Whats the plan, boss? (regarding lw and expansions)

[zealex.9410]

> @"MokahTGS.7850" said:

> > @"Agent Noun.7350" said:

> > > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > > I would like monthly sub fee, i get it that most ppl dont. Not asking one, just said what i think.

> >

> > Real talk, I'd pay for a sub if it was optional like Elder Scrolls Online, especially if it meant that the consistent income that a subscription provides for ArenaNet helps smooth out budgetary concerns and content schedules. That said, I'm sure there's a good reason they haven't experimented with that model after so many other buy-to-play or free-to-play games have implemented optional subscriptions.

>

> The reason I play GW2 is because it's B2P. The reason I don't play ESO is because it's a subscription game masquerading as a F2P game.

 

No its not.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > Was there a 2-year schedule for expansions? I don't remember reading anything about it, so if anyone has a link for me to read where they said 2-years for an expansion.

> > >

> > > I could always be wrong about the 2 year schedule but its the generally accepted sweet spot to release an expansion.

> > >

> > > Also i feel like the longer lw drags on the worse the game gets.

> >

> > It took them 3 years to release their first one :)

>

> It wasnt always the plan to get one out. And their ssecond came in 2 years :)

 

So that's 2.5 years on average, not 2 years. Or to be exact, Heart of Thorns was released 38 months after release and Path of Fire 23 months after Heart of Thorns. Average of 30 months. We are at month 11 after Path of Fire, that gives us roughly 19 more months! One expansion release doesn't make it a "schedule". If you get a second second on the 2-year mark then yes that would mean something.

[Evil.1580]

Maybe this season ends with only 3 episodes and they start a new story right now in September/October which will be until next expansion - winter 2019-2020?

[zealex.9410]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > > Was there a 2-year schedule for expansions? I don't remember reading anything about it, so if anyone has a link for me to read where they said 2-years for an expansion.

> > > >

> > > > I could always be wrong about the 2 year schedule but its the generally accepted sweet spot to release an expansion.

> > > >

> > > > Also i feel like the longer lw drags on the worse the game gets.

> > >

> > > It took them 3 years to release their first one :)

> >

> > It wasnt always the plan to get one out. And their ssecond came in 2 years :)

>

> So that's 2.5 years on average, not 2 years. Or to be exact, Heart of Thorns was released 38 months after release and Path of Fire 23 months after Heart of Thorns. Average of 30 months. We are at month 11 after Path of Fire, that gives us roughly 19 more months! One expansion release doesn't make it a "schedule". If you get a second second on the 2-year mark then yes that would mean something.

 

Iirc anet started developement of hot after se 1 so ehh idk how long before hot release was that.

[Zaklex.6308]

I still say that they're continuing to work on the schedule that MO laid out after HoT, that an expansion would be released every 2 years with LW season(s) in between. They could easily fit in two 6 episode seasons between expansions, though that would mean they'd have to pick up the pace a bit in LW episode releases, or they could have one season of 6 episodes and a second season of 4 to 6 episodes depending on how well the expansion is going, there are almost limitless possibilities on the combinations.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> I still say that they're continuing to work on the schedule that MO laid out after HoT, that an expansion would be released every 2 years with LW season(s) in between. They could easily fit in two 6 episode seasons between expansions, though that would mean they'd have to pick up the pace a bit in LW episode releases, or they could have one season of 6 episodes and a second season of 4 to 6 episodes depending on how well the expansion is going, there are almost limitless possibilities on the combinations.

 

They could but with how se4 has been so far its very unlikely. In the delivery part its been very dissapointing.

 

Im mostly suprised they went with 2 seasons which until further notice we are gonna asume that will cover the rest year and a month till the exocted expansion release late 2019.

 

U'd assume they would look at se3 and how a smaller season really didnt help them very much in terms of building up PoF. But ehh.

[Agent Noun.7350]

> @"MokahTGS.7850" said:

> > @"Agent Noun.7350" said:

> > > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > > I would like monthly sub fee, i get it that most ppl dont. Not asking one, just said what i think.

