My favourite poster strikes back. But I think your math is odd at the very least. The fact is they sold over 6 millions of boxes. Assuming that it makes like 1,5 millions of people that played it (those are numbers given by skeptics of GW success) and the fact that PvE is a lot more popular than PvP your 99,9% sounds incredible surprisingly. Even if all those 1,5 millions played extensively in PvP, you were like in the top1500. Indeed you posses the great skills many can only dream about. I can only suspect that it was a result of having played mmorpgs that required understanding the concept of complex movement (jumping ftw) and being forced to use more than 8 skills simultaneously.
This would have been a better post if you had actually read what I said and understood it.
My favourite poster strikes back. But I think your math is odd at the very least. The fact is they sold over 6 millions of boxes. Assuming that it makes like 1,5 millions of people that played it (those are numbers given by skeptics of GW success) and the fact that PvE is a lot more popular than PvP your 99,9% sounds incredible surprisingly. Even if all those 1,5 millions played extensively in PvP, you were like in the top1500. Indeed you posses the great skills many can only dream about. I can only suspect that it was a result of having played mmorpgs that required understanding the concept of complex movement (jumping ftw) and being forced to use more than 8 skills simultaneously.
This would have been a better post if you had actually read what I said and understood it.
This would be a better forum if you would disappear.
I have seen you rip on other people for being "objective" in almost every thread and not once have you provided any solid explanation for any of your comments/opinions. You try to play it like you're some elitist, but everyone who reads your posts sees your negative bias towards GW and GW2.
Just so you know what objective means... I did some research for you (since it's obviously something you do not do often).
This is from my man Webster:
Objectivity: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Seems to me, none of your responses follow that definition at all. It's obvious your personal feelings for GW2 are negative as you lost all your "OBJECTIVITY" and "CREDIBILITY" by being negative in every post you've made.
Anyone can make huge claims and argue with a community, but when asked for specifics about your history with GW, you ignore the posters and call them out by pulling your "objectivity" card. If you were truly "OBJECTIVE" you would make your point once and not argue your point like you're 100% correct. Because the vast majority of your posts have nothing to do with objectivity, but instead your opinion.
Whether you like it or not, this game is going to be a hit. This game will out sell its competition. The simplicity of GW is what made it a success. The casual nature and B2P model is what made it a success.
If nothing about GW2 appeals to you, then its probably best you leave these forums instead of wasting your time and MMORPG's bandwidth trying to argue with obvious GW2 fans about your "objectivity" and your opinions. You might find the world a much better place if you spend your time talking about a game in a positive mentality... go spend your time on that forum please.
I apologize for what im about to do, taking this a bit off topic. But im kinda tired of seeing this behind people's reasoning for why they believe that GW2 is not going to have enough content to keep people busy. This statement which im quoting froim this thread struck a nerve with me:
"I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model."
Now when i read a statement like this i read the basic message as: GW2 isnt profitable enough to have similar content/quality as a sub based mmo due to lack of revenue. Now granted they referenced WoW which has enough content that most people never bother with most of it, instead skipping to the end game leaving most of there content underutilized and wasted in many cases(a shame really). But i still see the point as being one of people simplifying there reasoning down to Profit=Content. Fair enough. I ran some numbers and using some very basic math where i only took into account the most likley player base for GW2(GW1 players) and assuming that they will be releasing an expansion a year later(though it could happen at 6 months given there precedent with GW1 expansions). So if only former GW1 players buy GW2 and they only release the original game for the first year, then arenanet will be looking at $350,000,000 in game sales alone(not counting CE, or CS options or merchandise). That alone makes this game just as profitable as a sub based game with 1.5 million subs(rounding down). How many content filled mmo's have breached 1.5 million subs and kept them for a solid year? And again this is only counting former GW1 players. There are many people who either didnt like or never played GW1 who have every intention of picking up GW2 so clearly my $350 million dollar figure is low balling it significantly.
Hell if they only reinvest a third of that $350 million, your trying to tell us they couldnt create tons of content out of $100+million? For most mmo's(sub or otherwise) that is more than the cost of there entire game development. Seems to me, as long as they dont screw this up between now and launch, money shouldnt be a concern for them, and by all accounts there doing great so far.
Also on the content for pve front, id like to repost something i put down elsewhere on the forum:
For those of you concerned about a lack of content, i think i can answer your concerns. Now the standard quest system is clearly out so it isnt so easy to make direct comparisons based on that. However i have gone through the list of Warhammers PQ's and they have 500 Public Quests in game as of this point (being year 2 of its existence). Now if you account for the fact that half of these PQ's are for each faction, a charachter in WAR has the possibility of experiencing 250 (aprox. estimate) possible PQ's. That being said im aware that the vast majority of players sadly stuck to quests and pvp rather than pq's so not alot of players actually played near that many public quests, but its merely for content comparison sake that i offer the reference.
On top of that there are clear differences between PQ's and Dynamic Events in terms of replayability and possible outcomes. If we asume that Dynamic Events average out to 3 stages or "chains" similar to WAR's PQ's (we have just as much reason to assume it could be more as we do less) then with a simple pass/fail variable per stage/chain, we are looking at a possible 4 outcomes per Dynamic Event which leads to each DE having the replayability of 4 PQ's.
Arenanet has mentioned that they are looking at having 1600 DE's in game as of now/launch. Using the above example of conversion in terms of content/replayability, that would be the equivalent of 6,400 Public Quests(assuming of course your getting a different outcome every time you attempt a Dynamic Event).
Now again compare the fact that your looking at 1600 Dynamic Events(accessible to all players) at launch for GW2, vs. 250 Public Quests(playable per faction) in WAR during the second year of its lifespan. I know this is all just math and theory, but it does seem to indicate to me that lack of content is the least of my concerns.
I was addressing only 1 aspect of Pve in the above, we still have no idea how much content we will have in terms of player storyline or dungeons, but if the above is any indication, i again see no reason to believe that this game will not have enough in it for the hardcore PVE player.
Your figures are off. 6million people didn't buy gw1, it was 6 million box copies total across all campaigns. Obviously a lot of people bought every release in the series.
You also forget the fact that sub mmos also have box sales + subscriptions.
Anyway anet has used this payment model before, and their first game had very little content relative to an mmorpg. This one will have more content, but they still won't be able to keep up with how quickly hardcore players eat through content. Nor does their game have intuitive end game pve. 5man dungeons won't cut it.
I admit from the beginning that my figures are off. However you clearly didnt check the math and instead made assumptions. There is no way i or anyone else can possibly know how well GW2 will do. Its all based on theory. And yes im aware that not everyone bought every expansion(which if they didnt, they have little right to complain about lack of content) for GW1, but they did already make 350 million (lowball figure yet again due to not including merch and cash shop options or money from CE upgrade) on a game that cost relative pennies to make(the initial bar for success acording to arenanet devs was 250,000 players back during beta) from 7 million boxed copies of the game. The only overestimation i made possibly with this given how ive lowballed all my figures with arenanet is a factor we just simply dont know, so i cant/dont account for it. We have no idea how many players bought how many expansions. That being said, i only included an estimate on the preinstalled base of customers. I did not include all the people who have never played GW1 who will buy GW2, because i also dont have access to those figures either. No one does. But to asume GW2 will do worse than GW1(as fond of it as i am) is an assumption even you have to recognize as foolish.
Had you bothered to check my math btw, you would have realized that i had in fact counted in the cost of the initial $50 purchase of the game on top of the monthly fee's for subscription gamers. The number that comes up is actually a bit over 1.5 million subscriptions but i rounded down to actually sway the number a bit away from arenanet's favor. I lowballed all my numbers this way and yet arenanet still comes out looking very profitable with there B2P model, comparing to the very top sub based games in terms of profit. I will do you the favor of showing my math.
GW2: $50 per 7 million players=$350 million (again doesnt include money from CE, merchandise, and cash shop) 7 million player figure also doesnt include GW1 players who bought additional expansions(variable likely to drive number down) or Players new to the franchise interested in GW2(variable likely to drive number up) since these are both unknowns i simply dismissed them as cancelling each other out. If you have a better formula or more info, let us know.
