Thoughts about GW3 [Merged]

[Gehenna.3625]

On 5/25/2024 at 12:45 AM, Azinoth.1902 said:

Honestly I'm not sure why would they make GW3 an MMORPG which replaces GW2, unless they make it substantially more expensive.

Just because you're not sure, doesn't mean you are right. In my view this is just a wild assumption.

On 5/25/2024 at 12:45 AM, Azinoth.1902 said:

If GW2 doesn't generate enough profit, then why would GW3 do with a similar monetization model (buy to play, cash shop with skins, gems to gold etc)?

GW2 does generate enough profit for now but it will go down eventually. GW3 could have a similar monetization model but they made some mistakes with GW2 that they would've learned from. But that aside an MMO needs to attract new players and a 10+ year old game can't really do that anymore. Sure there's WoW but they are the exception and not the rule. 

Now, I have no idea what type of monetization model they will have for GW3, if indeed that ever comes out, but they will do something that makes sense; I think that changing the model to a subscription model probably will lose them a lot of current fans and the game would really have to prove itself out of the gates for people to want to get on board with a subscription model in place. For me that seems unlikely.

What I do expect is that they would bring out more expansions and make fewer zones with more to do in them. GW2 just has had way to many zones right from the start imo. The world has become way too big. But I'm just guessing here; but what I do expect and hope is that they learn a lot from the mistakes with GW2 to make a better overall experience for GW3. Then the monetization model wouldn't have to change much. I do suspect that there they've also learned a thing or two but in the end I don't think the monetization model is at fault for the lack of major success.

[Azinoth.1902]

6 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Just because you're not sure, doesn't mean you are right. In my view this is just a wild assumption.

GW2 does generate enough profit for now but it will go down eventually. GW3 could have a similar monetization model but they made some mistakes with GW2 that they would've learned from. But that aside an MMO needs to attract new players and a 10+ year old game can't really do that anymore. Sure there's WoW but they are the exception and not the rule. 

Now, I have no idea what type of monetization model they will have for GW3, if indeed that ever comes out, but they will do something that makes sense; I think that changing the model to a subscription model probably will lose them a lot of current fans and the game would really have to prove itself out of the gates for people to want to get on board with a subscription model in place. For me that seems unlikely.

What I do expect is that they would bring out more expansions and make fewer zones with more to do in them. GW2 just has had way to many zones right from the start imo. The world has become way too big. But I'm just guessing here; but what I do expect and hope is that they learn a lot from the mistakes with GW2 to make a better overall experience for GW3. Then the monetization model wouldn't have to change much. I do suspect that there they've also learned a thing or two but in the end I don't think the monetization model is at fault for the lack of major success.

Well, I think it's simple. If GW2 would generate higher profit, we would receive more content then a new cave in Inner Nayos every three months:) They do the bare minimum, because it's not worth investing into massive expansions anymore.

We don't have to agree for sure, but I'm convinced that they cannot do better with the current monetization model anymore.
The game is almost "free to play", while constantly having maintenance costs and it's their only game that does make any profit.

[DeanBB.4268]

Are the new MMOs coming out subscription-monetization? Genuinely ignorant. What's Ashes of Creation (if it ever releases)? Riot's (too early)? I looked at New World on Steam, and it looks to be B2P - or is there a subscription also?

It seems like the ones planned for subscription go F2P, but again, I don't play anything but GW2 so am ignorant. Just wondering if subscriptions are still a thing for games releasing nowadays.

[Astralporing.1957]

11 hours ago, DeanBB.4268 said:

Are the new MMOs coming out subscription-monetization? Genuinely ignorant. What's Ashes of Creation (if it ever releases)? Riot's (too early)? I looked at New World on Steam, and it looks to be B2P - or is there a subscription also?

It seems like the ones planned for subscription go F2P, but again, I don't play anything but GW2 so am ignorant. Just wondering if subscriptions are still a thing for games releasing nowadays.

Hard to draw any definite conclusions honestly, because no MMORPG released "nowadays" managed to succeed. And they all die so fast their monetization models disn't really matter.

[Gehenna.3625]

12 hours ago, Azinoth.1902 said:

Well, I think it's simple. If GW2 would generate higher profit, we would receive more content then a new cave in Inner Nayos every three months:) They do the bare minimum, because it's not worth investing into massive expansions anymore.

I think that's a non sequitur or an incorrect conclusion if you will. The reason I say that is because the "more profit equals more content" line you take is not actually true. If GW2 generates higher profit then why would they do more? Think about that. For me, it's clear that they're working on another game and therefore have resources allocated elsewhere but besides that, why would you spend more resources on a 12-year-old game? It won't get you significantly more players/sales. That's just a pipe dream that some people hold onto.

