Grouch's New Q&A Interview

[Kiki.9450]

Thank you for posting this! It was a great read. I'm happy to see the team has grown and I hope they new additions are acclimating well, and I hope that the new approach to content development continues to go well for Anet.

Looking forward to playing with the results. 🙂

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Taclism.2406 said:

Its not even about forgetting, like I mentionned it was already completely out when I started. And to be fair, that info is buried under each episode specific wiki page. The page for lws4 only mentions it dropped on nov 2017.
I was first gonna say to astralporing "why mention 2018 layoffs for a release that didnt affected it" but I'm glad I looked up the details before making a fool of myself 😛

Fair enough, also not judging. Just saying,  some veterans which were around from the early days or very beginning might do well to re-familiarize themselves with how "great" those glory days actually were.

Now that does not absolve the developers from having to develop and provide fun content, but it does contradict some of the complaints about content amount.

[KindredPhoenyx.8976]

3 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Some of those episodes were pretty loaded, too.  I remember "a star to guide us" in particular had a ridiculous amount of achievements and lore.

I am gonna bang the drum of S4 was good storywise (at least to me, this is a subjective opinion ofc), but I don't miss the achievement bloat that S3 and S4 had.

I kinda prefer the new formula of "there's things to do, but it's not requiring 50 hours of your time to complete." I like being able to complete stuff, put it down, and come back with new releases.

Edited December 23, 2023 by KindredPhoenyx.8976

[SweetPotato.7456]

what is "non-projectile ranged damage options"?

got the answer, please disregard.

Edited December 23, 2023 by SweetPotato.7456

[ugrakarma.9416]

8 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Like i have already mentioned, LS4 was not a peak of gw2. Remember, that it was a time when they shuffled many of the company resourcess off GW2 towards other projects, which resulted in cancellation of Expansion 3, moving directly into LS5 (IBS), and, eventually, layoffs. If anything, it was a start of a decline phase. From this point of view, peak would be LS3, not 4.

specially the weird release of "long live the lich". 

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Fair enough, also not judging. Just saying,  some veterans which were around from the early days or very beginning might do well to re-familiarize themselves with how "great" those glory days actually were.

Now that does not absolve the developers from having to develop and provide fun content, but it does contradict some of the complaints about content amount.

At the same time, essentially telling people they don't know what they like is complete nonsense.  PoF/LS4 wasn't without its issues, but it was a LOT more content and there was plenty to like about it.  I look at the quantity and quality of content released then and SotO doesn't even come close to measuring up.

[Lucius.2140]

15 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Stuff about LS4, PoF, LS3 and Anet's team size!!!

Seems like they did have more people when they produced PoF. Would be interesting to know how many more.

[Eekasqueak.7850]

2 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

At the same time, essentially telling people they don't know what they like is complete nonsense.  PoF/LS4 wasn't without its issues, but it was a LOT more content and there was plenty to like about it.  I look at the quantity and quality of content released then and SotO doesn't even come close to measuring up.

We know pushing that amount of content that quickly for so little money wasn't sustainable though. 

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

At the same time, essentially telling people they don't know what they like is complete nonsense.  PoF/LS4 wasn't without its issues, but it was a LOT more content and there was plenty to like about it.  I look at the quantity and quality of content released then and SotO doesn't even come close to measuring up.

I'm not saying SotO or EoD are without issues, but the level to which season 4 is getting hyped is surreal and a large amount of that is based in strait up false memories/claims.

The same applies to HoT. HoT was loathed by a large part of the player base and we have the player numbers, sales and revenue to back that up. Yet if talked about one could get the impression it was this amazing flawless release. 

HoT and PoF and their subsequent LW had a ton of issues, many similar to the issues of today.

The difference between today and PoF/season 4 though is: the game now seems sustainable.

