Thoughts about GW3 [Merged]

[Poormany.4507]

52 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

It's not like we're getting more content in exchange for lower quality. We're only getting a drop in quality in exchange for nothing positive. Rationalizing it doesn't change the fact, that the quality of the game did go down.

The exchange is less content in exchange for more frequent content (expacs every year instead of every 3-4 years), so we don't have long content droughts, as a large portion of the playerbase requested during HoT and PoF. While SotO was lower quality, as Anet acknowledged, I am cautiously optimistic that they learned from their errors and the second mini expac will be higher quality (i.e., similar to LW/expac quality, but more frequent, as intended.)

Edited June 22 by Poormany.4507

[Ashen.2907]

3 hours ago, XCLASSGAMING.9830 said:

HOT and POF took along time to come out, the reason they are "higher quality" and "feature rich" is because they had longer in the oven, while mini expansions are a yearly cycle, it makes perfect sense.

They were also more than double the current content model and included LW seasons at no additional charge. Over the course of two years the current model will produce less for a similar price tag.

[Poormany.4507]

1 hour ago, Ashen.2907 said:

They were also more than double the current content model and included LW seasons at no additional charge. Over the course of two years the current model will produce less for a similar price tag.

That's because free LW was way too generous (and only if you logged in at the right time) and economically unsustainable, and Anet realized this and started charging for their content updates.

Edited June 22 by Poormany.4507

[Astralporing.1957]

11 minutes ago, Poormany.4507 said:

That's because free LW was way too generous (and only if you logged in at the right time) and economically unsustainable, and Anet realized this and started charging for their content updates.

Again, you're rationalizing us getting less content, and of poorer quality now. Anet is not your employer for you to need explaining why they are now offering you poorer quality product. It's on them to explain themselves.

The real question here is whether you came here for cheap product, or for a high quality game. Personally, i'm interested in the latter, not the former.

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

4 hours ago, Poormany.4507 said:

While SotO was lower quality, as Anet acknowledged, I am cautiously optimistic that they learned from their errors and the second mini expac will be higher quality (i.e., similar to LW/expac quality, but more frequent, as intended.)

The good part that people no longer need to join instances for cheap replaybility like the 2 previous expansions  (and face afkers which many seem to camp the OW legendary area vs any OW-gold-Meta...strange...)  and instead we get a 3rd map 😛

Spoiler

The old gg are smart . They wasted money and i iterate  all the time  , which in the long run is better than having  "internal testing of few devs" >> offering a single vision to the community >> and getiing bombarded for 10 more years that they "should have done something else" .

And its more data for GW3

Spoiler

Now we need an auto-lfg for dungeons (were it offers only gold and if you have Agony Ristance it improves your gold) + an ingame dps addon that works in CM + a grindy version of the Raid set that spans 2 expansions , just like the v2-lattern legendary ,where it punished  afkers-doesnt offer them rewards  , now we have open Raids .

Edit or combo of 1x Raid , 2x Soto low cost sets per semester that looks like the Promo

If hardcore people want more content offer them Covergences like Umbriel

If people stir trouble ,they get the Red Title , if they play some PvP matches with us too . To see which is the esport king .😛

 

Edited June 23 by Killthehealersffs.8940

[Ashen.2907]

1 hour ago, Poormany.4507 said:

That's because free LW was way too generous (and only if you logged in at the right time) and economically unsustainable, and Anet realized this and started charging for their content updates.

Ok, and? ANet produces a product which I consume. They have decided to cut the quantity of product provided while keeping the price. I am unaware of any other example of shrinkflation where the consumer defends getting less for their buck.

I was OK with the mini expansion model when announced. Paying yearly rather than every 2-4 years for an expansion of smaller size at a smaller price tag was a decent idea. More regular cash flow rather than a boom and bust every few years is solid financial planning.  Just delivering less, and at lower quality, for the same price tag is of course their choice, their right, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing from the perspective of a consumer.

Anyone defending this should ask themselves how they feel about shrinkflation from other merchants. Are you happy to pay more for less in a bag of chips, box of cereal, burger patties, etc?

Edited June 23 by Ashen.2907

[Zera.9435]

2 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Ok, and? ANet produces a product which I consume. They have decided to cut the quantity of product provided while keeping the price. I am unaware of any other example of shrinkflation where the consumer defends getting less for their buck.

I was OK with the mini expansion model when announced. Paying yearly rather than every 2-4 years for an expansion of smaller size at a smaller price tag was a decent idea. More regular cash flow rather than a boom and bust every few years is solid financial planning.  Just delivering less, and at lower quality, for the same price tag is of course their choice, their right, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing from the perspective of a consumer.