12 hours ago, Azinoth.1902 said:

We don't have to agree for sure, but I'm convinced that they cannot do better with the current monetization model anymore.
The game is almost "free to play", while constantly having maintenance costs and it's their only game that does make any profit.

Sure, we don't have to agree. All we can do is explain our viewpoints. But I'm not convinced the monetization model is the issue for them not making more profit than they do now. That has to do with decisions they made throughout the game's existence and those backfiring. 

The first mistake they made was LW1. For new players this was a horrible idea. The second mistake they made was not wanting to do expansions. Then the third mistake they made was make an expansion after all but with the OW being way too hard and punishing for the average player. I can go on but you get the picture.

It's decisions like that, that made the game less popular than it could or should've been. And with fewer players, there's less income. Now, I will say that I don't know the balance between the gems to gold exchange (and vice versa) with regards to veterans with lots of gold not buying anymore gems and those who do spend real money on gems, but I think they learned that the way they handled expansions was a big issue. They should've brought out more expansions from the start and smaller ones as they do now. At the same time they had a plan and it didn't work out, so GW2 for all intents and purposes has been a big learning experience for Anet and this could be very valuable for GW3.

So I suspect that the monetization model will largely remain the same but with some tweaks to it, like making more frequent, smaller expansions. I don't think this is just an end-of-life thing for GW2 but rather a model for a possible GW3 because they understand now that expansions are a big way of generating consistent sales/income. But if they would charge a sub, I think that they would lose a lot of players and fans of the GW universe. Personally I don't mind paying a sub, but I do see the advantages and I know a lot of people would hate paying a sub. It's one of the main appeals of this game.

[DeanBB.4268]

5 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Hard to draw any definite conclusions honestly, because no MMORPG released "nowadays" managed to succeed. And they all die so fast their monetization models disn't really matter.

Ugh. 

I googled Ashes and google told me it was both free to play and subscription, so whatever, doesn't matter.

[Azinoth.1902]

New World already lost the majority of the playerbase, so it didn't succeed. Ashes of Creation has not been released yet.

I respect all of your opinions, however, all we can do is assumptions, since Anet is not transparent in this case. My analysis was based on current industry trends, I tried to be as objective as possible. It doesn't mean that I'm right and GW3 will have a subscription, it's an opinion.

But please keep one thing in mind. Anet is a company. They have to earn profits. They are owned by NCSoft, who is a public company, responsible for its shareholders.
If there is ONE single reason for them to make a new game, it's the fact that they want to earn MORE profit. They will be happy to lose half of the current playerbase if they attract more from a different audience.

And as for the arguments about "more profit means more content", I have no idea how this isn't obvious for everyone. Think about World of Warcraft, it has a monthly sub fee, and they release insane amount of new content within a rough 1,5-2 years long lifespan of an expansion.
One patch sometimes brings more content than an entire GW2 expansion (looking at SOTO right now actually). If WoW had released a similar amount (and quality) of content that GW2 did in the last 1 year, then probably 90% of the playerbase would have unsubsribed and thrown all their rage onto Blizzard.
The paying customers demand the new content and they vote with their wallets.

[Fueki.4753]

1 hour ago, Azinoth.1902 said:

If WoW had released a similar amount (and quality) of content that GW2 did in the last 1 year, then probably 90% of the playerbase would have unsubsribed and thrown all their rage onto Blizzard.

There was a nine month (maybe even longer) content drought during the Shadowlands followed with the underwhelming addition of Korthia.

There also were about 14 months of content drought between the end of Mists of Pandaria and the release of Warlords of Draenor.

I don't think the game would still be alive, if 90% of the playerbase had unsubscribed during these times.

[killforbeers.7534]

3 hours ago, Azinoth.1902 said:

New World already lost the majority of the playerbase, so it didn't succeed. Ashes of Creation has not been released yet.

I respect all of your opinions, however, all we can do is assumptions, since Anet is not transparent in this case. My analysis was based on current industry trends, I tried to be as objective as possible. It doesn't mean that I'm right and GW3 will have a subscription, it's an opinion.

But please keep one thing in mind. Anet is a company. They have to earn profits. They are owned by NCSoft, who is a public company, responsible for its shareholders.
If there is ONE single reason for them to make a new game, it's the fact that they want to earn MORE profit. They will be happy to lose half of the current playerbase if they attract more from a different audience.