[Balsa.3951]

14 hours ago, Futa.4375 said:

I don't get how this interview is interesting in any way, it's the usual fluff from Josh Davis.

was not much said i agree. most answers where a lets see we working on it and a surprise will come soon wink wink.

what i wonder with next xpac comes 2024 will we get everything promised from SOTO before that date? it seems rather tight time line.

it would be kinda no idea how to put it.... different...to not get all from SOTO promised but already a new expansion is out.

 

one information was very good tho that there team is half the size of other nmos. thats exteme

Edited December 23, 2023 by Balsa.3951

[Lucius.2140]

14 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The difference between today and PoF/season 4 though is: the game now seems sustainable.

PoF was sustainable, Anet problems happened later and were layooffs that cut other projects.

If, before that, they redirected people towards those projects (which seems what happened there) then thats a different issue, perhaps they did it thinking mantain permanently the LS? And ofc the system of free LS collapsed totally with IBS, lesson learned too late imo.

[Cyninja.2954]

15 minutes ago, Lucius.2140 said:

PoF was sustainable, Anet problems happened later and were layooffs that cut other projects.

If, before that, they redirected people towards those projects (which seems what happened there) then thats a different issue, perhaps they did it thinking mantain permanently the LS? And ofc the system of free LS collapsed totally with IBS, lesson learned too late imo.

Not according to their revenue in quarterly reports, which hit an all time low towards the end of season 4 (and the fact that season 4 could have been the final lw season.) and was on a continous downward trajectory from PoF onward.

We dont know how revenue would have been if no side projects had been funded, we only know that the way season 4 was worked on and the way it was monetized was not sustainable for the studio which ultimately lead to the layoffs early 2019.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Lucius.2140]

1 minute ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Not according to their revenue in quarterly reports, which hit an all time low towards the end of season 4 (and the fact that season 4 could have been the final lw season.).

We dont know how revenue would have been if no side projects had been funded, we only know that the way season 4 was worked on and the way it was monetized was not sustainable for the studio which ultimately lead to the layoffs early 2019.

I will separate PoF itself from LS4. That was LS4 failure or the fact they didnt announce another expansion as you put.  From my perspective LS always rode and hindered the successes of early pay to play content, like GW2 core and HoT.

[Cyninja.2954]

15 minutes ago, Lucius.2140 said:

I will separate PoF itself from LS4. That was LS4 failure or the fact they didnt announce another expansion as you put.  From my perspective LS always rode and hindered the successes of early pay to play content, like GW2 core and HoT.

I can agree to that, though even PoF only bumped the revenue a bit. It took a while for players to realize the value of that expansion (and let's again remember: PoF released with a lot of content which needed "fixing". The entire meta redesign for one and severe amount of class balance too).

The main benefit of PoF was the buzz it created with the mount system as well as longterm net gain to the games movement/perception (not without its issues but I'd say a net positive for many players).

And that's the issue imo: on their own none of the past expansions did something drastically better than EoD/SotO (though I believe HoT did bring the best atmosphere and map design). Their content was either payed for with huge content drought or large amount of time deploying fixes (HoT had over 6 months of reworks post launch).

What HoT and PoF did though, what EoD and SotO did not: they reimagined how this game can be played (gliding and mounts) and that's what lead to large amount of enjoyment for players.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I'm not saying SotO or EoD are without issues, but the level to which season 4 is getting hyped is surreal and a large amount of that is based in strait up false memories/claims.

The same applies to HoT. HoT was loathed by a large part of the player base and we have the player numbers, sales and revenue to back that up. Yet if talked about one could get the impression it was this amazing flawless release. 

HoT and PoF and their subsequent LW had a ton of issues, many similar to the issues of today.

The difference between today and PoF/season 4 though is: the game now seems sustainable.

Maintenance mode is a sustainable format, too, you know?  That doesn't make it superior.  I want more and better content than we're getting with SotO and I'm willing to pay for it.  If the game is really doing so well, I think they could afford to invest more into it than the $25/year worth of mediocre content they're pushing with this model.  

[Cyninja.2954]

Just now, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Maintenance mode is a sustainable format, too, you know?

It is, and that was where the game was headed.

