Ayrilana.1396 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you misunderstand what DX actually does. > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. > > > > > > > > > > Not all games are designed the same. > > > > > > > > > > Also: > > > > > > > > You know what never mind, ill stick to what the professionals say about single threaded DX9. The game is cpu bound no getting away from that because of dx9 > > > > > > The one who posted in the thread I linked is a professional who was well involved in the game’s development. Don’t confuse professionals with marketing folks. > > > > To post a part of the dev's post for anyone that doesn't want to read the link: > > > > > Which brings us to GW2. GW2 does a lot of processing, and much of it is done on the main thread. That is also where its bottleneck tends to be: The main thread. There are conscious efforts in moving things off the main thread and onto other threads (every now and then a patch goes out that does just this), but due to how multi-threading works it's a non-trivial thing that take a lot of effort to do. In a perfect world, we could say "Hey main thread, give the other threads some stuff to do if you're too busy", but sadly this is not that world. > > > > Meaning, the problem in GW2 is the main thread and the main thread has nothing to do with the version of DirectX. DirectX affects the Render thread, which isn't the problem. > > You know why they run dx9? because at the time many cheap pcs could run the game. Thats not the case anymore and win xp vista and 8 are memories, win 7 will go the way of the dodo next year. So all that will be left are people on win 10 or holdouts risking everything to use a version thats obsolete. Then they will upgrade their engine, because win 10 kittens all over it. That or they will lose players because the performance of the game will suck. 9 has been obsolete for a looong time , and its the worst dx with no multi core/thread support. > > This was their stance back in 2012 when dx9 was still standard , we have come a long way since then > > https://www.facebook.com/GuildWars2/photos/for-those-of-you-who-have-been-asking-about-dx11-support-for-guild-wars-2-our-go/10151048222709209/ That post of theirs I linked was made 3 years ago which is after Windows 10 and DX12 were available. You overestimate how bad the game’s performance actually is and how willing players are to abandon the game because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiviana.2650 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc. > > > > > > > > > > I think you misunderstand what DX actually does. > > > > > > > > Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. > > > > > > Not all games are designed the same. > > > > > > Also: > > > > You know what never mind, ill stick to what the professionals say about single threaded DX9. The game is cpu bound no getting away from that because of dx9 > > Meanwhile a random nobody can simulate the game running on dx12 or w/e and provide more meaningful performance improvements than any of the updates gw2 has done to performance over the years. > > But naaah, not worth investing in that. I saw a wrapper for the game for dx12. Not sure im comfortable using it, and not sure of GW2 policy on it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJin.4127 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > Meanwhile a random nobody can simulate the game running on dx12 or w/e and provide more meaningful performance improvements than any of the updates gw2 has done to performance over the years. > > But naaah, not worth investing in that. I think what zealex is trying to say, is that you can't always believe the devs' reasonings. This reminds me of a certain event a long time ago. It has nothing to do with Anet and I'm not claiming Anet is lying. I just wanted to share this funny story. A long time ago, a decision making party saw how buggy a game sent to them was. They didn't like a particular bug and told the devs they will not approve this game until that bug is fixed. The devs, not willing to fix this bug, sent a lot of emails back and forth between each other, trying to come up with an excuse that the decision maker would buy, allowing them to get away without fixing this bug. They came up with an excuse that the code was so complex that trying to fix that one bug would cause a ripple of unintended consequences for the whole game. All of a sudden, the decision maker replied to that email chain asking, "So, you're going to fix this bug, right?" Turns out, the devs accidentally cced the decision maker in their email chain. XD The “unfixable” bug got fixed real fast after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malediktus.9250 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you misunderstand what DX actually does. > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. DX9 will bottleneck every time on big groups, its single threaded! > > > > > > > > > > Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) and in the vast majority of titles it's superior performance wise to select the DirectX 11 version instead of 12. When selecting 12 there is a massive fps loss with no visual gain. Further, DX12 is only available on Windows 10. No, moving to DirectX 12 at its current state would be a terrible mistake (it could even make things worse instead of better). If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory. > > > > > > > > DX12 puts the effort on the developers instead of the driver since like vulcan it is a low level API. So if it runs worse than DX11 it is entirely the developers fault for being bad. > > > > > > Exactly why I said in theory (and benchmarks) dx12 wins over dx11, but in real game situations it almost always loses (badly if I may add), there is no hidden setting to make dx12 better than dx11, it's just not implemented properly by any game out there. Only Vulkan does what's advertised: giving performance boosts in real games. > > > > Sadly the nature of devs taking the easy path. Programming a good dx12 engine takes a lot more expertise than programming a dx11 or lower engine. So if it runs bad, blame the devs. > > To go back to the argument of GW2 going to DirectX 12, why should they bother? Are the Arenanet engine devs so much better than everyone else that will take advantage of what DX12 offers? I doubt it, so the most sensible solutions would be to update the engine for DX11 instead. The performance gains should be better, trusted, and apply to a higher percentage of the playerbase. They obviously won't bother because hirering competent devs for a dx12 engine will