Normal sub based mmo: $15 a month for 12 months/1 year=$180+$50 for box purchase of game= $230 per player. 1500000 multiplied by $230 per player= $345,000,000 or slightly less than GW2's likley $350 million.
Also people's idea's on content in terms of quantity are a joke. In most mmo's, people tend to rush to end game so they can repeat the same few dungeons over and over and over again and then they go on and on about how thats alot of content. It isnt alot of content. Your just repeating the same content ad nauseum. WoW is an excellent example of this. Oh sure the game does have tons of content. Possibly more than any other, but most of it is underutilized in favor of repeating the same things again and again or being passed up on the way to end game because it was deemed inefficeint as a means to get to end game.
I played GW1 as a hardcore Pve'er (with a dash of pvp here and there) for over 3 yrs as my main game. You know what i didnt find myself doing much? I didnt find myself doing a whole lot of repeating the same thing over and over again. Despite my playing the game for years, my hall of monuments isnt all filled up(i refused to grind). I only repeated content i already did if i had a friend that needed help on something, or if i wanted to complete it on hard mode or if i was working on one of my alts. The content was by no means lacking. Hell 90% of the game is desighned to be for a max lvl charachter. Ive never played any other mmo type game that had as much "end-game" content. They are building on this with there charachter/difficulty scaling in GW2 which is going to increase the longevity at end game a great deal as well. All this talk about how it wont have enough content because its B2P or some other excuse is just people using incredibly flawed arguments to feel less ripped off by there sub based mmo's or being insecure about the future of there own favorite, or simply trolling. It isnt just about how much content your game has, but about how much content you want to play.
I could spend my time showing you why your math is way off, but you already admitted your numbers are off, so why are you trying to make an argument with numbers you are admit are off?
For example not everyone pays full launch retail price for a game. Secondly, why do mmorpgs only get 1year of subscription factored in for them, when you are counting GW1's box sales from many many years.
Basically you aren't being objective, instead of interpreting the data accurately and then making an argument, you make an argument and then try to interpret the data to fit it.
The argument boils down to a question of money. Since your notion is money=content. Or have you allowed yourself to get so wrapped up in trolling for its own sake that you have forgotten the discussion? Overall point is that Anet has money enough for a full content mmo. Unless you actually have anything relevant to stand against this point instead of simply trying to find minor possible errors with my illustrations for how they may not have quite as much as my illustration shows....
You know what. Ill give you the possibility that my math is off by a 50% margin and not in favor of Arenanet. OH NOES!!! Arenanet only made $175 million. You cant make a full content mmo with just $175 million. Oh wait, how much are the spending on developing Rift? or SWOTOR? I guess that means all the mmo's are doomed to failure from lack of content. Better hit up OPRAH so she could make The View online: the only full content mmo. /sarcasm
Reason why im set the bar at 1 yr of each games life, is because by year 2 arenanet will release there 2nd installment/expansion and the comparison to the sub game would be the same -$50 per player which being generous would make the GW2 profit comparable to a game with only a little over 1 million subs on year 2. But im sure for you that totally destroys my argument seeing as how mmo's with only 1 million players over a course of a year clearly dont have enough money to make content. Supposedly everquest topped at somewhere between 350-500k subs in its heyday and it didnt charge as much as most modern mmo's. Pretty sure everquest has alot of content.
And yes, some people wont pay full retail price for GW2, they also wont pay it for the box copy of the subscription game. Do you have a point with this? Some people will steal internet, some people will steal game time cards. Do you really expect this to matter? Your trying to apply a standard to 1 of these games without applying it to another? Thats just stupid. My approach may not be perfect, but at least im not resorting to double standards.
So robert. How many GW1 players are there? You seem to object to my methodology in coming up with a number based on sales. So where are your numbers? Where is your info? What is it based on? Oh thats right, you dont have any of that....
If your going to acuse others of not being objective(hilarious hypocrisy btw) at least bring something to the table that could resemble something that makes sense. Unlike you i dont expect you to come at me with hard evidence that doesnt exist, but at least give some reasoning that doesnt involve out of hand dismissal will offering no counterpoint that could possibly make you have a valid point. Hell you pointed out my math is possibly flawed, so i gave you a 50% margin for my error in your favor and it still supports my point. Ill be more objective when you bring a counterpoint to the table that accounts for something that supports your overall notion that GW2 needs more money to be a content rich mmo than they are already looking at.
My favourite poster strikes back. But I think your math is odd at the very least. The fact is they sold over 6 millions of boxes. Assuming that it makes like 1,5 millions of people that played it (those are numbers given by skeptics of GW success) and the fact that PvE is a lot more popular than PvP your 99,9% sounds incredible surprisingly. Even if all those 1,5 millions played extensively in PvP, you were like in the top1500. Indeed you posses the great skills many can only dream about. I can only suspect that it was a result of having played mmorpgs that required understanding the concept of complex movement (jumping ftw) and being forced to use more than 8 skills simultaneously.
This would have been a better post if you had actually read what I said and understood it.
This would be a better forum if you would disappear.
I have seen you rip on other people for being "objective" in almost every thread and not once have you provided any solid explanation for any of your comments/opinions. You try to play it like you're some elitist, but everyone who reads your posts sees your negative bias towards GW and GW2.
Just so you know what objective means... I did some research for you (since it's obviously something you do not do often).
This is from my man Webster:
Objectivity: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Seems to me, none of your responses follow that definition at all. It's obvious your personal feelings for GW2 are negative as you lost all your "OBJECTIVITY" and "CREDIBILITY" by being negative in every post you've made.
Anyone can make huge claims and argue with a community, but when asked for specifics about your history with GW, you ignore the posters and call them out by pulling your "objectivity" card. If you were truly "OBJECTIVE" you would make your point once and not argue your point like you're 100% correct. Because the vast majority of your posts have nothing to do with objectivity, but instead your opinion.
Whether you like it or not, this game is going to be a hit. This game will out sell its competition. The simplicity of GW is what made it a success. The casual nature and B2P model is what made it a success.
If nothing about GW2 appeals to you, then its probably best you leave these forums instead of wasting your time and MMORPG's bandwidth trying to argue with obvious GW2 fans about your "objectivity" and your opinions. You might find the world a much better place if you spend your time talking about a game in a positive mentality... go spend your time on that forum please.
Don't copy and paste a definition for the word objective and then turn around and be the complete opposite. People who are objective will look negative to people who are blindly biased.
I never said gw2 would not be a success, as a matter of fact I have said it will be very successful many times. It won't outsell it's competition (any blizzard mmorpg) though. They both try to appeal to casuals with an extremely easy-to-play game. But blizzard has better funding/experience and a larger fanbase.
Originally posted by Nailzzz
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by Nailzzz
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by Nailzzz
I apologize for what im about to do, taking this a bit off topic. But im kinda tired of seeing this behind people's reasoning for why they believe that GW2 is not going to have enough content to keep people busy. This statement which im quoting froim this thread struck a nerve with me:
"I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model."
Now when i read a statement like this i read the basic message as: GW2 isnt profitable enough to have similar content/quality as a sub based mmo due to lack of revenue. Now granted they referenced WoW which has enough content that most people never bother with most of it, instead skipping to the end game leaving most of there content underutilized and wasted in many cases(a shame really). But i still see the point as being one of people simplifying there reasoning down to Profit=Content. Fair enough. I ran some numbers and using some very basic math where i only took into account the most likley player base for GW2(GW1 players) and assuming that they will be releasing an expansion a year later(though it could happen at 6 months given there precedent with GW1 expansions). So if only former GW1 players buy GW2 and they only release the original game for the first year, then arenanet will be looking at $350,000,000 in game sales alone(not counting CE, or CS options or merchandise). That alone makes this game just as profitable as a sub based game with 1.5 million subs(rounding down). How many content filled mmo's have breached 1.5 million subs and kept them for a solid year? And again this is only counting former GW1 players. There are many people who either didnt like or never played GW1 who have every intention of picking up GW2 so clearly my $350 million dollar figure is low balling it significantly.