> >

> > Real talk, I'd pay for a sub if it was optional like Elder Scrolls Online, especially if it meant that the consistent income that a subscription provides for ArenaNet helps smooth out budgetary concerns and content schedules. That said, I'm sure there's a good reason they haven't experimented with that model after so many other buy-to-play or free-to-play games have implemented optional subscriptions.

>

> The reason I play GW2 is because it's B2P. The reason I don't play ESO is because it's a subscription game masquerading as a F2P game.

 

ESO's subscription _is_ optional, but I will say that I would absolutely not want to play long-term without it. If you intend to play the game seriously at endgame, I do question whether the subscription is truly optional. Even the craft bag alone is something I really wouldn't want to do without. So I wouldn't want GW2 to do exactly what ESO's subscription does, necessarily.

 

For those who aren't aware, imagine if GW2's material storage system didn't exist, but if you paid a $15/month subscription, you get access to a version of it with unlimited size. It's that important.

 

ESO also doesn't do free content drops like GW2 does. ESO would take the equivalent of like two of GW2's Living World seasons and bundle them together as a DLC that you need to buy, but if you subscribe you get access to all the DLC, too. While ESO might have more content in each content drop, it's all paid content--you're either paying per DLC, or paying a subscription.

 

So really the two games' monetization models really aren't all that comparable and I probably shouldn't have tried.

[MokahTGS.7850]

> @"Agent Noun.7350" said:

> > @"MokahTGS.7850" said:

> > > @"Agent Noun.7350" said:

> > > > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > > > I would like monthly sub fee, i get it that most ppl dont. Not asking one, just said what i think.

> > >

> > > Real talk, I'd pay for a sub if it was optional like Elder Scrolls Online, especially if it meant that the consistent income that a subscription provides for ArenaNet helps smooth out budgetary concerns and content schedules. That said, I'm sure there's a good reason they haven't experimented with that model after so many other buy-to-play or free-to-play games have implemented optional subscriptions.

> >

> > The reason I play GW2 is because it's B2P. The reason I don't play ESO is because it's a subscription game masquerading as a F2P game.

>

> ESO's subscription _is_ optional, but I will say that I would absolutely not want to play long-term without it. If you intend to play the game seriously at endgame, I do question whether the subscription is truly optional. Even the craft bag alone is something I really wouldn't want to do without. So I wouldn't want GW2 to do exactly what ESO's subscription does, necessarily.

>

> For those who aren't aware, imagine if GW2's material storage system didn't exist, but if you paid a $15/month subscription, you get access to a version of it with unlimited size. It's that important.

>

> ESO also doesn't do free content drops like GW2 does. ESO would take the equivalent of like two of GW2's Living World seasons and bundle them together as a DLC that you need to buy, but if you subscribe you get access to all the DLC, too. While ESO might have more content in each content drop, it's all paid content--you're either paying per DLC, or paying a subscription.

>

> So really the two games' monetization models really aren't all that comparable and I probably shouldn't have tried.

 

Which is why I didn't try. I don't like one, and like the other for the reasons you mentioned. IMO, ESO is masquerading as a F2P game. You could play for free...but it's not that fun. You can also buy a car without doors, but it's not as fun. If I buy GW2, it has doors...even air conditioning...pretty good radio too.

[Xar.1387]

More expansions in a short peroid of time = less hype

 

Also. I dont like how ArenaNet advertised (or rather NOT) PoF expansion. And its marketing.

I was missing more trailers, videos and other creative stuff that makes GW2 universe stronger.

So I hope next expansions will be announced much better.

 

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

I was expecting the LW to Expansion to LW and another expansion process considering when they talked about the leaks for PoF they had said they already planned into the expansion right after LW4. So to see that they are doing 5 I guess its for an important narrative reason.

 

Also them talking about Sun's Refuge in this vid is the first I think anyone has heard about it. Quite a bomb. Is this supposed to be the player custom instance we were hoping for?

[zealex.9410]

> @"Agent Noun.7350" said:

> > @"MokahTGS.7850" said:

> > > @"Agent Noun.7350" said:

> > > > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > > > I would like monthly sub fee, i get it that most ppl dont. Not asking one, just said what i think.