probably cost them 5m dollars (rough estimate, might be even higher). If they already had the devs familar with dx12 inhouse it would be cheaper, but probably take away from other tasks. But someone at Anet who studied economy must have come to the conclusion that investing 5m in a future proof engine costs more than bleeding players due to poor performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > > The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you misunderstand what DX actually does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. DX9 will bottleneck every time on big groups, its single threaded! > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) and in the vast majority of titles it's superior performance wise to select the DirectX 11 version instead of 12. When selecting 12 there is a massive fps loss with no visual gain. Further, DX12 is only available on Windows 10. No, moving to DirectX 12 at its current state would be a terrible mistake (it could even make things worse instead of better). If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory. > > > > > > > > > > DX12 puts the effort on the developers instead of the driver since like vulcan it is a low level API. So if it runs worse than DX11 it is entirely the developers fault for being bad. > > > > > > > > Exactly why I said in theory (and benchmarks) dx12 wins over dx11, but in real game situations it almost always loses (badly if I may add), there is no hidden setting to make dx12 better than dx11, it's just not implemented properly by any game out there. Only Vulkan does what's advertised: giving performance boosts in real games. > > > > > > Sadly the nature of devs taking the easy path. Programming a good dx12 engine takes a lot more expertise than programming a dx11 or lower engine. So if it runs bad, blame the devs. > > > > To go back to the argument of GW2 going to DirectX 12, why should they bother? Are the Arenanet engine devs so much better than everyone else that will take advantage of what DX12 offers? I doubt it, so the most sensible solutions would be to update the engine for DX11 instead. The performance gains should be better, trusted, and apply to a higher percentage of the playerbase. > > They obviously won't bother because hirering competent devs for a dx12 engine will probably cost them 5m dollars (rough estimate, might be even higher). If they already had the devs familar with dx12 inhouse it would be cheaper, but probably take away from other tasks. > But someone at Anet who studied economy must have come to the conclusion that investing 5m in a future proof engine costs more than bleeding players due to poor performance. Those familiar DX will be able to quickly understand DX12. That’s like me using Excel 97 wnd then going to Excel 2016. There will be some difference but the overall functionality hasn’t changed. The $5M is quite the exaggeration as you’re assuming a combination of their salaries being high enough to reach that and having extra programmers as well. You’re also neglecting the cost vs benefit aspect of this. You’re also assuming that this is as big of an issue to matter to the overall player base. When I say “matter”, I mean at the level that they’re actually leaving the game primarily because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einlanzer.1627 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 > @"BlueJin.4127" said: > I can't say I'm happy about the game ATM. Any time I think I'm starting to have fun in this game... > > 1) Too many camera flashes that hurt my eyes from player's own skills (I can't even play Holosmith), other players' skills, enemy skills, gathering Volatile Magic, gathering tools, story, etc. > > 2) Too much visual clutter when doing large group events resulting in unengaging, boring, and mindless skill spam-fest since I can't see what the enemy is doing, or you know... even see the enemy. Too many skill effects, names of other players/minions in squad obstructing view, the enemy nameplate at the top center that can't be moved and obstructs large enemies so I don't even know what I'm targeting, etc. > > 3) Ridiculous aggro range of PoF enemies (900 in PoF compared to 600 everywhere else) single handedly ruins PoF for me. I hate PoF zones with a passion because of this. > > 4) No build templates. > > It's an excellent game, but the above issues (1~3) really ruin it for me since they completely negate the good parts. > > EDIT - If I use a weird analogy, it's like a very talented chef made a very delicious steak. Then, for some reason, the chef decided to pour sugar on the steak because, you know, sugar tastes good. And when people say the steak seems great, but they can't really taste it since the sugar is ruining it, AbandonNet… er, I mean, the chef just shrugs that it's annoying to fix it and has started cooking something else. Yeah, this is why open world stuff does not replace the need for small group stuff. The former is fun sometimes, but you can't build an entire game around it - it's chaotic and lacks immersion. It was ridiculous to ship PoF without any dungeons or small group oriented content and then go 2 years barely adding anything like that. There's also, as always, a serious dearth of feature updates and balance patches. And mount skins are overpriced for how many there are, as I've argued for over a year, which over time creates a burn-out effect that leads to players ceasing to spend any money at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opopanax.1803 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"Opopanax.1803" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > Y'all are missing the real concern from that graph ... the sum of all of the PC game revenue barely adds up to the mobile game revenues. If a game dev company can make an order of magnitude more bux by switching platform ... they would be crazy to not do so. Admittedly, I don't know how many games are in that 'mobile' part of the graph, but that's the biggest concern to me. > > > > This is what I took away too. Anet needs to make a mobile game if they want to survive. > > > ~snip~ > > Not true, as long as income exceeds expenses then the company survives...or perhaps it gets to the point that NCSoft no longer wants ArenaNet and puts them on the block(offers the company for sale), or...there are numerous other possible outcomes that could result. Only if the decline in revenue continues and they start making less money than they're spending will there be a problem. > Going to disagree. If I was a boss, I wouldn't let a company get away without developing at least a single mobile game. You are giving up too much potential and also not matching where the demand in the market is shifting. It would be foolish for Anet not to develop a gw mobile game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malediktus.9250 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you misunderstand what DX actually does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. DX9 will bottleneck every time on big groups, its single threaded! