Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2 - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

2>

Comments

  • Noah Salazar.5430Noah Salazar.5430 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 16, 2020

    well i know many hardcore players that regulary top up 20-50$ even if thay have inaf gold, just to support game and prevent p2w ideas
    It's like donating to favourit youtuber or person on twitch

    Answering both veteran/farmers/casuals are importent :

    Farmers farm mats for ppl that use gold to buy them
    Veteran using Commander tag to cordinate casuals on open map or wvw, or crating teams for ppl that whatever reson can't do it alone
    Casuals buy items from ah, that thay usualy have to less knowlage/time to get alone

    holy trinity you culd say

    Witchout Farmers, you wuld need farm evrythink alone, or buy at hight rate
    Wichout Veterans, you wuld have empty lfg or low quality commanders
    Witchout Casuals you wuld have less ppl to play and less needs for your products on ah

    I want to do PvP, WvW and do instanced pve but everything seems so difficult and hard core oriented. You can enter unranked PvP but it's not easy at all: one mistake and you get down within 1 - 3 seconds, if not max concentrated. Is this casual? WvW: not sure what to say here ..., Pve: one shot boss mechanics. Really? That's why i have never done even one single Fractal. I admit i have no courage to step into my first Fractal because i am pretty sure that i will be dying a lot + how to find a group for Fractal #1? No idea.

    @Sifu.9745
    You described a invalid, not a casual

    Casual term for me is a player that is not much active or play witchout bigger aspirations
    In same term, ther can be Casual that clean raids/and fractals but just not that frequency

    Invalid is a person that can't create party by himself and complain that game is dead whenever thers no squad on lfg, block you when you want pm a feedback,play bad on purpose, and is not nice to others on chat

    Casual usualy is ok when you send him feedback(sometimes it's him who ask player who play more often/better then him for some tips)
    do avangarge dmg/heal
    is nice to others on chat, and asking for thinks his not know
    reading descryption of lfg

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

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Can't be "left to rot" when the playerbase was already avoiding HoT maps like the plague to begin with. The increase in playernumbers came with the new rewards, like you stated.

    Source of the playerbase avoiding HOT maps like the plague? When HOT was released the maps were very well populated and meta events were completed. In fact, after the change HOT maps became emptier at "off hours" and they are still a wasteland when a meta is not running. Which is why I said "left to rot" is accurate when considering "off meta hours". The change actually killed HOT maps and they became a "look at the timer and port there to get rewards when the meta is running".

    If we look at revenue during pre-HoT content drought and post-HoT release it paints a clear picture to me how HoT content was initially recieved.

    Pre-HOT the game wasn't free, post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT. Gem store sales are stable, game sales are low because conversions are low. According to the data analysts and economists of NCsoft that is. Forum economists might have different ideas.

    I'd actually really like to see the source where NCsofts data analysts and economists outright state that it is due to F2P! Feel free to share.

    And I'd actually like to see your source comparing the way HOT was initially received with their revenue. Feel free to share.

    I‘d also argue that gerent has more player activity post-nerf than pre-nerf, in my own subjective experience, as we haven‘t recieved any numbers on playernumbers during events from Anet. So „left to rot“ is a strong statement to make, when I actually see more people doing it after the nerf than before.

    Nitpicking: Chak Gerent nerf wasn't part of the "big HOT nerf", Chak Gerent was nerfed much much later

    Also nitpicking: neither me nor Thornwolf have mentioned a "big HoT nerf". We, or atleast I was just talking about nerfs to HoT content. So your nitpicking is kinda irrelevant.

    Actually Chak Gerent was nerfed much later and was not a part of the HOT nerfs, feel free to call it irrelevant but it's perfectly relevant.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 16, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Can't be "left to rot" when the playerbase was already avoiding HoT maps like the plague to begin with. The increase in playernumbers came with the new rewards, like you stated.

    Source of the playerbase avoiding HOT maps like the plague? When HOT was released the maps were very well populated and meta events were completed. In fact, after the change HOT maps became emptier at "off hours" and they are still a wasteland when a meta is not running. Which is why I said "left to rot" is accurate when considering "off meta hours". The change actually killed HOT maps and they became a "look at the timer and port there to get rewards when the meta is running".

    Source that after the change HoT maps became emptier at "off hours"? The HoT maps were dead from the beginning, hence why they had to up the rewards. Before they weren't even "look at the timer and port there", they were simply "don't play".

    If we look at revenue during pre-HoT content drought and post-HoT release it paints a clear picture to me how HoT content was initially recieved.

    Pre-HOT the game wasn't free, post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT. Gem store sales are stable, game sales are low because conversions are low. According to the data analysts and economists of NCsoft that is. Forum economists might have different ideas.

    I'd actually really like to see the source where NCsofts data analysts and economists outright state that it is due to F2P! Feel free to share.

    And I'd actually like to see your source comparing the way HOT was initially received with their revenue. Feel free to share.

