Why Only PC

[derd.6413]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"derd.6413" said:

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

> > > > > > @"MrRuin.9740" said:

> > > > > > Do you want new content or ports to consoles? Seems like that's the choice here.

> > > > >

> > > > > This isn't true. Those that will do the "port" will be the engine team and the UI team, not the content team. The port will use the same assets as the PC version and content release won't be affected at all.

> > > >

> > > > actually porting to console would affect content releases because anet would need to pay sony, microsoft or nintendo for each update among other issues that come with pushing updates on console

> > >

> > > That's not reason to affect their content release. Lots of games that work on both console and PC release their content on PC first and then wait for the validation until they can put it on console. Content release pace isn't affected by going multiplatform, provided your engine supports multiple platforms and the GW2 engine more than likely cannot. Judging by the CPU performance.

> > >

> > > As for the price cost, the idea is that the console version will pay for itself. Although it costs to push content on console, it provides the game to a new audience, so more expansion sales, more gem store sales and so on.

> >

> > just because it makes some money doesn't mean it offsets the costs and anet has stated that the reason a console version isn't going to happen is because releasing updates on consoles is more expensive and difficult.

>

> Where/when did the developers give this reason?

 

couple of years ago, i'll try to find it but i'm kinda busy

[derd.6413]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"derd.6413" said:

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

> > > > > @"derd.6413" said:

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

> > > > > > > @"MrRuin.9740" said:

> > > > > > > Do you want new content or ports to consoles? Seems like that's the choice here.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This isn't true. Those that will do the "port" will be the engine team and the UI team, not the content team. The port will use the same assets as the PC version and content release won't be affected at all.

> > > > >

> > > > > actually porting to console would affect content releases because anet would need to pay sony, microsoft or nintendo for each update among other issues that come with pushing updates on console

> > > >

> > > > That's not reason to affect their content release. Lots of games that work on both console and PC release their content on PC first and then wait for the validation until they can put it on console. Content release pace isn't affected by going multiplatform, provided your engine supports multiple platforms and the GW2 engine more than likely cannot. Judging by the CPU performance.

> > > >

> > > > As for the price cost, the idea is that the console version will pay for itself. Although it costs to push content on console, it provides the game to a new audience, so more expansion sales, more gem store sales and so on.

> > >

> > > just because it makes some money doesn't mean it offsets the costs and anet has stated that the reason a console version isn't going to happen is because releasing updates on consoles is more expensive and difficult.

> >

> > Where/when did the developers give this reason?

>

> couple of years ago, i'll try to find it but i'm kinda busy

 

that was easier then i expected

 

https://venturebeat.com/2012/08/09/guild-wars-2-interview/

 

>**GamesBeat**: For quite a few years now, even as far back as the PlayStation 2 and the original Xbox, a lot of major PC MMOs have promised a console version. But only a couple have actually delivered. From your perspective, why you think that keeps happening?

 

>**Zadorojny**: Console is a hard thing to do. You wind up in situations where, whenever you’re doing an update…with an MMO, we need to be really flexible. If there’s a common game-breaking bug, something like that, we need to be able to patch the game relatively quickly. When you work on consoles, you start having to deal with publishers and having to go through checks and balances with them as far as making sure they’re okay with the executable that you’re pushing up. And there are costs associated with it as well. It’s much easier to reflexively adapt to situations on the PC than it is with console.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> that was easier then i expected

>

> https://venturebeat.com/2012/08/09/guild-wars-2-interview/

>

> >**GamesBeat**: For quite a few years now, even as far back as the PlayStation 2 and the original Xbox, a lot of major PC MMOs have promised a console version. But only a couple have actually delivered. From your perspective, why you think that keeps happening?

>

> >**Zadorojny**: Console is a hard thing to do. You wind up in situations where, whenever you’re doing an update…with an MMO, we need to be really flexible. If there’s a common game-breaking bug, something like that, we need to be able to patch the game relatively quickly. When you work on consoles, you start having to deal with publishers and having to go through checks and balances with them as far as making sure they’re okay with the executable that you’re pushing up. And there are costs associated with it as well. It’s much easier to reflexively adapt to situations on the PC than it is with console.