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) and in the vast majority of titles it's superior performance wise to select the DirectX 11 version instead of 12. When selecting 12 there is a massive fps loss with no visual gain. Further, DX12 is only available on Windows 10. No, moving to DirectX 12 at its current state would be a terrible mistake (it could even make things worse instead of better). If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > DX12 puts the effort on the developers instead of the driver since like vulcan it is a low level API. So if it runs worse than DX11 it is entirely the developers fault for being bad. > > > > > > > > > > Exactly why I said in theory (and benchmarks) dx12 wins over dx11, but in real game situations it almost always loses (badly if I may add), there is no hidden setting to make dx12 better than dx11, it's just not implemented properly by any game out there. Only Vulkan does what's advertised: giving performance boosts in real games. > > > > > > > > Sadly the nature of devs taking the easy path. Programming a good dx12 engine takes a lot more expertise than programming a dx11 or lower engine. So if it runs bad, blame the devs. > > > > > > To go back to the argument of GW2 going to DirectX 12, why should they bother? Are the Arenanet engine devs so much better than everyone else that will take advantage of what DX12 offers? I doubt it, so the most sensible solutions would be to update the engine for DX11 instead. The performance gains should be better, trusted, and apply to a higher percentage of the playerbase. > > > > They obviously won't bother because hirering competent devs for a dx12 engine will probably cost them 5m dollars (rough estimate, might be even higher). If they already had the devs familar with dx12 inhouse it would be cheaper, but probably take away from other tasks. > > But someone at Anet who studied economy must have come to the conclusion that investing 5m in a future proof engine costs more than bleeding players due to poor performance. > > Those familiar DX will be able to quickly understand DX12. That’s like me using Excel 97 wnd then going to Excel 2016. There will be some difference but the overall functionality hasn’t changed. > > The $5M is quite the exaggeration as you’re assuming a combination of their salaries being high enough to reach that and having extra programmers as well. > > You’re also neglecting the cost vs benefit aspect of this. You’re also assuming that this is as big of an issue to matter to the overall player base. When I say “matter”, I mean at the level that they’re actually leaving the game primarily because of it. DX12 is different to older DX implementations since it is a low level API which basically replaces the work usually done by AMD's or Nvidia's drivers. A good engine developer probably also earns high 6 figures where Anet is located. And for a game like this you will probably need more than one + testers + 2 years time. Considering a new AAA game costs well over 50m nowadays, allocating 10% of it for the engine alone doesn't seem far off to me. Making an engine is probably one of the hardest things about making a game, that is why most games just license an engine (eg. unreal or frostbite). Making a proper dx 12 multithreaded implementation is not trivial. As someone else pointed out a lot of games run worse with DX12 than DX11. Why? Because they made a shoddy implementation just so they can claim they offer a DX12 mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xstein.2187 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think. When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on? Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store. Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts. The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well. Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store. However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game? It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year. Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money. All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense. I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety. I'm also not saying that Anet isn't focused on player population. However, if you are going to choose between making a lot of money on a game that is eh, ok vs making less money on one that people enjoy more, which as a company are you going to choose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emberstone.2904 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Yeah... I personally went back to Guild Wars 1. That game captivates my attention like no other to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > DX12 is different to older DX implementations since it is a low level API which basically replaces the work usually done by AMD's or Nvidia's drivers. Earlier versions of DX are low level API as well. > A good engine developer probably also earns high 6 figures where Anet is located. And for a game like this you will probably need more than one + testers + 2 years time. The average is $116K. High six figures would be approaching $1M so no, they're not making that much. > Considering a new AAA game costs well over 50m nowadays, allocating 10% of it for the engine alone doesn't seem far off to me. Yeah... during the initial development of the game. > Making an engine is probably one of the hardest things about making a game, that is why most games just license an engine (eg. unreal or frostbite). Making a proper dx 12 multithreaded implementation is not trivial. > As someone else pointed out a lot of games run worse with DX12 than DX11. Why? Because they made a shoddy implementation just so they can claim they offer a DX12 mode. I agree that re-working a game engine is not trivial but neither is the decision to do it or not. Just because something may improve performance, does not mean that it is worth the costs (monetary and not) associated with it. Yeah, they can spend the cost to create an engine that runs efficiently and uses DX12. It's not plug and play so the existing game would need to be updated to use it. This would take time away from