    K, you have none. Thanks. Guess you're just another forum economist ;)

    I‘d also argue that gerent has more player activity post-nerf than pre-nerf, in my own subjective experience, as we haven‘t recieved any numbers on playernumbers during events from Anet. So „left to rot“ is a strong statement to make, when I actually see more people doing it after the nerf than before.

    Nitpicking: Chak Gerent nerf wasn't part of the "big HOT nerf", Chak Gerent was nerfed much much later

    Also nitpicking: neither me nor Thornwolf have mentioned a "big HoT nerf". We, or atleast I was just talking about nerfs to HoT content. So your nitpicking is kinda irrelevant.

    Actually Chak Gerent was nerfed much later and was not a part of the HOT nerfs, feel free to call it irrelevant but it's perfectly relevant.

    Any nerf to HoT maps and metas is a HoT nerf? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not sure how the gerent nerf isn't part of HoT nerfs.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you.
    Remaster confirmed! Umbasa!

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

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Source that after the change HoT maps became emptier at "off hours"? The HoT maps were dead from the beginning, hence why they had to up the rewards. Before they weren't even "look at the timer and port there", they were simply "don't play".

    Cute asking for sources when you are the one who made claims first... Then you didn't play at HOT maps at all because when I played they were quite populated. And the actual maps were more populated than after the changes (outside meta hours)

    K, you have none. Thanks.

    I was merely asking because you made claims first. But it seems you have nothing to base your claims on. As for me:
    From Q4 2015 report:

    GW2 solidified its position as a main revenue driver, by adding on expansion pack sales to stable in-game item sales.

    From the Q2 2016 report:

    all key IPs have posted stable sales, due to continuous content updates and marketing events.

    I get lots of information from here:
    http://www.alacrastore.com/thomson-streetevents-transcripts/Q4-2015-NC-Soft-Corp-Earnings-Call-English-Korean-T5909631
    http://www.alacrastore.com/thomson-streetevents-transcripts/Q1-2016-NC-Soft-Corp-Earnings-Call-English-Korean-T5989209
    http://www.alacrastore.com/thomson-streetevents-transcripts/Q2-2016-NC-Soft-Corp-Earnings-Call-English-Korean-T6068411

    Some info from the questions themselves:

    it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected.

    and

    Guild Wars 2 expansion revenue that appears to be falling a bit

    So. in-game item sales have been stable during the launch of HOT, just as I said. And the expansion wasn't performing as expected, also as I said.

    Any nerf to HoT maps and metas is a HoT nerf?

    All I said that Chak Gerent wasn't nerfed when the others were nerfed. You can find it in the patch notes if you don't believe me.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 16, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Source that after the change HoT maps became emptier at "off hours"? The HoT maps were dead from the beginning, hence why they had to up the rewards. Before they weren't even "look at the timer and port there", they were simply "don't play".

    Cute asking for sources when you are the one who made claims first... Then you didn't play at HOT maps at all because when I played they were quite populated. And the actual maps were more populated than after the changes (outside meta hours)

    Except I did play them, and it was a pretty desolate place soon after release and before the multiple nerfs and reward changes. Yeah, the maps were populated after the reward changes, that's what I said.
    My argument was about HoT having less sales than expected after HoT release, and that clearly shows in the revenue. HoT wasn't recieved well.

    You even posted it yourself: "it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected."
    Nothing about it states that GW2 going F2P was the reason.

    K, you have none. Thanks.

    I was merely asking because you made claims first. But it seems you have nothing to base your claims on. As for me:
    From Q4 2015 report:

    GW2 solidified its position as a main revenue driver, by adding on expansion pack sales to stable in-game item sales.

    From the Q2 2016 report:

    all key IPs have posted stable sales, due to continuous content updates and marketing events.

    I get lots of information from here:
    http://www.alacrastore.com/thomson-streetevents-transcripts/Q4-2015-NC-Soft-Corp-Earnings-Call-English-Korean-T5909631
    http://www.alacrastore.com/thomson-streetevents-transcripts/Q1-2016-NC-Soft-Corp-Earnings-Call-English-Korean-T5989209
    http://www.alacrastore.com/thomson-streetevents-transcripts/Q2-2016-NC-Soft-Corp-Earnings-Call-English-Korean-T6068411

    Some info from the questions themselves:

    it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected.

    and

    Guild Wars 2 expansion revenue that appears to be falling a bit

    So. in-game item sales have been stable during the launch of HOT, just as I said. And the expansion wasn't performing as expected, also as I said.

    I don't have to post sources, when I was clearly speaking about the revenue, and HoT having less revenue than pre HoT, during the content drought.

    But here you go, the earning releases showing revenue pre HoT > revenue post HoT: https://kr.ncsoft.com/en/ir/irArchive/earningsRelease.do
    In a graph: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/f2hh6b/ncsoft_and_guild_wars_2_sales_in_2019/

    Your sources don't even back up your claim about F2P hurting the revenue, which was your argument.

    So yeah, expansion was underperforming, like I said. Nothing about GW2's change to F2P tanking the revenue.
    HoT just wasn't recieved well, which is was my original argument.