 

That was from back in 2012 when there were very few (if any?) major MMORPGs both on PC and console. Also Sony during the PS3 era didn't have a very good online service yet. Markets change, and the online services of both PS4 and X1 are much better now, fears from 2012 are irrelevant in our day and age.

[derd.6413]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > that was easier then i expected

> >

> > https://venturebeat.com/2012/08/09/guild-wars-2-interview/

> >

> > >**GamesBeat**: For quite a few years now, even as far back as the PlayStation 2 and the original Xbox, a lot of major PC MMOs have promised a console version. But only a couple have actually delivered. From your perspective, why you think that keeps happening?

> >

> > >**Zadorojny**: Console is a hard thing to do. You wind up in situations where, whenever you’re doing an update…with an MMO, we need to be really flexible. If there’s a common game-breaking bug, something like that, we need to be able to patch the game relatively quickly. When you work on consoles, you start having to deal with publishers and having to go through checks and balances with them as far as making sure they’re okay with the executable that you’re pushing up. And there are costs associated with it as well. It’s much easier to reflexively adapt to situations on the PC than it is with console.

>

> That was from back in 2012 when there were very few (if any?) major MMORPGs both on PC and console. Also Sony during the PS3 era didn't have a very good online service yet. Markets change, and the online services of both PS4 and X1 are much better now, fears from 2012 are irrelevant in our day and age.

 

i doubt that the behind-the-scene publisher tomfoolery has changed much, besides what publisher is gonna publish a console port for a 7 year old MMO?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> i doubt that the behind-the-scene publisher tomfoolery has changed much, besides what publisher is gonna publish a console port for a 7 year old MMO?

 

Nobody. I already gave earlier the reason why, the game engine isn't suitable for consoles due to how badly threaded it is. However, if they created a new engine for the game, not only it would make PC players happy, as the game would run better on current gen hardware, but also make the game available to be released on consoles. The publisher and the "patch" excuses are no longer relevant in our day and age, and given the success of other MMORPGs on consoles, neither is the cost. As loads of MMORGPs (and games in general) are cross platform now and major MMORPGs are released on consoles, those old arguments are no longer valid.

 

A game engine is NOT the game's content, which means it wouldn't have any effect on the content, nor it's release cadence. Provided of course they DO have a separate engine team, otherwise they'd need to hire one, at the expense of some other department maybe.

 

tl;dr: as the game IS now, it's impossible to put on console, however if they created a new/better engine they could easily port it to console, the engine is the problem, everything else is simple excuses.

[derd.6413]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > i doubt that the behind-the-scene publisher tomfoolery has changed much, besides what publisher is gonna publish a console port for a 7 year old MMO?

>

> Nobody. I already gave earlier the reason why, the game engine isn't suitable for consoles due to how badly threaded it is. However, if they created a new engine for the game, not only it would make PC players happy, as the game would run better on current gen hardware, but also make the game available to be released on consoles. The publisher and the "patch" excuses are no longer relevant in our day and age, and given the success of other MMORPGs on consoles, neither is the cost. As loads of MMORGPs (and games in general) are cross platform now and major MMORPGs are released on consoles, those old arguments are no longer valid.

>

> A game engine is NOT the game's content, which means it wouldn't have any effect on the content, nor it's release cadence. Provided of course they DO have a separate engine team, otherwise they'd need to hire one, at the expense of some other department maybe.

>

> tl;dr: as the game IS now, it's impossible to put on console, however if they created a new/better engine they could easily port it to console, the engine is the problem, everything else is simple excuses.

 

not what i meant, even with an engine update the game would be too old, not because the tech is outdated but because the game is "outdated". if anet wanted to seriously try for a console port they'd have to release gw3 (and no they're not gonna shut down gw2 so they can have their MMO on a console).

[luzonophir.7134]

they can port, but i bet it will look graphically different, i think..

 

and if it is graphically the same, will occupy lots of space in your phone.

 

unless a miracle happens.

[sorudo.9054]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > just a few pointers:

 

>

> > * both microsoft and sony requires a cut from the profit, if Anet adds GW2 on console they will have to pay their cut every single time above all their current bills.