Hell if they only reinvest a third of that $350 million, your trying to tell us they couldnt create tons of content out of $100+million? For most mmo's(sub or otherwise) that is more than the cost of there entire game development. Seems to me, as long as they dont screw this up between now and launch, money shouldnt be a concern for them, and by all accounts there doing great so far.
Also on the content for pve front, id like to repost something i put down elsewhere on the forum:
For those of you concerned about a lack of content, i think i can answer your concerns. Now the standard quest system is clearly out so it isnt so easy to make direct comparisons based on that. However i have gone through the list of Warhammers PQ's and they have 500 Public Quests in game as of this point (being year 2 of its existence). Now if you account for the fact that half of these PQ's are for each faction, a charachter in WAR has the possibility of experiencing 250 (aprox. estimate) possible PQ's. That being said im aware that the vast majority of players sadly stuck to quests and pvp rather than pq's so not alot of players actually played near that many public quests, but its merely for content comparison sake that i offer the reference.
On top of that there are clear differences between PQ's and Dynamic Events in terms of replayability and possible outcomes. If we asume that Dynamic Events average out to 3 stages or "chains" similar to WAR's PQ's (we have just as much reason to assume it could be more as we do less) then with a simple pass/fail variable per stage/chain, we are looking at a possible 4 outcomes per Dynamic Event which leads to each DE having the replayability of 4 PQ's.
Arenanet has mentioned that they are looking at having 1600 DE's in game as of now/launch. Using the above example of conversion in terms of content/replayability, that would be the equivalent of 6,400 Public Quests(assuming of course your getting a different outcome every time you attempt a Dynamic Event).
Now again compare the fact that your looking at 1600 Dynamic Events(accessible to all players) at launch for GW2, vs. 250 Public Quests(playable per faction) in WAR during the second year of its lifespan. I know this is all just math and theory, but it does seem to indicate to me that lack of content is the least of my concerns.
I was addressing only 1 aspect of Pve in the above, we still have no idea how much content we will have in terms of player storyline or dungeons, but if the above is any indication, i again see no reason to believe that this game will not have enough in it for the hardcore PVE player.
Your figures are off. 6million people didn't buy gw1, it was 6 million box copies total across all campaigns. Obviously a lot of people bought every release in the series.
You also forget the fact that sub mmos also have box sales + subscriptions.
Anyway anet has used this payment model before, and their first game had very little content relative to an mmorpg. This one will have more content, but they still won't be able to keep up with how quickly hardcore players eat through content. Nor does their game have intuitive end game pve. 5man dungeons won't cut it.
I admit from the beginning that my figures are off. However you clearly didnt check the math and instead made assumptions. There is no way i or anyone else can possibly know how well GW2 will do. Its all based on theory. And yes im aware that not everyone bought every expansion(which if they didnt, they have little right to complain about lack of content) for GW1, but they did already make 350 million (lowball figure yet again due to not including merch and cash shop options or money from CE upgrade) on a game that cost relative pennies to make(the initial bar for success acording to arenanet devs was 250,000 players back during beta) from 7 million boxed copies of the game. The only overestimation i made possibly with this given how ive lowballed all my figures with arenanet is a factor we just simply dont know, so i cant/dont account for it. We have no idea how many players bought how many expansions. That being said, i only included an estimate on the preinstalled base of customers. I did not include all the people who have never played GW1 who will buy GW2, because i also dont have access to those figures either. No one does. But to asume GW2 will do worse than GW1(as fond of it as i am) is an assumption even you have to recognize as foolish.
Had you bothered to check my math btw, you would have realized that i had in fact counted in the cost of the initial $50 purchase of the game on top of the monthly fee's for subscription gamers. The number that comes up is actually a bit over 1.5 million subscriptions but i rounded down to actually sway the number a bit away from arenanet's favor. I lowballed all my numbers this way and yet arenanet still comes out looking very profitable with there B2P model, comparing to the very top sub based games in terms of profit. I will do you the favor of showing my math.
GW2: $50 per 7 million players=$350 million (again doesnt include money from CE, merchandise, and cash shop) 7 million player figure also doesnt include GW1 players who bought additional expansions(variable likely to drive number down) or Players new to the franchise interested in GW2(variable likely to drive number up) since these are both unknowns i simply dismissed them as cancelling each other out. If you have a better formula or more info, let us know.
Normal sub based mmo: $15 a month for 12 months/1 year=$180+$50 for box purchase of game= $230 per player. 1500000 multiplied by $230 per player= $345,000,000 or slightly less than GW2's likley $350 million.
Also people's idea's on content in terms of quantity are a joke. In most mmo's, people tend to rush to end game so they can repeat the same few dungeons over and over and over again and then they go on and on about how thats alot of content. It isnt alot of content. Your just repeating the same content ad nauseum. WoW is an excellent example of this. Oh sure the game does have tons of content. Possibly more than any other, but most of it is underutilized in favor of repeating the same things again and again or being passed up on the way to end game because it was deemed inefficeint as a means to get to end game.
I played GW1 as a hardcore Pve'er (with a dash of pvp here and there) for over 3 yrs as my main game. You know what i didnt find myself doing much? I didnt find myself doing a whole lot of repeating the same thing over and over again. Despite my playing the game for years, my hall of monuments isnt all filled up(i refused to grind). I only repeated content i already did if i had a friend that needed help on something, or if i wanted to complete it on hard mode or if i was working on one of my alts. The content was by no means lacking. Hell 90% of the game is desighned to be for a max lvl charachter. Ive never played any other mmo type game that had as much "end-game" content. They are building on this with there charachter/difficulty scaling in GW2 which is going to increase the longevity at end game a great deal as well. All this talk about how it wont have enough content because its B2P or some other excuse is just people using incredibly flawed arguments to feel less ripped off by there sub based mmo's or being insecure about the future of there own favorite, or simply trolling. It isnt just about how much content your game has, but about how much content you want to play.
I could spend my time showing you why your math is way off, but you already admitted your numbers are off, so why are you trying to make an argument with numbers you are admit are off?
For example not everyone pays full launch retail price for a game. Secondly, why do mmorpgs only get 1year of subscription factored in for them, when you are counting GW1's box sales from many many years.
Basically you aren't being objective, instead of interpreting the data accurately and then making an argument, you make an argument and then try to interpret the data to fit it.
The argument boils down to a question of money. Since your notion is money=content. Or have you allowed yourself to get so wrapped up in trolling for its own sake that you have forgotten the discussion? Overall point is that Anet has money enough for a full content mmo. Unless you actually have anything relevant to stand against this point instead of simply trying to find minor possible errors with my illustrations for how they may not have quite as much as my illustration shows....
You know what. Ill give you the possibility that my math is off by a 50% margin and not in favor of Arenanet. OH NOES!!! Arenanet only made $175 million. You cant make a full content mmo with just $175 million. Oh wait, how much are the spending on developing Rift? or SWOTOR? I guess that means all the mmo's are doomed to failure from lack of content. Better hit up OPRAH so she could make The View online: the only full content mmo. /sarcasm
Reason why im set the bar at 1 yr of each games life, is because by year 2 arenanet will release there 2nd installment/expansion and the comparison to the sub game would be the same -$50 per player which being generous would make the GW2 profit comparable to a game with only a little over 1 million subs on year 2. But im sure for you that totally destroys my argument seeing as how mmo's with only 1 million players over a course of a year clearly dont have enough money to make content. Supposedly everquest topped at somewhere between 350-500k subs in its heyday and it didnt charge as much as most modern mmo's. Pretty sure everquest has alot of content.
And yes, some people wont pay full retail price for GW2, they also wont pay it for the box copy of the subscription game. Do you have a point with this? Some people will steal internet, some people will steal game time cards. Do you really expect this to matter? Your trying to apply a standard to 1 of these games without applying it to another? Thats just stupid. My approach may not be perfect, but at least im not resorting to double standards.
