Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Top 3 reasons why raids only attracted a small audience


Swagger.1459

Recommended Posts

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.One of the reasons, yes (although not the only one). At the same time I also believe that without any expansion at all, the situation would have been way, way worse.

That does not make any sense. Raids with the release of HoT were neither rewarding, nor was legendary armor, the main draw for many players, even implemented. The content as such was absolutely side content and had literally no effect on players not participating in them. Similar to how the initial releases of fractals had almost no impact on the game until many many revamps.

To reason that raids were a reason in drop of revenue at the beginning of HoT is pure fantasy. There were a ton of other likely way higher contributing factors.

I'd even go as far as argue, raids might rather have been a major contributing factor for an increase in revenue (outperformed by factors favoring a drop in revenue) since it brought a ton of players into the game who might not have given GW2 a try. To assume players dropped the game only because raids were added when they were not even affected by them makes no sense. It is far more likely that all the non raid related factors had a far bigger effect on revenue like the high difficulty of open world HoT, the introduction of mastery levels, the reworks of fractals, etc.

Also fun little side observation which was again confirmed by the last trailer:The developers are really trying to encourage and get players to join instanced group content of 10 player size. Why else would there be a mention of a strike mission hub coming up (or even an implementation of such?). There are a ton of things which could have been mentioned instead if this was not a priority. That should ring alarms bells for any players who still assume this game would do great without 10 player instanced content.

While I agree that almost no people should have left because raids where introduced.

The word raids comes with such a strong connotation that I fear that atleast a few probably would have left.On top of not being able to get max mastery/ap without them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@yann.1946 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.One of the reasons, yes (although not the only one). At the same time I also believe that without any expansion at all, the situation would have been way, way worse.

That does not make any sense. Raids with the release of HoT were neither rewarding, nor was legendary armor, the main draw for many players, even implemented. The content as such was absolutely side content and had literally no effect on players not participating in them. Similar to how the initial releases of fractals had almost no impact on the game until many many revamps.

To reason that raids were a reason in drop of revenue at the beginning of HoT is pure fantasy. There were a ton of other likely way higher contributing factors.

I'd even go as far as argue, raids might rather have been a major contributing factor for an increase in revenue (outperformed by factors favoring a drop in revenue) since it brought a ton of players into the game who might not have given GW2 a try. To assume players dropped the game only because raids were added when they were not even affected by them makes no sense. It is far more likely that all the non raid related factors had a far bigger effect on revenue like the high difficulty of open world HoT, the introduction of mastery levels, the reworks of fractals, etc.

Also fun little side observation which was again confirmed by the last trailer:The developers are really trying to encourage and get players to join instanced group content of 10 player size. Why else would there be a mention of a strike mission hub coming up (or even an implementation of such?). There are a ton of things which could have been mentioned instead if this was not a priority. That should ring alarms bells for any players who still assume this game would do great without 10 player instanced content.

While I agree that almost no people should have left because raids where introduced.

The word raids comes with such a strong connotation that I fear that atleast a few probably would have left.On top of not being able to get max mastery/ap without them.

Sure, some might have left, but I don't buy into the idea that players left ONLY because raids were added. There would have had to have been underlying issues for them to leave in the first place or some discomfort from other issues (like the difficulty of HoT for example).

Again, raids were absolute side content at the beginning of HoT which most players, especially more casual ones, would not have even known about. I knew a lot of players did not even know where the entrance to the first wing was for months (before we got this fancy Aerodrome all access area).

At the same time, players interested in raid content who would have joined the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

Not really sure why you brought that example back, ....

probably for people that have a difficulty understanding so they have something to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:My question exactly, if spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?Perhaps it happened for unrelated reasons. You know, like abandoning expansion model. Correlation, not causation.

Got to ask, do you believe the drop in revenue after the release of Heart of Thorns was due to Raids and the difficulty of the expansion? Because that was a very very prominent reason given at the time, and still is.One of the reasons, yes (although not the only one). At the same time I also believe that without any expansion at all, the situation would have been way, way worse.

That does not make any sense. Raids with the release of HoT were neither rewarding, nor was legendary armor, the main draw for many players, even implemented. The content as such was absolutely side content and had literally no effect on players not participating in them. Similar to how the initial releases of fractals had almost no impact on the game until many many revamps.

To reason that raids were a reason in drop of revenue at the beginning of HoT is pure fantasy. There were a ton of other likely way higher contributing factors.

