Likelihood of GW2 coming to Steam

[maddoctor.2738]

@jokke.6239 said:If Anet was sure they would make more money on steam they would release it on steam instantly.

And this is in the end what really matters. IF Anet isn't confident in their game to release it on a brand new audience and think it won't do well, they won't release it on Steam and instead continue to market the game towards old/current players. We all know by NCSoft's reports that going free to play tanked the revenue because there were very limited conversions. If the game is released on Steam, although it will be exposed to millions of players that don't even know the game still exists, it's debatable how many will convert into paid customers. And given the situation with the horrible lag I don't think this game needs any more freeloaders for the off-chance to get some conversions.

[Astyrah.4015]

@jokke.6239 said:I never said that it always happens?I said that it does happen, and that it would probably make sense for Arena Net if they did do it, even though I would hate it if they did.Also Path of Exile have been on steam since release (except for beta). And by the looks of it, the excact same thing is true for Warframe. So not really a relevant comparison

i just meant to point out how a non-steam account and a steam account can be used in those games interchangeably or to link-unlink steam/non-steam accounts, it doesnt have anything to do with whether they were on steam's store from launch or not.

@jokke.6239 said:I've never argued that steam release couldn't be a good decision, just that there's no guarentee, and that Arena Net are in a much better position to make that call than we are. Since they haven't released on steam yet after 8 years, and if they won't it probably means that it would most likely be a big blow to their income to lose 30% from a lot of their whales.

well no one can make the decision to open up on steam but Anet themselves. though they've been known to make bad decisions in the past with especially bad marketing effort.

and again that 30% from a lot of their whales, those whales are currently already playing and paying for things... steam will only take a cut from new potential whales who found out about the game on steam and start from steam -and- the some of the current whales (there will likely be a lot who'll still play and pay non-steam/directly) who'll move from paying via paypal/paysafe/creditcard to paying via steam wallet,.. sure there's a cut from sales income but existing retailers already do that for expansions and gem codes (varying % based on retailer of course)

but yeah who knows, maybe they are still studying it's feasibility, maybe it'll come... maybe it wont, but to argue that to come to "steam = game_is_dying" (not saying you said this, just that for many this is their argument) or "steam = instant_profit_loss" is just wrong.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"jokke.6239" said:I've never argued that steam release couldn't be a good decision, just that there's no guarentee, and that Arena Net are in a much better position to make that call than we are. Since they haven't released on steam yet after 8 years, and if they won't it probably means that it would most likely be a big blow to lose 30% from a lot of their whales.

They won't lose any money from "their whales", those are already playing the game and will continue playing the game without bothering with Steam. Why would they BUY the game again to have it on Steam? Just to spite Anet and give 30% of their money to Steam? Makes little to no sense for a "whale" (someone heavily invested in the game with LOADS of skins) to start a brand new account just to be on Steam. Anet's whales are perfectly safe from any release on Steam. The real question is if the core (free) game is good enough to attract a new audience and convert them into paid customers.

If Guild Wars 2 wasn't free to play there would be zero reason not to release on Steam now that the revenue is declining, while your game does well and revenue goes up, that 30% cut does hurt. But when the revenue is in nose dive it makes little sense, as it's gonna be brand new customers, 30% cut of money you don't have still leaves you with 70% profits that you won't have otherwise. But since the game is free to play, going on Steam has the possibility to simply stress the servers further and not create any conversions, which is something the developers should know all too well.

[jokke.6239]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"jokke.6239" said:I've never argued that steam release couldn't be a good decision, just that there's no guarentee, and that Arena Net are in a much better position to make that call than we are. Since they haven't released on steam yet after 8 years, and if they won't it probably means that it would most likely be a big blow to lose 30% from a lot of their whales.