So robert. How many GW1 players are there? You seem to object to my methodology in coming up with a number based on sales. So where are your numbers? Where is your info? What is it based on? Oh thats right, you dont have any of that....
If your going to acuse others of not being objective(hilarious hypocrisy btw) at least bring something to the table that could resemble something that makes sense. Unlike you i dont expect you to come at me with hard evidence that doesnt exist, but at least give some reasoning that doesnt involve out of hand dismissal will offering no counterpoint that could possibly make you have a valid point. Hell you pointed out my math is possibly flawed, so i gave you a 50% margin for my error in your favor and it still supports my point. Ill be more objective when you bring a counterpoint to the table that accounts for something that supports your overall notion that GW2 needs more money to be a content rich mmo than they are already looking at.
This is boring to me, you aren't objective at all, you try to skew information so that it can fit your argument instead of accepting information for what it is and then formulating an argument and idea afterwards. I can't take someone seriously when they accuse people of being trolls just because they don't agree with them.
This would be a better forum if you would disappear.
I have seen you rip on other people for being "objective" in almost every thread and not once have you provided any solid explanation for any of your comments/opinions. You try to play it like you're some elitist, but everyone who reads your posts sees your negative bias towards GW and GW2.
Just so you know what objective means... I did some research for you (since it's obviously something you do not do often).
This is from my man Webster:
Objectivity: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Seems to me, none of your responses follow that definition at all. It's obvious your personal feelings for GW2 are negative as you lost all your "OBJECTIVITY" and "CREDIBILITY" by being negative in every post you've made.
Anyone can make huge claims and argue with a community, but when asked for specifics about your history with GW, you ignore the posters and call them out by pulling your "objectivity" card. If you were truly "OBJECTIVE" you would make your point once and not argue your point like you're 100% correct. Because the vast majority of your posts have nothing to do with objectivity, but instead your opinion.
Whether you like it or not, this game is going to be a hit. This game will out sell its competition. The simplicity of GW is what made it a success. The casual nature and B2P model is what made it a success.
If nothing about GW2 appeals to you, then its probably best you leave these forums instead of wasting your time and MMORPG's bandwidth trying to argue with obvious GW2 fans about your "objectivity" and your opinions. You might find the world a much better place if you spend your time talking about a game in a positive mentality... go spend your time on that forum please.
Don't copy and paste a definition for the word objective and then turn around and be the complete opposite. People who are objective will look negative to people who are blindly biased.
I never said gw2 would not be a success, as a matter of fact I have said it will be very successful many times. It won't outsell it's competition (any blizzard mmorpg) though. They both try to appeal to casuals with an extremely easy-to-play game. But blizzard has better funding/experience and a larger fanbase.
Originally posted by Nailzzz
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by Nailzzz
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by Nailzzz
Snip
snip
snip
I could spend my time showing you why your math is way off, but you already admitted your numbers are off, so why are you trying to make an argument with numbers you are admit are off?
For example not everyone pays full launch retail price for a game. Secondly, why do mmorpgs only get 1year of subscription factored in for them, when you are counting GW1's box sales from many many years.
Basically you aren't being objective, instead of interpreting the data accurately and then making an argument, you make an argument and then try to interpret the data to fit it.
The argument boils down to a question of money. Since your notion is money=content. Or have you allowed yourself to get so wrapped up in trolling for its own sake that you have forgotten the discussion? Overall point is that Anet has money enough for a full content mmo. Unless you actually have anything relevant to stand against this point instead of simply trying to find minor possible errors with my illustrations for how they may not have quite as much as my illustration shows....
You know what. Ill give you the possibility that my math is off by a 50% margin and not in favor of Arenanet. OH NOES!!! Arenanet only made $175 million. You cant make a full content mmo with just $175 million. Oh wait, how much are the spending on developing Rift? or SWOTOR? I guess that means all the mmo's are doomed to failure from lack of content. Better hit up OPRAH so she could make The View online: the only full content mmo. /sarcasm
Reason why im set the bar at 1 yr of each games life, is because by year 2 arenanet will release there 2nd installment/expansion and the comparison to the sub game would be the same -$50 per player which being generous would make the GW2 profit comparable to a game with only a little over 1 million subs on year 2. But im sure for you that totally destroys my argument seeing as how mmo's with only 1 million players over a course of a year clearly dont have enough money to make content. Supposedly everquest topped at somewhere between 350-500k subs in its heyday and it didnt charge as much as most modern mmo's. Pretty sure everquest has alot of content.
And yes, some people wont pay full retail price for GW2, they also wont pay it for the box copy of the subscription game. Do you have a point with this? Some people will steal internet, some people will steal game time cards. Do you really expect this to matter? Your trying to apply a standard to 1 of these games without applying it to another? Thats just stupid. My approach may not be perfect, but at least im not resorting to double standards.
So robert. How many GW1 players are there? You seem to object to my methodology in coming up with a number based on sales. So where are your numbers? Where is your info? What is it based on? Oh thats right, you dont have any of that....
If your going to acuse others of not being objective(hilarious hypocrisy btw) at least bring something to the table that could resemble something that makes sense. Unlike you i dont expect you to come at me with hard evidence that doesnt exist, but at least give some reasoning that doesnt involve out of hand dismissal will offering no counterpoint that could possibly make you have a valid point. Hell you pointed out my math is possibly flawed, so i gave you a 50% margin for my error in your favor and it still supports my point. Ill be more objective when you bring a counterpoint to the table that accounts for something that supports your overall notion that GW2 needs more money to be a content rich mmo than they are already looking at.
This is boring to me, you aren't objective at all, you try to skew information so that it can fit your argument instead of accepting information for what it is and then formulating an argument and idea afterwards. I can't take someone seriously when they accuse people of being trolls just because they don't agree with them.
mmmkay had to say something first off your being called a troll becuase your arguments dont make the slightest bit of sense if you think about them for longer than it takes to read them. (for the most part you do on occasion in some of the posts i have seen you make, say some valid things).
second no person is completely objective its just not possible (unless said person has a mental disorder, not a slam at you just a statement to prevent confusion).
on another inturesting note i checked your account it has no real info in it and every one of your posts listed in ur history that i saw were in the gw2 forums making the same troll like posts against this game, dude if you dont like the game dont obsess over it and go do something meaningfull. Even if lets say you are right and the only person being objective then why are you wasting ur time on us? its obvious none of us are gonna change our viewpoints so why don't you go do something like say get a hobby (besides trolling of course) and leave us all to our happy stupor?
P.S. on a side note im a fanboy and i think this game will rock and keep me away from most other games for a long time *outside of my RL life* but i do acknowledge that any game no matter what could flop including this one so many things could go wrong its not funny, lol
(on a lighter note i know a hardcore WoW player who at the very least is looking towards this game with a bit of interest)
RobertDinh are you trolling the GW2 forums? I see you have only ever posted in the GW2 forums 290ish posts so far. Do you have an agenda? You do realize trolling is against the rules of conduct for this site? Seeing as you have no posts anywhere else, one might come to this conclusion. Just seems odd to me.
I apologize for what im about to do, taking this a bit off topic. But im kinda tired of seeing this behind people's reasoning for why they believe that GW2 is not going to have enough content to keep people busy. This statement which im quoting froim this thread struck a nerve with me:
"I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model."
Now when i read a statement like this i read the basic message as: GW2 isnt profitable enough to have similar content/quality as a sub based mmo due to lack of revenue. Now granted they referenced WoW which has enough content that most people never bother with most of it, instead skipping to the end game leaving most of there content underutilized and wasted in many cases(a shame really). But i still see the point as being one of people simplifying there reasoning down to Profit=Content. Fair enough. I ran some numbers and using some very basic math where i only took into account the most likley player base for GW2(GW1 players) and assuming that they will be releasing an expansion a year later(though it could happen at 6 months given there precedent with GW1 expansions). So if only former GW1 players buy GW2 and they only release the original game for the first year, then arenanet will be looking at $350,000,000 in game sales alone(not counting CE, or CS options or merchandise). That alone makes this game just as profitable as a sub based game with 1.5 million subs(rounding down). How many content filled mmo's have breached 1.5 million subs and kept them for a solid year? And again this is only counting former GW1 players. There are many people who either didnt like or never played GW1 who have every intention of picking up GW2 so clearly my $350 million dollar figure is low balling it significantly.
