Re-thinking A.net development Cycle and Business Model.

GW2 got some the best MMO minds in the business. GW2 is by far my favorite MMO. But due to lack content and incentives to play, I explored other MMOS, Like WOW BFA and ESO.Playing those games made me appreciate A.net devs even more in some regards -For example, "BellularGaming" a known WOW youtuber gave some ideas which are needed(by his opinion) to improve the state of WOW BFA - Among these ideas are signature GW2 mechanics like the unique mounts and map meta events. Even the WOW world quest system is a take on GW2 heart system. Compared to ESO, you can see some similarities in combat design but GW2 got less server performance issues and feels a little bit smoother.

But I think that A.net could learn a lot from ESO development Cycle and Business Model and I think this crises could be an opportunity to do something about that.ESO development process is composed of 4 yearly major updates/dlcs(one update every 3 mouths give or take) . The mid year update is an expansion(with the same scope of GW2 expansions, more or less). You need to buy each update in-order to play its content and enjoy special addition mechanics. Improvements and changes to to base mechanics will be open to all players. Players can decide a mouthy fee(~15$) in-order to get a season pass to the DLCS in addition to quality of life services(small boost to exp, extra storing space etc..). Expansions is pay to play even for monthly paying players. As far as I know, you can also buy DLCS with the game currency.

I think that this cycle enabled the ESO dev team to deliver content and game changes is a very fluent and consistent manner. There is always something going on in this game, from discussion with the community on future class updates(class representative program) to public test sever(GW2 should really have one) to live server update. The game is always changing, mechanics are being adjusted, metas shifted, new gear(gear options not gear tiers), new crafting, new stuff all the time.

This process is possible because ESO have the resources to support it with appropriate business model.

I for once will be more than happy to pay a monthly fee to support A.net ability to produce more content on a regular basis. Before you will say something on the line of "you can just buy cosmetics on gem store if you want to support A.net", The reason I don't think it's a good solution is that for once it's obviously not doing well enough and second it signals the wrong massage. When you a skin on gem store it signals to the developer, "I want more skins" not please focus on more elaborate rune/sigil systems , revamp crafting system and a legendary food(for example).

Like in ESO, players don't have to subscribe and can well pick and chose the DLCS they do want to get into.

There is simply no chance even an optional sub will be introduced nearly 7 years into an MMO's lifespan. Even giving QoL buffs or optional extras, it would send out a message of desperation and psychologically speaking, any benefits would be moot since players would likely not even look at the features and just see "sub" and instantly baulk. Gamers are notoriously fickle and unforgiving - this would not wash with a large enough section of players who would then leave, that it would almost certainly reduce the income rather than increase it.

ESO can do it because it started with a sub. As did Lotro and Star Trek other MMO's. They were able to split the sub into multiple business models from there. Going from f2p/b2p to (optional) sub is simply folly from a marketing point of view.

And Anet would never do it, nor do I think they need to. They do have decent financials, it's just that it appears perhaps those financials were not being well invested (I am speculating a tad here)

@"Randulf.7614" said:There is simply no chance even an optional sub will be introduced nearly 7 years into an MMO's lifespan. Even giving QoL buffs or optional extras, it would send out a message of desperation and psychologically speaking, any benefits would be moot since players would likely not even look at the features and just see "sub" and instantly baulk. Gamers are notoriously fickle and unforgiving - this would not wash with a large enough section of players who would then leave, that it would almost certainly reduce the income rather than increase it.

ESO can do it because it started with a sub. As did Lotro and Star Trek other MMO's. They were able to split the sub into multiple business models from there. Going from f2p/b2p to (optional) sub is simply folly from a marketing point of view.

And Anet would never do it, nor do I think they need to. They do have decent financials, it's just that it appears perhaps those financials were not being well invested (I am speculating a tad here)

Sure, it will not be easy. But I think they just need to market it right. Keep living story a freeb, which is basically most of what we get now in terms of content. Create a future development vision that revamp some neglected elements of the game and slice to DLCs and give the option of a season pass in a form of subscription to the DLC'S.Some will take the sub some will buy the dlcs some will stay with core game.