Anyone defending this should ask themselves how they feel about shrinkflation from other merchants. Are you happy to pay more for less in a bag of chips, box of cereal, burger patties, etc?

You forget that HoT, PoF, and EoD were all full price games.  SotO was $25. JW is $25. You are paying less and getting less accordingly.

[Ghostkat.9580]

49 minutes ago, Zera.9435 said:

You forget that HoT, PoF, and EoD were all full price games.  SotO was $25. JW is $25. You are paying less and getting less accordingly.

Exactly. Though remember, this is a player base that is notoriously anti-subscription... even though it would be the best and fastest way for said player base to get all the features they ask for (but don't seem to want to pay for, and forget cost ANet money to develop and maintain). In spite of their claims that it would "kill the game," I maintain that the number of players who are more than willing to pay a sub as an alternative to predatory microtransaction practices is a lot higher than most people on the forums or Reddit would have you believe, and the game would be a lot better off even if there was only an optional sub with purely cosmetic incentives as well as LW access. I'd imagine things like personal housing would've not only happened much sooner, but the housing customization options would be considerably more robust than what we're getting. People forget, it costs ANet money to host the instanced content, and occasional one-time purchases don't sustain a company over longer periods of time if they have to foot the bill for ongoing server support and additional updates.

While I definitely think ANet listening to its players is good... to a point... I also think they need to do what's in the best economic interests for the highest quality they can deliver. Though EoD was in some ways lower in overall quality even in spite of being a fully-priced game, due to it being a rush job. It's super clear ANet waited to see what FFXIV was going to unveil at their Fan Festival event, but when they didn't show off their job actions, ANet was screwed and had to come up with SOMETHING. We know their game designers spend more time on their socials talking about FFXIV moreso than they do their own game, so that says something. The bigger issue is they've lost a lot of the people who knew what they were doing, because they can't afford pay rates that are competitive compared to other studios in the same general area. Whether or not you're content with the product (and I'm FAR more content with the state of SotO than EoD, even though I think the third map we got is pretty bad compared to the first two), the reality is that ANet needs to both grab a larger number of players and sustain at least a million in order to sustain a workforce. They can't do that, so they need to rethink their monetization. It seems this is an attempt to try and do that without charging a sub, at the cost of content, which is easier for the smaller team they have. To me, it would make sense to grow the team, but they need money for that. And the REAL problem to me is that they keep trying to cater to the existing super-loyal players (many of whom don't play other games) but don't know how to competently attract players from other games like FFXIV. The player base needs to grow substantially, and we're not seeing enough in that department.

[XCLASSGAMING.9830]

8 minutes ago, Ghostkat.9580 said:

. I'd imagine things like personal housing would've not only happened much sooner, but the housing customization options would be considerably more robust than what we're getting. 

im sorry but we don't -know- what the homestead system will be like, so i think its unfair to say this for now until we actually get proper details.

[Linken.6345]

2 hours ago, Zera.9435 said:

You forget that HoT, PoF, and EoD were all full price games.  SotO was $25. JW is $25. You are paying less and getting less accordingly.

Are you sure about this?

Sure hot base game was 50 bucks still less then 60 bucks core.

And both pof and eod were 30 bucks were they not?

So not full price the same as core game.

Edit

And if we are getting less would that not be 5/6 instead of if Im being generous 3/4 of a total expansion.

Edited Sunday at 05:33 AM by Linken.6345

[Astralporing.1957]

8 hours ago, Zera.9435 said:

You forget that HoT, PoF, and EoD were all full price games.  SotO was $25. JW is $25. You are paying less and getting less accordingly.

Yes, so? When you go to the car dealer and want to buy a Lamborghini, would you accept them trying to sell you some common car model? Would the argument "it's fine that it's not the luxury car you wanted, because it's cheap" have any meaning? Would you be satisfied with your internet connection suddenly going way below OCX levels, if your provider said "it will be half price from now on"? And i could give a ton of other examples where there's a minimum level of quality that is important, and going below it is unacceptable even if it means lower costs.

I don't care it's cheaper. I want quality (and i am perfectly willing to pay for it).

Edit: also, price per quality does not scale linearly. It's not true that the value for half quality is half the cost. Usually it's way lower than that.

Edited Sunday at 11:00 AM by Astralporing.1957

[Bladestrom.6425]

14 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Yes, so? When you go to the car dealer and want to buy a Lamborghini, would you accept them trying to sell you some common car model? Would tyhe argument "it's fine that it's not the luxury car you wanted, because it's cheap" have any meaning? Would you be satisfied with your internet connection suddenly going way below OCX levels, if your provider said "it will be half price from now on)? And i could give a ton of other examples where there's a minimum level of wuality that is important, and going below it is unacceptable even if it means lower costs.

