Thoughts about GW3 [Merged]

[Gehenna.3625]

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Yes, there are several succesful MMORPGs now. And for the most part those are the very same MMORPGs as then. None of them is young.

No, but they're still very popular and are doing better than GW2.

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Yes, which is one of the reasons why new MMORPGs have issues - they do not have an untapped group of players to potentially draw upon. They need to persuade MMORPG veterans to abandon their current games (or, in case of the sequel, that the new game is better than the one before it - just being as good will not be enough to balance the loss of years of investment in the previous title).

GW2 will never convince those people to do that because those games have things that GW2 doesn't have or barely has that those players will be looking for.

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

I'd say the question is how low they will aim. And stuff like Throne and Liberty shows that for NCSoft at least the current threshold is very low indeed.

Well, when you ask how high it still can be low, so in the end it comes down to the same thing. But there's a limited group of players in GW2 today that's not going to get much bigger, and the fight for Anet is not growth but rather to keep enough players spending money on GW2 so they can keep their sales numbers level. It's not going to be much better for GW2 anymore. If they want to do better then they must make a new game. All this elusive potential that people like to assign to GW2 is just not realistic. 

[kharmin.7683]

3 hours ago, Poormany.4507 said:

If it's sub based or p2w, I'm out.

I'd like to think that this is true for a lot of current players.  I know that I would not sign on to GW3 if it is sub based or P2W.

[Arianth Moonlight.6453]

I loved Guild Wars... I both love and hate Guild Wars 2... I better leave it that way.

[Cyninja.2954]

13 hours ago, Yerlock.4678 said:

You misunderstand. There's only a few whales in the ocean, the rest may buy some here and there throughout the years, but don't need to pony up if they play the game enough to get the gold to convert.   Also we need to remember we're talking about currency here that does not give egregious power-scaling, outside of more gems or gold which effetely can only enhance fashion and qol (even though baseline qol isn't terrible anyway). Things like armor, runes, relics, sigils etc are all quite cheap compared to the massive qol enhancements like Trading Post in your backpack etc.

I am well aware of how the distribution of spending on premium currency works in MMORPGs. The contention here was with the point that "players do not need to pay to acquire gem items, just play the game". That is factually only so far true in that the cost is being shuffled to another play here. If the amount of other players which buy gems and convert to gold shrinks, the ability to convert gold to gems diminishes with it.

As to whales, there is NOTHING to whale in this game. Even the most RNG items are acquired after maximum a couple of hundred bucks. That's literally nothing compared to other titles. (a player could spend 10k $ and be fully kitted out here. That's what whales spend on other games per month and more). That in turn also means the majority of spenders are like dolphins and the game relies on a wider audience to spend smaller amounts.

In short you are praising the lack of pay to win features (the majority here are "pay for convenience" features) while not accounting for what this means spending wise arguing as though this were a heavy pay to win game.

The entire gem-gold conversion was merely a nice way of showing how someone does not understand even the basics of this games monetization.

Quote

So I think the forest is being lost for the trees. After all we're talking about a company who you argue has been more egregious over the years and is dooming about gw3 becoming even worse. I'm telling you that literally nothing has lead me to believe the company has ever been egregious outside of qol updates for veterans who have played the game longer and longer (and revive orbs), and more content thus more buying of said content due to yearly expacs. I'm sure you won't agree with that last point but we can have that debate if you'd like.

Create a new account, see where you are at spending wise until you reach the basic amenities you are used to. Only because you are suffering from the "frog boiled slow" syndrome does not mean that monetization has not been tightened. I've given multiple examples. Is this as egregious as much of the competition? No. Is it more than before within the same franchise/title? Yes.

Meanwhile the competition (as well as the own parent company) have moved to even heavier monetization, that's the trajectory this part of the industry has been on for a long time now. There is no reason to believe that this will not hold true for a new title here, given we have seen this already within GW2.

Throne and Liberty literally just released with their own approach to the gem-gold conversion (same parent company, similar premium currency system) and the game is HEAVY pay to win. Like even to much pay to win for korean players.