I think at least one question is whether their content issues are financial or technical in nature. If it was genuinely all hands on deck, they could probably put together a decent bit of "content" every 3 months -- basically, we're talking about a meatier LS schedule. But "features" and "mechanics" start introducing engine and balance issues, and run the risk of breaking old content, or just changing gameplay in a way that alienates portions of the playerbase. Changing how they monetize things isn't going to help them if their major issue isn't financial in nature.

If it really was a purely monetary problem, they could always do more to monetize LS. People complain that it's disposable fluff content with no long-term value. If they changed policy on LS so that, after the initial 3-month free period, it was locked for purchase for everyone (including those who previously had it for free), they could probably sell more gems -- and it would also incentivize creating content with staying power, so more people want to shell out even after they experience the trial period. It would probably make people unhappy, insofar as it's less free stuff, but much less so than making people pay for LS outright. As long as you log in semi-regularly, you should at least be able to keep up with the story and explore the maps.

@LughLongArm.5460 said:

@"Randulf.7614" said:There is simply no chance even an optional sub will be introduced nearly 7 years into an MMO's lifespan. Even giving QoL buffs or optional extras, it would send out a message of desperation and psychologically speaking, any benefits would be moot since players would likely not even look at the features and just see "sub" and instantly baulk. Gamers are notoriously fickle and unforgiving - this would not wash with a large enough section of players who would then leave, that it would almost certainly reduce the income rather than increase it.

ESO can do it because it started with a sub. As did Lotro and Star Trek other MMO's. They were able to split the sub into multiple business models from there. Going from f2p/b2p to (optional) sub is simply folly from a marketing point of view.

And Anet would never do it, nor do I think they need to. They do have decent financials, it's just that it appears perhaps those financials were not being well invested (I am speculating a tad here)

This already doesn't sound like an improvement to what we have though - at best its the same but less exciting to market, so it's going to be near impossible to convince hundreds of thousands of players this change is a positive step.

If they were to change it, it would have to be obviously and significantly better than the current model to the customer.

If financials are the issue, the gem store is primed for improvements to help it - whether it through more sensible pricing (ie not having mount skins and packages almos the same as an expac) and ensuring more is kept "in stock" so people can buy when they want and only wait if a "sale" comes up. Or improve the clarity in how current LS/DLC is required when buying expacs.

Or, even better, improve the quality in all areas of the game. Happy customers = more money

This has been already discussed here on the forum. And most people have said that they would feel like Imhotep in this scene if that happened (skip to 1:40)

I am personally all for it and do think it would be better for the game. But a lot of people say this would make them quit the game

@"perilisk.1874" said:I think at least one question is whether their content issues are financial or technical in nature. If it was genuinely all hands on deck, they could probably put together a decent bit of "content" every 3 months -- basically, we're talking about a meatier LS schedule. But "features" and "mechanics" start introducing engine and balance issues, and run the risk of breaking old content, or just changing gameplay in a way that alienates portions of the playerbase. Changing how they monetize things isn't going to help them if their major issue isn't financial in nature.

If it really was a purely monetary problem, they could always do more to monetize LS. People complain that it's disposable fluff content with no long-term value. If they changed policy on LS so that, after the initial 3-month free period, it was locked for purchase for everyone (including those who previously had it for free), they could probably sell more gems -- and it would also incentivize creating content with staying power, so more people want to shell out even after they experience the trial period. It would probably make people unhappy, insofar as it's less free stuff, but much less so than making people pay for LS outright. As long as you log in semi-regularly, you should at least be able to keep up with the story and explore the maps.

I think that the financial used to be Ok, but as ncsoft implied, GW2 is getting old, and the community is getting smaller, mostly due to the lack of frequent updates and major changes to the game. Let's be real, after you get your legendary armor and getting board of your BiS build, not much reason to keep playing unless your really enjoy living world.

So less players less gem are being sold, less money to A.net.

Living world is a bit a case apart... It is "free" when you log in when it comes out but if you don't have the expansion tied to it you cannot access it. (So in some way you paid for it when you bought the expansion). If you miss out to log in said period, you will have to invest some gems to unlock them.