development of new content in the game. Content droughts have had a much greater impact on the game than slightly poor performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > Y'all are missing the real concern from that graph ... the sum of all of the PC game revenue barely adds up to the mobile game revenues. If a game dev company can make an order of magnitude more bux by switching platform ... they would be crazy to not do so. Admittedly, I don't know how many games are in that 'mobile' part of the graph, but that's the biggest concern to me. > > > > > > This is what I took away too. Anet needs to make a mobile game if they want to survive. > > > > > ~snip~ > > > > Not true, as long as income exceeds expenses then the company survives... > > > > Its human nature to want more and go for more, the mobile market could make them crazy amount of money far beyond their expenses. > > I mean look at the reccent layoffs in acti-blizzard. The ceo is boasting record sales but the company laidoff 800 ppl because they didnt "meet their potential" of profit. > > Apparently getting to keep your job in the game's industry goes beyond just exceeding expenses. You're comparing apples to oranges though, Activision-Blizzard is an American company, NCSoft is Korean, though they're both in the same industry, the way businesses are looked at in the 2 countries are different. U.S is focused on short term gain, how much money did you make for me in the last 3 months...from what I've learned about most(not all) Asian countries it's about the long-term viability and strength of the company. ArenaNet being a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft is in an unusual position as they're a U.S gaming company owned by an Asian gaming company...we actually have no idea on the relationship between A.net and NC with the exception that they were given more freedom with GW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Xstein.2187" said: > Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think. > > When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on? > Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store. > Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts. > The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well. > Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store. > > However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game? > It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year. > Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money. > All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense. > > I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety. The problem with this reasoning is that the GW franchise has always been sub-free. How many GW2 players would uninstall in a heartbeat if the game went sub, or even "optional sub?" Old games don't attract that many new people. Shifting to a sub model would only work on what is an old game if ANet could retain "enough" of its existing players. I strongly suspect that is not what would happen. I know I'd be gone. I am no longer willing to rent games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJin.4127 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 I can see Xstein's point, but on the flip side, a sub based game can focus too much on slowing players down to retain sub. That is why I left WoW and would never play another sub based game. I love that there are a lot of things I can do in GW2 that's not a crazy grind. A lot of the things I got in the game just require me to experience something once, instead of doing the same activity over and over and over for weeks. I can't remember the last time I wanted something in WoW that didn't involve long grinds requiring the same activity over and over and over... Shudder :scream: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inculpatus cedo.9234 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > @"Malediktus.9250" said: > > > > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The engine is old and it shows even on new rigs. If they did a new expansion they would need a new engine because this one isnt optimized and performs badly. I mean how old is dx9 now? 2002? Even wow that behemoth of a game 14 years old has been updated to dx12, framerates are smoother , the pc runs easier and it looks better with a higher dx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another thing is graphic clutter, it has been said time and again there is too much visual noise in combat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They would not need a new engine if doing a new expansion. A higher DX will not provide the improvement that you’re expecting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you underestimate the difference going from dx9 to dx12 can make on a pc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you misunderstand what DX actually does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seriously? you know they have people that benchmark these things, and all the testing has shown a serious performance improvement in dx12 over 9. 9 is a dinosaur that chokes the cpu, 12 puts the onus on the graphic card where it should be. 12 plays better with your pc, unless you own a potato. DX9 will bottleneck every time on big groups, its single threaded! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) and in the vast majority of titles it's superior performance wise to select the DirectX 11 version instead of 12. When selecting 12 there is a massive fps loss with no visual gain. Further, DX12 is only available on Windows 10. No, moving to DirectX 12 at its current state would be a terrible mistake (it could even make things worse instead of better). If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DX12 puts the effort on the developers instead of the driver since like vulcan it is a low level API. So if it runs worse than DX11 it is entirely the developers fault for being bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly why I said in theory (and benchmarks) dx12 wins over dx11, but in real game situations it almost always loses (badly if I may add), there is no hidden setting to make dx12 better than dx11, it's just not implemented properly by any game out there. Only Vulkan does what's advertised: giving performance boosts in real games. > > > > > > > > > > Sadly the nature of devs taking the easy path. Programming a good dx12 engine takes a lot more expertise than programming a dx11 or lower engine. So if it runs bad, blame the devs. > > > > > > > > To go back to the argument of GW2 going to DirectX 12, why should they bother? Are the Arenanet