was my first MMO, played it from open Beta to Cataclysm in full raid mode with some off periods, so I know it pretty well. Didn't go very far with other games in the same type though.
That makes it much easier then, since I can use examples without having to explain them in full detail.
I think you're picking up on the first half of his point ("World of Warcraft's method of adding content doesn't work for GW2") but missing the second ("Players shouldn't expect the WoW method to apply to Guild Wars 2"). For example;
The main things about WoW that makes new content immediately make the old one obsolete is the way the game is designed, with the gear treadmill, and the level cap that always goes up.
With GW2 that's not even an issue, horizontal progression, and scaling pretty much entirely prevents all this, and adding something just adds to the pile of 'possible things to do'
His comment about forwarding players to level 90 and forgetting about new players is even worse for the same reasons, the differences in design between the two games doesn't make that comparable at all.
You're pretty much right on all counts; the WoW method of adding content is strictly vertical, where old content is abandoned (i.e. Outland is still the same today as it was seven years ago) and rather than try to keep it relevant they simply pave over it and give new players ways to bypass it (Even cata didn't give high level characters a reason to venture into lowbie zones). Guild Wars 2's horizontal progression and scaling doesn't gel with that approach at all, and that's why, as you say, they're not comparable at all.
However,
not all players understand that, which is the point he makes right in the opening line; "I wonder if the disconnect comes from semantics, or merely wishful thinking." Features
aren't content; you and I get that concept but lots of players don't. They want the "new dungeon, their new zone, their new shiny reward that usually comes in the form of better stats or better looks," but that's not how Guild Wars 2 works, and that's why he makes a point of saying he plays Guild Wars 2 "because it isnt WoW." It's different at a fundamental level, but the community still thinks they operate the same.
I also don't believe he's "implying that additional content is bad," so much as he's saying that new content
at the expense of maintaining the old is. I mean, we were both there, how long did it take to chew through the initial content in Wrath of the Lich King? Two, maybe three months tops? I looked up the date on some of my old screenshots and my guild was done with Naxx by early February '09 (so, ~2 months) and by the time Ulduarr was patched in (6 months after release) there were so few of us left that we had to PUG a couple spots.
If we assume that Wrath's development was pushed into high gear as soon as the last TBC patch shipped, that's 9 months of development
minimum for 3 months of gameplay
maximum. I would wager that they were already working hard on WotLK before Sunwell shipped (we'll ignore that Naxx was recycled content they had previously developed), so that figure can only go up.
The point is, it takes a long ass time to develop content and it takes almost no time at all for players to devour it. In the WoW Model, all of that work is basically discarded (fuck the old stuff, as the article puts it) and players are encouraged to skip over it.
The GW2 approach, on the other hand, is to make sure content is always still worth running even as new stuff is added. And for players who are used to the WoW Model, there's a certain level of frustration that time is being spent on things they may not ever experience. ArenaNet seems focused on making the game better in the long term with the possible consequence that the short term suffers for it. And gamers are
terrible at thinking in the long term.
For example, everyone wants an expansion. "It'll bring in new players!" and "people who stopped playing will come back!" are the big reasons everyone gives, but what happens when they release a new expansion without fixing the existing content? The new and returning players will hit the same retention problems the game had before. The long game requires one before the other, but you don't have to take my word for it;
Colin Johanson said:
Side Track: Gamers' inability to see the long game is also why Nintendo is always doomed right up until they blow everyone away again; they play the long game and don't get caught up in the short term and it pays off almost every time.
Anyways, the reset is about to hit and I feel like this is probably long enough as is, I hope I clarified why I thought it was worth sharing.
