to do there. if there is new map i ask for teleport to friend and take mastery’s and explore a bit and i leave.

    they must increase drop rates of nice skins to keep ppl motivated. oke fine if infusions drop in price. don’t care but there are so many ppl who want confetti infusion and with 1 in 10k drop chance they never get it.

    maybe add fishing. i miss it from wow. i quit wow because bad rng for 6 months. and i paid them for sub so i stopped it because i didn’t get any mount i wanted.

    then i started guildwars 2 it’s a nice game but i hate black lion chests droprate. they can have my money if they sell the skins so then i am sure i get the skin. 5 euro a skin is fine. 50 euro gambled i don’t do. then i waste the price of a full game.

    would be nice if we can solo dungeons or some soloable contend and as reward we get an wardrobe unlock. once a week or something. i liked solo old content in wow for skins. but the rewards in dungeons are bad. i mostly only do them for runes or legendary gift.

    i also want an option to save builds with 1 click. and dyes. and add bl chest keys to more chests. wvw chests or something with lower chance. map completion takes so much time and 10% for a key and then the bl chest 0% for 5th slot.

  • Do we have any idea the % of the active players that actually puts any money into the game at all (not counting the actual buying of the game itself)?

  • Yargesh.4965Yargesh.4965 Member ✭✭✭

    @OGDeadHead.8326 said:
    Do we have any idea the % of the active players that actually puts any money into the game at all (not counting the actual buying of the game itself)?

    They never have and probably never will release this information. Generally not a huge percentage pays real money in games where there's an option not to. You can see this with the gems to gold ratio.

  • Vancho.8750Vancho.8750 Member ✭✭✭

    This quarter correlates to the release of World of Warcraft BFA which many people bought and played (<this guy too) for a while and then got bored or burned out in around a month or two, so the sky isn't falling.

  • BlueJin.4127BlueJin.4127 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2019

    For Anet, it doesn’t matter what percentage of players spend their money. Everybody who converts gold to gem are giving Anet free effective money because of tax Anet collects from the trade. In other words, for Anet, everybody is spending money.

    ^^

  • fixit.7189fixit.7189 Member ✭✭
    edited February 16, 2019

    once i did the story and maybe a meta or two, i never go back to pof LW maps. well except istan, which they nerfed. so it seems the design goal here is to make people not want to replay stuff at all. and that bugs me. i haven't played since the istan nerf: i am not going back to sw so i'll just stop playing instead. yep, making content to not be played again is such a great idea: can't let those players feel rewarded, can we.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vancho.8750 said:
    This quarter correlates to the release of World of Warcraft BFA which many people bought and played (<this guy too) for a while and then got bored or burned out in around a month or two, so the sky isn't falling.

    @Vancho.8750 said:
    This quarter correlates to the release of World of Warcraft BFA which many people bought and played (<this guy too) for a while and then got bored or burned out in around a month or two, so the sky isn't falling.

    Except I think it happened a lot faster for BFA than it did for PoF. Guild Wars 2 has been remarkably stable for a pretty long time.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 16, 2019

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Tiviana.2650 said:
    The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx.

    Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat.

    They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting.

    I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc.

    I think you misunderstand what DX actually does.

    Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato.

    Not all games are designed the same.

    Also: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/3ajnso/bad_optimalization_in_gw2/csdnn3n/

    Dx 9 to 11 are single thread rendering
    Dx 12 supports multithread rendering
    Seeing that the CPU bottleneck is mostly the result of high drawcall due to multiple character models and particle effects, multithread rendering surely will provide significant performance boost.
    Of course, dx9 to 11 based game can still be scaled but any scaling is still limited to single thread rendering therefore what they really do in this case is to remove non rendering logic from the rendering thread or move rendering logic to the appropriate thread (whatever, you should get what I mean). That is basically what that dev is saying.
    However, if you can do multi thread rendering, is there truly a need to optimize to that degree?

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Raizel.8175Raizel.8175 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Zaklex.6308 said:

    @Opopanax.1803 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Y'all are missing the real concern from that graph ... the sum of all of the PC game revenue barely adds up to the mobile game revenues. If a game dev company can make an order of magnitude more bux by switching platform ... they would be crazy to not do so. Admittedly, I don't know how many games are in that 'mobile' part of the graph, but that's the biggest concern to me.