>

> Still, many games release on all platforms meaning that regardless of the sales cut its still more profitable than not going to console. A nunber of mmos are on console now which means theres a console mmo player market.

 

most MMO's that were PC first have a big team behind it or a big company supporting the port, both Anet and NCsoft are no such company and are already glad to keep it up to date on PC only.

also, the amount of money they need to spend to get it even remotely to console would pretty much collapse the company, it doesn't profit anyone when the cost far outways the risk.

[zealex.9410]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > just a few pointers:

>

> >

> > > * both microsoft and sony requires a cut from the profit, if Anet adds GW2 on console they will have to pay their cut every single time above all their current bills.

> >

> > Still, many games release on all platforms meaning that regardless of the sales cut its still more profitable than not going to console. A nunber of mmos are on console now which means theres a console mmo player market.

>

> most MMO's that were PC first have a big team behind it or a big company supporting the port, both Anet and NCsoft are no such company and are already glad to keep it up to date on PC only.

> also, the amount of money they need to spend to get it even remotely to console would pretty much collapse the company, it doesn't profit anyone when the cost far outways the risk.

 

I dont think any of the big mmos (well maybe bdo) were originally pc only, tho they prob were but both ff14 and esa have no bigger teams than gw2.

 

Plus do share you findings on the cost of porting the game that would colapse the company.

[sorudo.9054]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > just a few pointers:

> >

> > >

> > > > * both microsoft and sony requires a cut from the profit, if Anet adds GW2 on console they will have to pay their cut every single time above all their current bills.

> > >

> > > Still, many games release on all platforms meaning that regardless of the sales cut its still more profitable than not going to console. A nunber of mmos are on console now which means theres a console mmo player market.

> >

> > most MMO's that were PC first have a big team behind it or a big company supporting the port, both Anet and NCsoft are no such company and are already glad to keep it up to date on PC only.

> > also, the amount of money they need to spend to get it even remotely to console would pretty much collapse the company, it doesn't profit anyone when the cost far outways the risk.

>

> I dont think any of the big mmos (well maybe bdo) were originally pc only, tho they prob were but both ff14 and esa have no bigger teams than gw2.

>

> Plus do share you findings on the cost of porting the game that would colapse the company.

 

both eso and FF14 were made with console in mind, in that case it has nothing to do with team size when the game is build that way.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> also, the amount of money they need to spend to get it even remotely to console would pretty much collapse the company, it doesn't profit anyone when the cost far outways the risk.

 

You overestimate how hard it is to implement a game engine that can run on consoles. Small indie studios create such engines (for much smaller games of course) but the rest of the content for GW2 can be the same as it is now. It's more that they don't want to, than they cannot do it, probably because the minimum requirements for the game include windows xp and any newer engine wouldn't run on xp. The question is how many GW2 players still use xp.

[sorudo.9054]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > also, the amount of money they need to spend to get it even remotely to console would pretty much collapse the company, it doesn't profit anyone when the cost far outways the risk.

>

> You overestimate how hard it is to implement a game engine that can run on consoles. Small indie studios create such engines (for much smaller games of course) but the rest of the content for GW2 can be the same as it is now. It's more that they don't want to, than they cannot do it, probably because the minimum requirements for the game include windows xp and any newer engine wouldn't run on xp. The question is how many GW2 players still use xp.

 

the engine was never build to handle console play, it was custom build to make guild wars and they customized it even further to make GW2.

it's not about wanting it, it is about GW2 not being worth the effort, time and money.

 

i think you're underestimating how much they need to change in order to make GW2 run even the simplest things on console.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > also, the amount of money they need to spend to get it even remotely to console would pretty much collapse the company, it doesn't profit anyone when the cost far outways the risk.

> >

> > You overestimate how hard it is to implement a game engine that can run on consoles. Small indie studios create such engines (for much smaller games of course) but the rest of the content for GW2 can be the same as it is now. It's more that they don't want to, than they cannot do it, probably because the minimum requirements for the game include windows xp and any newer engine wouldn't run on xp. The question is how many GW2 players still use xp.

>

> the engine was never build to handle console play, it was custom build to make guild wars and they customized it even further to make GW2.

> it's not about wanting it, it is about GW2 not being worth the effort, time and money.