Hell if they only reinvest a third of that $350 million, your trying to tell us they couldnt create tons of content out of $100+million? For most mmo's(sub or otherwise) that is more than the cost of there entire game development. Seems to me, as long as they dont screw this up between now and launch, money shouldnt be a concern for them, and by all accounts there doing great so far.
Also on the content for pve front, id like to repost something i put down elsewhere on the forum:
For those of you concerned about a lack of content, i think i can answer your concerns. Now the standard quest system is clearly out so it isnt so easy to make direct comparisons based on that. However i have gone through the list of Warhammers PQ's and they have 500 Public Quests in game as of this point (being year 2 of its existence). Now if you account for the fact that half of these PQ's are for each faction, a charachter in WAR has the possibility of experiencing 250 (aprox. estimate) possible PQ's. That being said im aware that the vast majority of players sadly stuck to quests and pvp rather than pq's so not alot of players actually played near that many public quests, but its merely for content comparison sake that i offer the reference.
On top of that there are clear differences between PQ's and Dynamic Events in terms of replayability and possible outcomes. If we asume that Dynamic Events average out to 3 stages or "chains" similar to WAR's PQ's (we have just as much reason to assume it could be more as we do less) then with a simple pass/fail variable per stage/chain, we are looking at a possible 4 outcomes per Dynamic Event which leads to each DE having the replayability of 4 PQ's.
Arenanet has mentioned that they are looking at having 1600 DE's in game as of now/launch. Using the above example of conversion in terms of content/replayability, that would be the equivalent of 6,400 Public Quests(assuming of course your getting a different outcome every time you attempt a Dynamic Event).
Now again compare the fact that your looking at 1600 Dynamic Events(accessible to all players) at launch for GW2, vs. 250 Public Quests(playable per faction) in WAR during the second year of its lifespan. I know this is all just math and theory, but it does seem to indicate to me that lack of content is the least of my concerns.
I was addressing only 1 aspect of Pve in the above, we still have no idea how much content we will have in terms of player storyline or dungeons, but if the above is any indication, i again see no reason to believe that this game will not have enough in it for the hardcore PVE player.
Your figures are off. 6million people didn't buy gw1, it was 6 million box copies total across all campaigns. Obviously a lot of people bought every release in the series.
You also forget the fact that sub mmos also have box sales + subscriptions.
Anyway anet has used this payment model before, and their first game had very little content relative to an mmorpg. This one will have more content, but they still won't be able to keep up with how quickly hardcore players eat through content. Nor does their game have intuitive end game pve. 5man dungeons won't cut it.
I admit from the beginning that my figures are off. However you clearly didnt check the math and instead made assumptions. There is no way i or anyone else can possibly know how well GW2 will do. Its all based on theory. And yes im aware that not everyone bought every expansion(which if they didnt, they have little right to complain about lack of content) for GW1, but they did already make 350 million (lowball figure yet again due to not including merch and cash shop options or money from CE upgrade) on a game that cost relative pennies to make(the initial bar for success acording to arenanet devs was 250,000 players back during beta) from 7 million boxed copies of the game. The only overestimation i made possibly with this given how ive lowballed all my figures with arenanet is a factor we just simply dont know, so i cant/dont account for it. We have no idea how many players bought how many expansions. That being said, i only included an estimate on the preinstalled base of customers. I did not include all the people who have never played GW1 who will buy GW2, because i also dont have access to those figures either. No one does. But to asume GW2 will do worse than GW1(as fond of it as i am) is an assumption even you have to recognize as foolish.
Had you bothered to check my math btw, you would have realized that i had in fact counted in the cost of the initial $50 purchase of the game on top of the monthly fee's for subscription gamers. The number that comes up is actually a bit over 1.5 million subscriptions but i rounded down to actually sway the number a bit away from arenanet's favor. I lowballed all my numbers this way and yet arenanet still comes out looking very profitable with there B2P model, comparing to the very top sub based games in terms of profit. I will do you the favor of showing my math.
GW2: $50 per 7 million players=$350 million (again doesnt include money from CE, merchandise, and cash shop) 7 million player figure also doesnt include GW1 players who bought additional expansions(variable likely to drive number down) or Players new to the franchise interested in GW2(variable likely to drive number up) since these are both unknowns i simply dismissed them as cancelling each other out. If you have a better formula or more info, let us know.
Normal sub based mmo: $15 a month for 12 months/1 year=$180+$50 for box purchase of game= $230 per player. 1500000 multiplied by $230 per player= $345,000,000 or slightly less than GW2's likley $350 million.
Also people's idea's on content in terms of quantity are a joke. In most mmo's, people tend to rush to end game so they can repeat the same few dungeons over and over and over again and then they go on and on about how thats alot of content. It isnt alot of content. Your just repeating the same content ad nauseum. WoW is an excellent example of this. Oh sure the game does have tons of content. Possibly more than any other, but most of it is underutilized in favor of repeating the same things again and again or being passed up on the way to end game because it was deemed inefficeint as a means to get to end game.
I played GW1 as a hardcore Pve'er (with a dash of pvp here and there) for over 3 yrs as my main game. You know what i didnt find myself doing much? I didnt find myself doing a whole lot of repeating the same thing over and over again. Despite my playing the game for years, my hall of monuments isnt all filled up(i refused to grind). I only repeated content i already did if i had a friend that needed help on something, or if i wanted to complete it on hard mode or if i was working on one of my alts. The content was by no means lacking. Hell 90% of the game is desighned to be for a max lvl charachter. Ive never played any other mmo type game that had as much "end-game" content. They are building on this with there charachter/difficulty scaling in GW2 which is going to increase the longevity at end game a great deal as well. All this talk about how it wont have enough content because its B2P or some other excuse is just people using incredibly flawed arguments to feel less ripped off by there sub based mmo's or being insecure about the future of there own favorite, or simply trolling. It isnt just about how much content your game has, but about how much content you want to play.
I could spend my time showing you why your math is way off, but you already admitted your numbers are off, so why are you trying to make an argument with numbers you are admit are off?
For example not everyone pays full launch retail price for a game. Secondly, why do mmorpgs only get 1year of subscription factored in for them, when you are counting GW1's box sales from many many years.
Basically you aren't being objective, instead of interpreting the data accurately and then making an argument, you make an argument and then try to interpret the data to fit it.
The argument boils down to a question of money. Since your notion is money=content. Or have you allowed yourself to get so wrapped up in trolling for its own sake that you have forgotten the discussion? Overall point is that Anet has money enough for a full content mmo. Unless you actually have anything relevant to stand against this point instead of simply trying to find minor possible errors with my illustrations for how they may not have quite as much as my illustration shows....
You know what. Ill give you the possibility that my math is off by a 50% margin and not in favor of Arenanet. OH NOES!!! Arenanet only made $175 million. You cant make a full content mmo with just $175 million. Oh wait, how much are the spending on developing Rift? or SWOTOR? I guess that means all the mmo's are doomed to failure from lack of content. Better hit up OPRAH so she could make The View online: the only full content mmo. /sarcasm
Reason why im set the bar at 1 yr of each games life, is because by year 2 arenanet will release there 2nd installment/expansion and the comparison to the sub game would be the same -$50 per player which being generous would make the GW2 profit comparable to a game with only a little over 1 million subs on year 2. But im sure for you that totally destroys my argument seeing as how mmo's with only 1 million players over a course of a year clearly dont have enough money to make content. Supposedly everquest topped at somewhere between 350-500k subs in its heyday and it didnt charge as much as most modern mmo's. Pretty sure everquest has alot of content.