    You were the one that said it was due to the F2P change.
    I'll quote what you said:
    "post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT."

    Any nerf to HoT maps and metas is a HoT nerf?

    All I said that Chak Gerent wasn't nerfed when the others were nerfed. You can find it in the patch notes if you don't believe me.

    Wrong, you said something about a "big HoT nerf" which no one was referring to. Any gerent nerf is still a HoT nerf.
    You mistakenly believed I was referring to some "big HoT nerf", and not all HoT nerfs.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you.
    Remaster confirmed! Umbasa!

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 16, 2020

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Except I did play them, and it was a pretty desolate place soon after release and before the multiple nerfs and reward changes. Yeah, the maps were populated after the reward changes, that's what I said.

    The maps aren't populated after the changes, they were more populated before the changes, at least outside meta hour. After the changes players simply go to the maps when the meta is about to start and ignore the maps during the rest of the day. I was doing the Outpost meta events in Verdant Brink just fine before the changes, to get all the achievements, and the Pylons in Auric Basin. After the update the Outposts and the Pylons became barren wastelands, but they were VERY well populated before the update.

    My argument was about HoT having less sales than expected after HoT release, and that clearly shows in the revenue. HoT wasn't recieved well.

    You even posted it yourself: "it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected."
    Nothing about it states that GW2 going F2P was the reason.

    Nothing states that it was because of how HOT was received either. An expansion for a video game doing badly isn't necessarily because the expansion wasn't well received but because the core game wasn't well received, an expansion needs a core game to succeed and if that core is free you can see the problem.

    I don't have to post sources, when I was clearly speaking about the revenue, and HoT having less revenue than pre HoT, during the content drought.
    Your sources don't even back up your claim about F2P hurting the revenue, which was your argument.

    And as I said already, pre HOT the game wasn't free (at least until August 2015). My sources back up my claim very well. I will give you another bit of information, when the game went F2P in August 2015 and until HOT launched, Anet told us they got TWO MILLION new accounts. Which is as many accounts as they got in the previous 31 months combined. Let that sink in of how well received "core" was. This is why the expansion performed worse than expected, the 2 million accounts were supposed to contain expansion sales, but the expansion performed poorly.

    So yeah, expansion was underperforming, like I said. Nothing about GW2's change to F2P tanking the revenue.

    And nothing about F2P NOT tanking the revenue either, you are the one jumping to conclusions.

    HoT just wasn't recieved well, which is was my original argument.

    Which has nothing to do with the revenue drop of an expansion of a F2P game.

    You were the one that said it was due to the F2P change.
    I'll quote what you said:
    "post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT."

    And that's exactly what happened. You are the one jumping to conclusions that if the revenue after HOT is less than before HOT it must be because of how HOT was received, ignoring that the game went F2P before the launch of the expansion and ignoring that it got 2 million accounts in that time, accounts that did not convert into paid customers in as high numbers as expected.

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 16, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Except I did play them, and it was a pretty desolate place soon after release and before the multiple nerfs and reward changes. Yeah, the maps were populated after the reward changes, that's what I said.

    The maps aren't populated after the changes, they were more populated before the changes, at least outside meta hour. After the changes players simply go to the maps when the meta is about to start and ignore the maps during the rest of the day.

    Before the changes players didn't even go the the map metas. Gerent was empty.

    My argument was about HoT having less sales than expected after HoT release, and that clearly shows in the revenue. HoT wasn't recieved well.

    You even posted it yourself: "it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected."
    Nothing about it states that GW2 going F2P was the reason.

    Nothing states that it was because of how HOT was received either. An expansion for a video game doing badly isn't necessarily because the expansion wasn't well received but because the core game wasn't well received, an expansion needs a core game to succeed and if that core is free you can see the problem.

    HoT didn't do as expected stated by your own sources. It didn't do well. The core game was doing better pre HoT than post HoT revenuewise.

    I don't have to post sources, when I was clearly speaking about the revenue, and HoT having less revenue than pre HoT, during the content drought.
    Your sources don't even back up your claim about F2P hurting the revenue, which was your argument.

    And as I said already, pre HOT the game wasn't free (at least until August 2015). My sources back up my claim very well. I will give you another bit of information, when the game went F2P in August 2015 and until HOT launched, Anet told us they got TWO MILLION new accounts. Which is as many accounts as they got in the previous 31 months combined. Let that sink in of how well received "core" was. This is why the expansion performed worse than expected, the 2 million accounts were supposed to contain expansion sales, but the expansion performed poorly.

    So yeah, expansion was underperforming, like I said. Nothing about GW2's change to F2P tanking the revenue.

    And nothing about F2P NOT tanking the revenue either, you are the one jumping to conclusions.

    You claimed NCsoft economists said F2P is tanking it, which is factually not true. They never said that.

    HoT just wasn't recieved well, which is was my original argument.

    Which has nothing to do with the revenue drop of an expansion of a F2P game.

    Except it does when the game was doing better pre expansion.

