Puck.3697
-
Posts
2,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Puck.3697
-
-
13 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:
Sighs. I've worked in quite a few industries including publishing. Entertainment properties tend to decline. It's normal and expected. I know this is hard to understand, but companies are successful and not successful based in the expectations of the stockholders, not some fixed number. For example, the vast majority of a game's income for it's lifetime is usually from the first 3 months of its existence. No one expects a 10 year old game to do the same as a 9 year old game. ESO's profit is likely decling, at least their Reddit online numbers have gone down faster than Guild Wars 2's have and they have a console version as well. SWToRs numbers of reddit have plummeted.
You can say it's declining and I'd say the only MMO that hasn't declined over the last couple of years is FFXIV. That doesnt't mean every game is failing. Now NcSoft has stock takes quarterly so we see what Guild Wars 2 is doing, where we don't see that for every company, so it's easy to say decline in revenue. What you don't see is that that revenue is measured in KRW not US dollars and we convert to US dollars based on the exchange rate at any give time. So you can't even get an accurate reading by converting, because each year that exchange rate changes. One year, it looked like the game declined but when you account for the changing exchange rate, it actually did better. It's a lot more complicated than you're making out.B:ut since probably 95% of MMOs are in decline once they hit a couple of years old, no one is likely surprised that Guild Wars 2 is in decline, or ESO, or SWTOR. This is normal. What I will say is this. In the past, when Guild Wars 2 under performed, it was mentioned at one of their quarterly stock meetings. But we haven't heard that recently. Guild Wars 2 is probably performing within the company's expectation, which means it's fine.
How well a company is doing isn't just some arbitrary up and down number as you seem to imply. I've worked on a number of business plans and expectations are pretty much everything. If you exceed them, great. If you match them fine. If you dip below them, you get heat from above and changes are made. That's how business works. My guess is that Guild Wars 2 is probably doing well for an 11 year old game. Whether it's meeting expectations or not, no one can say unless they work for Anet or NcSoft, but if they weren't meeting those expectations you'd hear it as we have in the past.I'm not living in denial. I'm simply not assuming NcSoft's expectations which would be the real indication of how the company is holding up.
Or they've just given up and accepted it. Rinse the budget allocated, axed the crew working on the game and simply hitting it like a cash cow til it flops.
As you say its been 11 years. If it hasn't hit the winning formula by now it never will
There's evidence in the sheer things stated around SoTo that the production in quantity is disliked.
Why else would they axe employees that worked on the game
Reduce the quantity of content produced from the game.
And go on to be rumoured to be placing the game all together with a mmorpg.
I mean WoW did this. And admitted why. Stating it was in lign with the losses in money to why it happened.
Just cause ncsoft would rather leave it unanswered ur gonna assume its nothing to do with it?
That's what you do.
If you game drops 2 millipn in profits, lose 2million pounds worth of costs to equalise the problem.
If gw2 was such a raging success, when the yeam say "we can't develope content because our teams too small" ncsoft woulda acted. They didn't. They ignored it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:
Thanks for this, best laugh I've had all day. Is this the quality of the rest of your research as well.
The Old Republic that you linked is NOT SWToR.
It's a company called The Old Republic International Corporation, the stock tag is ORI.
The data of the company's earnings go back to 2009 if you bother to look at the spreadsheet, where as SWTOR didn't even launch until the last month of 2011.
This is priceless. But yeah, SWToR never made a billion dollars a year. lolEh noticed that too late.
Weirdly comes up as the first thi g when you look it up.
Regardless to which.
Gw2 Is in decline. Regardless of what you wanna beleive. Anets Fallings are still 100% true. They did axe a large amount of employees, and the content has gotten worse every launch.
Keep comparing gw2 to other failing mmorpgs, it doesn't prove owt. Lol. I dont need to research squat.
atleast beleiving the game is poorly budgeted. Is a better reason then "oh anet have all the money they just love annoying their playerbase".
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:
Where's the evidence? I mean I know you're saying it, but can you prove it? What do they earn quarterly? Do they earn a $1 quarterly. Stuff is so easy to say
You can look up any revnue.
Here's the fact. Eso and swotr don't Need as many players because their micro transactional / sub pressure is far higher then gw2.
Gw2 can have 12 million players.
If only 2 million spend money, then the other 10 million are irrelevent to their costs.
I play gw2, it dont mean I actually give anet money. There's nothing worth buying lol. But I do spend money in WoW. A vast lot more.
Even though I ironically prefer GW2.
There's nothing to pay for in gw2. Outside its box expansion prices, there's no worth while investments.
Did I get bag slots / storage slots / Bank sets. Ya I did.
Swotr seem to release theirs weirdly. As they do yearly. ESO atleast by most seem to put their quarterly earnings at 18 million.