engine devs so much better than everyone else that will take advantage of what DX12 offers? I doubt it, so the most sensible solutions would be to update the engine for DX11 instead. The performance gains should be better, trusted, and apply to a higher percentage of the playerbase. > > > > > > They obviously won't bother because hirering competent devs for a dx12 engine will probably cost them 5m dollars (rough estimate, might be even higher). If they already had the devs familar with dx12 inhouse it would be cheaper, but probably take away from other tasks. > > > But someone at Anet who studied economy must have come to the conclusion that investing 5m in a future proof engine costs more than bleeding players due to poor performance. > > > > Those familiar DX will be able to quickly understand DX12. That’s like me using Excel 97 wnd then going to Excel 2016. There will be some difference but the overall functionality hasn’t changed. > > > > The $5M is quite the exaggeration as you’re assuming a combination of their salaries being high enough to reach that and having extra programmers as well. > > > > You’re also neglecting the cost vs benefit aspect of this. You’re also assuming that this is as big of an issue to matter to the overall player base. When I say “matter”, I mean at the level that they’re actually leaving the game primarily because of it. > > DX12 is different to older DX implementations since it is a low level API which basically replaces the work usually done by AMD's or Nvidia's drivers. A good engine developer probably also earns high 6 figures where Anet is located. And for a game like this you will probably need more than one + testers + 2 years time. > Considering a new AAA game costs well over 50m nowadays, allocating 10% of it for the engine alone doesn't seem far off to me. > Making an engine is probably one of the hardest things about making a game, that is why most games just license an engine (eg. unreal or frostbite). Making a proper dx 12 multithreaded implementation is not trivial. > As someone else pointed out a lot of games run worse with DX12 than DX11. Why? Because they made a shoddy implementation just so they can claim they offer a DX12 mode. Engine developers make nearly a million dollars a year (high 6 figures [low six figures = 100,000 - high six figures = 900,000)? Wow, should be everyone's choice of career, I'd say! Edit: (The very best I could find, and it's rare, on the internet was 150,000/year; the average is ~75,000/year, and most peak at around ~115,000.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neural.1824 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > You should be because it won't kill it, but it will compete for resources within a game company, or the industry at large. If you still want a variety of high quality PC-based MMO's being released to the market using the latest tech, mobile gaming is a serious threat to that. I hope it does. PC-games need a hard reset. When PC based MMORPG's become so unprofitable that the AAA industry effectively "dies" as it switches to chase mobile games, the vacuum will be filled by small companies that will operate independently of faceless investors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenedge.9675 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > @"Aza.2105" said: > > Numbers would soar through the roof if they dropped a Cantha xpac. > > Like it did with Elona (Pof)? Oh wait... But as was pointed out, the new stories don't require much time to finish. It's a push, but I've managed 1st-day story and map completion for each episode so far playing solo. Time gating has been a popular technique for slowing it down a bit. For a long time now, the time-gating has not been well masked by questing or story involvement. "Bring me 1,000 rats, but only 10 per day" is not creative. Imagine sprinkling a bit of 'come back tomorrow while I assemble it among various NPCs like the Jahai armor required. A few dungeon delves would also spice things up here and there. These would require killing the trash mobs and proving both the group strength and stamina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xstein.2187 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > @"Xstein.2187" said: > > Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think. > > > > When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on? > > Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store. > > Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts. > > The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well. > > Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store. > > > > However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game? > > It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year. > > Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money. > > All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense. > > > > I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety. > > The problem with this reasoning is that the GW franchise has always been sub-free. How many GW2 players would uninstall in a heartbeat if the game went sub, or even "optional sub?" Old games don't attract that many new people. Shifting to a sub model would only work on what is an old game if ANet could retain "enough" of its existing players. I strongly suspect that is not what would happen. I know I'd be gone. I am no longer willing to rent games. Ya, I agree. That is why I said that "there may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions." The point really isn't that is should be a sub game. The point is that in between expansions, there should be sources of income besides flashy PvE gem store items that are in line with other ways players get enjoyment from playing the game. I honestly don't know what would be the best way of doing this. It could even be through an expansion of the gem store so that it doesn't just focus on pve aesthetics. Some potential ideas I can think of on the top of my head are: 1. New WvW commander tags in the gem store: Wanna sale more commander tags? Then work on developing and getting people more interested in WvW 2. New PvP achievements you can purchase in the gem store: They don't even need to provide achievement points for achieving them, but maybe something like titles instead. Wanna sale more PvP achievement collections? Start focusing on balance so that more people wanna play PvP. In future expansions you may then even develop more game modes so that you can sale more types of achievements or goal sets in the gem store between expansions. 3. New WvW achievements for the same reason. 