And as for the arguments about "more profit means more content", I have no idea how this isn't obvious for everyone. Think about World of Warcraft, it has a monthly sub fee, and they release insane amount of new content within a rough 1,5-2 years long lifespan of an expansion.
One patch sometimes brings more content than an entire GW2 expansion (looking at SOTO right now actually). If WoW had released a similar amount (and quality) of content that GW2 did in the last 1 year, then probably 90% of the playerbase would have unsubsribed and thrown all their rage onto Blizzard.
The paying customers demand the new content and they vote with their wallets.

I have to agree with you on this one as I also see this type of pattern. I also came from playing AION when it 1st came out and NCSoft is the driver. Look what happened to ANET last layoffs a few years ago - what a wakeup call.

It all boils down to profits/money - it does not matter how big or profitable any game is if it does not gain revenue there will be some feedback/action from NCSoft. If NCSoft want ANET to continue building GW2 and have it say on an unreal platform they have to do it. If NCSoft want ANET to now provide a GW3 then ANET has to drop everything and work on GW3 with the strict due dates NCSoft provides them.

[KingHeaven.4590]

Ok so we heard you are making Guild Wars 3.  A lot of people are going to want different things - everybody who posts on this thread be kind and considerate.  Post your own wish list, please do not bash what others want in their posts.  

Krytan Herald has her own wishlist which you can watch in the link below.  I also recommend watching Lazy Peon's video of the most exciting MMORPG being currently made called Ashes of Creation.

  The way I envision Guild Wars 3 being great is that you need to end this separate game mode system. 

You have a system with multiple separate parts, which are almost like completely different games.  Most people come on and play 1 or 2 modes almost exclusively.  The modes need to be better streamlined together.

- the storyline campaign

- then you have dungeons

- then you have fractals

- you have raids

- you have WvW

  I suggest you watch the Ashes of Creation video to get a better understanding because I think that game is going to be the future of MMOs but Guild Wars 3 should be similar to what they are creating.  Essentially GW 3 should be centered around the WvW mode.  

  Basically a gigantic WvW set of maps and when you log in you may get a short story mode, then you pick a server, and then you are put onto a certain side of the WvW map.  There may be one huge gigantic map everyone plays on or perhaps it will be divided into multiple WvW groups like the current mode and you'll have 21 servers each with a set of 3 servers and depending which server you join decides which servers you play against.

  In this huge WvW map setting, you will be able to make guilds and join them.  There will be crafting, dungeons, raid bosses and all other types of gameplay that are embedded into the WvW world and affect the WvW world dynamically.  Essentially every time you log on, the map will be different as different towers, castles, dungeons, etc, will be captured, won, lost, or changed due to different events and thus we have a truly living world set with it's own set of towns, areas, raids and adventures, all woven together in ONE seamless game and world.  All events will be tallied to some kind of scoreboard like WvW and so you will want to be on a server you wish to fight for.  The guilds, I would imagine are going to be only within a specific server, no cross server guilds, because although spying may be fun, the problem of in game sabotage would just be too annoying of an abusive mechanic to allow for players to do.

  You could join a guild on your server or simply roam around in small parties or even solo.  Your actions effect the map, the territory control and the world at large.  Resources would be fought over, different world bosses and missions would allow for crafting of higher tier weapons and items.  The world would be continually updated and re-balance by ANET as they see necessary and the world would be ever changing, ever dynamic and ever living.

   Again, watch the Ashes of Creation video which is the most ambitious MMORPG ever conceived and being created and you'll see the basic path for Guild Wars 3.  Of course Guild Wars 3 should be different in it has it's own style of the world, it's own races and the devs will have to be creative in coming up with new game modes, new adventures and new in game events that effect the world at large, but I would much rather see a gigantic or a WvW centered GW3 that integrates everything together into a tower, castle, town, capture point system that is much like the world we live in.  

 

Guild Wars 2 | Most Wanted Wish List

https://youtu.be/tjOTrX8sLw0?si=JNnGVx3iZmFX5g21

 

STILL Genuinely The Most Exciting Upcoming MMORPG - Ashes Of Creation

https://youtu.be/jWuJvyBs4wQ?si=flMs7JSHZR78GzJp

 

[Astralporing.1957]

Fun fact: ashes of creation does not excite me at all. OW PvP ideas, instead of being a draw the way you think they are, for most of the casual community are the antithesis of fun. Having GW3 revolve around WvW is the best way to guarantee it will be a niche game, and that most GW2 players will not migrate to it.

Edited June 3 by Astralporing.1957

[StraightPath.3972]

My wish is simple, not too complicated - don't force me into interdimensional travel just to get a matching set of trinkets!
Seriously, why is getting weapons and armor pretty streamlined, but when it comes to trinkets they're all over the place?

