Console release

[Gallows.4318]

Has a console release ever been brought up again for this generation within Anet? GW2 would blow away all other console mmos and dominate. The update release issues would not be a problem any longer.

[Randulf.7614]

Its been discussed on the forums. The devs have said previously it isnt in their plans.

 

I think given they scrapped their other project teams earlier this year, I find it unlikely a console version is ever happening

 

Im unconvinced personally that a relatively low profile 7 year old mmo IP could be sustainable on consoles long term - esp given the current complaints about wvw populations and getting certain stuff done in pve

[Teratus.2859]

MMO's are wasted on consoles and conflict development time.

 

Not to mention you have to pay a ripoff subfee to play all consoles online these days which is a sad and bad joke.

Guildwars is a franchise that said no to subfees all the way back with Gw1 as well so I'd be 100% against this game having a console release for those reasons alone.

[HardRider.2980]

Yes it's been discussed

No they aren't interested.

It's not as free money as people think

[Gallows.4318]

Well I do think it would be viable and considering ESO is and final fantasy are the top mmos and certainly not that suited to console, I think GW2 would do very well. It could even be part of an old zone revamp on PC. I get the subfee issue, but that's more related to the console than the game. You need it to play online so it's not really related to the game and subscription of mmos is on top of that.

 

Thanks for your answers. I haven't played this in years, but I played a few hours using my xbox controller and the action cam and it played so nicely, so the controls would be easy to do.

 

I also doubt it will come to console unfortunately, but would be lovely if they did and it revitalized the PC version at the same time.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Gallows.4318" said:

> The update release issues would not be a problem any longer.

 

What does this mean? The only issue I remember seeing about updates for GW2 on consoles is that the console manufacturers require developers to submit all updates for approval before they're released (and pay for the vetting process) which would slow down releases and either be expensive with the way Anet tends to do ad-hoc updates, or console players would have to wait for bug fixes to be bundled with the next release (and just live with the bugs until then).

 

As far as I'm aware that process hasn't changed, so I'm not sure what you could be refering to which wouldn't be a problem any longer.

[Gallows.4318]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"Gallows.4318" said:

> > The update release issues would not be a problem any longer.

>

> What does this mean? The only issue I remember seeing about updates for GW2 on consoles is that the console manufacturers require developers to submit all updates for approval before they're released (and pay for the vetting process) which would slow down releases and either be expensive with the way Anet tends to do ad-hoc updates, or console players would have to wait for bug fixes to be bundled with the next release (and just live with the bugs until then).

>

> As far as I'm aware that process hasn't changed, so I'm not sure what you could be refering to which wouldn't be a problem any longer.

 

Since they'd have content for years in terms of living world the bi-weekly release schedule would not be an issue.

 

They could release according to the same plan as was done on PC or differently, but the content story content is already done.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Gallows.4318" said:

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > > @"Gallows.4318" said:

> > > The update release issues would not be a problem any longer.

> >

> > What does this mean? The only issue I remember seeing about updates for GW2 on consoles is that the console manufacturers require developers to submit all updates for approval before they're released (and pay for the vetting process) which would slow down releases and either be expensive with the way Anet tends to do ad-hoc updates, or console players would have to wait for bug fixes to be bundled with the next release (and just live with the bugs until then).

> >

> > As far as I'm aware that process hasn't changed, so I'm not sure what you could be refering to which wouldn't be a problem any longer.

>

> Since they'd have content for years in terms of living world the bi-weekly release schedule would not be an issue.

>

> They could release according to the same plan as was done on PC or differently, but the content story content is already done.

 

You are missing the point. Any future updates would require submitting to Sony or Microsoft for approval before deployment. That's extra time and work required. Most often this results in delays in either patch deployment for PC, or the consols running on a different version (and subsequently not sharing a player base with the PC market) and receiving updates later.

 

Slowing down patch deployment for PC would create issues with the PC player base. Having the consol version stand alone would create issues with population if the game does not generate enough console players.

 

That is on top of the other issues of:

- increased cost in developement which first needs to get offset by consol revenue

- the cut Microsoft and Sony take out of digital currencies purchased, thus forcing NCSoft/Arenanet to share the revenue from Gem sales, the corner stone of the business model

- the huge upfront cost of porting the game to begin with

- other issues like Sony's (not sure about Microsoft) guidlines about how fast a game needs to be playable once purchased and the download has started (which might actually work rather well with GW2 since it can load starter area maps first etc.)

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> - other issues like Sony's (not sure about Microsoft) guidlines about how fast a game needs to be playable once purchased and the download has started (which might actually work rather well with GW2 since it can load starter area maps first etc.)

 

I didn't know they did that, but I'm glad they do. Personally I still prefer Nintendo's rule that the game on the disc must be playable right out of the box and patches are for fixing serious problems you didn't discover until after release, not stuff you didn't give the developers time to fix before release, but it's still an improvement.

 

Considering how often I see people saying they won't pre-order a game because they want to wait and see if the inevitable day 1 patch actually makes it playable or if more patches are needed, and how long they'll take, I think it's understandable they've gone that route. Hopefully it will have a knock-on effect like the certification process did originally and create an incentive for games to be released so they're functional right from the start.

