Jump to content
  • Sign Up

EoD expansion should have new RAID


Recommended Posts

@Asum.4960 said:

@Asum.4960 said:The question now is though, how do they move forward with the game, especially if long term success is the goal - something I'd very much would like to see for GW2 and ArenaNet.

Obviously not with new raids. That was an experiment that failed horribly for them. Any calls to try that experiment again are just insane.

Failed horribly? For someone who is reading arguments very selectively and shutting everything, no matter how well argued or founded, down due to lacking impossible insider hard data, you sure throw around very harsh, but equally if not more so unfounded points.

How did Raids fail "horribly", in engaging as much as 30% of the observable community, bringing thousands together into communities for hours of weekly play, likely splashing into all other modes beyond that. Providing some of the most engaging, and for many best Anet has ever done, content. Creating some of the most viewed community events in the games history?

A horribly failure to me implies that they died on arrival and nothing ever came of it.

And how is the decline of Raids different to basically everything else?Did Dungeons Fail horribly? Guild Missions? Fractals? Strikes? Bounties? Legendary Crafting? WvW? PvP? and on and on, or could there, as argued but ignored, be a very well founded other explanation for why all that content got tossed aside, and that there was a bigger undelaying problem in place?

What, according to you, didn't fail horribly? LW? just because it's the one thing still developed? And if so, why is revenue in record lows then?

If raids were worth it for Anet to continue developing, we would still be getting new raids. I'm just going to keep bringing you back to this FUNDAMENTALLY TRUE statement. Will a new expansion make it worth it? What would make you think so?

If this were true, the game would be in a far better state (or worse, but worse at this point would have meant shut down).

Given it is not and assuming better financial performance might have been possible or is possible AND accounting for the dozens of mistakes in distribution of resources made so far by the studio, your basis for your argument is weak. Very weak to not say strait up incorrect.

There isn't any weak argument here. If raids were sustainable content, we would likely have more raids. The fact we DON'T shows they aren't sustainable or there is a BETTER opportunity for Anet to create sustainable content.

They were working on other games to move on to, while the neglected GW2 slid into revenue freefall, and won't be around that much longer unless some of those things, which helped sustain the game and ensure that it is in fact still around, are brought back. The current course (of the last ~2 years), obviously is
not
long term sustainable.

OK ... that doesn't change what I said ... if raids were sustainable content, we would still have raids. I mean, do you honestly think a business doesn't know what products and content DOESN'T create it's revenues? OFC it does.

A video game, especially one as broad as an MMO isn't a supermarket where you know which products go off the shelves quickly and which gather dust.

If thousands of players are really just there for Raids, Guild/Community events, Fractals etc., and just happen to play content like LW while waiting/hoping for those and would leave without that, (which many, many did, as the declining revenue shows) how does a company quantify what primarily contributed to their spending?

I really don't understand what you think kind of magical analytic tools exist that can read players minds on what content they are engaged by and on what level, beyond hours spend - which by far does not tell the whole story.

It's not magic ... what makes you think Anet can't measure where a player spends their time and how much they spend? And if they do that for every player, they can attribute revenue spent to game content played.

How? That's not how it works. Time spent does not necessarily equal engagement/spending.

I never claimed that ... I'm simply telling you Anet can measure how much time a person spends doing 'things' in the game and how much they spend. That tells them what content is generating revenue which you said was 'magical' analytical tools.

If they are all that's needed to support the game, why is revenue in a record low since they are only focusing on exactly that?

Who's to say that's not enough revenue to sustain the game with the content that's being added?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yukarishura.4790 said:

@Asum.4960 said:The question now is though, how do they move forward with the game, especially if long term success is the goal - something I'd very much would like to see for GW2 and ArenaNet.

Obviously not with new raids. That was an experiment that failed horribly for them. Any calls to try that experiment again are just insane.

Failed horribly? For someone who is reading arguments very selectively and shutting everything, no matter how well argued or founded, down due to lacking impossible insider hard data, you sure throw around very harsh, but equally if not more so unfounded points.

How did Raids fail "horribly", in engaging as much as 30% of the observable community, bringing thousands together into communities for hours of weekly play, likely splashing into all other modes beyond that. Providing some of the most engaging, and for many best Anet has ever done, content. Creating some of the most viewed community events in the games history?

A horribly failure to me implies that they died on arrival and nothing ever came of it.