They won't lose any money from "their whales", those are already playing the game and will continue playing the game without bothering with Steam. Why would they BUY the game again to have it on Steam? Just to spite Anet and give 30% of their money to Steam? Makes little to no sense for a "whale" (someone heavily invested in the game with LOADS of skins) to start a brand new account just to be on Steam. Anet's whales are perfectly safe from any release on Steam. The real question is if the core (free) game is good enough to attract a new audience and convert them into paid customers.

If Guild Wars 2 wasn't free to play there would be zero reason not to release on Steam now that the revenue is declining, while your game does well and revenue goes up, that 30% cut does hurt. But when the revenue is in nose dive it makes little sense, as it's gonna be brand new customers, 30% cut of money you don't have still leaves you with 70% profits that you won't have otherwise. But since the game is free to play, going on Steam has the possibility to simply stress the servers further and not create any conversions, which is something the developers should know all too well.

I've already covered this, but again .. As I've already mentioned .. We have no idea how they would release it on steam.

They could either

1. Require you to have to use a new account (as I mentioned earlier, would make the most sense)
2. Be able to use your old account

If 1 is the case, they wouldn't lose any revenue from players from the standalone client.If 2 is the case, they would absolutely lose a lot of money from whales who switch over to steam,

[jokke.6239]

@Astyrah.4015 said:

@jokke.6239 said:I never said that it always happens?I said that it does happen, and that it would probably make sense for Arena Net if they did do it, even though I would hate it if they did.Also Path of Exile have been on steam since release (except for beta). And by the looks of it, the excact same thing is true for Warframe. So not really a relevant comparison

i just meant to point out how a non-steam account and a steam account can be used in those games interchangeably or to link-unlink steam/non-steam accounts, it doesnt have anything to do with whether they were on steam's store from launch or not.

Sure, but my argument was that they would lose revenue from veterans moving over to steam client, that's not really an issue for games launching on steam to begin with.

@jokke.6239 said:I've never argued that steam release couldn't be a good decision, just that there's no guarentee, and that Arena Net are in a much better position to make that call than we are. Since they haven't released on steam yet after 8 years, and if they won't it probably means that it would most likely be a big blow to their income to lose 30% from a lot of their whales.

well no one can make the decision to open up on steam but Anet themselves. though they've been known to make bad decisions in the past with especially bad marketing effort.

and again that 30% from a lot of their whales, those whales are currently already playing and paying for things... steam will only take a cut from new potential whales who found out about the game on steam and start from steam -and- the some of the current whales (there will likely be a lot who'll still play and pay non-steam/directly) who'll move from paying via paypal/paysafe/creditcard to paying via steam wallet,.. sure there's a cut from sales income but existing retailers already do that for expansions and gem codes (varying % based on retailer of course)

I have no way to back this up since I have no idea, but I would imagine gem card sales from retailers is quite a small %. That's not comparable to the game moving to steam, with a lot of excisting players moving with it.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"jokke.6239" said:I've already covered this, but again .. As I've already mentioned .. We have no idea how they would release it on steam.

They could either

1. Require you to have to use a new account (as I mentioned earlier, would make the most sense)
2. Be able to use your old account

If 1 is the case, they wouldn't lose any revenue from players from the standalone client.If 2 is the case, they would absolutely lose a lot of money from whales who switch over to steam,

Releasing on Steam means releasing on a new audience, not killing the old one. Meaning there is zero chance of "losing whales".

[Korval.3751]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"jokke.6239" said:I've already covered this, but again .. As I've already mentioned .. We have no idea how they would release it on steam.

They could either

1. Require you to have to use a new account (as I mentioned earlier, would make the most sense)
2. Be able to use your old account

If 1 is the case, they wouldn't lose any revenue from players from the standalone client.If 2 is the case, they would absolutely lose a lot of money from whales who switch over to steam,

Releasing on Steam means releasing on a new audience, not killing the old one. Meaning there is zero chance of "losing whales".

Exactly. The account credentials aren't tied to Steam, they're tied to the game's launcher (e.g. that's how people log into the game). I hadn't played SWTOR in years (I believe 3 years since I last played). I was able to install from Steam, launch the game, and log into my account from the existing SWOTR launcher. No fuss, no mess. Easy. Simple.