I think the real way to make cash is meaningfull expansions (content you can explore, have tons of events in, some nice meta's worth doing, some new fractal/dungeon, some jump puzzles or diverse activities as we have seen in HoT (PoF had them activities but they were the same on every map so a bit meh), additionally a new spec, new innovative things we haven't seen before. Some may also want new legendary and raids but this is not everybodies cup of tea. For sure a place where you spend all your time in instead of desert it after you completed story and achievements, without making it a grind. They may need to reinvent the wheel to find a way to have goals in maps to work to. In classic mmo you have the regear grind which I am happy we miss here but something meaningfull has to replace it so you have a goal to work to and I don't think skins is the way to go. Add new pvp modes (lock them behind purchasing this expansion if you like) that are truly unique.

Next to that they can use the gem store to make some cash... Look at what the ppl want. Without making anything pay to win ofcourse. How many players are still looking for beetle mount skins that match the other mounts seasonal packages (like the branded mounts) just to name one? How many players are looking for armor pieces that together form a complete outfit (with individual parts so they can mix and match and dye according)? Add a way to dye your weapons.

For the rest get players to play by making sure the balancing is more or less right. Make the game so that teamwork truly works on all classes and weapons , even when ranged (why is mesmer greatsword and ranger longbow auto attack still "only do damage when you are on the other side of the map of where your party is", just get rid of this as it helps nobody). Give the game a little more managable challenge in open world so players learn how to actually perform tactics (instead of leech and do no tactics assuming everything will drop like flies, and trust me I am casual but if even Silverwastes meta still fails because nobody cares to look into tactics of the bosses in end and just assume others kill it and you can stand still and press autoskill...). Blow some new life into WvW and PvP. Yes I am not a player that plays this mode much and in other MMO's I have played all pvp died since nobody was interested in it (bad balancing, bad mechanics)... But I think there is still a community (perhaps even big) that would play this or returns or even attracts players into pvp if the game has some amazing pvp that they can't find elsewhere. Look at other popular games for pvp only and see what they do, what appeals players and how you can make your own unique pvp that would appeal to this group. If you keep WvW as it is, add some tutorial of some kind in it so you know exact what you can do and how to do it since as new player you are totally lost in there. In open world PvE add some tutorial of some kind explaining break bars and combo skills (on last I still have no clue what combo's with what...)...

Most of all, be creative, fresh idea's, think outside of the box (like you did when you created this game).

The current model of expansions and LW seasons i think is fine. They just need to churn them out on a consistent but faster pace to keep players interested and avoid content drought which is one of the biggest reasons why players leave or go on long breaks (and players on long break means no income from them).

Im only new here but not sure if the idea of putting everything available in the Gem store has been thrown out there? Basically, you put all skins, outfits, wardrobes, toys etc available at any given time for purchase on the Gem Store on their standard price then on a weekly (or daily or whatever) basis some random set of items will go on sale or during some real world holiday a huge sale runs. From there you can have limited edition items that ties in with festivals or events that you can always be brought back when the majority of the player base begs for it. This way, those that want to buy stuff doesn't need to wait for them to be available again and can just spend the cash to buy gems and in turn spend them in the Gem Store because the items they want are readily available - although this model has its pros/cons on the short/long term.

As for content, there's a lot that can be improved. And on the top of my head -

Dungeons - because ive been running them a lot lately. There is a lot of room for improvement that can be made and i've read so many great suggestions from other threads which can be adapted

Group and World Boss events - still have a lot of room for improvement because at the moment its just "go there and do this or kill this" and then its done

Community events - we already have small scale events so why not have large scale ones? Where a challenge will run for several days (or weeks) wherein players will need to do something different then be met with some challenges (or enemies/mobs?) and depending on the result of the event rewards are scaled. This events can also be big enough that it can have semi-permanent effects to the world or the map (changes will revert or stay until the results of the next event is known). I'm actually looking at Elite: Dangerous style community events if anyone is familiar with that

New race, class, profession, elite spec - diversity is always great

@LughLongArm.5460 said:I think that the financial used to be Ok, but as ncsoft implied, GW2 is getting old, and the community is getting smaller, mostly due to the lack of frequent updates and major changes to the game.How did you read that from what NCsoft has said?