And yes, some people wont pay full retail price for GW2, they also wont pay it for the box copy of the subscription game. Do you have a point with this? Some people will steal internet, some people will steal game time cards. Do you really expect this to matter? Your trying to apply a standard to 1 of these games without applying it to another? Thats just stupid. My approach may not be perfect, but at least im not resorting to double standards.
So robert. How many GW1 players are there? You seem to object to my methodology in coming up with a number based on sales. So where are your numbers? Where is your info? What is it based on? Oh thats right, you dont have any of that....
If your going to acuse others of not being objective(hilarious hypocrisy btw) at least bring something to the table that could resemble something that makes sense. Unlike you i dont expect you to come at me with hard evidence that doesnt exist, but at least give some reasoning that doesnt involve out of hand dismissal will offering no counterpoint that could possibly make you have a valid point. Hell you pointed out my math is possibly flawed, so i gave you a 50% margin for my error in your favor and it still supports my point. Ill be more objective when you bring a counterpoint to the table that accounts for something that supports your overall notion that GW2 needs more money to be a content rich mmo than they are already looking at.
This is boring to me, you aren't objective at all, you try to skew information so that it can fit your argument instead of accepting information for what it is and then formulating an argument and idea afterwards. I can't take someone seriously when they accuse people of being trolls just because they don't agree with them.
Ok so casual dismisal, no evidence of any kind, hiding behind emotion, no counterpoint, accusation based on dubious criteria. You sure your not a troll robert? What information have you brought to the table here that at all supports your stance that im supposed to be considering? I have no shame admitting that i am biased in favor of GW2. I dont hide it, and most people arent stupid enough to not consider that when they read what i say. So why are you so shocked? That being said, bias is just that. If im so biased and clearly not living in objective reality due to it, then disputing my overall point should be cake for you since your soooo objective and without any bias at all. C'mon robert, prove your not the troll you have everyone convinced you are. Im rooting for you here. Dont let us down
nailzzz, i read a lot of threads each day and i can recall seeing robert troll several times in different threads... there is no point in arguing since trolls feed up on your wall of text and reply with pointless more information just to make you waste more time... forget it
GW2 will be more successfull then GW1 and that is a fact
I played GW1 over 300+hours ingame, so I'm expecting GW2 to double that amount
and last thing is that this game is not for hard core PVE players who want to get to end cap in a week to get the best gear and bragg all day long, they said it numerous times that this game is focused on exploring and finding out secret dynamic events which aren't on your map etc etc....
nailzzz, i read a lot of threads each day and i can recall seeing robert troll several times in different threads... there is no point in arguing since trolls feed up on your wall of text and reply with pointless more information just to make you waste more time... forget it
GW2 will be more successfull then GW1 and that is a fact
I played GW1 over 300+hours ingame, so I'm expecting GW2 to double that amount
and last thing is that this game is not for hard core PVE players who want to get to end cap in a week to get the best gear and bragg all day long, they said it numerous times that this game is focused on exploring and finding out secret dynamic events which aren't on your map etc etc....
It is not really a fact even if it is very likely. Nothing is a fact before it has happened, not even that you will die if you jump empire state building (Well, it is extremely likely but not a fact still).
Still, there are many thing that suggest that GW2 will be a big game.
It have veteran devs from Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft 3, all huge successes.
It have a really good budget and the devs have promised to not release the game before it is ready (something most devs never would promise).
It have no monthly fee.
It is well funded and have a lot of good people working on it.
It offers RvRvR PvO, something very popular in DaoC and many players have asked after something similar.
The lore is written by an actual author.
And more. On the other hand does it try many new things and it is always hard to be sure how they will liked by the more traditional players or the players comparing every game to Wow. You can never be really sure about things that way.
It will however be the only F2P true MMORPG, a business model only seen in CORPGs before and that is very popular. It makes the game an ideal gift and it makes things easier for people who either don't own a VISA or are slightly paranoid.
So I would estimate it to about 90% chance that it sells better than the fist game. I don't find it unlikely that it will eventually surpass Wow in subs either but it wont kill it.
The competition is mainly Wow, Rift and TOR but GW2s great advantage is that since you have no monthly fees people can also play it as an alt game, something few people do otherwise with MMOs due to the monthly fees. GW1 were very popular earlier as an alt game, particularly with Wow players, I know many people playing it for the PvP.
nailzzz, i read a lot of threads each day and i can recall seeing robert troll several times in different threads... there is no point in arguing since trolls feed up on your wall of text and reply with pointless more information just to make you waste more time... forget it
GW2 will be more successfull then GW1 and that is a fact
I played GW1 over 300+hours ingame, so I'm expecting GW2 to double that amount
and last thing is that this game is not for hard core PVE players who want to get to end cap in a week to get the best gear and bragg all day long, they said it numerous times that this game is focused on exploring and finding out secret dynamic events which aren't on your map etc etc....
I know. He may think hes getting something out of me and probably thinks that hes acomplishing wasting my time (who knows though, maybe he'll come back with a well reasoned thoughtful responce to my last post), but tbh these "walls of text" dont really take me much time and i have lots of time to think about things all day at work so its not like it takes much effort on my part to come up with what i write. Im actually enjoying the troll attempts. Its good for ones self esteem to know there are people more pathetic than myself. But im sorry to everyone else if they find my posts to be a bit much.
You have to define hardcore. Are you talking about Min-Maxers? Are you talking about old school MMO players? Are you talking about completionists? What exactly am I answering?
In all cases, yes. There are bound to be some of these in nearly every game out there. Problem is, GW2 still isn't a real MMO. It's DDO but better. It's a glorified hub game. It will probably do just as well as it's predecessor did. Gamers of all types I'm sure. I won't be playing it though. I'm an old school gamer type. The lack of massive worlds and continuity turns me off completely.
Wow looks like you couldn't even be bothered to even watch the video manifesto.....
If you bothered to do any research AT ALL you would know that you know pretty much zero about GW2.
There are plenty of threads here that will answer your questions
Where was I wrong? Glorified Hub game. Meaning like GW1 but bigger and better. Again, where am I wrong? The only difference that I've gathered is that there are persistant 'zones', or maps that don't have much to do with the storyline. So in escense, sort of like EQ with a ton of storyline and dungeon instances. Obviously there are tons of other advancements, I'm just talking about the world design.
Which still IMO isn't a real MMO. Close.. just not quite. Once you experience a massive seamless world up close, it's really hard to go back. It completely breaks immersion for me. If I'm going to invest years of my life on something, I better damn well like it. It's just my opinion. No need to get your panties in a bunch.
I answered the OP's question. I've done my part here. I'm not going to argue with someone who's intent is to start them. We can just agree to disagree.
nailzzz, i read a lot of threads each day and i can recall seeing robert troll several times in different threads... there is no point in arguing since trolls feed up on your wall of text and reply with pointless more information just to make you waste more time... forget it
GW2 will be more successfull then GW1 and that is a fact
I played GW1 over 300+hours ingame, so I'm expecting GW2 to double that amount
and last thing is that this game is not for hard core PVE players who want to get to end cap in a week to get the best gear and bragg all day long, they said it numerous times that this game is focused on exploring and finding out secret dynamic events which aren't on your map etc etc....
It is not really a fact even if it is very likely. Nothing is a fact before it has happened, not even that you will die if you jump empire state building (Well, it is extremely likely but not a fact still).
Still, there are many thing that suggest that GW2 will be a big game.
It have veteran devs from Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft 3, all huge successes.
It have a really good budget and the devs have promised to not release the game before it is ready (something most devs never would promise).
It have no monthly fee.
It is well funded and have a lot of good people working on it.
It offers RvRvR PvO, something very popular in DaoC and many players have asked after something similar.
The lore is written by an actual author.
And more. On the other hand does it try many new things and it is always hard to be sure how they will liked by the more traditional players or the players comparing every game to Wow. You can never be really sure about things that way.