Quote

So gw3 coming out with a premium mode or some sub fee to me would be suicide for them, and I think they know that. To say otherwise is unfounded and alarmist due to their history of never having subs. Just because they're making gw3 doesn't inherently mean they'll be super greedy and awful. You shouldn't freak out until there's reason to. But these are the forums after all, so hyperbole is practically a given. Especially from cynical ninjas. 

What are you talking about? You are mentioning hyperbole and then using extremes which no one has even mentioned to somehow make a point. No, GW3 will very likely not have a sub fee (I think a premium model is unlikely but I wouldn't put it off the table, given the similarity to mini expacs and heavy convenience monetization here).

I love the shortsightedness people who treat these issues as binary problems. No one mentioned a sub fee or premium model (though the later is well established with some competitors). The claim I made was GW3 will absolutely not be cheaper than GW2 and very likely more expensive. Just as GW2 of today is more expensive than GW2 of the past or how GW2 was more expensive than GW1.

That's not alarm-ism or hyperbole, that's strictly looking at the monetary facts. Hyperbole would be to claim that GW3 will be as bad as the industry standard in a few years (which I doubt it will be).

Will GW3 be as predatory as competitors? Very likely not. That was never the claim though.

This isn't a "yes or no" discussion. There are heavy nuances and scaling issues involved and treating this like a binary issues as mentioned is not doing those nuances justice.

Quote

I wouldn't call my lack of skepticism hopium rather realism due to their track record. I love that when I say this the response is "of what two games?" like that's an amazing comeback, but in reality they've made many expacs inside those two games and kept up support for one or the other for practically 20 years. In none of that time did anything remotely alarm me about their business practices when being gamer-centric or consumer-friendly. 

and with each xpac the monetization was increased. Not always in malicious ways, but that was never the claim, at least not by me.

The claim is: the game has been getting heavier and heavier monetized, and that claim holds true.

Quote

Gw3 offers anet a chance to have a clean slate for something new. I'm in the lions den when defending gw3's development due to all the players here who are so set in their ways with gw2 and are worried about change, but if they don't mess it up they have a chance to make something new and makeup for many of the systematic mistakes they made throughout the years. And if they do mess it up, gw2 ain't going nowhere. We'll still play it, and anet will be forced to develop more for it if the money signs are still there.

GW2 offered them to have a clean slate after GW1. The game was more heavily monetized on release than GW1 (GW1 had the game purchases, some minor cosmetics as well as character slots) and has been more heavily monetized since then. There is no reason to believe GW3 won't be the same, especially in a market where the competition is far more predatory (and will be even more predatory in a few years if the trajectory holds. I feel as though that's what many are forgetting. The gaming landscape was cheaper 5 years ago and will be more expensive 5 years from now on top of the other issues).

I personally (can't speak for others) don't care about someone defending or looking forward to GW3. What I disagree with is this baseless hopium presented as facts.

As to GW2 being present with GW3 releasing. Time will tell, but given the nature of the limited studio size, the very least GW2 will face is content drought shortly before and while GW3 releases.

EDIT:

You want some actual assumptions and speculation? Here:

with the release of GW3, and the near guaranteed content drought for GW2 around that time, the studio will be entirely dependent on GW3 succeeding. This was the case with GW1 to GW2 as well, but at that point in time GW1 was already turned into an entire solo-able experience, and there was a transition from corpg to mmorpg.

If GW3 fails or falls short, there is a high chance there won't be a healthy enough GW2 to fall back on. New players do not have the tendency to flock to older mmorpgs if a successor title has released (FF11 didn't see huge growth with the release of 14, one of the only examples of a successful mmorpg followup). Which in turn means the studio will be even more ALL IN on the next game, especially towards the end of the development (which can be as much as 2 years pre actual release going by GW1 and GW2 time-frames).

If GW3 succeeds, there is almost no reason to shift resources back to GW2 for the studio. This is similar to GW2 and GW1.

If GW3 is mediocre, successful enough to keep the studio alive, not successful enough to bully out the studios dependence on GW2 revenue, is the only chance where GW2 might see continued development. That's not the GW3 most hopium players are hoping for though is it?

Finally, as GW3 draws near, I expect something similar to the Hall of Monuments to be added to GW2, in order to encourage transition. Which in turn would require massive shifts in this games development towards a more single player experience, similar to GW1 and the hero system.