@kharmin.7683 said:

@LughLongArm.5460 said:I think that the financial used to be Ok, but as ncsoft implied, GW2 is getting old, and the community is getting smaller, mostly due to the lack of frequent updates and major changes to the game.How did you read that from what NCsoft has said?

personal biases is my guess

@kharmin.7683 said:

@LughLongArm.5460 said:I think that the financial used to be Ok, but as ncsoft implied, GW2 is getting old, and the community is getting smaller, mostly due to the lack of frequent updates and major changes to the game.How did you read that from what NCsoft has said?

The second part is obviously speculation but NC Soft said the first part of that sentence very directly. Older players tend to have the wrong PoV to answer this question. They just see their friends and guildies quit one at a time, and don't account for the new players that they simply don't know.

Anyway, what I think is that we'll start seeing the results of ANets restructuring about 6 months down the line. Anything sooner than that is too soon and will not have any development time put into it. It's implied by multiple sources that a lion's share of development in the company went to these unannounced projects we will never know about because they've all been permanently scrapped. If the devs are now shuffled fully back into GW2 development, we might start seeing some pretty hefty content updates. Wishful thinking I know.What's more likely IMO is that they'll split the company in 2, one half continuing GW2 development while the other half starts working on a new title that's less ambitious than these scrapped titles. A company without a new title in the pipeline will eventually die, and no one wants that. Except the competition maybe.Before that we'll mainly see if they start monetizing the game more heavily.

@"kharmin.7683" Loud and clear(go to 4:00 min)

@derd.6413 Personal biases toward what?

@Yannir.4132 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@LughLongArm.5460 said:I think that the financial used to be Ok, but as ncsoft implied, GW2 is getting old, and the community is getting smaller, mostly due to the lack of frequent updates and major changes to the game.How did you read that from what NCsoft has said?

Yes, you are perfectly right. The phrasing of my statement was not perfect. NC soft only addressed to the getting old and less revenue part, the reasons described are my own speculations.

And to counter that argument, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Jim Sterling:

@"Trise.2865" said:"Dear ArenaNet:

kitten you, you suck. Now start exploiting me and treating me like a farm animal, or I'll find someone who will."

1) Who said A.net sucks? I opened with - "GW2 got some the best MMO minds in the business. GW2 is by far my favorite MMO."

2)Why would I not want to pay for something I enjoy if it means that I will continue to enjoy it for many more years. How is it by any mean "exploiting "?

I think ESO business model is very balanced and I don't see much complains from the community.

@LughLongArm.5460 said:

@"Trise.2865" said:"Dear ArenaNet:

kitten you, you suck. Now start exploiting me and treating me like a farm animal, or I'll find someone who will."

But ESO's business model has evolved from a worse model to the point it is at now, so there is little reason for them to complain. GW2 has a better business model than an optional sub as shown by the fact that a relatively unknown IP compared to Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy, WoW, has been able to perform extremely well and mix it up against those vastly bigger franchises.

There is room for improvement, but I can say with confidence an optional sub isn't going to help the game

@"Trise.2865" said:And to counter that argument, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Jim Sterling:

What Argument do you counter with what part of the video?

@Randulf.7614 said:

@LughLongArm.5460 said:

@"Trise.2865" said:"Dear ArenaNet:

kitten you, you suck. Now start exploiting me and treating me like a farm animal, or I'll find someone who will."

ESO had a rocky start mostly in the development zone, not so much on the business front. People bought into this game knowing its got SUB business model. Same with WOW BFA. It appears that fans don't care to spend money on a quality product. But on a poor product they will not put money nor their time(which probably the most valuable resource in today's competitive entertainment market). ESO came together BTW, only after "One Tamriel" patch which greatly improved the game and gave a clear road map for a full year. I do agree that a mix of free to play/buy to play with sub option is probably optimal for MMOS if they can deliver good content on a regular basis.

Sub fee, never. Is a old archaic system of early 2000's.The power of guildwars is you can take a break and come back later. I have invested quite some money in this game (multiple account/expacs + gems). Why should i have to pay again for the content i already paid for every time i come back later. Don't say that system works well, mmo's with that system have been on a decline for years, minus a uncommon exception. Together with the fake content/ time gated grind level gear debacle and the virtual powercurve that never actually goes up in reality with new levels/gear levels. If they do a quarterly content pack/quaility of life system where i pay a decently priced/decently packed content in it, i will be happy to pay for the future of gw with a yearly new content pass system or something like that. Somewhat of a hybrid of full expac/ls system.