And how is the decline of Raids different to basically everything else?Did Dungeons Fail horribly? Guild Missions? Fractals? Strikes? Bounties? Legendary Crafting? WvW? PvP? and on and on, or could there, as argued but ignored, be a very well founded other explanation for why all that content got tossed aside, and that there was a bigger undelaying problem in place?

What, according to you, didn't fail horribly? LW? just because it's the one thing still developed? And if so, why is revenue in record lows then?

If raids were worth it for Anet to continue developing, we would still be getting new raids. I'm just going to keep bringing you back to this FUNDAMENTALLY TRUE statement. Will a new expansion make it worth it? What would make you think so?

If this were true, the game would be in a far better state (or worse, but worse at this point would have meant shut down).

Given it is not and assuming better financial performance might have been possible or is possible AND accounting for the dozens of mistakes in distribution of resources made so far by the studio, your basis for your argument is weak. Very weak to not say strait up incorrect.

There isn't any weak argument here. If raids were sustainable content, we would likely have more raids. The fact we DON'T shows they aren't sustainable or there is a BETTER opportunity for Anet to create sustainable content.

They were working on other games to move on to, while the neglected GW2 slid into revenue freefall, and won't be around that much longer unless some of those things, which helped sustain the game and ensure that it is in fact still around, are brought back. The current course (of the last ~2 years), obviously is
not
long term sustainable.

OK ... that doesn't change what I said ... if raids were sustainable content, we would still have raids. I mean, do you honestly think a business doesn't know what products and content DOESN'T create it's revenues? OFC it does.

A video game, especially one as broad as an MMO isn't a supermarket where you know which products go off the shelves quickly and which gather dust.

If thousands of players are really just there for Raids, Guild/Community events, Fractals etc., and just happen to play content like LW while waiting/hoping for those and would leave without that, (which many, many did, as the declining revenue shows) how does a company quantify what primarily contributed to their spending?

I really don't understand what you think kind of magical analytic tools exist that can read players minds on what content they are engaged by and on what level, beyond hours spend - which by far does not tell the whole story.

It's not magic ... what makes you think Anet can't measure where a player spends their time and how much they spend? And if they do that for every player, they can attribute revenue spent to game content played.

How? That's not how it works. Time spent does not necessarily equal engagement/spending.

If you grind Silverwastes for 200 hours in order to craft a Legendary (and happen to buy some gemstore items along the way), what drove your engagement is the Legendary Crafting they developed,
not
the open world farm per se.

If I quit Raids because of lack of content and all the communities I liked falling apart, but still play Living World releases while hoping/waiting for new endgame content, LW is not what drove my engagement.

There is no way to measure that, and looking at the revenue, Anet clearly mis-calculated/managed.

@Obtena.7952 said:Give examples of what? Content that generates ROI? Probably all the content they continue to create in the game that they have created for a very long time; LS, new maps, new skins, storyline, map metas, etc ...

If they are all that's needed to support the game, why is revenue in a record low since they are only focusing on exactly that?

maybe also good to mention in order to get LEGENDARY ARMOR you need to RAID, so are you telling me that is not motivating for players to play raids @Obtena.7952

OK ... not having new raids doesn't prevent people from getting legendary armor. You seem to have a hard time following along. I'm not talking about people playing raids that exist. We are talking about justifying new ones with the EoD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Obtena.7952" said:yeah that could be true

So they were doing fine, until Anet murdered them with mismanagement, miscommunication and misuse, as I initially said in this thread.

But we aren't rehashing what happened when they started to justify why they should come back now ... that wouldn't make any sense now would it?

Remember the developers said that they LOVE Fractals, that rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated, 2 years after the previous release. Then we are 7 months since the last one... so even if they said "we LOVE Raids" it would be a failure anyway so no I don't think they can bring them back

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:yeah that could be true

So they were doing fine, until Anet murdered them with mismanagement, miscommunication and misuse, as I initially said in this thread.

Well, maybe ... I'm not debating the failure of raids with you.

But we aren't rehashing what happened when they started to justify why they should come back now ... that wouldn't make any sense now would it?

Remember the developers said that they LOVE Fractals, that rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated, 2 years after the previous release. Then we are 7 months since the last one... so even if they said "we LOVE Raids" it would be a failure anyway so no I don't think they can bring them back

OK ... I'm not debating who said this or that ... I'm saying that raids aren't being developed and people don't develop content that doesn't bring the ROI.

I get it, you got some big axe to grind because Anet killed raids with 'mismanagement'. That's not going to bring them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Asum.4960 said:The question now is though, how do they move forward with the game, especially if long term success is the goal - something I'd very much would like to see for GW2 and ArenaNet.