    You were the one that said it was due to the F2P change.
    I'll quote what you said:
    "post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT."

    And that's exactly what happened. You are the one jumping to conclusions that if the revenue after HOT is less than before HOT it must be because of how HOT was received, ignoring that the game went F2P before the launch of the expansion and ignoring that it got 2 million accounts in that time, accounts that did not convert into paid customers in as high numbers as expected.

    You're the one that claimed NCsoft employees stated that going F2P was tanking revenue, which is stated nowhere.
    But w/e. Just forum economists being forum economists. Your own sources discredit your claims.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you.
    Remaster confirmed! Umbasa!

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

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Except I did play them, and it was a pretty desolate place soon after release and before the multiple nerfs and reward changes. Yeah, the maps were populated after the reward changes, that's what I said.

    The maps aren't populated after the changes, they were more populated before the changes, at least outside meta hour. After the changes players simply go to the maps when the meta is about to start and ignore the maps during the rest of the day.

    Before the changes players didn't even go the the map metas. Gerent was empty.

    It wasn't empty though. Gerent was done daily even before the changes.

    My argument was about HoT having less sales than expected after HoT release, and that clearly shows in the revenue. HoT wasn't recieved well.

    You even posted it yourself: "it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected."
    Nothing about it states that GW2 going F2P was the reason.

    Nothing states that it was because of how HOT was received either. An expansion for a video game doing badly isn't necessarily because the expansion wasn't well received but because the core game wasn't well received, an expansion needs a core game to succeed and if that core is free you can see the problem.

    HoT didn't do as expected. It didn't do well. The core game was doing better pre HoT than post HoT revenuewise.

    Of course because it wasn't free. Players had to buy the game to see what it had to offer, when it became free that initial purchase wasn't necessary, leading to lower revenue.

    I don't have to post sources, when I was clearly speaking about the revenue, and HoT having less revenue than pre HoT, during the content drought.
    Your sources don't even back up your claim about F2P hurting the revenue, which was your argument.

    And as I said already, pre HOT the game wasn't free (at least until August 2015). My sources back up my claim very well. I will give you another bit of information, when the game went F2P in August 2015 and until HOT launched, Anet told us they got TWO MILLION new accounts. Which is as many accounts as they got in the previous 31 months combined. Let that sink in of how well received "core" was. This is why the expansion performed worse than expected, the 2 million accounts were supposed to contain expansion sales, but the expansion performed poorly.

    So yeah, expansion was underperforming, like I said. Nothing about GW2's change to F2P tanking the revenue.

    And nothing about F2P NOT tanking the revenue either, you are the one jumping to conclusions.

    >

    You said NCsoft economists said it, which is not true.

    NCsoft said the expansion did poorly. You are jumping to the conclusion that it means the expansion wasn't well received.

    HoT just wasn't recieved well, which is was my original argument.

    Which has nothing to do with the revenue drop of an expansion of a F2P game.

    Except it does when the game was doing better pre expansion.

    It wasn't free pre expansion.

    You were the one that said it was due to the F2P change.
    I'll quote what you said:
    "post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT."

    And that's exactly what happened. You are the one jumping to conclusions that if the revenue after HOT is less than before HOT it must be because of how HOT was received, ignoring that the game went F2P before the launch of the expansion and ignoring that it got 2 million accounts in that time, accounts that did not convert into paid customers in as high numbers as expected.

    You're the one that claimed NCsoft employees stated that going F2P was tanking revenue, which is stated nowhere.

    It is stated in the links I provided and in my earlier posts. Expansion revenue was lower than expected, gem store income was stable. 2 million free accounts created in just 3 months, you'd expect if the game was any good it would skyrocket in revenue, but it didn't. Because those million accounts did not become paid customers, leading to less revenue. It's simple math really

  • Raknar.4735Raknar.4735 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    Except I did play them, and it was a pretty desolate place soon after release and before the multiple nerfs and reward changes. Yeah, the maps were populated after the reward changes, that's what I said.

    The maps aren't populated after the changes, they were more populated before the changes, at least outside meta hour. After the changes players simply go to the maps when the meta is about to start and ignore the maps during the rest of the day.

    Before the changes players didn't even go the the map metas. Gerent was empty.

    It wasn't empty though. Gerent was done daily even before the changes.

    My argument was about HoT having less sales than expected after HoT release, and that clearly shows in the revenue. HoT wasn't recieved well.

    You even posted it yourself: "it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected."
    Nothing about it states that GW2 going F2P was the reason.

    Nothing states that it was because of how HOT was received either. An expansion for a video game doing badly isn't necessarily because the expansion wasn't well received but because the core game wasn't well received, an expansion needs a core game to succeed and if that core is free you can see the problem.

    HoT didn't do as expected. It didn't do well. The core game was doing better pre HoT than post HoT revenuewise.

    Of course because it wasn't free. Players had to buy the game to see what it had to offer, when it became free that initial purchase wasn't necessary, leading to lower revenue.