It will however be the only F2P true MMORPG, a business model only seen in CORPGs before and that is very popular. It makes the game an ideal gift and it makes things easier for people who either don't own a VISA or are slightly paranoid.
So I would estimate it to about 90% chance that it sells better than the fist game. I don't find it unlikely that it will eventually surpass Wow in subs either but it wont kill it.
The competition is mainly Wow, Rift and TOR but GW2s great advantage is that since you have no monthly fees people can also play it as an alt game, something few people do otherwise with MMOs due to the monthly fees. GW1 were very popular earlier as an alt game, particularly with Wow players, I know many people playing it for the PvP.
Loke, ive been watching the forums here quite a bit lately and overall it seems we are of the same mind on this. Some of what you and some of the other posters here have been dealing with with the naysayers prompted me to get into it with robert and a few of the others here and there. I just hope what i was able to illustrate for you guys in my earlier posts in this thread can serve as some some basis for assurance that the odds are quite likely that GW2 will be a success(financially), aside from all the great points you brought up here(successful in gameplay).
I think we all need to be able to hang onto a little hope for the mmorpg genre, otherwise we may never get to play another well funded project again with so many on the verge of giving up. Sure some will always play but without the numbers and interest, funding will suffer and quality of games may as well. Im not saying that GW2 is the only good option coming that i have hopes for. But tbh i see it as the best hope, if not the last. I wish SWOTOR success, as well as The Secret World, World of Darkness, Blade and Soul, Tera, Vindictus(beta was a blast), and project copernicus. I dont feel the need to troll any of these games as i want them to do well. But if i was a betting man.....
You have to define hardcore. Are you talking about Min-Maxers? Are you talking about old school MMO players? Are you talking about completionists? What exactly am I answering?
In all cases, yes. There are bound to be some of these in nearly every game out there. Problem is, GW2 still isn't a real MMO. It's DDO but better. It's a glorified hub game. It will probably do just as well as it's predecessor did. Gamers of all types I'm sure. I won't be playing it though. I'm an old school gamer type. The lack of massive worlds and continuity turns me off completely.
Wow looks like you couldn't even be bothered to even watch the video manifesto.....
If you bothered to do any research AT ALL you would know that you know pretty much zero about GW2.
There are plenty of threads here that will answer your questions
Where was I wrong? Glorified Hub game. Meaning like GW1 but bigger and better. Again, where am I wrong? The only difference that I've gathered is that there are persistant 'zones', or maps that don't have much to do with the storyline. So in escense, sort of like EQ with a ton of storyline and dungeon instances. Obviously there are tons of other advancements, I'm just talking about the world design.
Which still IMO isn't a real MMO. Close.. just not quite. Once you experience a massive seamless world up close, it's really hard to go back. It completely breaks immersion for me. If I'm going to invest years of my life on something, I better damn well like it. It's just my opinion. No need to get your panties in a bunch.
I answered the OP's question. I've done my part here. I'm not going to argue with someone who's intent is to start them. We can just agree to disagree.
SOoooo.... EQ isnt an MMO? Just have to say, you know what breaks immersion for me? Sitting in front of a computer screen. Yeah i just cant shake the feeling that im playing a computer game. i know its weird. That and even when i do get really involved i have to get up and use the bathroom and the immersion is just gone. Why cant they make a game that truly creates immersion?
Ok all joking aside. Ive played seemless mmo's. You know what they also have that breaks immersion? Either shitty graphics, or lag/rubberbanding. Actually there is one other exception where it doesnt have shitty graphics or lag. Almost no one playing.
I have to ask. What mmo's do you actually qualify as mmo's?
You have to define hardcore. Are you talking about Min-Maxers? Are you talking about old school MMO players? Are you talking about completionists? What exactly am I answering? In all cases, yes. There are bound to be some of these in nearly every game out there. Problem is, GW2 still isn't a real MMO. It's DDO but better. It's a glorified hub game. It will probably do just as well as it's predecessor did. Gamers of all types I'm sure. I won't be playing it though. I'm an old school gamer type. The lack of massive worlds and continuity turns me off completely.
Wow looks like you couldn't even be bothered to even watch the video manifesto.....
If you bothered to do any research AT ALL you would know that you know pretty much zero about GW2.
There are plenty of threads here that will answer your questions
Where was I wrong? Glorified Hub game. Meaning like GW1 but bigger and better. Again, where am I wrong? The only difference that I've gathered is that there are persistant 'zones', or maps that don't have much to do with the storyline. So in escense, sort of like EQ with a ton of storyline and dungeon instances. Obviously there are tons of other advancements, I'm just talking about the world design.
Which still IMO isn't a real MMO. Close.. just not quite. Once you experience a massive seamless world up close, it's really hard to go back. It completely breaks immersion for me. If I'm going to invest years of my life on something, I better damn well like it. It's just my opinion. No need to get your panties in a bunch.
I answered the OP's question. I've done my part here. I'm not going to argue with someone who's intent is to start them. We can just agree to disagree.
So what mmorpg have you played with no instances and no invisible walls and no mountains that block your way. A mmorpg where i can go where i want and fly where i want. A mmorpg thay if i keep running ill end up the same spot hours later.
A mmorpg that has no forced zoning or loading.
I can only think of one current mmorpg that comes anywhere near that.
Every mmorpg is a 'glorified hub game'. Just because you don't see the portals doesn't mean they don't exist. Plus there are always borders to the maps too
Still, if having a load screen really breaks immersion that much, maybe you shouldn't be a gamer. You should join that MMRPG known as the real world, it doesn't have loading screens and is truly persistant!
Also, no big mmo can survive open worlds now. fact. Some give the illusion such as WoW, but only small time f2p mmo's can have open worlds with no loading screens because they have so few players relatively (or in the case of silkroad, 2 million servers of around 500 people each). Players prefer less lag over less loading screens after all.
On the flip side i get that you're worried that maps will only have a few exits ect. and it's perfectly justified and is perfectly true but that won't make it less fun! However, we all have our own preferences, such as i wouldn't give gw2 the light of day if it asked a sub (same as everything else, no game is worth £120 a year, no game at all) and you are perfectly entitled to have yours
I find it comical that you can sit there nailzz and think you've made a single valid argument when your figures are off and the context behind those figures isn't logical at all.
As I said before, if you aren't objective I can't take your argument seriously. You really need to just re-evaluate your own posts and analyze your logic and you will see how skewed it is.
This would be a better forum if you would disappear.
I have seen you rip on other people for being "objective" in almost every thread and not once have you provided any solid explanation for any of your comments/opinions. You try to play it like you're some elitist, but everyone who reads your posts sees your negative bias towards GW and GW2.
Just so you know what objective means... I did some research for you (since it's obviously something you do not do often).
This is from my man Webster:
Objectivity: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Seems to me, none of your responses follow that definition at all. It's obvious your personal feelings for GW2 are negative as you lost all your "OBJECTIVITY" and "CREDIBILITY" by being negative in every post you've made.
Anyone can make huge claims and argue with a community, but when asked for specifics about your history with GW, you ignore the posters and call them out by pulling your "objectivity" card. If you were truly "OBJECTIVE" you would make your point once and not argue your point like you're 100% correct. Because the vast majority of your posts have nothing to do with objectivity, but instead your opinion.
Whether you like it or not, this game is going to be a hit. This game will out sell its competition. The simplicity of GW is what made it a success. The casual nature and B2P model is what made it a success.
If nothing about GW2 appeals to you, then its probably best you leave these forums instead of wasting your time and MMORPG's bandwidth trying to argue with obvious GW2 fans about your "objectivity" and your opinions. You might find the world a much better place if you spend your time talking about a game in a positive mentality... go spend your time on that forum please.
Don't copy and paste a definition for the word objective and then turn around and be the complete opposite. People who are objective will look negative to people who are blindly biased.