Just now, AliamRationem.5172 said:

  That doesn't make it superior.  I want more and better content than we're getting with SotO and I'm willing to pay for it.  If the game is really doing so well, I think they could afford to invest more into it than the $25/year worth of mediocre content they're pushing with this model.  

The game is doing better now, it didn't in the past.

If it continues to do better, we might see changes in that direction. NCSoft themselves took a huge gamble when they decided to inject 130 million into their western game devisions but even that money can go only so far.

What you are essentially complaing about is that the game did poorly in the past and doesn't have the resources now it could have, while also praising the past for its greatness.

[AliamRationem.5172]

7 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

It is, and that was where the game was headed.

The game is doing better now, it didn't in the past.

If it continues to do better, we might see changes in that direction. NCSoft themselves took a huge gamble when they decided to inject 130 million into their western game devisions but even that money can go only so far.

What you are essentially complaing about is that the game did poorly in the past and doesn't have the resources now it could have, while also praising the past for its greatness.

And you're white knighting content that isn't very good on the basis that it's unrealistic to expect more.  If the sin of the past is that they didn't charge more, then maybe if the game is doing so well they should invest more into it, develop more, and charge more for it.  Makes sense to me.

[Cyninja.2954]

6 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

And you're white knighting content that isn't very good on the basis that it's unrealistic to expect more.  If the sin of the past is that they didn't charge more, then maybe if the game is doing so well they should invest more into it, develop more, and charge more for it.  Makes sense to me.

Pointing out unrealistc or flawed assumptions is not white knighting. I've been critical enough of the game.

Also are you seriously claiming that the game should charge more and that would solve all the issues? Have you followed the reactions on these forums?

Even the latest shift to monetize living world via fusing it with expansions had players up in arms, and it's the price of a pizza at best, per year.

Sure, I agree. The game should charge more and with that money hire more developers and deliver more content. Since I have no idea how their metrics are though, and knowing how notoriously price sensitive this community is, I can not make a good faith argument that this would go well.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

one thing to keep in mind is that when every expansion releases, it has its major haters. when heart of thorns released, it was even most of the player base since they basically found a way to alienate every type of player at release (remember the guild overhaul, for example?), and yet today it would be considered the best and most featured expansion of the game, and would probably be considered to have the least amount of bugs and other issues too.

 

then you have path of fire which looked pretty mediocre until living world season 4 and some quality of life changes made it a masterpiece.

 

icebrood saga is seen as probably the worst addition to the game since it was released, and yet it gave us many hallmarks of the modern guild wars, like strike missions, free player hubs, waystations (a major open-world powercreep), and many new interesting achievement and puzzle designs.

 

similarly, players may not like gyala delve, but when you combine it with the rest of end of dragons instead of seeing it as standalone, it makes the entire eod story very long and full with plenty of maps to chose from, each with their own distinct flavor of gameplay (perhaps the "fullest" campaign in the game, emotionally).

 

when secrets of the obscure finishes, it'll probably look the same way. we'll look back on it for all the things it brought to the game, like a few years from now when players can't even live without stuff like weapon master training or the improved methods of legendary crafting.

 

i think players get too caught up in the here and now, and fail to see the big picture, even though they experience it every day.

Edited December 23, 2023 by SoftFootpaws.9134

[Elena.8734]

12 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Ah the power of rose tinted glasses.

A part of it is Rose tinted glasses effect, another is just that a pretty big part of the community isn't playing the game full time.

I personally play 2-4 times a year for about a month before leaving for a while and have done that since the first year. During LWS 3-PoT-4, i remember i was doing  between 1-2 episode each time i was coming back. It never felt like a content drought for me the way i play GW2 (even tho i totally understand  a player who main GW2 to complain). I've never seen the game as one to main, but as the single best secondary MMO to play. Ironically, while GW2 is always my second MMO to play, the main MMO i play changed quite often, which means that maybe apart WoW, GW2 is the MMO i played the most.