Requiring existing players to create new accounts if they launch and play from Steam literally makes no sense. It's not a valid point. :)

[PseudoNewb.5468]

They can't just chuck the game on Steam, without much fanfare either...Steam is a big marketing platform, but old games are hard to market, and you need a marketing plan of your own to really synergies with a new platform.

I guess EA just chucked ToR on Steam, in a kinda silly way. But at least they chucked it on there with a bunch of other games, and there was a bit of media coverage because a lot of people are aware of the history between EA and Steam. Not to mention riding on the tail of "Jedi: Fallen Order being" the first EA game on Steam in a while.

The thing is, if ANet releases on steam, they have to be laser focused on expanding their audience... and the last two expansions, well I don't think that happened. The way they treat living world, it ain't good for new players. They next expansion could be the best time to have partner platforms with a marketing push. It will be the first release since the major "reset" at NC Soft West, so we will just have to see how they want to sell this game into the future.

[jokke.6239]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"jokke.6239" said:I've already covered this, but again .. As I've already mentioned .. We have no idea how they would release it on steam.

They could either

1. Require you to have to use a new account (as I mentioned earlier, would make the most sense)
2. Be able to use your old account

If 1 is the case, they wouldn't lose any revenue from players from the standalone client.If 2 is the case, they would absolutely lose a lot of money from whales who switch over to steam,

Releasing on Steam means releasing on a new audience, not killing the old one. Meaning there is zero chance of "losing whales".

So you're saying that there's no chance they would lose anything from people using steam launcher and purchase gems through steam instead of the current launcher?All the veterans would completely just ignore the steam launcher?

[Healix.5819]

@Korval.3751 said:Requiring existing players to create new accounts if they launch and play from Steam literally makes no sense. It's not a valid point. :)

You'll see some games doing that / charging a fee to transfer to Steam in order to minimize Steam's cut. If they were to simply allow a regular account to make purchases through Steam, they'd be losing money for no reason.

[jokke.6239]

@Korval.3751 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"jokke.6239" said:I've already covered this, but again .. As I've already mentioned .. We have no idea how they would release it on steam.

They could either

1. Require you to have to use a new account (as I mentioned earlier, would make the most sense)
2. Be able to use your old account

If 1 is the case, they wouldn't lose any revenue from players from the standalone client.If 2 is the case, they would absolutely lose a lot of money from whales who switch over to steam,

Releasing on Steam means releasing on a new audience, not killing the old one. Meaning there is zero chance of "losing whales".

Exactly. The account credentials aren't tied to Steam, they're tied to the game's launcher (e.g. that's how people log into the game). I hadn't played SWTOR in years (I believe 3 years since I last played). I was able to install from Steam, launch the game, and log into my account from the existing SWOTR launcher. No fuss, no mess. Easy. Simple.

Requiring existing players to create new accounts if they launch and play from Steam literally makes no sense. It's not a valid point. :)

I gave you multiple examples of this happening already.So no, it's your statement that makes no sense. You're assuming you know for a fact how they are going to release it on steam if they ever did.

Anyway, this is starting to get pointless, and i'm tired of repeating myself from people ignoring valid reasons to why there's pro's and con's to either releasing the game on steam/not releasing the game on steam.

If they release the game on steam with no account restrictions your point of "releasing to a new audience only" is completely false. It will take away a lot of money from whales now switching to steam to buy gems, I fail to see why you are completely ignoring that would happen.

At the end of the day it's a matter of if releasing the game on steam will gain enough players to profit from losing 30% revenue from current players, and future players buying the upcoming expansion/gems from steam instead of the original client. End of story.We can only speculate what is the case, even Arena Net can't know, and will have to take that gamble if they release it on steam with no account restrictions.And that's the case for all games not available on steam. If the 70/30 split wasn't a reason to ignore steam, and it was a guarentee to print more money all games would be on steam already.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"jokke.6239" said:So you're saying that there's no chance they would lose anything from people using steam launcher and purchase gems through steam instead of the current launcher?All the veterans would completely just ignore the steam launcher?