4. A MAX limit to how much a gem store item can cost for cosmetics: If you focus on selling a small thing to as many people as possible vs selling an expensive thing to just the most dedicated players, there may be a larger incentive to get a larger number of people interested in the game vs just trying to mooch off the most dedicated players. 5. Pay to play WvW and PvP compititions: Even if you don't like the idea of locked content like this and don't play it, this would still lead to a stronger incentive for Anet to improve WvW and PvP to get more people involved in the tournaments. Additionally, there is no difference between pvp/wvw content locked off vs content locked off within an expansion. The key is to create new feedback loops that aren't currently there. Then it would be a win-win situation for both Anet and the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenedge.9675 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > Actually DX12 has been garbage so far. The games that run well on DirectX 12 are limited (is there any?) . . .. If there was a need to update, they should update to DirectX 11, wide support from the playerbase, and it WORKS, unlike DirectX 12 which only works in benchmarks and in theory. > The reason being is people dont optimize dx12, i made the same mistake at first and hated it. DX12 comes out of the box . . A windows 10 box, which I've avoided so far - just headaches. A better choice of common denominator needs to be picked or created. DX12 would require too many people to move to Windows 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keenedge.9675 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > win 7 will go the way of the dodo next year. They said the same for Windows XP. I expect Windows 7 will last even longer than XP did. It's far more stable, manageable and lean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Xstein.2187" said: > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > @"Xstein.2187" said: > > > Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think. > > > > > > When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on? > > > Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store. > > > Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts. > > > The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well. > > > Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store. > > > > > > However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game? > > > It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year. > > > Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money. > > > All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense. > > > > > > I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety. > > > > The problem with this reasoning is that the GW franchise has always been sub-free. How many GW2 players would uninstall in a heartbeat if the game went sub, or even "optional sub?" Old games don't attract that many new people. Shifting to a sub model would only work on what is an old game if ANet could retain "enough" of its existing players. I strongly suspect that is not what would happen. I know I'd be gone. I am no longer willing to rent games. > > Ya, I agree. That is why I said that "there may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions." The point really isn't that is should be a sub game. The point is that in between expansions, there should be sources of income besides flashy PvE gem store items that are in line with other ways players get enjoyment from playing the game. I honestly don't know what would be the best way of doing this. It could even be through an expansion of the gem store so that it doesn't just focus on pve aesthetics. Some potential ideas I can think of on the top of my head are: > > 1. New WvW commander tags in the gem store: Wanna sale more commander tags? Then work on developing and getting people more interested in WvW > 2. New PvP achievements you can purchase in the gem store: They don't even need to provide achievement points for achieving them, but maybe something like titles instead. Wanna sale more PvP achievement collections? Start focusing on balance so that more people wanna play PvP. In future expansions you may then even develop more game modes so that you can sale more types of achievements or goal sets in the gem store between expansions. > 3. New WvW achievements for the same reason. > 4. A MAX limit to how much a gem store item can cost for cosmetics: If you focus on selling a small thing to as many people as possible vs selling an expensive thing to just the most dedicated players, there may be a larger incentive to get a larger number of people interested in the game vs just trying to mooch off the most dedicated players. > 5. Pay to play WvW and PvP compititions: Even if you don't like the idea of locked content like this and don't play it, this would still lead to a stronger incentive for Anet to improve WvW and PvP to get more people involved in the tournaments. Additionally, there is no difference between pvp/wvw content locked off vs content locked off within an expansion. > > The key is to create new feedback loops that aren't currently there. Then it would be a win-win situation for both Anet and the players. All this stuff sounds great on paper, but that doesn't mean it works. The fact is, it's NORMAL to have lower income between expansion cycles and it's probably figured into business plans. No one expects, on an entertainment product, to make a constant amount of money. Saying that you can change it to make more money all the time is very nice...but not often true. I used to run a retail story and the money we made at three times of year sustained us for the rest of the year. We've had exactly one reduced quarter so far. There are other reasons why people buy gems, having nothing to do with what's in the gem store. And that's getting gems to sell for gold because they don't want to farm, but they want a legendary or something else that they can buy with in game gold. By the way, none of the analysis I've seen of the dollar figure takes into account the exchange rate to WON which has traditionally been bad for exchange when sales quarters are lower. This is just a normal part of the MMO business. Anet has said directly that stuff actually sells better when it's more expensive, which is they they do it. They have tried a number of things for an extended time. The fact that you can transfer gold to gems makes it harder to include cheaper items, because if people can buy with gold they may not buy with cash. That's one of the reasons items are more expensive in the gem