I don't care it's cheaper. I want quality (and i am perfectly willing to pay for it).

You didn't understand his point. A Bette analogy than your car one is going into a supermarket and pay $5 for a 24 pack of beer, compare to paying $10 for a $48 pack. 

[Astralporing.1957]

37 minutes ago, Bladestrom.6425 said:

You didn't understand his point. A Bette analogy than your car one is going into a supermarket and pay $5 for a 24 pack of beer, compare to paying $10 for a $48 pack. 

It's not about just a quantity loss, it's about a quality loss on top of it. If beer tastes bad enough, lowering price will not cut it. They'd have to pay me for me to drink it.

Edited Sunday at 11:50 AM by Astralporing.1957

[Ashen.2907]

10 hours ago, Zera.9435 said:

You forget that HoT, PoF, and EoD were all full price games.  SotO was $25. JW is $25. You are paying less and getting less accordingly.

I didn't forget anything. As stated before, over the course of two years we will pay as much, in this new paradigm, as we did for larger expansions of the past but receive less. Two of SotO is less than we received before. Again, paying the same but receiving less. 

[Ashen.2907]

1 hour ago, Bladestrom.6425 said:

You didn't understand his point. A Bette analogy than your car one is going into a supermarket and pay $5 for a 24 pack of beer, compare to paying $10 for a $48 pack. 

Except that we are still paying as much as we did for the 48 pack but are now receiving a 24 pack.

[Bladestrom.6425]

3 hours ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Except that we are still paying as much as we did for the 48 pack but are now receiving a 24 pack.

well that's objectively wrong isn't it.

[Zera.9435]

11 hours ago, Linken.6345 said:

Are you sure about this?

Sure hot base game was 50 bucks still less then 60 bucks core.

And both pof and eod were 30 bucks were they not?

So not full price the same as core game.

Edit

And if we are getting less would that not be 5/6 instead of if Im being generous 3/4 of a total expansion.

You might be right, but I could have sworn PoF and EoD were both $50 initially. They're $30 now.

Think of it this way: you pay $25 and you get content that will keep you occupied and entertained for several months IF you don't rush through it and instead take your time and simply enjoy playing (what with the host of collections, achievements, equipment, skins, and masteries to work on). It's stuff to do. For less than 2 months of a WoW subscription you're getting content that can be enjoyable for more than 2 months. For casuals like myself (read: the majority) $25 for enough content to play through for 3 or 4 months at an enjoyable and casual pace is a good deal. I definitely got my money's worth, and I still have a kitten ton of achievements and collections that I can work on if I so choose.

Take that as opposed to paying $70 for a game that has limited replayability with content that you can finish in one day if you play extensively (and will NOT be getting any expansions).

Not every expansion is going to fundamentally change the game like HoT and PoF did, and they don't have to. They just have to provide us with content to play through that is fun and engaging with hopefully at least one new feature. That's it. SotO missed the mark in some ways and that's ok. They can learn from that and strive to do better.

Either way $25 is not a steep price for what we are getting. The housing thing alone is going to keep its target demographic playing for many months, years even, as they work to unlock decorations/upgrades for their house, assuming ArenaNet is able to provide updates over time for it (which I think they will). I guarantee that you spend more than that on a typical night out having dinner only.

[Player.2475]

I agree with the people complaining about the pricing for objectively less quality and quantity. Anyone arguing otherwise is the reason we are paying more for less and why Anet thought SotO was acceptable to be released in the state it was despite having 10+ years of experience of regular content releases.

People also seem to forget that "Buh €25 is the price of coffee in a first world country" doesn't really matter when €25 also gets you an entire bundle of older top tier games on a Steam sale. THAT is what Anet is competing against for your money, time and emotional investment.

The other form of competition for new players is Guild Wars 2 itself because Anet is selling PoF + HoT + EoD + ALL Living Story Content for €50, which frequently go on sale, so people are bound to notice the massive discrepancy between paying €50 for decades of game development and €25 for this embarrassment of an "expansion" that makes even the Covid-era Icebrood Saga releases look well designed, fully finished and not rushed at all by comparison.

Please, for the love of God, just add more jetskis, race cars and cargo pants to the cash shop and take as many years as you need to develop good content that will be praised for years to come instead of pushing out forgettable releases just for the sake of player retention and a quick cash injection.