With my way to play, LW S4 was pretty good, The story was nice, maps were pretty fun to play in for a while (even tho the first half was weaker than the second) and it kind of released a patch around each moment i was thinking about coming back. I had a very good time at that time with the game. I had a much bigger problem with the draught after Icebrood saga

 

12 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

they left for 2-3 months until the next living world released. Which also lead to the abysmal revenue situation during that time frame.

Honestly, i don't know about your way to spend in the Gemstore, but the fact i dont have a subscription on this game makes me not having any regret when it comes to spend here and there on the store. I'm even happy to help financing the game doing so. Pretty much each time i come back, i found something worth buying. I must have something like 30$ worth of  buying each time. Considering i'm playing 2-4 times a year, it means it's kinda about 60-120$ per year. Add to that an expac a year now and it's about 140-200$ a year.

In comparison, in Wow i pay 120$-ish in subscription +1-2 things (20$ each) in the store when something really awesome come out. Add the Expansion (Now about 90$ per 1.5 year) and it come to about 200-220$ per year.

To be fair, if i was to main GW2, i would not even pay that, cause i would farm it in Gold (which i already do sometimes even without playing that much). I do it on Wow to pay many things. Ive bought some Expansions, my Blizzcon virtual tickets and other blizzard games (Overwatch and D4) that way. I would argue that Regular Returner players  are probably more profitable to Anet than someone staying on the game H24, especially on GW2 where gold farming rapidly becomes the main objective once you've done the main content.

 

[Cyninja.2954]

37 minutes ago, Elena.8734 said:

I would argue that Regular Returner players  are probably more profitable to Anet than someone staying on the game H24, especially on GW2 where gold farming rapidly becomes the main objective once you've done the main content.

That's an assumption which you base on your subjective approach to how you interact with the game.

Unfortunately it's likely not reflected in how the majority of people spend their money. That's why one of the main design principles for most live service games has been: keep players engaged and most important, logging in (hence the login bonuses left and right).

You are also making an assumption and taking a huge gamble on players actually returning. How much money have you spent on the game while you were NOT actively playing it and how much money would you be spending if you never returned? Are you seeing the issue here? Some players never return once they take a break.

People in general spend money depending on different factors. One of the most important is the financial ability to do so (or worst case having access to financial means, even if one can/should not afford it). The second is habbit. The third is engagement. After which things like fomo, sunk cost, etc come into play. 

TL;DR:

The assumtpion that return players are some of the highest spenders falls appart once you factor in that some of the "return players" might never return. 

The highest spenders are most likely players which have disposable income and of those, the ones which are most likely to spend money are the ones most engaged with the game (this can be also apply to new players which are greatly enjoying the game, have a lot of quality of life items for purchase and disposable income while lacking time).

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[AliamRationem.5172]

3 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Pointing out unrealistc or flawed assumptions is not white knighting. I've been critical enough of the game.

Also are you seriously claiming that the game should charge more and that would solve all the issues? Have you followed the reactions on these forums?

Even the latest shift to monetize living world via fusing it with expansions had players up in arms, and it's the price of a pizza at best, per year.

Sure, I agree. The game should charge more and with that money hire more developers and deliver more content. Since I have no idea how their metrics are though, and knowing how notoriously price sensitive this community is, I can not make a good faith argument that this would go well.

For all that, you seem to have convinced yourself that SotO is some sort of sweet spot of price-to-development resources.  I don't know their metrics either.  I just know the current model sucks for me and I'd gladly pay more if it meant more and better quality content.  The 1/3rd of a map with 10 minutes of story per quarter they seem to have set as their target isn't it for me.

[Elena.8734]

43 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

That's an assumption which you base on your subjective approach to how you interact with the game.

Unfortunately it's likely not reflected in how the majority of people spend their money. That's why one of the main design principles for most live service games has been: keep players engaged and most important, logging in (hence the login bonuses left and right).

