ArenaNet’s Colin Johanson calls Guild Wars 3 a real MMO, but not like GW2

Guild Wars 3 is officially, significantly more of an MMO than Guild Wars Reforged, according to ArenaNet studio head Colin Johanson. But the studio also draws a line in the sand: GW3 does not aim to replicate the big, uniquely defining gameplay pillars of Guild Wars 2. That combination matters because it answers the question players and competitors have been wrestling with since the announcement, “Is this actually an MMO, or is ArenaNet reinventing the wheel again?” Johanson’s taxonomy says it is an MMO by definition, while simultaneously arguing it will feel meaningfully different than the most famous member of the franchise.

In his blog post, Johanson lays out how ArenaNet thinks about its own lineup. He describes the original Guild Wars as a “cooperative online RPG,” but notes that when people started calling it an MMO, ArenaNet “followed suit.” Then he positions Guild Wars 2 as the studio’s true MMO, “always intended to toy with the genre's conventions.” For Guild Wars 3, the key quote is that it “lands near the middle of the MMO spectrum … While it fits the definition of an MMORPG significantly more than Guild Wars Reforged does, it doesn't try to replicate the large-scale gameplay pillars that so uniquely define Guild Wars 2.”

So what does “middle of the MMO spectrum” mean in practice? We do not have details on GW3’s gameplay loops yet, and Johanson even concedes that the declaration is “broad and vague.” Still, the studio is not being coy about the strategic intention: it wants the three Guild Wars experiences to coexist as different products for different audiences and different times. Johanson explains that “This ensures that all three of our games can coexist as different experiences on different timelines, telling different stories about the world of Tyria.” That is a classic portfolio management move. Instead of forcing every entry to carry the same identity, ArenaNet is signaling that each game can occupy a different segment of the market, lowering the risk that players feel they are buying the same thing with a different coat of paint.

Context helps here. As the PC Gamer piece points out, Guild Wars 2 is one of the biggest MMOs going, but it is a sequel to a game that, at least in spirit, is closer to a mission-based action role-playing game than a “true” MMO. The original Guild Wars has shared town hubs and MMO-adjacent trappings like an enormous roster of character classes and even social flourishes, including /dance emotes. That is why the boundary question was never purely technical. It was about what kinds of sessions players expect, what kind of social gravity a world creates, and how “MMO-ness” shows up on the ground.

Now zoom out to a bigger industry reality: the past few years have not been kind to players who still want classic MMORPG experiences. The PC Gamer article frames it through PC Gamer writer Harvey Randall’s line about loving MMOs being “an exercise in frustration, grief, and moving on.” Whether you feel that sentiment personally or not, it points to demand fatigue and audience churn. When the category feels stuck, studios that can clearly segment their offerings have an advantage. Johanson’s “not like GW2” message is basically ArenaNet telling the market: we hear you, and we are not pretending the old playbook automatically works.

For decision-makers, there is also a second-order implication around resource allocation and audience trust. Guild Wars 2’s “large-scale gameplay pillars” are part of what makes it feel distinctive, and saying GW3 will not replicate them implies GW3 will likely pursue different technical and design challenges, different operational cadence, and perhaps different community dynamics. That can be good. It allows a studio to avoid the trap of treating every entry as a fork of the same system. On the other hand, it raises the bar for clarity, because “broad and vague” definitions can invite months of speculation.

And speculation is exactly what is happening. The article notes that social media is ablaze with prospective players guessing what GW3 might look like, with theories ranging from a New World-like experience to a Guild Wars 1 successor to even a singleplayer game. That range is not random. It reflects that the franchise’s first two games hardly play like one another, so fans are trying to triangulate from behavior, not just branding. Johanson’s framework is meant to dampen that uncertainty by establishing a taxonomy, but it also leaves room for players to project their own hopes and fears onto whatever they have seen so far.

For peers watching from the sidelines, the strategic stake is straightforward: if you are in live-service or MMO-adjacent development, the product identity question is now an execution risk, not just a marketing problem. ArenaNet is attempting to de-risk identity by telling the market there is a place for each title in the Tyria timeline, with different experiences rather than one universal MMO template. The upside is portfolio resilience. The risk is confusion if the final gameplay pillars do not match what players infer from “middle of the spectrum.” Still, the immediate takeaway from Johanson’s post is crisp: GW3 is an MMORPG, and it will not be a GW2 clone in disguise.