I'd even go as far as argue, raids might rather have been a major contributing factor for an increase in revenue (outperformed by factors favoring a drop in revenue) since it brought a ton of players into the game who might not have given GW2 a try. To assume players dropped the game only because raids were added when they were not even affected by them makes no sense. It is far more likely that all the non raid related factors had a far bigger effect on revenue like the high difficulty of open world HoT, the introduction of mastery levels, the reworks of fractals, etc.

Also fun little side observation which was again confirmed by the last trailer:The developers are really trying to encourage and get players to join instanced group content of 10 player size. Why else would there be a mention of a strike mission hub coming up (or even an implementation of such?). There are a ton of things which could have been mentioned instead if this was not a priority. That should ring alarms bells for any players who still assume this game would do great without 10 player instanced content.

While I agree that almost no people should have left because raids where introduced.

The word raids comes with such a strong connotation that I fear that atleast a few probably would have left.On top of not being able to get max mastery/ap without them.

Sure, some might have left, but I don't buy into the idea that players left ONLY because raids were added. There would have had to have been underlying issues for them to leave in the first place or some discomfort from other issues (like the difficulty of HoT for example).

Again, raids were absolute side content at the beginning of HoT which most players, especially more casual ones, would not have even known about. I knew a lot of players did not even know where the entrance to the first wing was for months (before we got this fancy Aerodrome all access area).

At the same time, players interested in raid content who would have joined the game.

I agree, just wanted to complete the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

The breakdown is def on your end. There's a diff between McDonald's adding sushi or like $8 latte's then an MMO adding raids what 5 years ago. One doesn't make sense the other does as many MMO's have varied content for casuals and hard core. PvP and WvW could be fringe too but less would play GW2 without those as well. I don't raid but have done every other aspect to some degree but they def aren't catering to the raider fringe. It's a few 10 man content that most likely won't achieve their more raider goal but I do them and it's better to have more options then less.

It's not different at all. No one originally signed up to GW2 for raids. PERIOD. I'm not talking about what many MMOs do ... I'm talking about what GW2 does.

You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

Even If no one signed up for GW2 because of raids many raided at some point so I don't see your point. Yeah I said many MMO's have raids, didn't realize I couldn't casually mention other MMO like you casually mention Mcdonalds to try and prove points again which I still don't get. So it's inconsistency now? And somehow I support it in my prior content. Yeah don't see that either so I'm going to let you argue with others since that entire response is something completely different then what I responded too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple - the non-"raid crowd": this is too hard, omg such bad design aoes everywhere. I don't have time for this! (You don't want to put into something to improve, which results in it taking more time than it'd have to. So, you essentially make it harder for yourself by blaming the game.)

The "raid crowd": insert exceedingly elitistic phases here despite your mechanical skill being almost entirely reliant on the healer. The end result? Inability to adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jilora.9524 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

The breakdown is def on your end. There's a diff between McDonald's adding sushi or like $8 latte's then an MMO adding raids what 5 years ago. One doesn't make sense the other does as many MMO's have varied content for casuals and hard core. PvP and WvW could be fringe too but less would play GW2 without those as well. I don't raid but have done every other aspect to some degree but they def aren't catering to the raider fringe. It's a few 10 man content that most likely won't achieve their more raider goal but I do them and it's better to have more options then less.

It's not different at all. No one originally signed up to GW2 for raids. PERIOD. I'm not talking about what many MMOs do ... I'm talking about what GW2 does.

You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

Even If no one signed up for GW2 because of raids many raided at some point so I don't see your point.

Then you need to go back and read my posts. I'm not re-iterating my point over and over for people that want to drop in and rehash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

Funny how consistency works in your mind, only when it suits your agenda. Did the game have Raids for 2 years? Yes. Did they increase the time between releases making it inconsistent? Yes. Not sure what else you want and how you twist that word all over the place. You were complaining in another thread about Anet's consistency when they added Strike Missions in the zone meta achievements and you don't see an inconsistency when they removed nearly all types of content from the game for a large period of time? No PVP, no WVW, no Raids, no fractals, exclusively open world. And you don't see an inconsistency there? At all? It's only when it suits you.

@Obtena.7952 said:Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

Not really sure why you brought that example back, ....

probably for people that have a difficulty understanding so they have something to talk about.

I already answered why your example is flawed. You are telling me it would be good business practice for McDonald's to stop offering anything BUT their most popular one? Which is what you are saying here. You have some difficulty understanding what is happening thanks to your agenda against Raids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

Funny how consistency works in your mind, only when it suits your agenda. Did the game have Raids for 2 years? Yes. Did they increase the time between releases making it inconsistent? Yes. Not sure what else you want and how you twist that word all over the place.