    I don't have to post sources, when I was clearly speaking about the revenue, and HoT having less revenue than pre HoT, during the content drought.
    Your sources don't even back up your claim about F2P hurting the revenue, which was your argument.

    And as I said already, pre HOT the game wasn't free (at least until August 2015). My sources back up my claim very well. I will give you another bit of information, when the game went F2P in August 2015 and until HOT launched, Anet told us they got TWO MILLION new accounts. Which is as many accounts as they got in the previous 31 months combined. Let that sink in of how well received "core" was. This is why the expansion performed worse than expected, the 2 million accounts were supposed to contain expansion sales, but the expansion performed poorly.

    So yeah, expansion was underperforming, like I said. Nothing about GW2's change to F2P tanking the revenue.

    And nothing about F2P NOT tanking the revenue either, you are the one jumping to conclusions.

    >

    You said NCsoft economists said it, which is not true.

    NCsoft said the expansion did poorly. You are jumping to the conclusion that it means the expansion wasn't well received.

    HoT just wasn't recieved well, which is was my original argument.

    Which has nothing to do with the revenue drop of an expansion of a F2P game.

    Except it does when the game was doing better pre expansion.

    It wasn't free pre expansion.

    You were the one that said it was due to the F2P change.
    I'll quote what you said:
    "post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT."

    And that's exactly what happened. You are the one jumping to conclusions that if the revenue after HOT is less than before HOT it must be because of how HOT was received, ignoring that the game went F2P before the launch of the expansion and ignoring that it got 2 million accounts in that time, accounts that did not convert into paid customers in as high numbers as expected.

    You're the one that claimed NCsoft employees stated that going F2P was tanking revenue, which is stated nowhere.

    It is stated in the links I provided and in my earlier posts. Expansion revenue was lower than expected, gem store income was stable. 2 million free accounts created in just 3 months, you'd expect if the game was any good it would skyrocket in revenue, but it didn't. Because those million accounts did not become paid customers, leading to less revenue. It's simple math really

    I'll say it clearly for you again:
    No one at NCsoft said the F2P change hurt GW2 revenue in any way. That was just you jumping to conclusions yourself. Your whole argument about F2P hurting the HoT revenues is made up of thin air and not backed by NCSoft economists like you claimed earlier.

    They said HoT didn't perform as expected, which clearly shows in the revenue data.
    GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT.

    If you still can't make the connection, I'm sorry. It's actually so simple.

    You have a heart of gold. Don't let them take it from you.
    Remaster confirmed! Umbasa!

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

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    I'll say it clearly for you again:
    No one at NCsoft said the F2P change hurt GW2 revenue in any way. That was just you jumping to conclusions yourself. Your whole argument about F2P hurting the HoT revenues is made up of thin air and not backed by NCSoft economists like you claimed earlier.

    It is actually backed just fine, I already explained how you simply need to connect the dots.

    They said HoT didn't perform as expected, which clearly shows in the revenue data.
    GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT.

    Obviously, players had to buy to play it. When the free isn't good enough to lead to conversions, it leads to less revenue.

    If you still can't make the connection, I'm sorry. It's actually so simple.

    Exactly.

  • Ototo.3214Ototo.3214 Member ✭✭✭

    Going off just the first few sentences just no. I personally see myself as somewhat casual, as I dont really try to min-max that hard and can't dedicate hours upon hours of time to things like raids or farming. But I still get by. I've spent time in just about all aspects of the game from open world farming, to sPvP, to WvW, raids, fractals, whatever etc etc. I can steadily earn gold and hoard materials for the legendaries I've made and intend to one day make. And yet, even though I've done the sort of content that supposedly gives so much gold that I shouldn't be buying gems, I still buy gems. If I want something in the gem store nowadays, generally I'll just buy gems regardless of if I have the gold to convert because it's just easier for me, I have enough income to comfortably do so, and I prefer to save my gold for ingame things that aren't on the gem store. Yeah, I might convert a little bit of gold if I'm just slightly off the gem amount I need but not usually for large amounts.
    I personally think gem buying habits are more affected by someone's available expendable income than how they play for a majority of players. I'm not saying casual players aren't important, but saying they're more important because of some perceived notion that they spend more money just seems wrong to me. All types of players are important to consider for the game, aside from flaming, toxic trolls.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:
    I'll say it clearly for you again:
    No one at NCsoft said the F2P change hurt GW2 revenue in any way. That was just you jumping to conclusions yourself. Your whole argument about F2P hurting the HoT revenues is made up of thin air and not backed by NCSoft economists like you claimed earlier.

    It is actually backed just fine, I already explained how you simply need to connect the dots.

    They said HoT didn't perform as expected, which clearly shows in the revenue data.
    GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT.

    Obviously, players had to buy to play it. When the free isn't good enough to lead to conversions, it leads to less revenue.

    If you still can't make the connection, I'm sorry. It's actually so simple.