Obviously not with new raids. That was an experiment that failed horribly for them. Any calls to try that experiment again are just insane.

Failed horribly? For someone who is reading arguments very selectively and shutting everything, no matter how well argued or founded, down due to lacking impossible insider hard data, you sure throw around very harsh, but equally if not more so unfounded points.

How did Raids fail "horribly", in engaging as much as 30% of the observable community, bringing thousands together into communities for hours of weekly play, likely splashing into all other modes beyond that. Providing some of the most engaging, and for many best Anet has ever done, content. Creating some of the most viewed community events in the games history?

A horribly failure to me implies that they died on arrival and nothing ever came of it.

And how is the decline of Raids different to basically everything else?Did Dungeons Fail horribly? Guild Missions? Fractals? Strikes? Bounties? Legendary Crafting? WvW? PvP? and on and on, or could there, as argued but ignored, be a very well founded other explanation for why all that content got tossed aside, and that there was a bigger undelaying problem in place?

What, according to you, didn't fail horribly? LW? just because it's the one thing still developed? And if so, why is revenue in record lows then?

If raids were worth it for Anet to continue developing, we would still be getting new raids. I'm just going to keep bringing you back to this FUNDAMENTALLY TRUE statement. Will a new expansion make it worth it? What would make you think so?

If this were true, the game would be in a far better state (or worse, but worse at this point would have meant shut down).

Given it is not and assuming better financial performance might have been possible or is possible AND accounting for the dozens of mistakes in distribution of resources made so far by the studio, your basis for your argument is weak. Very weak to not say strait up incorrect.

There isn't any weak argument here. If raids were sustainable content, we would likely have more raids. The fact we DON'T shows they aren't sustainable or there is a BETTER opportunity for Anet to create sustainable content.

They were working on other games to move on to, while the neglected GW2 slid into revenue freefall, and won't be around that much longer unless some of those things, which helped sustain the game and ensure that it is in fact still around, are brought back. The current course (of the last ~2 years), obviously is
not
long term sustainable.

OK ... that doesn't change what I said ... if raids were sustainable content, we would still have raids. I mean, do you honestly think a business doesn't know what products and content DOESN'T create it's revenues? OFC it does.

A video game, especially one as broad as an MMO isn't a supermarket where you know which products go off the shelves quickly and which gather dust.

If thousands of players are really just there for Raids, Guild/Community events, Fractals etc., and just happen to play content like LW while waiting/hoping for those and would leave without that, (which many, many did, as the declining revenue shows) how does a company quantify what primarily contributed to their spending?

I really don't understand what you think kind of magical analytic tools exist that can read players minds on what content they are engaged by and on what level, beyond hours spend - which by far does not tell the whole story.

It's not magic ... what makes you think Anet can't measure where a player spends their time and how much they spend? And if they do that for every player, they can attribute revenue spent to game content played.

How? That's not how it works. Time spent does not necessarily equal engagement/spending.

I never claimed that ... I'm simply telling you Anet can measure how much time a person spends doing 'things' in the game and how much they spend. That tells them what content is generating revenue which you said was 'magical' analytical tools.

And I'm telling you that's not how it always works out. That can give you hints at what players are engaged by without giving you the true reasons as to why. It's flawed data. It can be useful, but it can also lead you down a completely wrong path.Again, looking at revenue, it's pretty save to say that it's not going great.

@Obtena.7952 said:

If they are all that's needed to support the game, why is revenue in a record low since they are only focusing on exactly that?

Who's to say that's not enough revenue to sustain the game with the content that's being added?

People said the same thing when Anet first transitioned to this content delivery to criticisms, "who is to say revenue will drop?"Well, it did. The trend is still largely downward. It's not really rocket science where that will go, but only time will tell.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:yeah that could be true

So they were doing fine, until Anet murdered them with mismanagement, miscommunication and misuse, as I initially said in this thread.

Well, maybe ... I'm not debating the failure of raids with you.

I am because it shows their profitability is irrelevant to their "death".

But we aren't rehashing what happened when they started to justify why they should come back now ... that wouldn't make any sense now would it?

Remember the developers said that they LOVE Fractals, that rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated, 2 years after the previous release. Then we are 7 months since the last one... so even if they said "we LOVE Raids" it would be a failure anyway so no I don't think they can bring them back

OK ... I'm not debating who said this or that ...

When a company says they "love" something and have so few releases for it, it speaks wonders.