>

> i think you're underestimating how much they need to change in order to make GW2 run even the simplest things on console.

 

The rendering engine needs to change completely to a version that is better threaded. Unless the gw engine was created without a split between rendering and content but that would be terrible.

 

A good example is the release of batman arkham assylum on ps4. The original game used unreal 3 but the engine was old for ps4. So a small studio ported the game to unreal 4 and released it on ps4. They didn't have to recreate everything, they updated some assets to use the new features and that's it.

 

Nvidia created a new engine for Quake 2 that supports ray tracing. They didn't change the game's content.

 

Just two examples. It can be done and it's not an insane undertaking. Unless the gw engine is so badly written

[Linken.6345]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > also, the amount of money they need to spend to get it even remotely to console would pretty much collapse the company, it doesn't profit anyone when the cost far outways the risk.

> > >

> > > You overestimate how hard it is to implement a game engine that can run on consoles. Small indie studios create such engines (for much smaller games of course) but the rest of the content for GW2 can be the same as it is now. It's more that they don't want to, than they cannot do it, probably because the minimum requirements for the game include windows xp and any newer engine wouldn't run on xp. The question is how many GW2 players still use xp.

> >

> > the engine was never build to handle console play, it was custom build to make guild wars and they customized it even further to make GW2.

> > it's not about wanting it, it is about GW2 not being worth the effort, time and money.

> >

> > i think you're underestimating how much they need to change in order to make GW2 run even the simplest things on console.

>

> The rendering engine needs to change completely to a version that is better threaded. Unless the gw engine was created without a split between rendering and content but that would be terrible.

>

> A good example is the release of batman arkham assylum on ps4. The original game used unreal 3 but the engine was old for ps4. So a small studio ported the game to unreal 4 and released it on ps4. They didn't have to recreate everything, they updated some assets to use the new features and that's it.

>

> Nvidia created a new engine for Quake 2 that supports ray tracing. They didn't change the game's content.

>

> Just two examples. It can be done and it's not an insane undertaking. Unless the gw engine is so badly written

 

Even if that was done having to pay for every update and hot fix make it a bad investment aswell.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

I prefer PC but for one console games are starting to come with kb and mouse support so that takes care of the not enough buttons issue. 2nd the building small form PC'sfor near the same price that preform equal to the current gen and especially next gen consoles is not possible unless u buy a used pre built PC of the net or all used parts etc. Especially when considering next gen which will be releasing soon just the GPU would cost double the price of a console let alone the CPU, ram etc again when how optimized console games are for each respective console. I hate to say it with cost of GPU costing a PC player 1000 every 4 yrs to keep somewhat current let alone cpu/ motherboard swaps after 5 yrs or so and how powerfull these consoles are getting soon maybe as recent as next gen with how optimized games are for consoles they may actually be the smarter choice for games. I hate thinking this but it's TRUE lol nvidia or AMD arnt gonna be dropping their prices to entice peeps to stay on PC I bet either cuz greed's to strong. Sry for useless rant lol

[grouchybhaal.4275]

2 things... I did try playing gw2, once coming back, with my ps4 controller... Some classes there is not enough buttons to make that the rotations applicable.

 

2nd, can compare it to eso... If you can go by their 'advertised' pops eso with 12 million and gw2 with 11 million. Eso is split across 3 plaforms with another split with NA and EU on each platform, so their populatuon gets segregated 6 times... Where as gw2 all the population is just split between NA and EU.

 

As a oceanic, eso feels completely Dead on both pc and ps4 where as gw2 still feels vibrant and full of life considering its nearly 7 years old now.

[Emberstone.2904]

If my overclocked 8700K and GTX 1070 can't run a world event without dipping below 30 FPS, there's no way a console can without completely destroying the player limit.

 

Consoles don't have the CPU horsepower to drive this game.

[Taygus.4571]

> @"grouchybhaal.4275" said:

> 2 things... I did try playing gw2, once coming back, with my ps4 controller... Some classes there is not enough buttons to make that the rotations applicable.

 

This isn't true. You just haven't set it up right. With the use of shift and alt( I use the shoulder buttons as these) fpr F1 skills and utilities, then picking 5 buttons for skills, there are enough.