Edited April 28 by Cyninja.2954

[Gop.8713]

I'd only be interested in starting over with gw3 if it was both somehow tied to gw2 and truly just starting over. In other words, only if it was more of the same. Some of the things other ppls have mentioned like subs or w/e to me well that's just not even guild wars anymore. Things that would appeal to me would be a current, stable game, not the mess we have now that have huge parts anet is afraid to touch for fear of messing other things up, and less bloat, like just a few easy to balance base classes, etc. . . .

But more likely I'd still say meh, there are a lot of great games I've ingored over the last ten years while I was playing this, probably worth giving some of those a try if I'm going to start something new . . .

[Westenev.5289]

You know what would upset me more than Gw3? Another Maple Story 2 situation where the game was fun, but after a few weeks/months everyone just returned to Maple Story and the sequel was shut down.

[Wolfofdivinity.6251]

Not my life game, but pretty loyal to what used to be WvW. I won't be playing gw3. I jumped from 1 to 2 because I believed their speel/bull about being too restricted with gw1. 

 

I won't be wasting anymore money on a new gw.

[Gehenna.3625]

4 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The claim is: the game has been getting heavier and heavier monetized, and that claim holds true.

So, let's say this is true (I have no issue with this claim), and considering that the game's sales have been relatively stable the last couple of years, what sort of conclusions might one take from this?

[DarkK.7368]

I don't think it's sane to call it "your main life", but I totally get your point. I'm treating this game as my "second life". I even did a self insert, my character here is a version of myself that trains a lot and is powerful and motivates my real self to be like him.

In part that's why I fear GW3. I'll keep playing GW2 because I only played for a pair of years, I paid for all the expansions and I want to enjoy all the content I missed for not playing the last 10 years. But if some day GW3 comes... that depends. If it's like GW2 but better (that means also having this ncie PVP, not only PVE), and that means GW2 will stop getting updates... then I suppose I'll have no problem starting again. It's like when I loved playing the dark souls to a close point to "my second life". Each time a new dark souls appeared I just jumped in. I did not feel I lost anything, because was the same game, just better. Same essence, same love. And I go where the highest population is, cause I love to coop and pvp with them. So... if GW3 has the same essence, then good.

If GW3 happens to be too much different and I can't call it to have its essence (like removing PVP, what seems feasible seeing how ignored is PVP in GW2) then I won't feel good swapping and that will hurt me so much

[Danikat.8537]

I agree with the people saying if you feel like GW2 is your life it would be a good idea to do something else, but GW3 probably isn't a good choice, and not just because it's years away if it happens at all.

As for me I prefer to wait until games are actually announced and I know what they are before deciding if I'm going to play them. Yes there's a good chance I'd like a 3rd game by Anet because I like their first two, but I'm not going to arbitrarily say I'll play anything they make. If/when GW3 (or whatever it is they're actually working on) is announced I'll check out the available info and decide then if it's something I want to get.

Also I tend to bounce around between games rather than sticking to one until I've finished it (or even until I've gotten bored with it) so I'll almost certainly play GW2 as well, unless it goes offline, which seems unlikely given GW1 is still going.

17 hours ago, Randulf.7614 said:

The conspiracy agents are drumming up noise that the backtrack by the NCSOFT person means it def, absolutely means its happening and we need to get over it. Forgetting of course we've been here more than once before with the "GW3 is in definite development" discussion.

No announcement, no confirmation, no news. Just speculation on a game of unknown genre that may or may not happen by the end of this decade and may or may not replace or sit alongisde GW2. Maybe

I think people just need to move on and play what's in front of them personally and worry about the future when it arrives

It reminds me of all the talk about the 'Switch 2' Nintendo is definitely going to announce any day now.

Yes it is pretty much guarenteed that at some point in the future Nintendo will make another console, but back in 2020 when I could finally afford a Switch I was told repeatedly to hold off buying one because the Switch 2 (or Switch Pro, or Switch Next, or whatever) was going to be announced very soon (definitely by the end of Q1) and would be on sale by the end of the year. I looked into it and found out the same rumour had already been going for about a year and a half at that point, and nothing had come of it yet and thankfully I decided not to wait. Which turned out to be the right decision because 4 years later there's still no new console and the same rumours are still going, with only the date changed. In then meantime I've gotten a lot of use out of my Switch, including discovering a new favourite game and completing it twice.