> > >

> > > Real talk, I'd pay for a sub if it was optional like Elder Scrolls Online, especially if it meant that the consistent income that a subscription provides for ArenaNet helps smooth out budgetary concerns and content schedules. That said, I'm sure there's a good reason they haven't experimented with that model after so many other buy-to-play or free-to-play games have implemented optional subscriptions.

> >

> > The reason I play GW2 is because it's B2P. The reason I don't play ESO is because it's a subscription game masquerading as a F2P game.

>

> ESO's subscription _is_ optional, but I will say that I would absolutely not want to play long-term without it. If you intend to play the game seriously at endgame, I do question whether the subscription is truly optional. Even the craft bag alone is something I really wouldn't want to do without. So I wouldn't want GW2 to do exactly what ESO's subscription does, necessarily.

>

> For those who aren't aware, imagine if GW2's material storage system didn't exist, but if you paid a $15/month subscription, you get access to a version of it with unlimited size. It's that important.

>

> ESO also doesn't do free content drops like GW2 does. ESO would take the equivalent of like two of GW2's Living World seasons and bundle them together as a DLC that you need to buy, but if you subscribe you get access to all the DLC, too. While ESO might have more content in each content drop, it's all paid content--you're either paying per DLC, or paying a subscription.

>

> So really the two games' monetization models really aren't all that comparable and I probably shouldn't have tried.

 

U also get free "gems" or w/e the currency in eso is every month of sub and u can unlock the dlc with it. Ots also really optional depending on what content you focus on. I can see general casual gw2 players jot seeing massive value from it but hardcore players that are all about that endgame would see value in it. Esp if that lead to more content for them.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Xar.1387" said:

> More expansions in a short peroid of time = less hype

>

> Also. I dont like how ArenaNet advertised (or rather NOT) PoF expansion. And its marketing.

> I was missing more trailers, videos and other creative stuff that makes GW2 universe stronger.

> So I hope next expansions will be announced much better.

>

 

2 years between expansions is absolutely not a "short period" and marketing has little to do with that. It was just anet be anet and going from one extreme in hot (primising features that werent there) to another (having content but not advertising it).

 

If Anything i really miss the elite spec devstreams they had with the art to tease us a few days before. It was done much better than pof.

[Einsof.1457]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Agent Noun.7350" said:

> > > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > > I would like monthly sub fee, i get it that most ppl dont. Not asking one, just said what i think.

> >

> > Real talk, I'd pay for a sub if it was optional like Elder Scrolls Online, especially if it meant that the consistent income that a subscription provides for ArenaNet helps smooth out budgetary concerns and content schedules. That said, I'm sure there's a good reason they haven't experimented with that model after so many other buy-to-play or free-to-play games have implemented optional subscriptions.

>

> Tbh if you see how much content games like Eso and wow/ ff14 get from the sub fees it feels like anet is missing out on that market. ut its also their main advert the lack of sub fee. I assume the non subfee market is that big.

 

As an old ffxiv player are you nuts? Gw2 content demolishes ffxiv in ways I struggle to find words to describe the order of magnitude of.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Einsof.1457" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"Agent Noun.7350" said:

> > > > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > > > I would like monthly sub fee, i get it that most ppl dont. Not asking one, just said what i think.

> > >

> > > Real talk, I'd pay for a sub if it was optional like Elder Scrolls Online, especially if it meant that the consistent income that a subscription provides for ArenaNet helps smooth out budgetary concerns and content schedules. That said, I'm sure there's a good reason they haven't experimented with that model after so many other buy-to-play or free-to-play games have implemented optional subscriptions.

> >

> > Tbh if you see how much content games like Eso and wow/ ff14 get from the sub fees it feels like anet is missing out on that market. ut its also their main advert the lack of sub fee. I assume the non subfee market is that big.

>

> As an old ffxiv player are you nuts? Gw2 content demolishes ffxiv in ways I struggle to find words to describe the order of magnitude of.

 

Excuse me what?

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

I can't imagine that ANet is going to comment before they are ready.

 

I agree that it was odd and a little off-putting to share this as an almost off-hand comment in their celebration vids. I think it's an example of how ANet has trouble setting our expectations about future plans.

 

But I also think it's not important at all. They always intimated that LS4 would be longer than LS3, so it could easily be that LS4+5 is going to end up to be about the same length as they (and we) expected for LS4 originally.