Did the game have raids when it was released? NODid anyone sign up to this game when it was released because of raids? NO

Accusing me of twisting the meaning of inconsistency ... you should be ashamed. I guess that's only funny to people that want to ignore the fact that the introduction of raids was an inconsistent offering to the original adopters in the first place ... but OK. That's the game you want to play, at least your transparent about it. It's sad you want to accuse me of something and make this an attack than understand what my point is ... but that's fine. It's way easier to dismiss that kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

Funny how consistency works in your mind, only when it suits your agenda. Did the game have Raids for 2 years? Yes. Did they increase the time between releases making it inconsistent? Yes. Not sure what else you want and how you twist that word all over the place.

Did the game have raids when it was released? NODid anyone sign up to this game when it was released because of raids? NO

Accusing me of twisting the meaning of inconsistency ... you should be ashamed.

So you either don't know what the word means, or you forgot what you were talking about.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1178533/#Comment_1178533

Maybe at one time, that was true. Unfortunately, what was true before is irrelevant to what is NOW. I can gaurentee the surest way for any game dev to sink their own game is to ignore what most people in the game want to do. If you think content failure has nothing to do with that, then we can only disagree with each other.

We were talking about NOW because you wanted to and now you want to talk about how the game launched? Moving goal posts, moving topics. Really shameful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:stuff

I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the as-released offerings. If you can't see that difference (I know you can because you SAID so), then you aren't having this discussion in good faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the
whole
history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the offerings and how customers were served when the game was released.

Tbh it was already mentioned that some people joined for raid like content. Or atleast content which was advertised for raiders.

And your argument can be used to argue against the development of expacs for example. That's why I consider your argument a little weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the whole history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

So inconsistency actually means nothing to you since the majority of the game has changed over the years... why were you so concerned about Anet's inconsistency then?

It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place.

It's also a pretty simple fact that they did have a good enough audience to grow and release more of them until external reasons caused them to fail. Reasons that had nothing to do with Raids themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK .. that doesn't change what I said. Raiders didn't sign up to a game that had a plethora of raids ... so they didn't sign up for that. I mean, you can argue whatever pedantic points you want or state what you think as fact ... lots of us were here from the beginning. We know what was offered, we know when other things happened.

Exactly I was here at the start and have seen the game evolving ever since they made their first patch

If it's so great, then explain why it doesn't match reality.

If spreading was so bad and focusing on casual/open world content was so good why did their revenue tank when they did exactly what you asked?

Not sure where this communication breakdown is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's not my end. I never specified an 'ask', so whatever idea you have of something I asked for ... so I'm just going to reiterate my point until you hit your reset button. By your OWN admission, you are seeing the same 'evolution' of the game I have; therefore, even you recognize that the game has changed. I see a significant portion of those changes bringing inconsistency with how Anet serves it's customers.

I've been pretty clear. I don't think it's a good idea that Anet fish for fringe customers at the expense of the original adopters. That leads to inconsistency in offerings to customers and degrades customer confidence. You seem to think that's an amazing approach to serving us; I don't make that connection. I believe that the current state of the game is due to exactly that ... they went fishing.

Why are raids small audience content? For the same reason you wouldn't see McDonalds be successful with offering sushi. People don't patronize them for that kind of content.

The breakdown is def on your end. There's a diff between McDonald's adding sushi or like $8 latte's then an MMO adding raids what 5 years ago. One doesn't make sense the other does as many MMO's have varied content for casuals and hard core. PvP and WvW could be fringe too but less would play GW2 without those as well. I don't raid but have done every other aspect to some degree but they def aren't catering to the raider fringe. It's a few 10 man content that most likely won't achieve their more raider goal but I do them and it's better to have more options then less.

It's not different at all. No one originally signed up to GW2 for raids. PERIOD. I'm not talking about what many MMOs do ... I'm talking about what GW2 does.

You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

Even If no one signed up for GW2 because of raids many raided at some point so I don't see your point.

Then you need to go back and read my posts. I'm not re-iterating my point over and over for people that want to drop in and rehash.

I have and none make sense. Mcdonalds adding sushi that targets zero customers that they currently have is not the same as adding raids to an MMO when even tho the minority still attracts an audience. You swap issues when someone disagrees then go reread my stuff then say your right then say inconsistent then say your right again so no I won't reread so you can reiterate multiple points that suit each responses needs but go nowhere overall. YOU need to stop being inconsistent not anet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You can try to support the idea that it's good for service providers to be inconsistent and try to be everything to everyone all you like ... but it's not true.