But both games are labeled as "declining". Lol. Even EAs own site calls it this. You think it's great for you to look at ur game and say its as goof as other declining games?.
Maybe pitting gw2 to WoW is "harsh" but their 2 PC only games which none of the other mmorpgs are in this conversation.
But maybe trying to push gw2 closer to WoW profits would hold more success then leaving the game in competition with declining games.
They both were 12million player audiences at their peaks. And you ignore this. The audience was the same for both games at their heights. Gw2 just fell out the sky far quicker.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:
You have to compare this game to games like ESO and SWToR if you want a more balanced comparison. The truth is, you don't like the game, or the game's direction so you're looking to find something that proves your point.
This only proves you really don't get businessOK then.
Gw2 earns less then SWoTR and ESO quarterly.
Lol it doesn't matter what you want to compare this to. Yes the gaps smaller. But it dont change the fact GW2 takes less.
Also, WoW isnt top, ffxiv by a massive number is lol.
Also, I've played eso, I played it for that expansion launch that gave necromancer, tbh its content drops are equally dwindling. Im guessing it's just the games secondary holdings.
Housing etc etc, which keeps its chugging. Ofcourse and its natural advantage on 3 consoles,
The point is. What do u rly wanna compare.
Eso has collectively pc xbox and PlayStation players on it. I mean do u consider it more fair when the game has 3x the audience by default of simply being on more platforms.
Similar to ffxiv to WoW.
And no, I do like gw2. I dont want the game to die. There's a difference. Given the games on a downward spiral it only inevitably will eventually come without change.
The content drops are getting smaller. Less people will each time buy them, until there's a serious issue.
We know the teams too small, the team have admitted they now don't have enough people to develope content properly. We know they axed 140+ employees with budget cuts
Saying that with the rumour to ditch gw2 for a new mmorpg. Maybe that's already cemented.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:
That would at least create some parity between the two, making one or the other better depending upon the encounter. As it stands, range is strictly an advantage with no downside. Does that seem fair to you?
The ideal scenario would have been to design the game as a normal trinity game from the start. That way we would have had tanks to control enemy positioning, with encounters designed with specific challenges for both ranged and melee classes, and support capable of targeting individuals players spread across the field as needed. But instead we got stack-in-a-pile, which nobody likes. And the borked solution: just force players to move sometimes and create a range/melee disparity.
But even right now. According to wingman warriors using a melee build are topping the list.
So while right now we have both melee and ranged representation in every fight. You will cull it to melee only.
Some classes best builds are ranged. Other classes best builds are melee.
-
4 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:
You could just read every thread on this subject to find the answer, but something tells me you're already aware that the "range advantage" comes into play during the times where either the boss is not stationary or mechanics require players to move out of melee range. To put that in perspective, let's say that both the boss and the players are stationary and at melee range for 90% of the encounter. In that scenario, the range advantage is 10% DPS uptime. 10% of the fight where range can attack while melee cannot. Does it make more sense for you now?
And reversing the situation completely murders use of ranged weapons in that content. So rly how does it make things any better?
And on wingman most of the top dpsers are melee. Lol, so something don't rly add up here. Virt sure is a ranged dps and tops some of them.
But warriors seem to be top of the meter more regularly
-
3 hours ago, Chronardis.4028 said:
Well duh, there's are many factors for that.
1. Warcraft franchise is older and far more known than Guild Wars franchise, and it has way more fans.
2. WoW exploded on launch, being the most casual MMO of its time. GW2 launched at the time when the genre had already gotten stale. Thus WoW had managed to gather a huge playerbase of which many were so hardcore that they'd remain through the rest of its life. I know this because I used to be one of them
WoW is older then gw2 sure, however WoW ans gw2 peaks were 12 million.
And WoW doesnt have that many more people playing it consistently then gw2 I'm afraid lol the games sub count by the end of SL was being rumoured to be aslow as 200k players. Prior obviously pre- expansion hype.
The difference is. WoW gets more money per player then gw2 does. Lol. Its that simple.
WoW did explode. 12million subs was a explosion back then. However the games fallen massively. Lmao,
Just as gw2 did too, the difference was when anet did it times had changed and 12million players wasn't considered massive. While a game like ffxiv has over 35 million subs.
Expecting gw2 to make 173 million a quater is sure unrealistic. But settling for 14 million is a different scale here.
Gw2 takes less then ESO even if u want to look at another game with "similar' state to gw2.
-
3
-
-
30 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:
Those aren't facts. They're opinions.
It's a opinon that expansions content quantity is decreased?.
If content developed for a game decreases. The amount of staff dedicated to the game decreases. Its logical to assume they're reducing costs put into the game.
-
1
-
3
-
-
45 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:
So, then, no you don't have any actual facts.
The fact this post exist is enough actual facts.
The fact we are questioning the content launching is proof. Lol, how can u say a expansion has no content and in the next breathe defend it must be making enough?
