The iterative process ruins this game potential

[Doctor Hide.6345]

9 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Need i mention build templates, that are a very good example of the "profit over quality" approach? Or the original "mountgate", where MO admitted that the first mount select license was designed to be random, because they knew that only some of the skins in it were worth the gem price tag? Or lootboxes in general being an epitome of greedy approach to sales and marketing?

And all that was before restructurizing that made Anet of today not a semi-independent studio as it was before, but just an extension of NCSoft, which is very well known for going for profit over anything else.

     You already know my general feelings on the blog post, so I am not going to repeat them here. But, yeah, I kind of forgot about mountgate. I was one of those that called foul on it when it did happen. I am glad they added the pick your own skin eventually after enough complaints on it though. I think this is how I feel now tbh about everything going with the changes. It feels like mountgate to me except most people are not against the changes it seems with this. 

     Oh well, just put this here to thank you for the reminder of that incident. Back to the regular scheduled TV shows I go. 

[Astralporing.1957]

6 hours ago, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

Build templates were brilliant for some

Oh, i am sure there will be people that like them. Unfortunately, mostly among those that needed the template system the least, though. Some people liking them does not make them brilliant, though. Nor does it change the fact that their design suffers from monetization features hampering its potential (and not by a small margin). It is a clear example of design where monetization was far, far more important than actual utility of the feature, and where that utility suffered as a result. Which was the very point i was making.

6 hours ago, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

i've bought many for example

So? The very purpose of greedy moneygrab designs is for people to buy them - if noone was interested, businesses would not try to use those, because there would be no point.

Again, it does not make those types of marketing tactics any more "player friendly". When doing those noone in reality cares about players at all, all that is important is whether those will be profitable enough or not.

It's the same approach as with lockboxes, in reality.

 

[Artyport.2084]

13 hours ago, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

 

a release page is not a core factor that defines the consistency of guild wars 2 as a cohesive long lived product either is a map.   

That’s ridiculous consistent advertising is totally important to a games health. 
As well as delivering consistent content . 
 

 

[Bladestrom.6425]

9 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Oh, i am sure there will be people that like them. Unfortunately, mostly among those that needed the template system the least, though. Some people liking them does not make them brilliant, though. Nor does it change the fact that their design suffers from monetization features hampering its potential (and not by a small margin). It is a clear example of design where monetization was far, far more important than actual utility of the feature, and where that utility suffered as a result. Which was the very point i was making.

So? The very purpose of greedy moneygrab designs is for people to buy them - if noone was interested, businesses would not try to use those, because there would be no point.

Again, it does not make those types of marketing tactics any more "player friendly". When doing those noone in reality cares about players at all, all that is important is whether those will be profitable enough or not.

It's the same approach as with lockboxes, in reality.

 

I don't think it was a greedy money grab, they created something that wasn't a skin that added real QOL to the game.   As i said desirable (tick) not mandatory (tick)  is a good thing, not a bad thing, otherwise we would argue any desirable thing in a shop is a moneygrab

 

I would also say a game that's been no Sub for 10 years is hardly worth of 'moneygrab' slurs.  Bear in mind to design and build something like the templates at production strength is not cheap.

Edited February 27, 2023 by vesica tempestas.1563

[Bladestrom.6425]

2 minutes ago, Artyport.2084 said:

That’s ridiculous consistent advertising is totally important to a games health. 
As well as delivering consistent content . 
 

 

I said it is not part of the product,. its not.  What matters to us consumers is whether its a quality product we enjoy.  

Edited February 27, 2023 by vesica tempestas.1563

[The Boz.2038]

15 hours ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

Tank/Spank/Support is very much a thing in GW2.

And compare core classes to elites - creep is very clear, PoF was biggest offender.

Trinity in other games: This class is a healer. It is never anything other than a healer. This other class is a tank. It is never anything other than a tank. Etc.
Trinity in GW2: "Can anyone switch to heal? Anyone at all? Hey, do you know this boss' patterns? Could you pick up a piece of Trailblazer gear and tank?"

Power creep in other games: New expansion came out. Gear now gives 20% more stats and weapons deal 20% more damage and armors have 20% more defense. Get on the treadmill, ignore the previous content.
Power creep in GW2: It is better to use an elite spec than not to use an elite spec, but they're not progressively better as you go along the expansions. Oh, and if you really squint and pretend to be dumb, you could argue that 4-stat gear is an upgrade.

[Astralporing.1957]

9 hours ago, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

I don't think it was a greedy money grab, they created something that wasn't a skin that added real QOL to the game.   As i said desirable (tick) not mandatory (tick)  is a good thing, not a bad thing, otherwise we would argue any desirable thing in a shop is a moneygrab

You don't seeing how the design parts of the template feature that are meant to monetize it severely hamper its utility doesn't change the fact that they do. Looking at the design it's clear that it was not the utility, but the monetization that was its primary purpose, and that this primary purpose caused them to design the feature in ways that made it worse.

Again, you still finding it useful instead of this doesn't change that. I mean, it's clear that it had to offer something, at least, or nobody would bother to buy it, but the desire to sell it caused the whole feature to be significantly subpar compared to what was possible (and we know that, because a third party solution was in many ways far superior to it, and because the monetization features can be clearly seen, and anyone paying attention is able to see how they work against the primary utility purpose of the feature).