That word again, inconsistent... Raids were successful for almost 2 years, so successful that the developers promised faster releases, THEN they went inconsistent with their offerings. Further, in the last 6 months they went inconsistent AGAIN, neglecting most aspects of their game. They need to go back to being consistent, and there is some effort lately to do exactly that.

OK .. success doesn't mean consistency so from where I sit, it's irrelevant. That sounds like a contrived connection to push an agenda of promoting raids in GW2.

Funny how consistency works in your mind, only when it suits your agenda. Did the game have Raids for 2 years? Yes. Did they increase the time between releases making it inconsistent? Yes. Not sure what else you want and how you twist that word all over the place.

Did the game have raids when it was released? NODid anyone sign up to this game when it was released because of raids? NO

Accusing me of twisting the meaning of inconsistency ... you should be ashamed. I guess that's only funny to people that want to ignore the fact that the introduction of raids was an inconsistent offering to the original adopters in the first place ... but OK. That's the game you want to play, at least your transparent about it. It's sad you want to accuse me of something and make this an attack than understand what my point is ... but that's fine. It's way easier to dismiss that kind of thing.

Of course no one joined GW2 at release for raids. Like not many MMO's start with raids because every starts off fresh then add harder content later so raids don't sit there fot 8 months before players get max level/gear. And you can't speak for a player base and say no one at all when GW2 added raids said oh GW2 has raids now let me try that game. It is not inconsistent to add raids or more difficult content to a MMO later on. To sit here and base your entire argument "NoONe on release day bought GW2 for raids is odd. And if added diff content during the course of an MMO's development is your definition of inconsistent then yeah all MMO's are inconsistent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raid only gather a small audience because it isn't meant for everyone in the first place.That's why Raid skin, Raid titles stands out amongst the players, because it is a proof of the selective few who has been victorious through hard earned battles and true cooperation effort.

But that doesn't mean they are not a selling point. Challenging, intense boss fights is always part of GW2 's offering, though players will always have preferences on contents, the importance is that we will always have the options available in an overall package. The introduction of raid simply move challenging meta boss with high fail rates onto closed stance to protect efforts from hard earning players getting ruined by AFK/Lazy farmers which was always the issue since LS1 meta, therefore why the kick system.

As for story mode in raid, the whole discussion has been irrelevant, most w1-4 bosses has been toned down with new strategies, exploits to mechanics so much that they already stand within the story mode level. If you don't have to do green circle in Vale Guardian isn't story mode enough for you, I don't know what is.

Sure, the overall raid community is dwindling, but that doesn't necessarily meant to be the quality of raid content, but the repetition. The thrill's simply gone after 20 kills of the same bosses throughout the time. And the same also applies to most of GW2's pve contents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the
whole
history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the offerings and how customers were served when the game was released.

Tbh it was already mentioned that some people joined for raid like content. Or atleast content which was advertised for raiders.

Mention it all you want ... it wasn't part of the original GW2 release, so no the original adopters joined because of raids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the
whole
history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

So inconsistency actually means nothing to you since the majority of the game has changed over the years... why were you so concerned about Anet's inconsistency then?

Actually it means everything to me ... because it demonstrates to me that a service provider understands me and how to provide me their service as a customer. Nothing I have said should give you the impression I haven't been concerned about consistency since 'then', whatever 'then' means. I've ALWAYS been concerned about it and not just in MMO's ... for ANY company I patronize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the
whole
history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

So inconsistency actually means nothing to you since the majority of the game has changed over the years... why were you so concerned about Anet's inconsistency then?

Actually it means everything to me ... because it demonstrates to me that a service provider understands me and how to provide me their service as a customer. Nothing I have said should give you the impression I haven't been concerned about consistency since 'then', whatever 'then' means. I've ALWAYS been concerned about it and not just in MMO's ... for ANY company I patronize.

Only when it suits yourself then. Why so selfish?

This is yours: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1179642/#Comment_1179642

Nothing being said here changes the fact that it's a bad idea for Anet to be inconsistent with product offerings ...

So adding Strike Missions in zone meta achievements (which didn't exist on release) is "inconsistent".Removing Raids isn't inconsistent because they weren't there on release.

Your inconsistency is rather inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the
whole
history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the offerings and how customers were served when the game was released.

Tbh it was already mentioned that some people joined for raid like content. Or atleast content which was advertised for raiders.

Mention it all you want ... it wasn't part of the original GW2 release, so no the original adopters joined because of raids.