I'm saying that raids aren't being developed and people don't develop content that doesn't bring the ROI.

And the fact that they were developed for a rather long time, shows that they were indeed bringing the ROI. Until the above mismanagement happened.

I get it, you got some big axe to grind because Anet killed raids with 'mismanagement'.

I'm just posting facts, Raids were murdered and it had very little to do (if anything) with ROI.

That's not going to bring them back.

What is not going to bring them back is that the content they "love" barely gets any attention.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Asum.4960 said:

@Asum.4960 said:The question now is though, how do they move forward with the game, especially if long term success is the goal - something I'd very much would like to see for GW2 and ArenaNet.

Obviously not with new raids. That was an experiment that failed horribly for them. Any calls to try that experiment again are just insane.

Failed horribly? For someone who is reading arguments very selectively and shutting everything, no matter how well argued or founded, down due to lacking impossible insider hard data, you sure throw around very harsh, but equally if not more so unfounded points.

How did Raids fail "horribly", in engaging as much as 30% of the observable community, bringing thousands together into communities for hours of weekly play, likely splashing into all other modes beyond that. Providing some of the most engaging, and for many best Anet has ever done, content. Creating some of the most viewed community events in the games history?

A horribly failure to me implies that they died on arrival and nothing ever came of it.

And how is the decline of Raids different to basically everything else?Did Dungeons Fail horribly? Guild Missions? Fractals? Strikes? Bounties? Legendary Crafting? WvW? PvP? and on and on, or could there, as argued but ignored, be a very well founded other explanation for why all that content got tossed aside, and that there was a bigger undelaying problem in place?

What, according to you, didn't fail horribly? LW? just because it's the one thing still developed? And if so, why is revenue in record lows then?

If raids were worth it for Anet to continue developing, we would still be getting new raids. I'm just going to keep bringing you back to this FUNDAMENTALLY TRUE statement. Will a new expansion make it worth it? What would make you think so?

If this were true, the game would be in a far better state (or worse, but worse at this point would have meant shut down).

Given it is not and assuming better financial performance might have been possible or is possible AND accounting for the dozens of mistakes in distribution of resources made so far by the studio, your basis for your argument is weak. Very weak to not say strait up incorrect.

There isn't any weak argument here. If raids were sustainable content, we would likely have more raids. The fact we DON'T shows they aren't sustainable or there is a BETTER opportunity for Anet to create sustainable content.

They were working on other games to move on to, while the neglected GW2 slid into revenue freefall, and won't be around that much longer unless some of those things, which helped sustain the game and ensure that it is in fact still around, are brought back. The current course (of the last ~2 years), obviously is
not
long term sustainable.

OK ... that doesn't change what I said ... if raids were sustainable content, we would still have raids. I mean, do you honestly think a business doesn't know what products and content DOESN'T create it's revenues? OFC it does.

A video game, especially one as broad as an MMO isn't a supermarket where you know which products go off the shelves quickly and which gather dust.

If thousands of players are really just there for Raids, Guild/Community events, Fractals etc., and just happen to play content like LW while waiting/hoping for those and would leave without that, (which many, many did, as the declining revenue shows) how does a company quantify what primarily contributed to their spending?

I really don't understand what you think kind of magical analytic tools exist that can read players minds on what content they are engaged by and on what level, beyond hours spend - which by far does not tell the whole story.

It's not magic ... what makes you think Anet can't measure where a player spends their time and how much they spend? And if they do that for every player, they can attribute revenue spent to game content played.

How? That's not how it works. Time spent does not necessarily equal engagement/spending.

I never claimed that ... I'm simply telling you Anet can measure how much time a person spends doing 'things' in the game and how much they spend. That tells them what content is generating revenue which you said was 'magical' analytical tools.

And I'm telling you that's not how it always works out. That can give you hints at what players are engaged by without giving you the true reasons as to why. It's flawed data. It can be useful, but it can also lead you down a completely wrong path.So why do you think IN THIS CASE the ratio of money spent vs. time played categorized by game elements is flawed data? Like, somehow you DON'T think that's indicative of the content's engagement with spending players? I don't see how it doesn't.

Again, looking at revenue, it's pretty save to say that it's not going great.

OK ... but this isn't a discussion about how GW2's revenues are doing right now. Do NOT attempt to justify new raids because 'currently bad revenue' if raids were likely canned because of 'bad revenue' to begin with. That's an absurd justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:I'm just posting facts, Raids were murdered and it had very little to do (if anything) with ROI.