Yes. Veterans that already have a lot of things unlocked and paid a lot of money are not likely to switch to a brand new account and start fresh.

If they release the game on steam with no account restrictions your point of "releasing to a new audience only" is completely false. It will take away a lot of money from whales now switching to steam to buy gems, I fail to see why you are completely ignoring that would happen.

So... don't release it on Steam with no account restrictions. Problem solved? For some reason you keep bringing it up. You already defeated your own argument so let's move on.

At the end of the day it's a matter of if releasing the game on steam will gain enough players to profit from losing 30% revenue from current players, and future players buying the upcoming expansion/gems from steam instead of the original client. End of story.

At the end of the day it's only a matter of the core/free game causing enough of the new players to convert into paid customers. If the developers become confident in their game's ability to earn money, they might think about releasing on Steam, as long as confidence is low, there is no point. It will only strain the servers with a lot of freeloaders. The idea of moving to a new audience, like going on Steam, is to make the game better, not worse.

[jokke.6239]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"jokke.6239" said:So you're saying that there's no chance they would lose anything from people using steam launcher and purchase gems through steam instead of the current launcher?All the veterans would completely just ignore the steam launcher?

Yes. Veterans that already have a lot of things unlocked and paid a lot of money are not likely to switch to a brand new account and start fresh.

If they release the game on steam with no account restrictions your point of "releasing to a new audience only" is completely false. It will take away a lot of money from whales now switching to steam to buy gems, I fail to see why you are completely ignoring that would happen.

So... don't release it on Steam with no account restrictions. Problem solved? For some reason you keep bringing it up. You already defeated your own argument so let's move on.

At the end of the day it's a matter of if releasing the game on steam will gain enough players to profit from losing 30% revenue from current players, and future players buying the upcoming expansion/gems from steam instead of the original client. End of story.

At the end of the day it's only a matter of the core/free game causing enough of the new players to convert into paid customers. If the developers become confident in their game's ability to earn money, they might think about releasing on Steam, as long as confidence is low, there is no point. It will only strain the servers with a lot of freeloaders. The idea of moving to a new audience, like going on Steam, is to make the game better, not worse.

I didn't defeat my own argument, i'm simply being realistic and realizing there's more than 1 option for them to release the game on steam. I'm not arguing for what I personally want, i'm arguing about what the realistic options are.

1. They could release it with account restrictions. (Clearly not what the OP was asking for with his thread), but would make sure no veterans would begin buying gems on steam.
2. They could release it without account restrictions. This would be more consumer friendly and would cause less backlash, and would make the playernumbers bigger on steam. The benefit from that would be to be more visible on steam, being in the top f2p games on steam is a pretty big deal.
3. They could release it without account restrictions but require you to repurchase the expansions.

And Arena Net is not conserned about having more people stressing their servers. Having more people playing the game wil ALWAYS be a benefit to an MMORPG.

[jokke.6239]

Btw really confusing to be arguing with 2 people at the same time who have the opposite opinion on how the "only" way is to release it on steam, even more so when 1 is agreeing with the other even though he wants the exact opposite.

[maddoctor.2738]

@jokke.6239 said:I didn't defeat my own argument, i'm simply being realistic and realizing there's more than 1 option for them to release the game on steam.

And if one option is bad for the game then they should choose the other one... Really give their marketing team some credit here. Why would they pick the option that ruins their revenue?

And Arena Net is not conserned about having more people stressing their servers. Having more people playing the game wil ALWAYS be a benefit to an MMORPG.

No it won't be a benefit. There is already enough lag on the servers, if thousands more players join the game, that will simply make the situation worse, so having more people playing is not always a benefit, it's obviously very good to have players to populate the game, but I'm not sure Guild Wars 2 lacks enough players in the popular meta events.