Yes people have joined the game for raid like content. That's the whole point your ignoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love you want to argue academics with me, but I've made my position VERY clear. No goalposts have been moved. The position I make my statements on has been the same throughout the thread. You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the
whole
history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

It's pretty simple in fact ... raids attract a small audience because raids were not a selling point of the game in the first place. Nothing you can say will change that. Maybe you convinced yourself that everyone that adopted the game really wanted raids even if they didn't choose the game because of raiding. That's a pretty poor assumption giving the offerings and how customers were served when the game was released.

Tbh it was already mentioned that some people joined for raid like content. Or atleast content which was advertised for raiders.

Mention it all you want ... it wasn't part of the original GW2 release, so no the original adopters joined because of raids.

Yes people have joined the game for raid like content. That's the whole point your ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it ... I know people have joined the game for raid like content. That's not what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You want to talk about ONLY about the portion of the time the game has had raids. That doesn't make sense because the context of why raids aren't doing well has everything to do with the
whole
history of the game, not just the section of it that you want to cherrypick.

So inconsistency actually means nothing to you since the majority of the game has changed over the years... why were you so concerned about Anet's inconsistency then?

Actually it means everything to me ... because it demonstrates to me that a service provider understands me and how to provide me their service as a customer. Nothing I have said should give you the impression I haven't been concerned about consistency since 'then', whatever 'then' means. I've ALWAYS been concerned about it and not just in MMO's ... for ANY company I patronize.

Only when it suits yourself then. Why so selfish?

This is yours:

Nothing being said here changes the fact that it's a bad idea for Anet to be inconsistent with product offerings ...

So adding Strike Missions in zone meta achievements (which didn't exist on release) is "inconsistent".Removing Raids isn't inconsistent because they weren't there on release.

Your inconsistency is rather inconsistent.

I got no idea what you are going on about.... NO one is suggesting Anet remove raids, or at least it wasn't me if there was. Furthermore, the relationship between strike mission and meta achievements and what I think about is not related to raids ... but OK, you got some tactic you want to play here to try and show I'm not consistent with my view of the game and I'm selfish? OK, you to show how me disliking Anet being inconsistent with how they present strike mission content is DIFFERENT than me disliking Anet being inconsistent with how they present any other game content, including raids. It's OK ... I can wait.

My favourite part is where you accuse me of inconsistency ... based on something you literally made up. Awesome stuff bud. Is there a meme for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Obtena.7952" said:Furthermore, the relationship between strike mission and meta achievements and what I think about it has nothing to do with this thread

It has everything to do with this thread because on one case (the removal of Raid content) you find it a no problem, because to use your own words:

Did the game have raids when it was released? NOwhile in another case (the addition of strike missions to meta achievements) you scream "inconsistency" and how bad it is for the game (or any game)

You think something I said about strike mission achievements conflicts something else I never said about removing raids

Was it inconsistent to remove Raids or not? Was it inconsistent to make their release schedule so horrid to kill them (slowly)? Even after specifying that they will have faster releases. That's the important part which you simply dismissed. It's not about removing Raids, it's about what they did to Raids was inconsistent with their previous offerings AND developer comments.

And that inconsistency is why Raids failed to retain an audience, to be on topic. Attract is a misused word in the OP, because they did succeed in attracting enough of an audience to justify their further development, but they couldn't retain said audience because of the way the developers mistreated the content. Which is the real issue here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:Was it inconsistent to remove Raids or not? Was it inconsistent to make their release schedule so horrid to kill them (slowly)? Even after specifying that they will have faster releases. That's the important part which you simply dismissed. It's not about removing Raids, it's about what they did to Raids was inconsistent with their previous offerings AND developer comments.

I'm not aware of Anet removing raids or stopping development of them. Yes, there is definitely a reduced release of them. I think that's an inevitable consequence of my point. Here, let me remind you what that is; you can decide how to go from there.

Raids have low audience in this game because they are inconsistent with how content was offered to the original adopters of this game.

You disagree with that? Great ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm not aware of Anet removing raids or stopping development of them.

They did stop developing them, along with Fractals, although they recently stated that a new Fractal is under development. So maybe things might change?

You disagree with that? Great ...

Do you disagree with the developer statements that Raid participation was higher than expected, and that they were planning faster releases for them?

Raids have low audience in this game because they are inconsistent with how content was offered to the original adopters of this game.

Of course I disagree with that because there is more than enough evidence to suggest that their audience was enough to both justify their existence AND their continued development. Raids didn't fail to attract an audience, they failed to maintain it, due to reasons not always having to do with Raids themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...