I played scourge, mesmer and ele with xbox360 controller.

 

Although I do prefer my xbox elite controller as the extra paddles make skills more fluid and allow for targetting and mounts.

 

 

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

> @"Adry.7512" said:

> Why is GW2 only available for pc? Many MMOs are available in multiple platforms. Even a fast paced game like warefrane is available in console....why not GW2?

 

GW2 at first had a team working on making a console version, however that idea was dropped. Mostly because you have minimum performance requirements on consoles, which they would never hit as the optimization needed, they were not up for doing. It is also one of the reasons it seems they didn't upgrade the games DX, as they stuck with DX9, which was EOL at the time the game launched with DX10 and DX11 out for some time, however the xbox of the time used a modified version of DX9, meaning porting the game over would be easier had they been up for the optimization required.

 

It didn't have anything to do with not being able to use controllers, as xbox of the time you could use a KB and mouse, and two, there are some people who play GW2 now on a controller. I would also imagine the game would be changed some on console for better controller integration, as I highly doubt the players would be cross platform, so PC and console would be split.

[lukejoe.1592]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Warlord.9082" said:

> > ... it was also very poorly made. By their own admittance, HOT was basically a giant patch that players had to pay for.

>

> > Don't take it from me:

> _Wooden Potatoes_ doesn't work for ANet. You linked a series of 20 of his videos, with a total running time of over 14 hours. Which part includes a developer "admitting" that the game was poorly made? Or that HoT was a "giant patch that players had to pay for?"

>

> In any case, what has that to do with the core game?

>

>

 

I'm not going to watch that 14 hours of video either, but do we really need the admittance to know that it was poorly made? And do we really think that the population of Anet employees who'd admit that it was poorly made is zero? It was poorly made! Everyone knows that. We don't need them to admit it to know it.

 

Why isn't it on Mac yet? Because it was poorly made. It's user base is small. And they have no money to redevelop it for other platforms.

 

I'm popping back into the forums after a WHILE because I was like, "Wonder what's going on with GW2 these days, they must be on their 4th expansion by now. Wonder if they fixed stuff." Sad to see that they aren't and they haven't.

 

The very BEST any of us can hope for at this point is that Anet is bought out by a larger game company who sees the potential in GW to redevelop and make a better game. Crazier things have happened.

[lukejoe.1592]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"derd.6413" said:

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

> > > > > > @"MrRuin.9740" said:

> > > > > > Do you want new content or ports to consoles? Seems like that's the choice here.

> > > > >

> > > > > This isn't true. Those that will do the "port" will be the engine team and the UI team, not the content team. The port will use the same assets as the PC version and content release won't be affected at all.

> > > >

> > > > actually porting to console would affect content releases because anet would need to pay sony, microsoft or nintendo for each update among other issues that come with pushing updates on console

> > >

> > > That's not reason to affect their content release. Lots of games that work on both console and PC release their content on PC first and then wait for the validation until they can put it on console. Content release pace isn't affected by going multiplatform, provided your engine supports multiple platforms and the GW2 engine more than likely cannot. Judging by the CPU performance.

> > >

> > > As for the price cost, the idea is that the console version will pay for itself. Although it costs to push content on console, it provides the game to a new audience, so more expansion sales, more gem store sales and so on.

> >

> > just because it makes some money doesn't mean it offsets the costs and anet has stated that the reason a console version isn't going to happen is because releasing updates on consoles is more expensive and difficult.

>

> Where/when did the developers give this reason?

 

HA HA HA HA!

 

So here's the thing about ANY LEVEL OF ADDITIONAL WORK AND EFFORT.

 

It's always "more expensive" and "more difficult."

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"lukejoe.1592" said:

> So here's the thing about ANY LEVEL OF ADDITIONAL WORK AND EFFORT.

 

Not really. That work and effort would be done by completely different people. You do know that Arenanet has an engine team already, giving us the shaders of the karka skins, the flames of the wyverns and so many more things. They already have a salary, tell them to make a new engine no matter how long it takes. Of course that would mean no new things for a while, like the above shaders, but honestly it would be worth it.

[Linken.6345]

> @"lukejoe.1592" said:

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

> > > @"Warlord.9082" said:

> > > ... it was also very poorly made. By their own admittance, HOT was basically a giant patch that players had to pay for.