Yes, very biased, not-data supported facts. Good one. I'm sticking with the more realistic belief that companies who are in business make decisions based on ... business things, not based on 'let's murder sustainable and successful content' conspiracy theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:I'm just posting facts, Raids were murdered and it had very little to do (if anything) with ROI.

Yes, very biased, not-data supported facts. Good one. I'm sticking with the more realistic belief that companies who are in business make decisions based on ... business things, not based on 'let's murder sustainable and successful content' conspiracy theories.

What's not supported by data? It's supported by your own arguments, you are saying content that brings money is developed, content that doesn't is not. Raids were under development for 4 years. So they were developing Raids for 4 years while they weren't making them money to justify their existence? That's not really a realistic belief for a company that is in business.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:I'm just posting facts, Raids were murdered and it had very little to do (if anything) with ROI.

Yes, very biased, not-data supported facts. Good one. I'm sticking with the more realistic belief that companies who are in business make decisions based on ... business things, not based on 'let's murder sustainable and successful content' conspiracy theories.

What's not supported by data? It's supported by your own arguments, you are saying content that brings money is developed, content that doesn't is not. Raids were under development for 4 years. So they were developing Raids for 4 years while they weren't making them money to justify their existence?

It depends on the business case that they made to justify creating raids in the first place. If they didn't get their payback on the investment they expected within that period of time, it's VERY reasonable and possible they would drop raids because of it. It's actually common to drop content/products that don't realize their expected ROIs and paybacks for companies. It happens ALL THE TIME actually because it would be rather stupid for a company to continually develop/build products and content people won't buy ... or entice them to spend money in a GS or monthly sub in the case of game content.

The fact that GW2 still exists and Anet does drop things that aren't sustainable content suggests they aren't as stupid as you guys would like to believe they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:I'm just posting facts, Raids were murdered and it had very little to do (if anything) with ROI.

Yes, very biased, not-data supported facts. Good one. I'm sticking with the more realistic belief that companies who are in business make decisions based on ... business things, not based on 'let's murder sustainable and successful content' conspiracy theories.

What's not supported by data? It's supported by your own arguments, you are saying content that brings money is developed, content that doesn't is not. Raids were under development for 4 years. So they were developing Raids for 4 years while they weren't making them money to justify their existence?

It depends on the business case that they made to justify creating raids in the first place.

For 4 years????? That's a rather long time to continue developing something only to say afterwards "the audience they attract is a problem"

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:I'm just posting facts, Raids were murdered and it had very little to do (if anything) with ROI.

Yes, very biased, not-data supported facts. Good one. I'm sticking with the more realistic belief that companies who are in business make decisions based on ... business things, not based on 'let's murder sustainable and successful content' conspiracy theories.

What's not supported by data? It's supported by your own arguments, you are saying content that brings money is developed, content that doesn't is not. Raids were under development for 4 years. So they were developing Raids for 4 years while they weren't making them money to justify their existence?

It depends on the business case that they made to justify creating raids in the first place.

For 4 years????? That's a rather long time to continue developing something only to say afterwards "the audience they attract is a problem"

I don't get how that's surprising to you considering they likely anticipated the development phase of the game to continue for at least a decade. maybe you think they slapped raids together in a weekend? It cost them a few McDonalds lunches paid for staff? Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me. So yeah, raids wouldn't have been cheap to develop and it would likely have a long payback.

Honestly, I don't know the details of that business case. My point is that Anet APPEARS to be doing things that other businesses would do (in otherwords, they have business acumen) and the evidence suggests they are making more good decisions than bad ones (and they use that acumen to continue being in business). Therefore, all your conspiracy theory about Anet wanting to crash and burn their own success are just vitriol to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Asum.4960 said:The question now is though, how do they move forward with the game, especially if long term success is the goal - something I'd very much would like to see for GW2 and ArenaNet.

Obviously not with new raids. That was an experiment that failed horribly for them. Any calls to try that experiment again are just insane.

Failed horribly? For someone who is reading arguments very selectively and shutting everything, no matter how well argued or founded, down due to lacking impossible insider hard data, you sure throw around very harsh, but equally if not more so unfounded points.

How did Raids fail "horribly", in engaging as much as 30% of the observable community, bringing thousands together into communities for hours of weekly play, likely splashing into all other modes beyond that. Providing some of the most engaging, and for many best Anet has ever done, content. Creating some of the most viewed community events in the games history?

A horribly failure to me implies that they died on arrival and nothing ever came of it.