[jokke.6239]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"jokke.6239" said:I didn't defeat my own argument, i'm simply being realistic and realizing there's more than 1 option for them to release the game on steam.

And if one option is bad for the game then they should choose the other one... Really give their marketing team some credit here. Why would they pick the option that ruins their revenue?

And Arena Net is not conserned about having more people stressing their servers. Having more people playing the game wil ALWAYS be a benefit to an MMORPG.

No it won't be a benefit. There is already enough lag on the servers, if thousands more players join the game, that will simply make the situation worse, so having more people playing is not always a benefit, it's obviously very good to have players to populate the game, but I'm not sure Guild Wars 2 lacks enough players in the popular meta events.

And I've already told that I agree with you (personally) that it would be the safest options, even though I would hate it.But there's still many other companies (most infact) who release their games to steam without restrictions. Driving the playernumbers up can be benefitial for visibility on steam. And requiring to pay for expansions again would give a lot of revenue from people who want the game on steam.There's also other options that could help with that.They could set up an online shop on their website. You could be encouraged in some way to buy from the website. "Get a free pet when purchasing gems on the website store" or whatever .. You get the picture.

[Astyrah.4015]

@"Korval.3751" said:snip

it's coming in November

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1284210/Guild_Wars_2/

[BnooMaGoo.5690]

I'm surprised by this moveOn one hand it will increase the playerbase but on the other hand doesn't Steam take like 30% of the proceeds?That is money that could go into the game instead of someone elses pocketI guess we will see

[Astyrah.4015]

@BnooMaGoo.5690 said:I'm surprised by this moveOn one hand it will increase the playerbase but on the other hand doesn't Steam take like 30% of the proceeds?That is money that could go into the game instead of someone elses pocketI guess we will see

only for people who purchase via steam.

good:more sales via possible localised pricing for gems (people not from USA/Developed Countries/First World Countries/insert similar with no credit cards but have access to steam wallet cards can finally afford gems)

bad:30% sales cut if you buy from/via steam (but hey apple app store does the same 30% too -obviously not gw2-, and so does many online retailers in varying %)

but hey it's more marketing for GW2 so more potential returnees and newbies :)

[Healix.5819]

The 30% cut doesn't matter, since the players they'll gain through Steam at this point are players they would have never gained outside of Steam, so it's only a gain. If GW2 was just now launching, then it would be bad, which is why more developers are opting to delay Steam launches by a couple months.

[waxx.3619]

Going back reading all those denier post now is just funny hahaha. Good for Anet loving this. It revived SWTOR and Keeps ESO and FFXIV on top. I hope GW2 can get a boost too.

[Astyrah.4015]

@"waxx.3619" said:Going back reading all those denier post now is just funny hahaha. Good for Anet loving this. It revived SWTOR and Keeps ESO and FFXIV on top. I hope GW2 can get a boost too.

steam numbers alone (not including playerbase outside of steam which FF14 obviously has more):

before patch 5.3 of FF14 (understandable because of the content drought), SWTOR was leading ahead of FF14 for weeks after steam launch. now (as of this writing) it's at a 11.8k (swtor) vs 28.5k (ff14) 24hour peak player count... https://steamdb.info/graph/

so yeah the potential is there for us, for gw2!

[notebene.3190]

Oh my god, why did you bump this? This is never going to happen!

(looks up at the top of the forum)

DOH!

:p

[BnooMaGoo.5690]

@"Healix.5819" said:The 30% cut doesn't matter, since the players they'll gain through Steam at this point are players they would have never gained outside of Steam, so it's only a gain. If GW2 was just now launching, then it would be bad, which is why more developers are opting to delay Steam launches by a couple months.

yes and maybe the game will be running through Steam servers for those "game clients"Could be a win win, we will see

[maddoctor.2738]

The only question now is how many of those players that will try the free version, will convert to paying customers. I hope they have some updates to the Core game that will come in November