Guild wars 2 on Xbox

[Zoid.2568]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> I don't remember the Devs stating that a controller was the reason for no porting to consoles. I think working on the Mac client is already as much as they want to work on, as far as other platforms go.

 

Console would generate more players and income than Mac or Linux ever will.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-01-what-happened-to-guild-wars-2-on-console

> >

> > Things likely haven’t changed since then.

>

> I like this part and I quote: _"I don't think we would ever say no,"_

>

> I honestly don't know where things are today, but they indicated their main barrier was the speed of pushing out updates and I have no idea if that's easier now or not, but a lot can happen in 5 years.

 

It's unlikely to have changed much, if at all, because it isn't a technical limitation.

 

Microsoft and Sony (and Nintendo) insist on approving all updates released on their consoles to make sure it works as intended and doesn't have any undisclosed functions or conflicts with other software. This does have benefits for players - amongst other things it's why you never have to worry about viruses or software that does things like steal your credit card details on consoles. It also ensures minimum standards for games - yes there's still bugs (sometimes quite serious ones) in console games, and these days most professional studios hold their PC games to the same standard but you'll never see poorly made games which are actually just there to install spyware on your machine like you do on PCs. (Unlike back in ye olde days of the 1980's when a flood of badly made 3rd party games was one of the things which [nearly destroyed the whole industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 "nearly destroyed the whole industry").

 

The downside is it takes time for each update to be approved and the developer has to pay for that process. This is why Elder Scrolls Online always releases console updates a few weeks after they come out on PC. They're finished at the same time and then they can just release the PC version but have to wait for the console versions to be approved before they can be released. (Which simultaneously leads to PC players claiming they're second class citizens who are used as beta testers for the consoles and console players claiming they're second class citizens who only receive updates as an after-thought.)

 

This wouldn't be as much of a problem for Anet now as when they were releasing an update every 2 weeks, but it would still be an additional cost and a delay to releases. And fixes to bugs which got through the initial process take just as long to get approved and released - so consoles wouldn't get the same day/next day patches we usually get now.

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-01-what-happened-to-guild-wars-2-on-console

> > >

> > > Things likely haven’t changed since then.

> >

> > I like this part and I quote: _"I don't think we would ever say no,"_

> >

> > I honestly don't know where things are today, but they indicated their main barrier was the speed of pushing out updates and I have no idea if that's easier now or not, but a lot can happen in 5 years.

>

> It's unlikely to have changed much, if at all, because it isn't a technical limitation.

>

> Microsoft and Sony (and Nintendo) insist on approving all updates released on their consoles to make sure it works as intended and doesn't have any undisclosed functions or conflicts with other software. This does have benefits for players - amongst other things it's why you never have to worry about viruses or software that does things like steal your credit card details on consoles. It also ensures minimum standards for games - yes there's still bugs (sometimes quite serious ones) in console games, and these days most professional studios hold their PC games to the same standard but you'll never see poorly made games which are actually just there to install spyware on your machine like you do on PCs. (Unlike back in ye olde days of the 1980's when a flood of badly made 3rd party games was one of the things which [nearly destroyed the whole industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 "nearly destroyed the whole industry").

>

> The downside is it takes time for each update to be approved and the developer has to pay for that process. This is why Elder Scrolls Online always releases console updates a few weeks after they come out on PC. They're finished at the same time and then they can just release the PC version but have to wait for the console versions to be approved before they can be released. (Which simultaneously leads to PC players claiming they're second class citizens who are used as beta testers for the consoles and console players claiming they're second class citizens who only receive updates as an after-thought.)

>

> This wouldn't be as much of a problem for Anet now as when they were releasing an update every 2 weeks, but it would still be an additional cost and a delay to releases. And fixes to bugs which got through the initial process take just as long to get approved and released - so consoles wouldn't get the same day/next day patches we usually get now.

 

And as always, the cost has to be warranted. There are a number of cost factors and it has to be worth the investment of course. It is interesting if you can expect a lot more players to get on board that currently are not, because that would certainly increase their revenue significantly. But there is the investment and extra hassle to you bring with it for yourself and I'm certainly not convinced ArenaNet are ready for such an adventure.

[sorudo.9054]

> @"Zoid.2568" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > I don't remember the Devs stating that a controller was the reason for no porting to consoles. I think working on the Mac client is already as much as they want to work on, as far as other platforms go.

>

> Console would generate more players and income than Mac or Linux ever will.

 

> @"Zoid.2568" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > I don't remember the Devs stating that a controller was the reason for no porting to consoles. I think working on the Mac client is already as much as they want to work on, as far as other platforms go.

>

> Console would generate more players and income than Mac or Linux ever will.

 

it would also generate more upkeep cost, costs for rights, etc....

you're blaming one part while ignoring the bigger picture, mac is an official supported platform because they don't need to pay any extra rights, they do on consoles.