    Exactly.

    the numbers are there, but you simply refuse to acknowledge them
    "GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT". this sentence says it all (thank you Raknar)
    anyone with an ounce of mmo experience knows, what this means. hot really IS the big stinker

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

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    the numbers are there, but you simply refuse to acknowledge them
    "GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT". this sentence says it all (thank you Raknar)
    anyone with an ounce of mmo experience knows, what this means. hot really IS the big stinker

    Yes it means a game that you had to buy before noticing if you like it or not, made more money than a game that was free to try before noticing if you like it or not. It does mean a lot about how much players liked the free version

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    the numbers are there, but you simply refuse to acknowledge them
    "GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT". this sentence says it all (thank you Raknar)
    anyone with an ounce of mmo experience knows, what this means. hot really IS the big stinker

    Yes it means a game that you had to buy before noticing if you like it or not, made more money than a game that was free to try before noticing if you like it or not. It does mean a lot about how much players liked the free version

    ot, it could mean , that they just play the good part for free, and jump ship after that.
    and the ending of core still has many issues too, not exactly motivating the players for more of THAT caliber
    besides that, if you go all the way to 80 in core, you will prolly hear about hot issues while playing
    casual player " this is a great game, i wish there was more"
    hot lover " what trash is this? no challenge whatsoever...."

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

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    the numbers are there, but you simply refuse to acknowledge them
    "GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT". this sentence says it all (thank you Raknar)
    anyone with an ounce of mmo experience knows, what this means. hot really IS the big stinker

    Yes it means a game that you had to buy before noticing if you like it or not, made more money than a game that was free to try before noticing if you like it or not. It does mean a lot about how much players liked the free version

    ot, it could mean , that they just play the good part for free, and jump ship after that.
    and the ending of core still has many issues too, not exactly motivating the players for more of THAT caliber
    besides that, if you go all the way to 80 in core, you will prolly hear about hot issues while playing
    casual player " this is a great game, i wish there was more"
    hot lover " what trash is this? no challenge whatsoever...."

    It's not supported by the fact that most accounts haven't reached the end of core, based on their achievement totals. Free players jump very early. It's very simple, when a game goes free, it needs to be good for its expansion to sell, if it's not good to convert players, expansion sales suffer, and this is what happened with HOT.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    the numbers are there, but you simply refuse to acknowledge them
    "GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT". this sentence says it all (thank you Raknar)
    anyone with an ounce of mmo experience knows, what this means. hot really IS the big stinker

    Yes it means a game that you had to buy before noticing if you like it or not, made more money than a game that was free to try before noticing if you like it or not. It does mean a lot about how much players liked the free version

    ot, it could mean , that they just play the good part for free, and jump ship after that.
    and the ending of core still has many issues too, not exactly motivating the players for more of THAT caliber
    besides that, if you go all the way to 80 in core, you will prolly hear about hot issues while playing
    casual player " this is a great game, i wish there was more"
    hot lover " what trash is this? no challenge whatsoever...."

    It's not supported by the fact that most accounts haven't reached the end of core, based on their achievement totals. Free players jump very early. It's very simple, when a game goes free, it needs to be good for its expansion to sell, if it's not good to convert players, expansion sales suffer, and this is what happened with HOT.

    F2pers are even more fickle, than normal mmo players, since they have nothing invested.
    and under the BEST circumstances, only about 20 % of all player make it past lvl 20. 10% reach max level.
    only around 5% get into endgame content (raiding, achievements,pvp)
    having over mio ready to pay for hot at launch is a proof of cores strength (thats actually BETTER than blizzard stats)
    everything AFTER hot is all downwards. its okay to like hot, but you can NOT call it a success.

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

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    F2pers are even more fickle, than normal mmo players, since they have nothing invested.

    Of course, the game got 2 million extra accounts from August 2015 to October 2015, from the time it went free to play until the launch of HOT. That's the same number of new accounts the game got in the previous 31 (!!!) months, from January 2013 to August 2015. This just shows how much interest there was for the free version of the game. People WANTED to try Guild Wars 2 and see if it's good enough. This increased the total accounts to 7 million when HOT launched. But HOT didn't sell 7 million did it? That's because Core wasn't good enough to keep those players active when the expansion launched, if Core had retained those players, HOT would do better.

    everything AFTER hot is all downwards. its okay to like hot, but you can NOT call it a success.

    Core after release also was all downwards, and a very steep down turn, much steeper than the HOT one. The game sold 3 million in 4 months (including pre-orders and release day sales) and then it took it 31 months (Season 1, Season 2) to sell another 2 million. From an average of 750k sales per month to 64k per month, you can NOT call that a success.

  • ASP.8093ASP.8093 Member ✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Core after release also was all downwards, and a very steep down turn, much steeper than the HOT one. The game sold 3 million in 4 months (including pre-orders and release day sales) and then it took it 31 months (Season 1, Season 2) to sell another 2 million. From an average of 750k sales per month to 64k per month, you can NOT call that a success.

    That sounds, uh, pretty typical for a video game. People's purchasing patterns tend to be heavily driven by novelty.

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

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    F2pers are even more fickle, than normal mmo players, since they have nothing invested.