Likewise we know Anet are working on at least one other game, but we've known that for years and nothing has come of it yet. Making decisions about what you do (or don't do) in GW2 now based on the possibility that some time in the future there will be a sequel sounds like a great way to waste a lot of time and miss out on things you could have otherwise enjoyed doing.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

So, let's say this is true (I have no issue with this claim), and considering that the game's sales have been relatively stable the last couple of years, what sort of conclusions might one take from this?

You know the games sales have been stable? or are you talking about the revenue? Not the same thing by the way.

Now if we are talking about revenue, one conclusion might be: equalibrium between new players spending (this is where actual information on actual new players would be helpful) paired with established players spending more compensating for established players spending less and/or quitting.

For example mini expansions are a way for the studio to increase average $ per player earned versus the living world model because now payment is mandatory. 

Now you might think: well with a fresh release and new title and potentially a lot of fresh blood trying the game, the $ per player generated can be lower. Which might be, in the short term. This assumption obviously ignores the following:

- the majority of revenue increases currently are aimed at veteran players most often designed to offset the buy to play limitations and create followup revenue from veteran players

- legacy or past monetization increases get discounted (especially game sales, older skins, etc)

- the current monetization is diversified over many areas (gliders, mounts, skiffs, skins, convenience items, etc.)

A fresh game release would be lacking  some or many of those items on launch (and if not, kudos to the developers) as to not scare away new players.

Which in turn means the loss in average $ per player earned will have to be compensated (if it gets compensated, again the monetization additions here are designed to offset loss of box price, discounts, etc) and eventually made up with future design decisions.

Edited April 28 by Cyninja.2954

[Astralporing.1957]

13 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

No, but they're still very popular and are doing better than GW2.

I think you completely missed the point. And the point is that there's no new MMORPG that managed to get succesful. Even the youngest MMORPGs that managed to stay afloat at decent level are quite old nowadays. And so it happens that GW3 would also be a new MMORPG (assuming it would be a MMORPG of course).

13 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

GW2 will never convince those people to do that because those games have things that GW2 doesn't have or barely has that those players will be looking for.

It's not GW2 that will need to persuade anyone (seeing as it already has big enough population to qualify it as one of the major succesful MMORPGs around). It will be GW3 that would need to do that. And the threshold to success nowadays is way, way higher than it was when GW2 (and other major MMORPGs) started.

13 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Well, when you ask how high it still can be low, so in the end it comes down to the same thing. But there's a limited group of players in GW2 today that's not going to get much bigger, and the fight for Anet is not growth but rather to keep enough players spending money on GW2 so they can keep their sales numbers level. It's not going to be much better for GW2 anymore. If they want to do better then they must make a new game. All this elusive potential that people like to assign to GW2 is just not realistic. 

Thinking that GW3 would do better on the same market is not realistic either. For that it would have to be the best MMORPG ever made, by far, with more content on start than already established titles do have, game mechanics that fit everyone, gameplay style that fits both hardcore and casuals, progression structure that will fit both old GW2 players (horizontal progression, no gear grind) and players of other MMORPGs (hamster wheel-like gear grind system being a core, vertical progression mechanic). It would also need to be made way, way better than GW2 ever was (by the same people, no less). It's just not going to happen. Believing it will is just denying reality.

[Shadowmoon.7986]

Remember project titan, lineages 3 (that eventuallly became rift) , and the first gw3 prototype from 2019, I will not beleive gw3 will happen until it actually is released. 

[Zera.9435]

Until ArenaNet drops an official announcement that they are actively developing a so-called GW3, including an official trailer and give an official release date, you guys need to cool it with this nonsense. All this 'doom and gloom' kitten about GW2 being over needs to stop. You are actively sabotaging the game with that rhetoric by making people think GW2 has no more development happening.  Just enjoy playing the game. If (not when) they make that announcement, then great. Until then, this kind of click bait kitten of a thread has no business being here. It's direct misinformation.