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Healix.5819 said:
Are you sure you were using a valid weapon for the profession? In PvE, if you open the hero panel and click on the weapon slot, the weapon should appear on the left, but it won't equip. In PvP, it equips. I can confirm a low level elementalist can still equip its elite weapons (2h hammer, sword and warhorn).
Yeah I can activate a elite fully on a level 1 in spvp wnviroment. Only in pve and wvwvw does it demand u have levelled a character already.
I could also use weapons master without unlocking it.
-
35 minutes ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:
Booster also comes with set of exotic celestial gear, for all that is worth it, but if I were to speculate, I'd say AN decided that espec weapon may somehow damage leveling experience or balancing of such? Dunno
Well tbh the elite weapons are fit with the elite speccs mechanic in mind. Maybe they thought the hype around unlocking a elite for the first time maybe lost if uve had the weapon all along
-
7 minutes ago, Vavume.8065 said:
If you think that is weird you might want to look at all the other things on the black lion store that Anet are selling despite the fact we can get them for free (subjective).
You mean the store we can convert gold into.
Games the cheapest box price on the market, without a optional or mandatory subscription like every other competitor, with no p2w methods via micro transactions.
Gw2 has many faults. But it doesnt have a dishonest monetization, I'd argue gw2 is the most consumer friendly mmorpg on the market by a mile lol
-
2
-
-
On 9/17/2023 at 10:22 PM, Linnael.1069 said:
Anet, why are you balancing 1200+ range options to have the same DPS as melee options?
It's painfully obvious that there will ALWAYS be an issue with scourge/virt/etc. when they can just do constant DPS from anywhere, while melee has to stop and run around for mechanics. Can we please remind ANET that range is a big advantage which should come with a trade-off? They seem to have forgotten that
Brcause regardless of using melee or ranged weapons your stacked in melee. So regardless to what ur going to sit in melee. So why shouldn't they be equally balanced.
-
It's likely the animations teams budget has been shrunk and as so is forced to recycle more animations. Either this, or the teams too small to have someone input as many hours as required to develope enough new skills.
-
2
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Zera.9435 said:
It's to incentivize you to buy a level 80 booster.
That's a weird take considering we have tomes in the game to boost ur char to 80... we have a free method to boost classes...
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Chronardis.4028 said:
It's actually high quality, but not much quantity. I'm personally pretty happy with the quality of what we got so far.
I suspose it depends on what your looking at specifically. Anet are terrible at tying up lose ends. There are so many half baked concepts that sit in the game.
But sure, SoTo story is good, the enviroments are good, metas are always on point and enjoyable.
But their servers are struggling in regards to WvWvW, spvp is pretty abandoned. And optimisation hasn't been 100% finished. But I suspose even WoWs guilty of such
-
5
-
-
3 hours ago, Tanuki.4603 said:
I miss the days of Living World, with full scope updates. Nowadays i just feel lied to as a customer
Tbh they were honest about living world.
They're teams too small to actually make living world story along side expansions. And it takes em 9 months to make one 😂
Ofcourse they overpromise they ain't got a work force large enougu to actually develope a mmorpg. They tried to massive come back in EoD it still flopped.
It made its decision its the cheapest mmorpg on the market, low quality but costs barely anything.
-
5
-
-
7 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:
Whose expectations? If the profits aren't meeting the company's goals to satisfy their shareholders, I've not seen any evidence of that. Neither have you, unless you're on the company's board.
The fact the games getting smaller and smaller in production. The teams continously get axed in size kinds proves this? Lol.
Games looking very healthy?
Games run on a skeleton crew?.. you generally do this when your Games on life support lol.
If you cant see a problem with 2 Games in the exact same market are 150million apart in profits, then I can't make u pull ur head out the sand.
I'm sorry, but when a team is so small they litterally say "we can't do living story because our team can't work on 2 things at the same time due to size"
Even gw2s biggest fanboi Teapot has thrown the towel in
Eh I cba. I forget how gw2 players have this concept of paying the absolute minimum for top quality.
Adios.
-
2
-
1
-
5
-
-
5 hours ago, Scar.1793 said:
Your comparison is off.
Just as example, a WoW expansion (base edition if you want to compare to base SotO) is 49.99€.
Are you saying that by missing ~30€, you can justify having a half baked expansion that is more of a small DLC than actual expansion
Gw2s quarterly earnings are 22 billion KW, (14 million)
WoW quarterly earnings are 173million per quarter.
No, we are saying this is what 150million pounds makes difference wise, WoW is a sub based game to play. Gw2 is not. Lol. But ignore that if you really like.
A b2p game, without a sub should be more expensive then a sub based games box price to begin with. Because of that Lol.
Hence why. NON sub based games in 2023 drop at £80 like hogwarts now we have a store unlike that game so prolly should be that extremely high. But I think people miss the fact
B2p games are nowadays £70+ at launches.