And how is the decline of Raids different to basically everything else?Did Dungeons Fail horribly? Guild Missions? Fractals? Strikes? Bounties? Legendary Crafting? WvW? PvP? and on and on, or could there, as argued but ignored, be a very well founded other explanation for why all that content got tossed aside, and that there was a bigger undelaying problem in place?

What, according to you, didn't fail horribly? LW? just because it's the one thing still developed? And if so, why is revenue in record lows then?

If raids were worth it for Anet to continue developing, we would still be getting new raids. I'm just going to keep bringing you back to this FUNDAMENTALLY TRUE statement. Will a new expansion make it worth it? What would make you think so?

If this were true, the game would be in a far better state (or worse, but worse at this point would have meant shut down).

Given it is not and assuming better financial performance might have been possible or is possible AND accounting for the dozens of mistakes in distribution of resources made so far by the studio, your basis for your argument is weak. Very weak to not say strait up incorrect.

There isn't any weak argument here. If raids were sustainable content, we would likely have more raids. The fact we DON'T shows they aren't sustainable or there is a BETTER opportunity for Anet to create sustainable content.

They were working on other games to move on to, while the neglected GW2 slid into revenue freefall, and won't be around that much longer unless some of those things, which helped sustain the game and ensure that it is in fact still around, are brought back. The current course (of the last ~2 years), obviously is
not
long term sustainable.

OK ... that doesn't change what I said ... if raids were sustainable content, we would still have raids. I mean, do you honestly think a business doesn't know what products and content DOESN'T create it's revenues? OFC it does.

A video game, especially one as broad as an MMO isn't a supermarket where you know which products go off the shelves quickly and which gather dust.

If thousands of players are really just there for Raids, Guild/Community events, Fractals etc., and just happen to play content like LW while waiting/hoping for those and would leave without that, (which many, many did, as the declining revenue shows) how does a company quantify what primarily contributed to their spending?

I really don't understand what you think kind of magical analytic tools exist that can read players minds on what content they are engaged by and on what level, beyond hours spend - which by far does not tell the whole story.

It's not magic ... what makes you think Anet can't measure where a player spends their time and how much they spend? And if they do that for every player, they can attribute revenue spent to game content played.

How? That's not how it works. Time spent does not necessarily equal engagement/spending.

I never claimed that ... I'm simply telling you Anet can measure how much time a person spends doing 'things' in the game and how much they spend. That tells them what content is generating revenue which you said was 'magical' analytical tools.

And I'm telling you that's not how it always works out. That can give you hints at what players are engaged by without giving you the true reasons as to why. It's flawed data. It can be useful, but it can also lead you down a completely wrong path.So why do you think IN THIS CASE the ratio of money spent vs. time played categorized by game elements is flawed data? Like, somehow you DON'T think that's indicative of the content's engagement with spending players? I don't see how it doesn't.

Again, looking at revenue, it's pretty save to say that it's not going great.

OK ... but this isn't a discussion about how GW2's revenues are doing right now. Do NOT attempt to justify new raids because 'currently bad revenue' if raids were likely canned because of 'bad revenue' to begin with. That's an absurd justification.

I'm not saying "IN THIS CASE", I'm saying in any case. Data like that can be incredibly useful, but it's always flawed/incomplete. Even an expert interpreting data points like that can easily be led astray. Is it indicative? Yes! Is it "the fundamental truth", as you argued? Absolutely not.

Players do not always know what they want, players to not always spend the most time on what actually engages them, gemstore purchases can't be directly linked to content played at that time, and what content you primarily deliver in the first place creates a bias in the data of what players gravitate towards at that time.Release a LW every 3 months and Raids every 9 Months to never? Ofc the data tells you that people are primarily engaged by LW.Don't release any LW or only once a year while releasing new Guild Missions/Raid Wings/Fractals every 3 months? Data shows you that's what drives engagement.It reinforces itself.

How do you know if you bet correctly or not (and it is betting)? Looking at the resulting revenue.

All that aside, Raid devs, and btw, we are talking about ~5 people here, were moved to other game projects at Anet or received promotions. Since Anet was primarily focused on getting other projects out of the door and GW2's future wasn't the priority, there was no one to fill the shoes on long term sustainable content like that for a soon to be moved on from game at the time.

Aka, an issue largely independent from your ROI argument, which as explained multiple times now, is highly flawed to begin with in this context.

All, by Anet's own making, niche content fell victim to this. Not just Raids - to the detriment of the games revenue and sustainability.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Asum.4960 said:How do you know if you bet correctly or not (and it is betting)? Looking at the resulting revenue.