    Of course, the game got 2 million extra accounts from August 2015 to October 2015, from the time it went free to play until the launch of HOT. That's the same number of new accounts the game got in the previous 31 (!!!) months, from January 2013 to August 2015. This just shows how much interest there was for the free version of the game. People WANTED to try Guild Wars 2 and see if it's good enough. This increased the total accounts to 7 million when HOT launched. But HOT didn't sell 7 million did it? That's because Core wasn't good enough to keep those players active when the expansion launched, if Core had retained those players, HOT would do better.

    everything AFTER hot is all downwards. its okay to like hot, but you can NOT call it a success.

    Core after release also was all downwards, and a very steep down turn, much steeper than the HOT one. The game sold 3 million in 4 months (including pre-orders and release day sales) and then it took it 31 months (Season 1, Season 2) to sell another 2 million. From an average of 750k sales per month to 64k per month, you can NOT call that a success.

    what? show me any mmo, that has done better? core sales were pretty stable, SPECIALLY considering the much harder market competition back then
    and i bet, that they would KILL to get hot up on 64k sales a month too. but that will never happen.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 17, 2020

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    F2pers are even more fickle, than normal mmo players, since they have nothing invested.

    Of course, the game got 2 million extra accounts from August 2015 to October 2015, from the time it went free to play until the launch of HOT. That's the same number of new accounts the game got in the previous 31 (!!!) months, from January 2013 to August 2015. This just shows how much interest there was for the free version of the game. People WANTED to try Guild Wars 2 and see if it's good enough. This increased the total accounts to 7 million when HOT launched. But HOT didn't sell 7 million did it? That's because Core wasn't good enough to keep those players active when the expansion launched, if Core had retained those players, HOT would do better.

    everything AFTER hot is all downwards. its okay to like hot, but you can NOT call it a success.

    Core after release also was all downwards, and a very steep down turn, much steeper than the HOT one. The game sold 3 million in 4 months (including pre-orders and release day sales) and then it took it 31 months (Season 1, Season 2) to sell another 2 million. From an average of 750k sales per month to 64k per month, you can NOT call that a success.

    what? show me any mmo, that has done better? core sales were pretty stable, SPECIALLY considering the much harder market competition back then

    There was no real competition back then. When Guild Wars 2 launched, World of Warcraft was at a very low "hype" point with MoP, FF14 wasn't yet a massive success and ESO didn't exist. As for action mmorpgs we only had Tera, which was a korean grinder, not everyone's cup of tea. Meaning Guild Wars 2 launched at the best possible time without any real competition, it was by far THE BEST game available when it launched, combining tab target combat with action combat in a flawless way. No other game of the time even came close to it, not to mention the dynamic world system, the "no grind" approach and no sub fees.

    Guild Wars 2 had no real market competition when it launched, and all games launched around it as "Guild Wars killers" all proved to be massive flops, at least in the west. Archeage, Bless, Wildstar, Blade and Soul and others. It wasn't until ESO launched and FF14 became much better, that GW2 got some real competition, and those are the games most often talked about on these forums as the games played by the GW2 playerbase.

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

    @ASP.8093 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    Core after release also was all downwards, and a very steep down turn, much steeper than the HOT one. The game sold 3 million in 4 months (including pre-orders and release day sales) and then it took it 31 months (Season 1, Season 2) to sell another 2 million. From an average of 750k sales per month to 64k per month, you can NOT call that a success.

    That sounds, uh, pretty typical for a video game. People's purchasing patterns tend to be heavily driven by novelty.

    Obviously. But that applies to expansions too. I was replying to a comment about "everything after HOT being downwards", with "everything after core being downwards". It makes sense and it's logical for there to be a drop after release, but it applies equally to expansions and game releases.

  • Casuals are important because they don't make lots of gold so they actually pay for gems.

  • battledrone.8315battledrone.8315 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 18, 2020

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    F2pers are even more fickle, than normal mmo players, since they have nothing invested.

    Of course, the game got 2 million extra accounts from August 2015 to October 2015, from the time it went free to play until the launch of HOT. That's the same number of new accounts the game got in the previous 31 (!!!) months, from January 2013 to August 2015. This just shows how much interest there was for the free version of the game. People WANTED to try Guild Wars 2 and see if it's good enough. This increased the total accounts to 7 million when HOT launched. But HOT didn't sell 7 million did it? That's because Core wasn't good enough to keep those players active when the expansion launched, if Core had retained those players, HOT would do better.

    everything AFTER hot is all downwards. its okay to like hot, but you can NOT call it a success.

    Core after release also was all downwards, and a very steep down turn, much steeper than the HOT one. The game sold 3 million in 4 months (including pre-orders and release day sales) and then it took it 31 months (Season 1, Season 2) to sell another 2 million. From an average of 750k sales per month to 64k per month, you can NOT call that a success.

    what? show me any mmo, that has done better? core sales were pretty stable, SPECIALLY considering the much harder market competition back then

    There was no real competition back then. When Guild Wars 2 launched, World of Warcraft was at a very low "hype" point with MoP, FF14 wasn't yet a massive success and ESO didn't exist. As for action mmorpgs we only had Tera, which was a korean grinder, not everyone's cup of tea. Meaning Guild Wars 2 launched at the best possible time without any real competition, it was by far THE BEST game available when it launched, combining tab target combat with action combat in a flawless way. No other game of the time even came close to it, not to mention the dynamic world system, the "no grind" approach and no sub fees.

