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

[maddoctor.2738]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moradorin.6217]

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

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

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

[Obtena.7952]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mercury ranique.2170]

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

[maddoctor.2738]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's say a player spent 200 euro in 2020 on Guild Wars 2. Let's also say that same player spent most of his time farming Silverwastes, does that mean that player LIKES Silverwastes the most? No. He might enjoy completing jumping puzzles instead, while spending so many hours in the Silverwastes to earn gold. Basing any kind of argument, and worse claiming that the developers base the game's further development, on how much time is spent on various activities is faulty.andAnd this becomes even more important when we consider that many parts of the game are daily or weekly locked. How many times can I finish the Thunderhead Keep meta to be rewarded (something that I do a lot lately)? Once. Then I'll spend the rest of my playtime elsewhere, like spending time on Wintersday activities. What kind of marvelous information does this give Anet?

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

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

[Obtena.7952]

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

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

[Stand The Wall.6987]

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

[Obtena.7952]

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

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

[maddoctor.2738]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Obtena.7952]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[maddoctor.2738]

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

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

You claim they base the future development of this game based on how much time played is spent on content,

disregarding the quality of said content and how much players like it or not.

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

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

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

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

[Obtena.7952]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

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

Focusing development on content people want and like is a smart move. There is no debate there. But what people want and like isn't showing on time spent on particular content. Examples already provided on why.A few examples you have simply show that time spent isn't a 100% indicator of what people want and like. But even if it's not a 100% correlation, it's still going to be very high and a reasonably good estimate because it's very reasonable to assume most people are spending time in game modes that they want and like to play in.

You are focusing on the

what

players are doing and completely disregard the

why

they are doing it.

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

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

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

[kharmin.7683]

A company can make money and yet still lose revenue. "Making money" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "Making profit".

[battledrone.8315]

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

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

[Linken.6345]

@battledrone.8315 said:

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

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

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

[Vayne.8563]

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

[Ashantara.8731]

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

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

[Solvar.7953]

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

[maddoctor.2738]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[battledrone.8315]

@Linken.6345 said:

@battledrone.8315 said:

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

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

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

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

[Obtena.7952]

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

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

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

[Teratus.2859]

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

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

[Obtena.7952]

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

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

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

[Teratus.2859]

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

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

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

[Obtena.7952]

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

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

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

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

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

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