[angelica.7406]

In truth, how they complain and cry as if GW2 had already ended, we are only on the fifth expansion and GW3 is not even announced and ANET has said absolutely nothing. And I doubt it will come out soon, that will take a couple of years.

And everyone complains that they won't play GW3 for whatever reason, so don't play it, even because they don't quit once and for all and stop wasting their valuable time and better make the cure for can-cer or something revolutionary that will help the world.

Understand, it is a simple game, this is not real, even if there was a war and the servers exploded all the time it would go to waste.

Appreciate life and video games, videoegos are just a hobby, it's just to entertain for a while. Better help your parents, siblings, family, partner and children, instead of paying attention to a video game.

Edited April 28 by angelica.7406

[willow.8209]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:45 PM, SweetPotato.7456 said:

also you know what sold GW2 for me? probably many others too, they told me I can JUMP in GW2, that was a big changed  back than, be able to jump.

I remember that being novel. That was part of what drew me in too.

I think GW3 is just a discussion right now, no certainty that it ever would come. If it did, however, I think it would do better not as an MMO to replace GW2, but as a coop/solo game you can play with a few friends who don't MMO. 

[willow.8209]

also, much like what others said, I assume that in-house code is both related to things that are now difficult to change,

But also related to a lot of the innovation of GW2.

Changing engine for a new game would similarly be expected to have both benefits and drawbacks. 

[Gazrul.3086]

I personally don't care for, or need GW3. This game is perfect for me. All it needs is a bit of a graphic upgrade, but that's about it. 

[Ashantara.8731]

Doesn't it all depend on the type of game GW3 will be and the quality it will put on display?

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Ashantara.8731 said:

Doesn't it all depend on the type of game GW3 will be and the quality it will put on display?

Ah, no, you see, obviously GW3, even though it would be done by the same studio, will be of a far better quality than GW2 in all aspects. Those are reasonable expectations, and you'd be doomer to think otherwise.

[DarkK.7368]

8 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Ah, no, you see, obviously GW3, even though it would be done by the same studio, will be of a far better quality than GW2 in all aspects. Those are reasonable expectations, and you'd be doomer to think otherwise.

Is that irony? Because we have A LOT of nice features that GW1 got and GW2 ignored. I never played GW1 but I read a lot, like weapon dyes, customizable companions, and I can't remember more now.

Edited April 29 by DarkK.7368

[Astralporing.1957]

17 minutes ago, DarkK.7368 said:

Is that irony? Because we have A LOT of nice features that GW1 got and GW2 ignored. I never played GW1 but I read a lot, like weapon dyes, customizable companions, and I can't remember more now.

From me? Yes. From everyone whose arguments for GW3 seem to assume it will certainly be a far better game however, not so much.

[Ashantara.8731]

1 hour ago, DarkK.7368 said:

Is that irony?

No, that was obviously sarcasm.

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Ah, no, you see, obviously GW3, even though it would be done by the same studio, will be of a far better quality than GW2 in all aspects. Those are reasonable expectations, and you'd be doomer to think otherwise.

What does that have to do with anything? There are newer players who love SotO, because they don't understand that the high-quality story parts of GW2 were done by another dev team in another era of the game, so they might find GW3 enjoyable, too, even if it turns out to be not good. In any case, the OP's question doesn't make sense as long as we don't have any information whatsoever about GW3.

Edited April 29 by Ashantara.8731

[Ashantara.8731]

16 hours ago, angelica.7406 said:

In truth, how they complain and cry as if GW2 had already ended

In a way, it did. At least the game it used to be slowly started to fizzle out after LWS4. At least, with GW3 development news leaking, we now understand why.

[DarkK.7368]

6 minutes ago, Ashantara.8731 said:

No, that was obviously sarcasm.

Language barrier doesn't help me to avoid confusing irony with sarcasm hahahahah yes, sarcasm.

46 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

From everyone whose arguments for GW3 seem to assume it will certainly be a far better game however, not so much.

100% fair, we don't have to assume that. To be honest, my starting point is that I fear that GW3 would not have PVP, and that pretty much would kill the game for me. And WvW... low possibility.

Anyway... I remember reading that it's not much useful to keep talking about this topic for something that is not even confirmed, and that might even hurt some players that want to focus on GW2. Maybe it never happens, so...