 

(Not that I think that would be a problem for GW2. I played it on day 1, admittedly about 8 hours after the servers opened, and apart from the inevitable problems with overloaded servers on the first day the only problem I remember was the trading post kept going down, which wasn't a big problem because hardly anyone had anything to trade anyway.)

[Knighthonor.4061]

I could rock with a GW themed video game with some cross over elements but a totally different game. Not the same game, because that would alter the gameplay even more

[Gallows.4318]

Don't know about the download rule but ESO is something like 109 GB on xbox.

 

I don't know how well GW2 is doing on PC, but it would have years of gameplay on Xbox. Except the next gen is out next year, so that would be a better option.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Gallows.4318" said:

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > > @"Gallows.4318" said:

> > > The update release issues would not be a problem any longer.

> >

> > What does this mean? The only issue I remember seeing about updates for GW2 on consoles is that the console manufacturers require developers to submit all updates for approval before they're released (and pay for the vetting process) which would slow down releases and either be expensive with the way Anet tends to do ad-hoc updates, or console players would have to wait for bug fixes to be bundled with the next release (and just live with the bugs until then).

> >

> > As far as I'm aware that process hasn't changed, so I'm not sure what you could be refering to which wouldn't be a problem any longer.

>

> Since they'd have content for years in terms of living world the bi-weekly release schedule would not be an issue.

>

> They could release according to the same plan as was done on PC or differently, but the content story content is already done.

 

It would once people caught up.

[Randulf.7614]

> @"Gallows.4318" said:

> Don't know about the download rule but ESO is something like 109 GB on xbox.

>

> I don't know how well GW2 is doing on PC, but it would have years of gameplay on Xbox. Except the next gen is out next year, so that would be a better option.

 

That is one issue - having to wait for next gens. And Xbox is falling down the pecking order these days (although is prob fine in Anets key markets). So does it do Xbox and Ps5 or just one? And then it is sep servers given the complexities of WvW needing servers in 3 sets?

 

If the population is split from the PC platforms, is there enough interest long term to keep all content going, given the PC population has dipped or at least spread enough for their to be problems completing content.

 

ESO and FF are massive licence - AAA IPs with big supported teams. GW2 is not to the same scale. Doesn't mean it couldnt be done and at one point GW2 could have been well positioned for it. Not anymore though (imo)

[Zoid.2568]

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > @"Gallows.4318" said:

> > Don't know about the download rule but ESO is something like 109 GB on xbox.

> >

> > I don't know how well GW2 is doing on PC, but it would have years of gameplay on Xbox. Except the next gen is out next year, so that would be a better option.

>

> That is one issue - having to wait for next gens. And Xbox is falling down the pecking order these days (although is prob fine in Anets key markets). So does it do Xbox and Ps5 or just one? And then it is sep servers given the complexities of WvW needing servers in 3 sets?

>

> If the population is split from the PC platforms, is there enough interest long term to keep all content going, given the PC population has dipped or at least spread enough for their to be problems completing content.

>

> **ESO and FF are massive licence - AAA IPs with big supported teams**. GW2 is not to the same scale. Doesn't mean it couldnt be done and at one point GW2 could have been well positioned for it. Not anymore though (imo)

 

FFXIV is not that popular as people say. It feels way more like a solo rpg than an mmorpg and ESO feels more like an mmorpg than FFXIV though, but GW2 is almost a pure mmorpg.

 

I bet that GW2 has a bigger playerbase than FFXIV and ESO.

[Teratus.2859]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Gallows.4318" said:

> > > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > > > @"Gallows.4318" said:

> > > > The update release issues would not be a problem any longer.

> > >

> > > What does this mean? The only issue I remember seeing about updates for GW2 on consoles is that the console manufacturers require developers to submit all updates for approval before they're released (and pay for the vetting process) which would slow down releases and either be expensive with the way Anet tends to do ad-hoc updates, or console players would have to wait for bug fixes to be bundled with the next release (and just live with the bugs until then).

> > >

> > > As far as I'm aware that process hasn't changed, so I'm not sure what you could be refering to which wouldn't be a problem any longer.

> >

> > Since they'd have content for years in terms of living world the bi-weekly release schedule would not be an issue.

> >

> > They could release according to the same plan as was done on PC or differently, but the content story content is already done.

>

> You are missing the point. Any future updates would require submitting to Sony or Microsoft for approval before deployment. That's extra time and work required. Most often this results in delays in either patch deployment for PC, or the consols running on a different version (and subsequently not sharing a player base with the PC market) and receiving updates later.

>

> Slowing down patch deployment for PC would create issues with the PC player base. Having the consol version stand alone would create issues with population if the game does not generate enough console players.