9 hours ago, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

Bear in mind to design and build something like the templates at production strength is not cheap.

Again, a third party solution, that Anet (intentionally) killed by releasing their own, was in many ways far superior to what we've got. And the issues (you may not see them personally, but they are there, and are not minor) are not a result of them not having resources to release a good quality system - they are caused by intentional design, that was a byproduct of desire to monetize.

And, for the third time, you seeing it or not does not change all of that.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Astralporing.1957

[vares.8457]

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

You don't seeing how the design parts of the template feature that are meant to monetize it severely hamper its utility doesn't change the fact that they do. Looking at the design it's clear that it was not the utility, but the monetization that was its primary purpose, and that this primary purpose caused them to design the feature in ways that made it worse.

Again, you still finding it useful instead of this doesn't change that. I mean, it's clear that it had to offer something, at least, or nobody would bother to buy it, but the desire to sell it caused the whole feature to be significantly subpar compared to what was possible (and we know that, because a third party solution was in many ways far superior to it, and because the monetization features can be clearly seen, and anyone paying attention is able to see how they work against the primary utility purpose of the feature).

Again, a third party solution, that Anet (intentionally) killed by releasing their own, was in many ways far superior to what we've got. And the issues (you may not see them personally, but they are there, and are not minor) are not a result of them not having resources to release a good quality system - they are caused by intentional design, that was a byproduct of desire to monetize.

And, for the third time, you seeing it or not does not change all of that.

Of course they had to monetize it, you seem to forget that a company wants and needs to earn money. A company has to pay their employees. We don’t pay a subscription for the game so they have to look for other sources of income. It’s naive to think that the people at Anet work for free. it’s their job and they expect to get money for it, someone who develops a program as a hobby in his free time doesn’t. 
The problem with third party programs is that not everyone uses or wants to use them, in game solutions are always preferable. 

You can’t know that monetization was the primary purpose. Is it yet again your personal opinion presented as fact or do you have a source for that? Then please provide the source. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by vares.8457

[Dreams.3128]

On 2/15/2023 at 6:51 AM, Artyport.2084 said:

You can cry entitled all you want but again this game is holding itself back with its inconsistency. 

Other games can be likened to cars. One time purchases where you get their value and once the value has run out you get another. 
 

mmorpgs are fundamentally different. They are about communities. I own an operate a yoga studio and I can tell you if I was inconsistent I wouldn’t have a client base as big as I do. Because yoga studio like mmorpgs are about community. 
 

I’ve been in like 8 guilds since they game started. They usually have a big boon around the expansion and then when things get quiet people disappear. 
 

I contrast this with my ffxiv guild and because there is some whisper of new content being added and the game has shown it has potential to be consistent people stay around even during the long pauses. 
 

Again you can white knight the game all you want you are only contributing to its mediocre status when the game has potential to be great.

 

maybe I am entitled.. but at least I’m not complacent 

Admitting you are entitled is not..really a good trait, at all. While no one here is saying to be complacent, people HERE, specifically, in GW2,  seem to suddenly become devs, programmers, and marketing experts and feel it is there right to say how Anet should correct this game.

I don't know why people think it is smart to compared GW2 to FF when they have completely different models and kinds of people that they attract. Of course, FF folks are going to stick around, and remain complacent when they have contact that basically almost bottlenecks them into that content until the next little bit is released a couple of months later. GW2 has the thing of releasing everything at once and let either a year or so (with a few bits of new content sprinkled every couple of months) until the new big thing comes around and they drop another expansion.

And no, those whispers don't keep FF players around because I have seen myself guilds go quiet for literal months and see nothing but complaints for the new expansion to arrive. Then they complain on every media platform possible because all that theme park bloat and busywork can't keep them busy enough, or those raids they release have such ridiculous mechanics that the majority doesn't even end up doing them and just afk for the rest of their sub.

There's a difference of being reasonable and realist, and then just being downright greedy because people just want to binge play for whatever reason they want to.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Dreams.3128

[Bladestrom.6425]

To help the OP understand why their thinking on iteration is flawed.:

https://www.karagamedesign.com/post/the-game-design-iteration-cycle-makes-your-game-shine

'When a designer comes up with some game concept, he cannot fully grasp it is because design systems have much more complexity than our mind can handle.  So the process of iterating is crucial because it allows us to understand what we created. And in the process, we discover fallacies and holes that we can cover to improve it.'

'Iterating on a game system means extrapolating its most elegant version, the one that manages to generate the target experience requiring the least amount of effort possible from the player.'

'Design is a form of communication.'

'as you keep the minimum quality required to understand the experience, the shorter the loop, the better.'

'Minor incremental steps reduce errors and result in a better design in the long run.'

'People tend to conclude that the design process must be quick, but the key takeaway is that loops must be short, not the whole design process.'

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by vesica tempestas.1563

[Jianyu.7065]

I just believe, if you feel this strongly about the direction a game developer is taking - the best way to give your opinion the impact you believe it should have, is to get into game development. 

 

Sure, I understand it's frustrating when the devs aren't doing what you want, but their aim to please doesn't always have the best interest of 1, or a 1000, or 10000 etc. people in mind. And thats okay because none of us do anything that is best for everyone.