store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"keenedge.9675" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"Aza.2105" said: > > > Numbers would soar through the roof if they dropped a Cantha xpac. > > > > Like it did with Elona (Pof)? Oh wait... > > But as was pointed out, the new stories don't require much time to finish. > > It's a push, but I've managed 1st-day story and map completion for each episode so far playing solo. > > Time gating has been a popular technique for slowing it down a bit. For a long time now, the time-gating has not been well masked by questing or story involvement. "Bring me 1,000 rats, but only 10 per day" is not creative. Imagine sprinkling a bit of 'come back tomorrow while I assemble it among various NPCs like the Jahai armor required. A few dungeon delves would also spice things up here and there. These would require killing the trash mobs and proving both the group strength and stamina. The point I was making with that comment was that Elona was the other highly requested area for players to go. It didn’t have send revenue soaring beyond HoT which didn’t even have an area players were highly requesting. Cantha isn’t going to send revenue soaring any more than any other area of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xstein.2187 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Xstein.2187" said: > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > @"Xstein.2187" said: > > > > Oddly enough, I have been starting to really, really wish this was a sub game, just not for the reason most think. > > > > > > > > When most of your in between expansion money is spent on gem store items, what is the company going to need to focus on? > > > > Making flashier, more impressive gem store items that people are willing to buy. This is exactly what we have been seeing over the years, flashier outfits or mounts in the gem store. > > > > Not only that, but Anet specifically designed PoF with the intent on make gem store money on mounts. > > > > The freaking expansions are now partially based on making gem store money as well. > > > > Anet obviously know about these results and know they make a lot of money on expansions, just not as much between expansions. Therefore, right now they are probably focused on trying to figure out on how to make more money between expansions -> the gem store. > > > > > > > > However, now consider this. What would their attention be focused on if gw2 was a sub game? > > > > It would be focused on keeping a high subscription base from year to year. > > > > Instead of the focus being spent on making flashy gem store items or expansions with the gem store in mind, you would start to see a focus on keeping a high player population since a higher player population would be directly correlated with making more money. > > > > All of a sudden, you may see some aspects of the game, like balance and pvp, while they don't make a lot of money through the gem store, see more attention because they may see player and profit changes based on balance. Of course, all of this is speculation. However, it makes perfect sense. > > > > > > > > I don't want to get too political, but take health care as an example. If health care is publicized than the main goal of the health care company is to make money relative to actual health care. If you change their goals to actually taking care of people instead of just making money, then you start to see better results from the health care. Same thing with gw2. You need to change it so the focus is on making a fun game to play, not on making flashy gem store items. There may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions. However, the main thing is that the focus needs to change so money generation isn't focused so much on one specific aspect of the game. Spread it out a little bit, get some more variety. > > > > > > The problem with this reasoning is that the GW franchise has always been sub-free. How many GW2 players would uninstall in a heartbeat if the game went sub, or even "optional sub?" Old games don't attract that many new people. Shifting to a sub model would only work on what is an old game if ANet could retain "enough" of its existing players. I strongly suspect that is not what would happen. I know I'd be gone. I am no longer willing to rent games. > > > > Ya, I agree. That is why I said that "there may be a way of doing this besides subscriptions." The point really isn't that is should be a sub game. The point is that in between expansions, there should be sources of income besides flashy PvE gem store items that are in line with other ways players get enjoyment from playing the game. I honestly don't know what would be the best way of doing this. It could even be through an expansion of the gem store so that it doesn't just focus on pve aesthetics. Some potential ideas I can think of on the top of my head are: > > > > 1. New WvW commander tags in the gem store: Wanna sale more commander tags? Then work on developing and getting people more interested in WvW > > 2. New PvP achievements you can purchase in the gem store: They don't even need to provide achievement points for achieving them, but maybe something like titles instead. Wanna sale more PvP achievement collections? Start focusing on balance so that more people wanna play PvP. In future expansions you may then even develop more game modes so that you can sale more types of achievements or goal sets in the gem store between expansions. > > 3. New WvW achievements for the same reason. > > 4. A MAX limit to how much a gem store item can cost for cosmetics: If you focus on selling a small thing to as many people as possible vs selling an expensive thing to just the most dedicated players, there may be a larger incentive to get a larger number of people interested in the game vs just trying to mooch off the most dedicated players. > > 5. Pay to play WvW and PvP compititions: Even if you don't like the idea of locked content like this and don't play it, this would still lead to a stronger incentive for Anet to improve WvW and PvP to get more people involved in the tournaments. Additionally, there is no difference between pvp/wvw content locked off vs content locked off within an expansion. > > > > The key is to create new feedback loops that aren't currently there. Then it would be a win-win situation for both Anet and the players. > > All this stuff sounds great on paper, but that doesn't mean it works. The fact is, it's NORMAL to have lower income between expansion cycles and it's probably figured into business plans. No one expects, on an entertainment product, to