    This is what I took away too. Anet needs to make a mobile game if they want to survive.

    ~snip~

    Not true, as long as income exceeds expenses then the company survives...

    Its human nature to want more and go for more, the mobile market could make them crazy amount of money far beyond their expenses.

    I mean look at the reccent layoffs in acti-blizzard. The ceo is boasting record sales but the company laidoff 800 ppl because they didnt "meet their potential" of profit.

    Apparently getting to keep your job in the game's industry goes beyond just exceeding expenses.

    You're comparing apples to oranges though, Activision-Blizzard is an American company, NCSoft is Korean, though they're both in the same industry, the way businesses are looked at in the 2 countries are different. U.S is focused on short term gain, how much money did you make for me in the last 3 months...from what I've learned about most(not all) Asian countries it's about the long-term viability and strength of the company. ArenaNet being a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft is in an unusual position as they're a U.S gaming company owned by an Asian gaming company...we actually have no idea on the relationship between A.net and NC with the exception that they were given more freedom with GW2.

    That's just wrong. I've played and am playing several NCSoft games such as Aion ot Blade &Soul and they're all very much designed for short term profit with all the P2W they offer. While western publishers also aren't good, P2W and short term profits are pretty much the standard in Asia - especially since mobile games are crazy kitten there at the moment. We really should be happy that ArenaNet is free in it's decisions as to how to design the game, else GW2 would already be a P2W-cashfest.

  • @BlueJin.4127 said:
    For Anet, it doesn’t matter what percentage of players spend their money. Everybody who converts gold to gem are giving Anet free effective money because of tax Anet collects from the trade. In other words, for Anet, everybody is spending money.

    They don't care if you buy gems with real money or with ingame gold.

    The gems you are buying with gold were bought by someone with real money anyway.

  • Gehenna.3625Gehenna.3625 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @mortrialus.3062 said:
    Stuff like the mount adoption licences and themed mount packs are going to inherently have diminishing returns among most players. I mean really, how many dozens of mount skins can one person need even if they want all their mounts to perfectly match their character's fashion?

    I think that's true of all cosmetics. I remember when playing SWTOR there were just more and more armor skins and at some point I had a set of ones I really liked and new ones just really weren't better and I had enough of them. This being an elder game now and having had lots of stuff released via the gem store in the meantime, I really don't have anything cosmetic I really would want anymore. It's hard to extrapolate why GW2 sales are down by 25% this past quarter but yeah, you'd think that the holidays are a time that sales would be up. If that's true then the next quarter might be even lower just because there isn't the same type of holiday in this quarter.

    One of the things that will become increasingly difficult is to attract new players because it's an old game by now. In game terms 6-7 years is pretty ancient and new players aren't necessarily looking for an older game to get into. So this might be something they won't be able to really turn around anymore.

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Y'all are missing the real concern from that graph ... the sum of all of the PC game revenue barely adds up to the mobile game revenues. If a game dev company can make an order of magnitude more bux by switching platform ... they would be crazy to not do so. Admittedly, I don't know how many games are in that 'mobile' part of the graph, but that's the biggest concern to me.

    I get where you're coming from but at the same time I think that trend will not continue for that much longer. The issue with mobile games is that it's a gold mine but mobile games are not for everyone so to ignore a market that still makes a lot of money would be a mistake by itself. Secondly, because many more companies are going for the mobile gold now, that means more competition and will increase the supply more than the demand. Look at Blizzard and their mobile Diablo game announcement that backfired. Companies will be fighting for players a lot more and will have to share their revenue with each other because well, the market isn't going to get bigger just because you offer more games. So once the mobile market is saturated (probably oversaturated before the likes of EA are done with it), they'll be looking elsewhere again.

    Lastly, and correct me if I'm wrong but NcSoft's mobile games are based off their PC games like Lineage and B&S. Also most of their market is in Asia, not over here. So there are a lot of factors that can make a difference. In the end, it makes no sense to make a GW2 mobile game if people here don't care for it. All in all switching platforms seems like a bad business decision. Expanding yes, switching not so much. If the next GW game ends up being a mobile game, I wouldn't even touch it.

    "In my experience, if you can't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. The details are everything." ~ Minister Durano

13>
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.