>

> That is on top of the other issues of:

> - increased cost in developement which first needs to get offset by consol revenue

> - the cut Microsoft and Sony take out of digital currencies purchased, thus forcing NCSoft/Arenanet to share the revenue from Gem sales, the corner stone of the business model

> - the huge upfront cost of porting the game to begin with

> - other issues like Sony's (not sure about Microsoft) guidlines about how fast a game needs to be playable once purchased and the download has started (which might actually work rather well with GW2 since it can load starter area maps first etc.)

 

With how GW2 runs on Pc too, being so CPU heavy the game would likely need to have huge reworks to function effectively on consoles as well.

That alone would make the port job a monumental task that would take so many resources away from current development.. new PC content would suffer as a result with likely shorter and lower quality living world updates with drasticly increased release timeframes.. that would likely drive many players away from the game as a result.

Unless of course they brought in more people to exclusively handle the port but I don't see that happening when so many were laid off not that long ago.. it's far more likely large amounts of people would be pulled away from current teams instead to get the console ports done.

 

Even if it were to happen though consoles could then see themselves restricting future development on PC content.. if the devs plan a big battle with Jormag for example but there's no way they can do it as they want to due to console limitations then content ends up being changed or scrapped because of it.

Many PC gamers harbor grudges against certain games due to bad ports or uneccessary restrictions based on console limitations.. The first game that comes to mind is Watchdogs which had a hugely successful reveal to massive hype only to end up being one of the most soul crushing releases in recent history due to having so much of it's promised features and details pretty much gutted from the final game, largely because consoles simply couldn't handle it.

Even the PC release got gutted just so one version of the game wouldn't stand so blatantly superior to the others... an unfortunate trait of multiplatform games in general.

Until consoles have upgradable hardware Pc will always be a technologically suprior platform with far greater gaming potential.. that's just a basic fact, and I say that with 12 consoles and 6 handheld gaming devices sitting not 10 feet behind me XD I very much enjoy consoles too and have my whole life but it's true that PC is a superior platform and for a large number of games it should be the only one they are made for.. and said games would be better for it if they were.

 

[Gallows.4318]

Well in terms of hardware power PCs are always better than consoles. But consoles have other huge advantages. But that's neither here nor there.

 

GW2 runs very well on old hardware though. Elder scrolls is big on xbox... mainly because there are no serious alternatives to it. Neverwinter, DC online, Tera and the other MMOs are not in the same league as ESO and GW2 in terms of gameplay, content or polish. Well polish and ESO sounds weird, but it's still way ahead of anything else.

 

I play very few games on PC as I prefer the console for many reasons.

 

But really I was just curious if there had been some more recent official word on this :)

[ugrakarma.9416]

Most games adapted to console had to reduce their UI to a oversimplified version thats makes the game seems dumb, main reason is that consoles dont had a keyboard, this is the main issue. this happened with "supreme commander" a update version of the game was more disliked than the original version because the game seems dumbed down.

 

i wonder how the player base of GW2 used to have keyboard shortcut even for breath will react to this.

 

To start of list of to do things, just the rework of inventory UI will be a huge mess, they will be no more mouse click position based, but in a "slot cursor" that pass each slot, the function to roll down the inventory probably will disappear, i cant imagine the face of the guys with 100+inventory space adapting to this.

 

But for PVP probably will be great, fights always works well on consoles, the GW2 pvp will be like the "urban reign", also for noobs the joypad works much better than keyboard to memorize skills and to do movements, this will create a huge skill gap, PC PVP players that arent "piano player" will be left behind.

[crepuscular.9047]

> @"Gallows.4318" said:

> GW2 runs very well on old hardware though.

 

\*\* used to \*\* my 780 Ti got cooked since PoF on mid low setting

 

2ndly, consoles CPUs are running at a significantly lower clock speed compare to desktop CPUs to prevent overheating

XBOX 1 tops out at 2.3GHz, and PS4 Pro tops out at 2.13GHz, good luck at getting 10 fps at large maps meta and WvW

 

3rdly, consoles will always have competitive disadvantage against players on PCs with player response time, you need to look no further than Overwatch as an example; and if segregating the player base, why would the console player ever want to join a game that is almost a decade old

[Tethys.4139]

recently it was said that one of the gaming news outlets saw an adverisement from Anet for the hiring of someone with a focus and experience with console infrastructure. Now i don't know if that means they are looking into porting gw2 over or if they maybe looking at a new ip all together, but it sure sounds like they may have something in mind. Given a choice i'd hope it was/is gw2 they are looking to craft for console, and i get there are lots of nay sayers for lots of reasons which most really make little to no sense. 1) a gw2 console game will most likely NOT be cross platform from pc to console, console to console maybe. 2) if they decide to create one, the argument that (they said they were not going to), would be rendered pretty moot dontcha think? and lets not start in about lies, they only ever said they had no plans at THAT time. 3) ofcourse theres a market for a great mmorpg on the consoles, eso is one of the current leaders, not because they are so great but because of lack of options. There are probably more console owners than pc owners due to what i call " we're poor" , but give us a great mmorpg to sink what little money we can into it and you'll find dedicated consumers. So long story short, consoles are lacking in the great mmorpg department, if you make it, ...we're ready for it. And if you read all this, thanks for your time.