You are also making an assumption and taking a huge gamble on players actually returning. How much money have you spent on the game while you were NOT actively playing it and how much money would you be spending if you never returned? Are you seeing the issue here? Some players never return once they take a break.

People in general spend money depending on different factors. One of the most important is the financial ability to do so (or worst case having access to financial means, even if one can/should not afford it). The second is habbit. The third is engagement. After which things like fomo, sunk cost, etc come into play. 

TL;DR:

The assumtpion that return players are some of the highest spenders falls appart once you factor in that some of the "return players" might never return. 

The highest spenders are most likely players which have disposable income and of those, the ones which are most likely to spend money are the ones most engaged with the game (this can be also apply to new players which are greatly enjoying the game, have a lot of quality of life items for purchase and disposable income while lacking time).

Yes, i'm making assumptions from my personal experience and from what i see from friends who also play the game pretty much the same way.

GW2 is not meant to be played as main MMO. Not from a business model point of view. Think about it.

I'm a casual. I'm doing endgame easy content. Still, i make 12-20gold a day without even thinking about it. Assuming i got invested in the game and played about the same kind of everyday. It means i do 16 gold per day, which result in about 5700 gold a year. It enough to buy about 13000 gems at the current rate, which is FAR more than what i use in a year by buying it.

Any engaged player isn't worth a dime. And imagine, I'm not even raiding or actively gold farming. Plus, i keep all my comps to craft Legos. I could easily go over 50-70 gold per day by selling everything.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Elena.8734

[Cyninja.2954]

27 minutes ago, Elena.8734 said:

Yes, i'm making ssumptions from my personal experience and from what i see from friends who also play the game pretty much the same way.

GW2 is not ment to be played as main MMO. Not from a business model point of view. Think about it.

I'm a casual. I'm doing endgame easy content. Still, i make 12-20gold a day without even thinking about it. Assuming i got invested in the game and played about the same kind of everyday. It means i do 16 gold per day, which result in about 5700 gold a year. It enough to buy about 13000 gems at the current rate, which is FAR more than what i use in a year by buying it.

Any engaged player isn't worth a dime. And imagine, i'm not even raiding or actively gold farming. Plus, i keep all my comps to craft Legos. I could easily go over 50-70 gold per day by selling everything.

Not to shatter your bubble, have you ever encounterd one of the threads where people mention how they spent 5k $/€ on gems and keys? 

You mentioned that you'd convert gold to gems if you were playing continously. Great, means the players which convert gems to gold get more and are incentivised more to do so. Given the rather stable exchange rate over the years, that could be 1 indicator which points to that happening equally (aka enough players are buying gems and exchanging those for gold).

At the amout of money you spend, you aren't even a fish, not to mention a dolphin or whale. That's where the big money comes in. Dolphins and whales, except for the most degenrate spontaneous gamblers, spend money on things they are invested in.

I am not arguing if GW2 makes for a good main MMO or not. I'm saying the business model around players treating it as a second MMO didn't work. Which is why we have seen the changes made ever since IBS.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Cyninja.2954]

50 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

For all that, you seem to have convinced yourself that SotO is some sort of sweet spot of price-to-development resources.  I don't know their metrics either.  I just know the current model sucks for me and I'd gladly pay more if it meant more and better quality content.  The 1/3rd of a map with 10 minutes of story per quarter they seem to have set as their target isn't it for me.

I'm unhappy with SotO for different reasons. The instanced content is not quality wise where it should be imo and given we are getting so little of it, it has to be better (unlike say WoW or FF14, which get dozens of dungeons/raids and it doesn't matter if half of them are kitten).

I couldn't care less about open world content. That's what I do inbetween the stuff which actually matters to me (WvW, instanced content).

Release wise, predictabilty wise and content amount wise, SotO is pretty much what I expected what the studio can deliver for a reliable period of time. Then again I also went in with my eyes open and double checking how much content we got in the past and once you factor for content drought, there were very few moments where it was significantly more than SotO. At best 1 episode more per year, without working on larger content drops (aka mini expansions).

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cyninja.2954