[Zera.9435]

18 hours ago, Player.2475 said:

I agree with the people complaining about the pricing for objectively less quality and quantity. Anyone arguing otherwise is the reason we are paying more for less and why Anet thought SotO was acceptable to be released in the state it was despite having 10+ years of experience of regular content releases.

People also seem to forget that "Buh €25 is the price of coffee in a first world country" doesn't really matter when €25 also gets you an entire bundle of older top tier games on a Steam sale. THAT is what Anet is competing against for your money, time and emotional investment.

The other form of competition for new players is Guild Wars 2 itself because Anet is selling PoF + HoT + EoD + ALL Living Story Content for €50, which frequently go on sale, so people are bound to notice the massive discrepancy between paying €50 for decades of game development and €25 for this embarrassment of an "expansion" that makes even the Covid-era Icebrood Saga releases look well designed, fully finished and not rushed at all by comparison.

Please, for the love of God, just add more jetskis, race cars and cargo pants to the cash shop and take as many years as you need to develop good content that will be praised for years to come instead of pushing out forgettable releases just for the sake of player retention and a quick cash injection.

If you want, you can wait 10 years to buy SotO and JW when they're cheaper. Yeah $25 can get you more than one old game on a sale, but that's the thing: they're old games. People aren't playing them as much. Games like this are best enjoyed as the content comes out, mainly because the stuff worth doing is best done when there are other players nearby to help.

And no, ArenaNet is not competing against games that are not even in the same genre. People aren't buying 3 different MMOs for $25 on a steam sale. MMOs are meant to be a 'main game' that people play for an extended period of time, and as such people generally play only one MMO actively at a time due to the large time investment needed to really get your money's worth and sense of enjoyment/accomplishment.

We can only hope that they take our feedback to heart and strive to make better content with JW and beyond.

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, Zera.9435 said:

If you want, you can wait 10 years to buy SotO and JW when they're cheaper. Yeah $25 can get you more than one old game on a sale, but that's the thing: they're old games.

And that's the point: since the quality for the new design model went down so far, new miniexpansions are now on the same shelf as old games and new cheap indie games.

[Zera.9435]

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

And that's the point: since the quality for the new design model went down so far, new miniexpansions are now on the same shelf as old games and new cheap indie games.

You're comparing supplementary content with standalone games. That is not a proper comparison. That's like saying the Champion's Ballad content in LoZ: Breath of the Wild is on the same shelf as, say, Limbo. You simply can't make those comparisons. Also, old games =/= cheap indie games =/= bad games. Bad games = bad games.

SotO is not bad content, it just wasn't as good as it could have been. It was just ok, not great. Hopefully JW is good if not great.

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Zera.9435 said:

You're comparing supplementary content with standalone games. That is not a proper comparison. That's like saying the Champion's Ballad content in LoZ: Breath of the Wild is on the same shelf as, say, Limbo. You simply can't make those comparisons. Also, old games =/= cheap indie games =/= bad games. Bad games = bad games.

SotO is not bad content, it just wasn't as good as it could have been. It was just ok, not great. Hopefully JW is good if not great.

Let's just say that i value large part of SotO much lower than you. While initial expansion was generally ok storywise (with barely anything interesting beyond that), the patches were at best Gyala tier material (and in parts way too close to Champions level). Generally i value IBS way above SotO, and i consider IBS to be a low point in GW2 history.

[Zera.9435]

1 minute ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Let's just say that i value large part of SotO much lower than you. While initial expansion was generally ok storywise (with barely anything interesting beyond that), the patches were at best Gyala tier material (and in parts way too close to Champions level). Generally i value IBS way above SotO, and i consider IBS to be a low point in GW2 history.

Yeah you're not alone in your dissatisfaction with SotO.  Personally I enjoyed IBS overall. Sure, it had issues, but what content doesn't?

I'm sure that one of the big factors with the negativity surrounding SotO is how the story segmentation was done. if ArenaNet can break the story chunks into cohesive segments that SotO failed to do, I'm sure it will be more positively received. If they can make it similar to how they did some of the prior LS stuff I bet it will be more enjoyable.

[Liewec.2896]

i actually don't want a GW3.

i've been with this franchise since the early days of GW1, i spent thousands of hours of my teen years and 20s playing that game,

seven years of progress, but then i moved to GW2 and all of it meant next to nothing, but now i've spent thousands of hours playing THIS game.

and after 12 years of progress here i don't want to go through the motions of throwing it all away again to start off all over in a sequel.

with nothing to show for the tens of thousands of hours spent over the past 19 years.

the graphics and mechanics are good enough in this game that i really don't feel like we need a sequel either.

Edited Tuesday at 10:59 AM by Liewec.2896

[Peter.3901]

In short... no more Gw2 for me, thanks.