@LughLongArm.5460 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:

@LughLongArm.5460 said:

@"Trise.2865" said:"Dear ArenaNet:

kitten you, you suck. Now start exploiting me and treating me like a farm animal, or I'll find someone who will."

Yes I sort of agree, but that's not really what I am saying. ESO a huge well known franchise, started with a full sub, eventually going f2p with optional sub. That is a natural business progression and also will have been to stifle competition from games like GW2 who never asked for a sub. Lets remember, GW1 - a complete unknown -popularised the idea of no sub enough that when it became big, other mmo's quickly followed suit. GW2 continued it on to great success. It doesn't send out a great message to go from that to optional sub after all these years - it sends out a message of either desperation or money grabbing. And the community wont see past that in the main (and neither will the gaming media who rip on it).

The optional sub could well be optimal - none of us could know that. But, where it works best is likely where it starts with a full sub and moves to the optional version like ESO, Lotro, Star Trek and all the others went.

@Randulf.7614 said:

@LughLongArm.5460 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:

@LughLongArm.5460 said:

@"Trise.2865" said:"Dear ArenaNet:

kitten you, you suck. Now start exploiting me and treating me like a farm animal, or I'll find someone who will."

Sure, I fully understand. Going with sub out of the blue will be awkward as hell. That's why I said it should be more like dream development road map for one year at least(which should be shared and discussed with the community), in addition to current living world development. The road map will be sliced into 4 updates, 3 of the updates will cost like ~25$ and one big update("expansion") will cost like ~40$ . You can be a sub for ~15$ a mouth to get access to all regular dlc(the 25$ updates) with some additional services.

They can ask for money only if they will present a vision for the future of GW2 beside living world.

Maybe this is a minor distinction to some people but I think it's important to point out that one of ESO's quarterly updates is always a free update with nothing but bug fixes and QoL changes for the base game, and one is always just 2 new dungeon paths.

So for $15 per month subscribers get 1 story DLC - roughly equivalent to one of GW2's Living Story releases and 2 dungeon paths. Then everyone gets 1 free QoL update (which can be quite big but may not appeal to everyone - for example one introduced playing housing, which is just an instance to decorate with no practical benefits other than being able to teleport to it for free, nice for some, utterly irrelevant for others) and everyone - including subscribers - has the option to pay for an expansion which is like several story DLCs combined. Personally I think ESO's expansions take me less time to complete than GW2's ones do and it feels like there's less to it, but that may be partially because all all in 1 map instead of being spread across a few different ones. Oh, and subscribers have the option of waiting a year to get the expansions as part of their subscription when the next one is released. So I guess if you don't mind being a year behind on the major releases you get 2 story releases and 2 dungeon paths for your money.

If you ask the majority of ESO subscribers though they'll tell you the amount of content they get does not justify the subscription cost. Yes people can trot out all kinds of comparisions to over-priced coffee or calculate price per minute they're logged in, but the fact is you save a lot by buying the DLC and expansions directly instead of subscribing. According to polls on the ESO forum most subscribers do it because it's the only way to access the craft bag (the equivalent of GW2's material storage) as well as various other features we currently get free, like the ability to dye costumes (aka outfits).Here's one relatively recent poll for example: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/428270/main-reason-you-sub-for-eso/p163% subscribe for the craft bag, 6% for DLC access. I cannot imagine it would be popular at all for GW2 to start locking basic QoL features which we've always gotten as free base-game updates behind a subscription fee to justify the price.

I really enjoy ESO and I can believe having an optional subscription is more profitable for the company (although we don't know because Zenimax, like Anet, is a privately owned company so their finances aren't made public - even more so because their parent company is also private) but I'm not at all convinced it's a better deal for players than what we have now and I certainly don't think it results in more content being produced.

The day GW2 switches to a sub model is the day I uninstall.

Gonna reiterate what I've said previously - I will quit Guild Wars 2 and never play it again if a subscription pay wall is introduced. It is as simple as that.