> >

> > > Don't take it from me:

> > _Wooden Potatoes_ doesn't work for ANet. You linked a series of 20 of his videos, with a total running time of over 14 hours. Which part includes a developer "admitting" that the game was poorly made? Or that HoT was a "giant patch that players had to pay for?"

> >

> > In any case, what has that to do with the core game?

> >

> >

>

> I'm not going to watch that 14 hours of video either, but do we really need the admittance to know that it was poorly made? And do we really think that the population of Anet employees who'd admit that it was poorly made is zero? It was poorly made! Everyone knows that. We don't need them to admit it to know it.

>

> Why isn't it on Mac yet? Because it was poorly made. It's user base is small. And they have no money to redevelop it for other platforms.

>

> I'm popping back into the forums after a WHILE because I was like, "Wonder what's going on with GW2 these days, they must be on their 4th expansion by now. Wonder if they fixed stuff." Sad to see that they aren't and they haven't.

>

> The very BEST any of us can hope for at this point is that Anet is bought out by a larger game company who sees the potential in GW to redevelop and make a better game. Crazier things have happened.

 

I dont think hot was poorly made.

[lukejoe.1592]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"lukejoe.1592" said:

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

> > > > @"Warlord.9082" said:

> > > > ... it was also very poorly made. By their own admittance, HOT was basically a giant patch that players had to pay for.

> > >

> > > > Don't take it from me:

> > > _Wooden Potatoes_ doesn't work for ANet. You linked a series of 20 of his videos, with a total running time of over 14 hours. Which part includes a developer "admitting" that the game was poorly made? Or that HoT was a "giant patch that players had to pay for?"

> > >

> > > In any case, what has that to do with the core game?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I'm not going to watch that 14 hours of video either, but do we really need the admittance to know that it was poorly made? And do we really think that the population of Anet employees who'd admit that it was poorly made is zero? It was poorly made! Everyone knows that. We don't need them to admit it to know it.

> >

> > Why isn't it on Mac yet? Because it was poorly made. It's user base is small. And they have no money to redevelop it for other platforms.

> >

> > I'm popping back into the forums after a WHILE because I was like, "Wonder what's going on with GW2 these days, they must be on their 4th expansion by now. Wonder if they fixed stuff." Sad to see that they aren't and they haven't.

> >

> > The very BEST any of us can hope for at this point is that Anet is bought out by a larger game company who sees the potential in GW to redevelop and make a better game. Crazier things have happened.

>

> I dont think hot was poorly made.

 

Then you had a different experience with HoT than I did!

[sorudo.9054]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > also, the amount of money they need to spend to get it even remotely to console would pretty much collapse the company, it doesn't profit anyone when the cost far outways the risk.

> > >

> > > You overestimate how hard it is to implement a game engine that can run on consoles. Small indie studios create such engines (for much smaller games of course) but the rest of the content for GW2 can be the same as it is now. It's more that they don't want to, than they cannot do it, probably because the minimum requirements for the game include windows xp and any newer engine wouldn't run on xp. The question is how many GW2 players still use xp.

> >

> > the engine was never build to handle console play, it was custom build to make guild wars and they customized it even further to make GW2.

> > it's not about wanting it, it is about GW2 not being worth the effort, time and money.

> >

> > i think you're underestimating how much they need to change in order to make GW2 run even the simplest things on console.

>

> The rendering engine needs to change completely to a version that is better threaded. Unless the gw engine was created without a split between rendering and content but that would be terrible.

>

> A good example is the release of batman arkham assylum on ps4. The original game used unreal 3 but the engine was old for ps4. So a small studio ported the game to unreal 4 and released it on ps4. They didn't have to recreate everything, they updated some assets to use the new features and that's it.

>

> Nvidia created a new engine for Quake 2 that supports ray tracing. They didn't change the game's content.

>

> Just two examples. It can be done and it's not an insane undertaking. Unless the gw engine is so badly written

 

that is only with an engine already made by a company developing such things, GW was developed by Anet and has no other company using that engine.

that's the big difference here, the unreal engine was made first and released to be used as basis for other games, Anet never had that in the first place.