 

They'll tell us when they tell us and it won't change much about what happens after.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I can't imagine that ANet is going to comment before they are ready.

>

> I agree that it was odd and a little off-putting to share this as an almost off-hand comment in their celebration vids. I think it's an example of how ANet has trouble setting our expectations about future plans.

>

> But I also think it's not important at all. They always intimated that LS4 would be longer than LS3, so it could easily be that LS4+5 is going to end up to be about the same length as they (and we) expected for LS4 originally.

>

> They'll tell us when they tell us and it won't change much about what happens after.

 

Ofc but ud assume that we would get 1 8 or so episodes long season since it makes sense and lines up pretty well.

 

Then instead going for 2 seasons is rather confusing because theres no real space for 2 seasons even if they were smaller se3 sized ones.

 

But anyways i believe in general its better if they are open about their plans regardless of what those are. In case the expac comes later we shouldt w8 until the end of 2019 to know.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > I can't imagine that ANet is going to comment before they are ready.

> >

> > I agree that it was odd and a little off-putting to share this as an almost off-hand comment in their celebration vids. I think it's an example of how ANet has trouble setting our expectations about future plans.

> >

> > But I also think it's not important at all. They always intimated that LS4 would be longer than LS3, so it could easily be that LS4+5 is going to end up to be about the same length as they (and we) expected for LS4 originally.

> >

> > They'll tell us when they tell us and it won't change much about what happens after.

>

> Ofc but ud assume that we would get 1 8 or so episodes long season since it makes sense and lines up pretty well.

>

> Then instead going for 2 seasons is rather confusing because theres no real space for 2 seasons even if they were smaller se3 sized ones.

>

> But anyways i believe in general its better if they are open about their plans regardless of what those are. In case the expac comes later we shouldt w8 until the end of 2019 to know.

 

I had the impression we would see 8+ episodes in LS4. If we end up with 5 in LS4 and 5 in LS5, that's pretty close to my expectations in the first place. And no, I don't think they should be open about their plans until they are 100% sure of them. The community has shown time & again that it will overreact if a "goal" isn't met, as we tend to treat it as a "promise."

(That includes ANet never actually saying there wouldn't be expansions; they merely said that was their goal. And even today people still remember the myth, not the actual statements.)

[Edelweiss.4261]

I wish I had known about this before buying gems today. It isn't exactly the most rational of thoughts, but just the thought that an mmo might be wrapping up really puts me off playing the game. Not knowing just makes time spent feel like wasted time. I really hope that there is some clarification on this--preferably soon.

[Athan.1024]

I don't understand where the notion of the game coming to an end is coming from. Just because we are moving from LS4 directly to LS5 does not imply there will not be another expansion. Two years between expansion leaves room for more than one LS. Put the pitchforks away people, GW2 isn't going into maintenance mode.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Edelweiss.4261" said:

> I wish I had known about this before buying gems today. It isn't exactly the most rational of thoughts, but just the thought that an mmo might be wrapping up really puts me off playing the game. Not knowing just makes time spent feel like wasted time. I really hope that there is some clarification on this--preferably soon.

 

How exactly does going from Season 4 to Season 5 directly imply that the game is wrapping up? I think people are really overthinking this whole thing.

[derd.6413]

> @"Edelweiss.4261" said:

> I wish I had known about this before buying gems today. It isn't exactly the most rational of thoughts, but just the thought that an mmo might be wrapping up really puts me off playing the game. Not knowing just makes time spent feel like wasted time. I really hope that there is some clarification on this--preferably soon.

 

I really don't understand this fear mongerig about "the end of the game" on the forums lately because they announced more"free" content instead of payed content at the end of the season

[yefluke.3168]

I think LS4 will fill the the remaining empty maps and then In LS5 we will explore other area... start from above of Desert Highland to Charr Homeland.

I think it is make sense that they extend the map more to the east (poor heart maguma)

 

Taimi still doesn't figure out how to cove with the elder dragons.

No sign of new villain yet.

Kralkatorik might be resolved in this season.