    Guild Wars 2 had no real market competition when it launched, and all games launched around it as "Guild Wars killers" all proved to be massive flops, at least in the west. Archeage, Bless, Wildstar, Blade and Soul and others. It wasn't until ESO launched and FF14 became much better, that GW2 got some real competition, and those are the games most often talked about on these forums as the games played by the GW2 playerbase.

    lol. "no competition". 2012 was mmo heaven, compared to now.
    i actually stopped playing wow in 2012, along with many others. the dreaded pandas had arrived....
    nothing against the pandas as such, but removing the talent tree and replacing them with pet battles was a HUGE mistake
    PS wildstar was never the GW2 killer, it was supposed to take on wow. i think it even launched before GW2

  • so, I would like to respond to the Original Poster.
    I am a streamer, if by the definition you are going is "someone who streams guild wars 2".
    I have also played this game for a very very long time, so technically i am a "veteran".
    I am also, by a vast majority of opinions, a "filthy casual."
    i play when i can, for as long as my body will allow me to sit in the chair. then it gives up for the night and so do i.
    I do things like the Silverwastes, drizzlewood, etc... But i also love the lore of the game and the exploration of the maps.
    I do NOT have a lot of gold. i don't keep a lot of gold on me, and i don't farm for days on end. I also do not do fractals as much and i am rarely seen in a raid.
    what i do, however, is i earn just enough stuff to make a legendary weapon or two, then give it away for a worthwhile cause. On occasion, a rare occasion i might add, i will buy gems. However, for the most part i cannot afford such luxuries.
    Instead, i take that money and feed myself and my daughter. or i clothe us,. or i donate to charities.
    i "fit the description" when you refer to casual players. but i am neither casual, nor am i hardcore.
    i simply play the game because i like to be around people and it's fun.
    also, i don't have 20k AP. i don't have some hidden mountain of gold stashed somewhere like scrooge mcduck.
    i don't have all the masteries and i don't have all the things unlocked, even after playing for 8 years.
    what i do have, OP, is i have fun. i have friends that i hang around with, and we do things together for the betterment of the community... both in the real world and in game.
    I will not disagree with you. I will not agree with you. I am stating the truth.
    I think what needs to happen here, is a dissemination of facts. truths. we play games, regardless of whether it's all the time, some of the time, or once in a while.
    games are a way of community, having fun, relaxing, competing, socializing, all of that.
    and to place one single finger on one single person and say that they belong to one single group.... with all due respect, is just a bit silly, in my humble opinion.
    overall, i think the best part of guild wars 2 will always be the players themselves, regardless of what classification or title or designation or stereotype is placed on them.
    maybe.... pondering moment here we're just gamers.
    playing a game.
    like you.

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

    @battledrone.8315 said:
    i actually stopped playing wow in 2012, along with many others. the dreaded pandas had arrived....

    Exactly why I said there was no competition, even WOW was on a steep decline when GW2 launched and all other games of the time, Secret World, Star Wars the Old Republic, Aion and others had nothing to compete with Guild Wars 2. Nowadays there is a LOT of competition for this game, you can find quite a lot of posters on the forums talking about both ESO and FF14 taking their time away of GW2. They are probably the only games you read a lot about by GW2 players ;)

  • I play rise of kingdoms on my phone and blue stacks. I treat guild wars 2 more like a mobile game than an actual full game. Yes, it's fun. and it is very great for getting everything completed. I farm gold often as a hobby after doing my dallies. But as far as spending habits go, -

    I am starting to spend more and more on the gem shop. Maybe i am addicted but i like deals, packages, outfits, exp boosters, keys, and i like eventually complete my account. I think guild wars 2 gem shop has nice deals and nice things to buy - the thing is some people buy gems with gold because they make a good amount of gold.

    I thought about farming gold seriously through fractals, crafting, and doing min max spots with my characters, but honestly i am lazy and my emotions make me tired. So I do buy gems and gold with gems because I am lazy. But i think most "normal" people will buy gold or buy gems because they don't min max their farming strategies.

    I was doing the calculations and they may be wrong so please correct me for sure but ...

    40-50 gold an hour is 230-260 gems. That equals to about 3$ an hour. A gem card for 1200 gems cost 15$.
    the daily gold is 2 gold which is 15 cents per day if you do your daily and loot the 2 gold.

    So yea, i am a casual and i buy gems. I play 8 hours a day sometimes but i am very much a casual. I don't min max or try to do end game content. I have no skills or social interactions. I am not trying to define what casual is, i guess the real word is - I play for fun and play for when I want to relax.

    Any ways, just blogging some stuff. Take care all !