Zelda has a 4 year old game that still sells for more money then gw2 prices its brand new box prices.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:
What's pretty obvious here, pretty much the only thing that is, is that you have a pet theory and you're willing to interpret all facts to support it
Lol.
They tried to give up entirely on the game during PoF.
They had to drop every project and start a expansion hald way through doing so.
Living world story got hacked because they said they can't manage both due to team limitations.
Soto comes out with basically 0 content.
22.7 billion KW, is 14 million pounds. Lol blizzard takes 173million per quarter. Lol considering most consider WoW to be falling, and the games constantly named "dead" the fact your defending this games earnings are laughable.
-
1
-
2
-
-
58 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:
No, the price is set by the producer according to their perception of their needs and general economic conditions, value is determined by the individual for himself. Value, particularly when discussing luxury goods, is subjective.
Lol. No, if anet thought they could get more money for their expansions they would, the games extremely cheap when compared to other mmorpgs box prices. And jts obvious why.
It isnt set according to their needs, if their needs wrre being met, the games team wouldn't of been axed to a skeleton crew, and content wouldn't be shrinking lol.
It's very obvious anet opted into reducing content development considerably to reduce the price of their game.
-
4
-
-
46 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:
On what do you base this simple fact?
The fact gw2s makes 14million a quarter. And it being ncsofts lowest earner,
The fact its team dedicated to the game is so small they can't work on more then 1 project.
140 job axes in PoF.
Apart from this, games don't tend to mess with games monetization etc etc unless it's not working.
Its pretty obvious, GW2 isnt generating enough money. Regardless if you think it should be, its not reaching the expectations set upon it.
-
2
-
1
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Ashantara.8731 said:
I don't think you get the actual point behind people's complaints. The following post summarized it perfectly:
❕❕❕
My point doesn't disagree with him.
My point is what he's stating won't happen while ur paying £20 a expansion its that simple.
You cant spend £20 and expect a good expansion, I'd have rather spend £60 for a expansion base, and get a expansion the size of HoT with a team able to expand
Then pay £20 per mini yearly expansion. I want anet to produce a product they have so much faith in they will stick a Triple A game price tag on the product. And allow the product to show why its worth the input.
The only difference is.
I mention words gw2 players don't like.
To get the improvements demanded, ur going to have to spend more money.
£20 of content is dissapointing lol, that's just factual nobody is going to seriously be impressed by £20 of content. Its like telling your kid to go into a toys r us with £20 to spend.
Whatever they get was worth the money. But the £120 toy was cooler. So he by nature be less impressed by what he ended up with
But thats the key here. Money talks. End of lol, anets budget won't enlarge without its prices following suit.
We play a game with 0 p2w. 0 power skips and 0 enforced incenvtivization. The box price has to go up. Lol
Here's the fact.
Everything either has to increase in price, or decrease in size, look at chocolate bars, look at McDonald's the list go on, they retained their prices by shrinking the product.
The issue is gw2 is doing the same thing. Their shrinking the product to retain its pricing. And this doesn't work for a Game.
Now it's your turn to decide.
Do you want gw2 to retain its price, but reduce in size, or prices go up with inflation but size is retained.
-
1 hour ago, soul.9651 said:
Dont bother. The forums are infested with people who will defend anet blindly at any costs, plus they wont accept any other opinion than "gw2 is best mmo ever and you are wrong", especially when "wow" is mentioned in any shape or form as a comparison. Plus you are not wrong, and im enjoying my half a year break from the game which still continues just because how dissapointing SoTo was instanced content wise and how they cant fix some annoying bugs since a release
Except saying that its worth the price set for it, isn't defending gw2? Lol. If anything its insulting it.
£20 for a expansion in 2023 is budget level at best, its certainly not a triple A launch price that's for sure.
That isnt saying we are happy with the content either. It's simply saying the game can only muster a value of £20 😂😂
Everyones disappointed in SoTo. The fact its worth a £20 price tG doesn't say otherwise lmfao. I'd rather pay £80 for a full sized expansion in all honesty. I'd prefer gw2 to be successful enough to compete in the TRIPLE A market.
But it can't.
You guys have sat in gw2 for too long. And have accepted this cheap game concept to be fine. And thats the real issue here, if you want quality. You pay for quality. A £20 price tag game is scrapping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to options.
We arent defending gw2, we are telling you £20 doesn't hold the value you assossiate with it.
-
1
-
Are we really comfortable paying for unfinished expansions?
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted · Edited by Puck.3697
Doesn't change the vast reduction in quantity of content.
The game has no content. Lol. Quality ain't the issue. The fact the game isn't launching enougu actual content is the issue.
Games losing development. and thats a indication of a problem. HOT compared to SoTo is day and night when looking at sheer content launched.