[SloRules.3560]

I am yet to see anything exciting coming from Ashes.

[SloRules.3560]

On 5/30/2024 at 12:59 PM, Gehenna.3625 said:

The first mistake they made was LW1. For new players this was a horrible idea. The second mistake they made was not wanting to do expansions. Then the third mistake they made was make an expansion after all but with the OW being way too hard and punishing for the average player. I can go on but you get the picture.

I still maintain they lost higher end players with release having no endgame, overpopulated WvW and lousy PvP systems (believe there wasn't even private lobbies before first tournament) and than LW1 not adressing much of this and casuals with HoT which was to hard for them and the general community ANet fostered/retained up to this point. WvW was also rendered unplayable for 10 or so minutes every hour because of middle event and than there's the general dislike of desert borderland. PvP community was decimated futher with bunker meta during HoT and decline in tournaments, but i imagine pvp community wasn't big due to reasons stated in beginning, even though there was a push for e-sports.

Do some things differently on release and you could have retained double the numbers of players.

 

 

As for monetization stuff, i would love subscription for a new game, just than don't use gemstore. As a kid, that's the reason i never tried WoW though and even had a chance at discovering GW1. But i believe parents these days would actually be more inclined to pay for subscription for their kids game than they were back than. Just that for it you actually have to make a really good game and have updates in pipeline before release.

[Biziut.3594]

Sticking to a single buisness model. Not something like: non repeatable LW events -> repeatable LW -> Ex-pacs -> Sagas -> Short expacs... 

[quake.9023]

most wanted is not wanting gw3 

[kharmin.7683]

20 minutes ago, SloRules.3560 said:

As for monetization stuff, i would love subscription for a new game, just than don't use gemstore. As a kid, that's the reason i never tried WoW though and even had a chance at discovering GW1. But i believe parents these days would actually be more inclined to pay for subscription for their kids game than they were back than. Just that for it you actually have to make a really good game and have updates in pipeline before release.

I think that any sub model would drive away a significant portion of the player base who plays GW2 specifically because it has no subscription.  And this isn't just about parents, either.  My kid is in college and can pay for their own subscription.  I have a full-time job and limited time to play online and a subscription would make me feel pressured to play more often because I would be paying for it -- and that's something I'm unable and unwilling to do.  I'd wager that there are many more players who would be in this same position.

If you enjoy a subscription, there is no reason why you cannot pay Anet $20, $30 or even $50-$100 per month.  I'm sure that they would enjoy the extra income.

[SloRules.3560]

9 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

 

If you enjoy a subscription, there is no reason why you cannot pay Anet $20, $30 or even $50-$100 per month.  I'm sure that they would enjoy the extra income.

I never mentioned i would support sub for GW2 though. It's old and crappy at this point, i haven't even bought Soto.

[kharmin.7683]

25 minutes ago, SloRules.3560 said:

I never mentioned i would support sub for GW2 though. It's old and crappy at this point, i haven't even bought Soto.

No, but it is a business model for which you are advocating.  Maybe if you had  been giving Anet money every month, then the quality of the releases would have been more to your liking?  They might even take the money you give them monthly now and put it toward GW3.    /shrug

[Zerin.9834]

I think guild wars 3 needs to go back to instances and not everybody on one map. I think world bosses were the most unused thing ever. So instances with healing monks and healing ritualist would be good. Better battles. The dungeons in guild wars 1 was perfect. Necromancers were real necromancers in guild wars 1. They summoned minions and tons of them. Dungeons should have random group qeueing it involves less conflict. Because some players might not want to play with certain people and not want em in there group, so random dungeons is better. I think you make profit off how many copies you sell and how many people playing the game and paying for memberships. Also make guild wars 3 for consoles. I think I posted this in the right page.

 

 

Edited 57 minutes ago by Zerin.9834

Edited June 3 by Zerin.9834

[Zerin.9834]

I would think guild wars 1 would work on controller l2 and r2 final fantasy 14 style or dc universe online style where you get 8 skills or more than 8 skills. I wonder why you haven't played with the ability to use controller. keyboard and mouse is easier obviously and controllers a little more difficult for games like guild wars. xbox lt and rt. I think you could set up guild wars 1 on controllers and have guild wars 3 work on controller with heros and henchmen maybe.

[starlinvf.1358]

probably because GW2 isn’t made for consoles, and controller design is now sorely outdated. need a new controller designed from the ground up to last the next and last console generation.  

[Zerin.9834]

9 minutes ago, starlinvf.1358 said:

probably because GW2 isn’t made for consoles, and controller design is now sorely outdated. need a new controller designed from the ground up to last the next and last console generation.  