make a constant amount of money. Saying that you can change it to make more money all the time is very nice...but not often true. > > I used to run a retail story and the money we made at three times of year sustained us for the rest of the year. We've had exactly one reduced quarter so far. > > There are other reasons why people buy gems, having nothing to do with what's in the gem store. And that's getting gems to sell for gold because they don't want to farm, but they want a legendary or something else that they can buy with in game gold. > > By the way, none of the analysis I've seen of the dollar figure takes into account the exchange rate to WON which has traditionally been bad for exchange when sales quarters are lower. > > This is just a normal part of the MMO business. Anet has said directly that stuff actually sells better when it's more expensive, which is they they do it. They have tried a number of things for an extended time. > > The fact that you can transfer gold to gems makes it harder to include cheaper items, because if people can buy with gold they may not buy with cash. That's one of the reasons items are more expensive in the gem store. Sounds good, I agree with you on gem store price. I don't know the details behind it. I also agree that there will always be lower quarters and then higher ones based on the expansions. I don't believe you can 100% bump that quarter up, never claimed you could. However, I do think Anet is going to try to do what they can during that quarter to make what they can. Right now PvE open world has an excellent feedback loop going for it based on the expansions alone, or at least most of it. They have an incentive to make the best open World PvE content they can because they make a lot of money from their open world PvE expansions. PvE, WvW, and balance do not fit into that equation as well, probably along with many other aspects of the game that people do or who at one point have enjoyed. Having a guaranteed oscillating quarters doesn't mean Anet can't make more money off of other areas of the game, doesn't mean they can't make more money between expansions, and doesn't mean that making more money off of those other areas of the game can't incentivize improvements into those aspects of the game for the players. My whole list was just hypothetical ideas to bounce thoughts off of. Did you have any other ideas that would help with this problem? And by problem I mostly mean lop sided resources placed into open world PvE and gem store cosmetics relative to PvP, WvW, and Balance (PvE balance included) at the expense of players who would pay money to put more recourses into those areas of the game but can't (seen it stated in the PvP forums before) because that is the area of the game they enjoy (untaped potential to increase quarter sales). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 From reading the first page of the thread: lol you guys talk as if GW2 has failed. So there's a lull in sales across the board (except Lineage 2. not sure what happened this quarter with them). It happens. But I guess this is the time to micro-analyze everything you feel is wrong with the game now. Not going to criticize that since I haven't even played the game for nearly a year now. I still hold out hope that they'll put out some content that will bring me back and spend money on all the stuff they've been putting out (hinthint: new race & build templates). Until then, don't sign of Anet yet lol. I'm sure they can keep the ball rolling like they did with the mounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > Y'all are missing the real concern from that graph ... the sum of all of the PC game revenue barely adds up to the mobile game revenues. If a game dev company can make an order of magnitude more bux by switching platform ... they would be crazy to not do so. Admittedly, I don't know how many games are in that 'mobile' part of the graph, but that's the biggest concern to me. > > > > > > > > This is what I took away too. Anet needs to make a mobile game if they want to survive. > > > > > > > ~snip~ > > > > > > Not true, as long as income exceeds expenses then the company survives... > > > > > > > Its human nature to want more and go for more, the mobile market could make them crazy amount of money far beyond their expenses. > > > > I mean look at the reccent layoffs in acti-blizzard. The ceo is boasting record sales but the company laidoff 800 ppl because they didnt "meet their potential" of profit. > > > > Apparently getting to keep your job in the game's industry goes beyond just exceeding expenses. > > You're comparing apples to oranges though, Activision-Blizzard is an American company, NCSoft is Korean, though they're both in the same industry, the way businesses are looked at in the 2 countries are different. U.S is focused on short term gain, how much money did you make for me in the last 3 months...from what I've learned about most(not all) Asian countries it's about the long-term viability and strength of the company. ArenaNet being a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft is in an unusual position as they're a U.S gaming company owned by an Asian gaming company...we actually have no idea on the relationship between A.net and NC with the exception that they were given more freedom with GW2. Acti-blizzard has seen the success in the asian market and has wanted to heavily invest in that market for seemingly a while. DImmortal is basically the first step towards that. Also, short term gains? You must have not read about whats going on with activision-blizzard for the last year, year and a half. Acti-blizzard has been in a constant cost cutting effort with the goal to maximise production, roster and content delivery in their ip's but they've also canned ips in the name of longterm stability and income. Wow since legion and bfa has had mechanics introduce that heavily incentivise ppl to stay subbed for many many months to keep up with a score or a grind which self renews itself every content patch. It also has a cash shop just like gw2 which gets updated on some basis. Apples and oranges are both fruit with diff properties but still under the same food banner and are largelly used in the same range of recipes in cooking. They are both pretty meh and they should try and be more like pears. But i can still compaire them, call out each pros and cons say which i find to be superior. Simmilarly i can do the same with diff counts of mmos like gw2 and wow despite their diff in business model because at heart they are mmos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now