 

Other villains from each races are most likely inactive ( white mantle , nightmare court, Inquest (they have done their own thing...), Flame Legion, Son of svanir looks like stupid brute - they need clever and dangerous leader)

 

Other possible are:

- Tengu in Season 5 (i think Tengu is look like tailless charr with bird head)

- I really want new elites but... i think it they might fix and update the current elite rather than offer a new set ...however player like me, who have 20+ characters might feel bore a little bit.

- May be some new weapon for revenant and engineer?

- Some new pets.

- Introducing brand new weapon. (whip, great axe , spear that doesn't use underwater)

 

I don't think story and new map alone will keep people stay playing it unless they got a lot more to offer in coming LS.

[Evil.1580]

Not to rush with conclusions, but with mounts and possibly other, new upcoming content releases (like housing - just an example), Anet has/will increase their revenue more than before. And they can see it. If they keep releasing skins and new content which can benefit from these or similar gemstore system they will continue increasing this revenue. **This is good for Anet and us in general.**.. Until 2 points are met: 1. They stop offer quality content and concentrates on the golden goose more than they should be by aiming their resources mainly at this target; 2. They implement this system so deep in the game that it becomes P2W.

So if I have to choose between buying a new expansion for 50-70$ per 2 years and delaying the expansion release but being introduced to cleaver monetization systems like skins and housing, I 200% choose the 1st option. Of course, we can have both, I just don't want the devs to be concentrated on the monetization alone, instead of monetization through quality content, and what better content than a brand new expansion with a great story and new elite specs with mechanics?

[Agent Noun.7350]

People need to remember how difficult it is to make a sequel to an MMORPG. Creating a new MMORPG is an *incredibly massive* project. It is not something that can be undertaken the same way as making a new Call of Duty game is.

 

On top of that, there's the risk. Releasing a new MMORPG is already a gigantic risk. MMORPGs aren't the hot commodity anymore--their popularity is miniscule in comparison to other kinds of online games. And these days, a new MMORPG needs to compete with games like Anthem and Destiny, the sort of pseudo-MMO "live service" games that capture a larger audience than any MMORPG that isn't called World of Warcraft.

 

But releasing an MMORPG that is a *sequel* to another MMORPG is an even bigger risk, because now you're also asking your existing fans to leave behind their characters, their earned items, and their *paid* items to go to another game with significantly less content and almost certainly more bugs and more imbalance.

 

Look at the history of MMORPG sequels. The MMORPG sequels that have really taken off are the ones that follow up a game that's almost a completely different genre. Compare GW1 and GW2, for example--they're such fundamentally different games that it's extremely clear why GW2 exists and what it does that GW1 can't. Or look at Lineage and Lineage 2: both are MMORPGs, but they're vastly different kinds. Now take a look at some other examples, like EverQuest 2. That game has been a complete flop. Turns out, people who liked EverQuest didn't want a sequel like EverQuest 2. It's a game that's basically in the same genre, but just... different and, from the perspective of an EverQuest player, watered down. They wanted more EverQuest. And hey, turns out that the original EverQuest is not only still running--it's still getting content updates.

 

If it turns out that ArenaNet has some sort of extremely grand plan that they legitimately cannot do within GW2's framework, and has the resources to make GW3 (or a totally new IP), then okay, maybe. But none of their recent actions suggest that's the case, and the only kind of new game I could imagine that would justify abandoning GW2 would be some sort of pie-in-the-sky dream MMO like the canceled EverQuest Next.

 

What I'm saying is: GW2 is a successful MMORPG. Abandoning it now makes absolutely no sense. Given that the stated plan includes more free content updates and that ArenaNet have previously talked about an expansion coming after Path of Fire, I think we can reasonably assume they're not abandoning GW2 or developing GW3 any time soon.

 

> @"Edelweiss.4261" said:

> I wish I had known about this before buying gems today. It isn't exactly the most rational of thoughts, but just the thought that an mmo might be wrapping up really puts me off playing the game. Not knowing just makes time spent feel like wasted time. I really hope that there is some clarification on this--preferably soon.

 

There is no indication that the game is wrapping up. People are jumping to some extremely strange conclusions from this. The *worst*-case scenario is that the expansion takes longer to come out than PoF did, and if there's a good reason to take more time--like engine updates, new systems, a large feature list, whatever--then that's a *good* thing, too.