Throne and liberty and final fantasy 14 online are prime examples of pc games that also work on console. It's just a little more difficult on console and they might use less skills for throne and liberty.

[motoii.1835]

On 3/28/2024 at 9:05 PM, Thundabolt.8541 said:

GW2 is old. Really old. The engine is old, the graphics are old, the community is old and the coding is a mess as a result of being old. Does that mean it's time to move on? Not if you're comparing it to WoW Classic, or OSR. Feel free to point out other successful old MMOs, but the age of this game is NOT subjective.

I think we should give it a chance. Even if it's just prettier Guild Wars 2.  Let's see what they're cooking.

Literally this! Why is everyone panicking in this thread and crying so much and declaring quitting Gw2 if Gw3 is to be officially announced. Lol. It's just a game, they'll gain 10 or more new players in place of 1 veteran/gw2 player for sure. For as long as the game is really as exciting as Gw2 was at it's release, it shouldn't have problems with generating a bigger playerbase. And no, I don't think Gw2 is closing down anytime soon if Gw3 comes out... What stupid idea is that? I think what they're trying to do here now is to provide us with as much endgame as possible with the WvW update (hopefully) and PvP (raised from the dead) so that Gw2 can exist on it's own when Gw3 WAS to come out. But still, it's less than a rumour now. A loose sentence from some CEO still means close to nothing until we receive an official statement/announcement.

[motoii.1835]

On 5/25/2024 at 12:45 AM, Azinoth.1902 said:

I quit the game after the GW3 leaks, but for now I'm back again. I missed the game and I realized I might have overreacted with negativity. I thought about it lately again, so here is what I think.

Honestly I'm not sure why would they make GW3 an MMORPG which replaces GW2, unless they make it substantially more expensive.
If GW2 doesn't generate enough profit, then why would GW3 do with a similar monetization model (buy to play, cash shop with skins, gems to gold etc)?

They would sell a few millions of copies with the vast majority of them leaving after a few months.
I don't think "Guild Wars" is viewed as something super popular major franchise that would attract and retain millions of players on the long run.
A huge part of GW2's initial success was that it looked fresh after ppl were getting bored of WoW and there was no other proper MMO's around that time.
The industry have changed so much since then.
Selling the game once is nothing in the entire lifespan of an MMO. It needs to sustain.

But let's say they make GW3 more expensive, that includes the usual $15 monthly sub. However in that case it directly competes with WoW and FFXIV, which is a near impossible task at this point, not to mention the noticeable decline of MMO popularity over the last decade.

Many people say that "Anet should remake it on UE5 because the engine is outdated" etc. I've been playing FFXIV during my absence, and honestly, the visuals of that game is shocking, especially the open world. Sometimes it felt like playing a game from the mid-2000s, although the last expansion looks significantly better and they are planning a visual overhaul.
GW2 looks AMAZING compared to it, it's not even close. Yet nobody in FFXIV is complaining about the graphics or "the engine looks dated", the game is fun to play so nobody cares.

GW2 has the best open world content I've ever played. Only WoW comes somewhat close to it.
But both WoW and FFXIV beats the hell out of GW2 in instanced content (both quality and quantity, but especially the latter.)

I finished SOTO story and I found it really strange to see the gigantic credits list in the end.
It lists an entire army of game developers, artists and support people. Now I'm not sure what to think.
If a few hundred people created SOTO, then they have serious issues with the efficiency of their organization and totally out of new ideas.
In the other hand, it is not known if these people are indeed worked full-time on SOTO or just participated... you know, if I had worked on GW2 for 1 hour a month, I still deserve credit... I find this really weird.

In terms of GW3, in my opinion, Anet could go for 2 options without taking critical risks:

1. Do what Square Enix did to FFXIV - A Realm Reborn. They remade the game and resurrected a failed game to become one of the most successful MMO's in history. You kept all your old characters and stuff.
So basically we continue playing the same game as we do right now, and our stuff carries over (at least, most of them).
They fix the major issues of the game on a better engine (visual clutter, UI, the ignored pvp, inconsistent pve game modes, etc).
They start making big expansions like WoW / FFXIV.

2. Make GW3 another genre. It could be an MMO-lite like GW1, a session-based pvp game like LoL/DoTA, or something like POE/Diablo. Something that is not as massive as a full MMO, and then it doesn't directly compete with GW2. The two games would attract a different audience, promoting each other, bringing more players (and income) to both.
They keep making expansions for GW2 for a longer time.

What do you think?

What Gw3 'leaks?'