Right ... so what about the current situation makes you think this didn't happen at Anet to decide to stop raid development?

There is NOTHING flawed about the idea that raids aren't being developed because they don't make the ROI ... it's commonly part of the considerations how business MAKE these decisions.

See my big problem is this ... there was actually NO barrier to them making more raids at the time of the decline; they had the development infrastructure, they have the staff, there was momentum ... so what was the straw that broke that camel's back do you think? Just some massive miscalculation of how much revenues raids were bringing to them? Like ... they put a couple of zero's in the wrong place that ONE time so they just packed it in? They are just so incompetent that running this business is just a lucky series of hundreds of guesses they made that went in their favour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

And I'm telling you they used the same analytical methodology to continue developing Raids. For some reason you are bringing in conspiracy theories that although they kept telling us that the Raids exceeded expectations, telling us that they are gonna increase the cadence (those are things that happened), in reality they were a massive failure for 4 years and they continued developing them just for fun.

Why is it so hard to understand that the "failure" of Raids wasn't because of Raids, but because of, well documented, decisions outside the Raid team's hand.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

And I'm telling you they used the same analytical methodology to continue developing Raids.

OK ... raids were successful for them at some point, now they aren't. For some reason you think that making this a discussion about 'that time when raids were great' has something to do with the idea that we should get new raids in EoD. It doesn't. I'm not going to argue with you about the reasons raids failed. I'm am going to tell you that if raids were sustainable content, we would still have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

And I'm telling you they used the same analytical methodology to continue developing Raids.

OK ... I'm not arguing that at SOME POINT, raids were successful for them. For some reason you think that making this a discussion about 'that time when raids were great' has something to do with the idea that we should get new raids in EoD. It doesn't.

Because if they bring Raids back in EOD and treat them like they did during the time they were a success, they could be a success again. If they bring Raids back in EOD treating them like they did during their decline, obviously they shouldn't bring them back in the first place, because it would end in failure again.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

And I'm telling you they used the same analytical methodology to continue developing Raids.

OK ... I'm not arguing that at SOME POINT, raids were successful for them. For some reason you think that making this a discussion about 'that time when raids were great' has something to do with the idea that we should get new raids in EoD. It doesn't.

Because if they bring Raids back in EOD and treat them like they did during the time they were a success, they could be a success again.

Well, sure ... MAYBE they COULD. That doesn't seem all that relevant though. It's just speculation. Maybe you think speculating on what COULD be, even in contrast to what ACTUALLY IS, is a good bet to put a raid or two into EoD. That seems far fetched IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

And I'm telling you they used the same analytical methodology to continue developing Raids.

OK ... I'm not arguing that at SOME POINT, raids were successful for them. For some reason you think that making this a discussion about 'that time when raids were great' has something to do with the idea that we should get new raids in EoD. It doesn't.

Because if they bring Raids back in EOD and treat them like they did during the time they were a success, they could be a success again.

Well, sure ... MAYBE they COULD. That doesn't seem all that relevant though. It's just speculation. Maybe you think speculating on what COULD be, even in contrast to what ACTUALLY IS, is a good bet to put a raid or two into EoD. That seems far fetched IMO.

That's true for literally everything they releasing with EOD... or any expansion. Or any release. The point is, how you treat your content, is how much revenue you will get back.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

And I'm telling you they used the same analytical methodology to continue developing Raids.

OK ... I'm not arguing that at SOME POINT, raids were successful for them. For some reason you think that making this a discussion about 'that time when raids were great' has something to do with the idea that we should get new raids in EoD. It doesn't.

Because if they bring Raids back in EOD and treat them like they did during the time they were a success, they could be a success again.

Well, sure ... MAYBE they COULD. That doesn't seem all that relevant though. It's just speculation. Maybe you think speculating on what COULD be, even in contrast to what ACTUALLY IS, is a good bet to put a raid or two into EoD. That seems far fetched IMO.

That's true for literally everything they releasing with EOD... or any expansion. Or any release.

Except it's not ... because Anet can use the same methodology to see what IS successful content that they can put into EoD.

The point is, how you treat your content, is how much revenue you will get back.

Sure. I'm just going to go back to the idea that if raid were sustainable content meeting their targets for success, they would have NO REASON to stop developing them. The cause of their decline is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

And I'm telling you they used the same analytical methodology to continue developing Raids.

OK ... I'm not arguing that at SOME POINT, raids were successful for them. For some reason you think that making this a discussion about 'that time when raids were great' has something to do with the idea that we should get new raids in EoD. It doesn't.

Because if they bring Raids back in EOD and treat them like they did during the time they were a success, they could be a success again.

Well, sure ... MAYBE they COULD. That doesn't seem all that relevant though. It's just speculation. Maybe you think speculating on what COULD be, even in contrast to what ACTUALLY IS, is a good bet to put a raid or two into EoD. That seems far fetched IMO.

That's true for literally everything they releasing with EOD... or any expansion. Or any release.

Except it's not ... because Anet can use the same methodology to see what IS successful content that they can put into EoD.

The point is, how you treat your content, is how much revenue you will get back.

So using the methodology they can see Raids, when treated well, is indeed successful content that they can put into EOD.

Sure. I'm just going to go back to the idea that if raid were sustainable content meeting their targets for success, they would have NO REASON to stop developing them. The cause of their decline is irrelevant.

You got it backwards here. They neglected Raids while they were calling them successful. And that neglect turned successful content into failure.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

And I'm telling you they used the same analytical methodology to continue developing Raids.

OK ... I'm not arguing that at SOME POINT, raids were successful for them. For some reason you think that making this a discussion about 'that time when raids were great' has something to do with the idea that we should get new raids in EoD. It doesn't.

Because if they bring Raids back in EOD and treat them like they did during the time they were a success, they could be a success again.

Well, sure ... MAYBE they COULD. That doesn't seem all that relevant though. It's just speculation. Maybe you think speculating on what COULD be, even in contrast to what ACTUALLY IS, is a good bet to put a raid or two into EoD. That seems far fetched IMO.

That's true for literally everything they releasing with EOD... or any expansion. Or any release.

Except it's not ... because Anet can use the same methodology to see what IS successful content that they can put into EoD.

The point is, how you treat your content, is how much revenue you will get back.

So using the methodology they can see Raids, when treated well, is indeed successful content that they can put into EOD.

Again ... MAYBE that COULD be true ... especially if you want to ignore the time where they weren't. I mean, it completely depends on the business case for raids.

Sure. I'm just going to go back to the idea that if raid were sustainable content meeting their targets for success, they would have NO REASON to stop developing them. The cause of their decline is irrelevant.

You got it backwards here. They neglected Raids while they were calling them successful. And that neglect turned successful content into failure.

I don't have it backwards ... I'm just not 'entering' that arena with you because this thread is NOT a discussion about the cause of the failure of raids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:See my big problem is this ... there was actually NO barrier to them making more raids at the time of the decline ... so what was the straw that broke that camel's back?

The "barrier" was having a handful of talented devs working on content that while important for the long term sustainability of the game, it's long term sustainability wasn't the priority anymore - as that got shifted to the, at the time so thought, future of the company, like Project Arrakis, a DUNE (apparently semi Open World/MMO/survival) game Anet was working on, whose rights now went to Funcom (along some Anet devs who had worked on it) after it's cancellation at Anet (among other projects).

A literal handful of devs working on long term important but niche content is just fairly easy to shuffle around, especially if long term health of the project in question isn't relevant anymore (at the time). That's why all content development falling into that category fell away.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Frankly, I'm willing to bet they anticipated the low uptake of raids ... so something in the range of 4 years sounds reasonable as a payback period to me.

By saying that they are gonna increase the release cadence and that they exceeded their expectations??? I'm willing to bet they they did not anticipate any such reduced revenue. It's not a simple 4-year release either, they expended resources to create a new Raid wing during Path of Fire development.I'm willing to bet that at least until they started development on Path of Fire, Raids were considered a success. Until during Season 3 they sent the Raid team to create two living world episodes, for reasons unrelated to Raid participation, but rather the new (at the time) idea of overloading the players with a new release every 2 months.

OK ... you can bet that ... I'm not arguing what you are willing to bet on. I'm just telling you it's more likely they actually used some analytical methodology to decide to stop developing raids over whatever conspiracy theory you want to push that they have to crash and burn successful aspects of their game.

I'm not sure where you get the confidence from that (game) companies have these mind reading like analytics that allow them to never miss the mark or make miscalculations and mistakes. Have you looked at the games industry recently?

To assume that they are can do no wrong financial and management masterminds with unknown to everybody else analytical methodologies seems like a bigger conspiracy than the fairly clear trail of crumbs leading to giant sign that says mismanagement.Especially in the context of the financial results of those decisions.

  • Confused 1
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...