I never said gw2 would not be a success, as a matter of fact I have said it will be very successful many times. It won't outsell it's competition (any blizzard mmorpg) though. They both try to appeal to casuals with an extremely easy-to-play game. But blizzard has better funding/experience and a larger fanbase.
Originally posted by Nailzzz
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by Nailzzz
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by Nailzzz
Snip
snip
snip
I could spend my time showing you why your math is way off, but you already admitted your numbers are off, so why are you trying to make an argument with numbers you are admit are off?
For example not everyone pays full launch retail price for a game. Secondly, why do mmorpgs only get 1year of subscription factored in for them, when you are counting GW1's box sales from many many years.
Basically you aren't being objective, instead of interpreting the data accurately and then making an argument, you make an argument and then try to interpret the data to fit it.
The argument boils down to a question of money. Since your notion is money=content. Or have you allowed yourself to get so wrapped up in trolling for its own sake that you have forgotten the discussion? Overall point is that Anet has money enough for a full content mmo. Unless you actually have anything relevant to stand against this point instead of simply trying to find minor possible errors with my illustrations for how they may not have quite as much as my illustration shows....
You know what. Ill give you the possibility that my math is off by a 50% margin and not in favor of Arenanet. OH NOES!!! Arenanet only made $175 million. You cant make a full content mmo with just $175 million. Oh wait, how much are the spending on developing Rift? or SWOTOR? I guess that means all the mmo's are doomed to failure from lack of content. Better hit up OPRAH so she could make The View online: the only full content mmo. /sarcasm
Reason why im set the bar at 1 yr of each games life, is because by year 2 arenanet will release there 2nd installment/expansion and the comparison to the sub game would be the same -$50 per player which being generous would make the GW2 profit comparable to a game with only a little over 1 million subs on year 2. But im sure for you that totally destroys my argument seeing as how mmo's with only 1 million players over a course of a year clearly dont have enough money to make content. Supposedly everquest topped at somewhere between 350-500k subs in its heyday and it didnt charge as much as most modern mmo's. Pretty sure everquest has alot of content.
And yes, some people wont pay full retail price for GW2, they also wont pay it for the box copy of the subscription game. Do you have a point with this? Some people will steal internet, some people will steal game time cards. Do you really expect this to matter? Your trying to apply a standard to 1 of these games without applying it to another? Thats just stupid. My approach may not be perfect, but at least im not resorting to double standards.
So robert. How many GW1 players are there? You seem to object to my methodology in coming up with a number based on sales. So where are your numbers? Where is your info? What is it based on? Oh thats right, you dont have any of that....
If your going to acuse others of not being objective(hilarious hypocrisy btw) at least bring something to the table that could resemble something that makes sense. Unlike you i dont expect you to come at me with hard evidence that doesnt exist, but at least give some reasoning that doesnt involve out of hand dismissal will offering no counterpoint that could possibly make you have a valid point. Hell you pointed out my math is possibly flawed, so i gave you a 50% margin for my error in your favor and it still supports my point. Ill be more objective when you bring a counterpoint to the table that accounts for something that supports your overall notion that GW2 needs more money to be a content rich mmo than they are already looking at.
This is boring to me, you aren't objective at all, you try to skew information so that it can fit your argument instead of accepting information for what it is and then formulating an argument and idea afterwards. I can't take someone seriously when they accuse people of being trolls just because they don't agree with them.
mmmkay had to say something first off your being called a troll becuase your arguments dont make the slightest bit of sense if you think about them for longer than it takes to read them. (for the most part you do on occasion in some of the posts i have seen you make, say some valid things).
second no person is completely objective its just not possible (unless said person has a mental disorder, not a slam at you just a statement to prevent confusion).
on another inturesting note i checked your account it has no real info in it and every one of your posts listed in ur history that i saw were in the gw2 forums making the same troll like posts against this game, dude if you dont like the game dont obsess over it and go do something meaningfull. Even if lets say you are right and the only person being objective then why are you wasting ur time on us? its obvious none of us are gonna change our viewpoints so why don't you go do something like say get a hobby (besides trolling of course) and leave us all to our happy stupor?
P.S. on a side note im a fanboy and i think this game will rock and keep me away from most other games for a long time *outside of my RL life* but i do acknowledge that any game no matter what could flop including this one so many things could go wrong its not funny, lol
(on a lighter note i know a hardcore WoW player who at the very least is looking towards this game with a bit of interest)
k i will run under the assumption for the moment that you simply missed my post the question has been posed Robert and although i know that it is ultimately useless to argue the above facts to you and the only proper way to outdo a troll using circular logic would take someone with no life or a dedicated company for each troll (the post post to do that alone would probably take up a whole thread in and of itself), i am none the less curious to see your answer.
From my very limited expereince in GW, (about 2 weeks), GW2 will have its fair share of hardcore players, just like every other MMO out there. IMO it will attract those that like to do a LOT of small scale PvP/PvE over and over and over sorta like the FPS crowd.
Although the combat mechanics differ greatly, PvP in games like WoW and GW2 remind me of all that time I spent playing CS, die, respawn, die, respawn continuously with nothing to gain or lose other than smack talking rights. I have no doubt that a hardcore group that enjoys that style of game play will be playing and enjoying the game from day one.
The hardcore crowd I wouldn't expect to see in GW2 are those who enjoy games like EVE or Darkfall, where you can lose something and players actually have an impact on the game world.
Yes, this is a very strong point you raise.
One of the features of hardcore (or some sandbox games) has often been that actions have repercussions that have cascade effects, not just a binary win-lose then repeat. That can be very severe but also very rewarding way of extending the experience on the game world.
That's clearly not going to be in the game in any form, by all accounts. One of the few things I will miss in GW2.
I find it comical that you can sit there nailzz and think you've made a single valid argument when your figures are off and the context behind those figures isn't logical at all.
As I said before, if you aren't objective I can't take your argument seriously. You really need to just re-evaluate your own posts and analyze your logic and you will see how skewed it is.
Wow irony FTW!!!
This comment is a gem!
Its also a basic carbon copy of every other post you make. It contains some uninteresting fiction about logical arguement which by default logic requires the implementation of fact. But thats not your bag is it?
I find it comical that you can sit there nailzz and think you've made a single valid argument when your figures are off and the context behind those figures isn't logical at all.
As I said before, if you aren't objective I can't take your argument seriously. You really need to just re-evaluate your own posts and analyze your logic and you will see how skewed it is.
In order for me to have an argument robert, i would need to have an opposing viewpoint with which to argue against. Something you seem unable to at all support with anything aside from casual dismissal, which is pretty disrespectful, but not the basis for an objective (your favorite word. maybe you'll someday learn what it means) argument.
I have reevaluated what ive written, and your right. I realize that what i was doing was actually erroring in your favor in every possible way to support your idea. I was only counting GW1 players as potentially buying GW2, while leaving out the many people who never bought GW1 in my figures (a factor that would help your notion while hurting mine) right from the start. I also didnt bring up how they have the backing of the worlds biggest mmo publisher (NCSoft) also willing to push funds should they need it (another omission on my part that hurts my notion while helping yours). Shall i go on? Just about every error i made was skewed to undercut arenanet in your favor and your claiming im not being objective. Your right, by only working with the numbers available from 1 possible source of players among many, im not being fair... to arenanet.
Well, since you seem to believe that my figures arent logical, Throw me some logical numbers and ill work with those. But i will expect a convincing context for them.
The best you could come up with was "not everyone pays full retail price" last time. I'll humour you. How many People didnt pay full price? Either bring the math and the context or GTFO. (BTW, you can grab that "context" word from me so that you can add it to your list of words like "objective" and "logical" so that maybe you can sound smart to people who only pay attention to you for 30 sec's at a time. Any longer though and im afraid your BS might show through.)
This is not my debate, but I got curious, so here it goes.
First of all, it's all fuzzy logic speculations, I know analists could calculate all kinds of interesting figures based on prognoses, but in the end it's still all guesswork, one person's guess could become as true as the next person's guess.
Ok, working from there: how did you come up with that 350 million dollar and 7 million people figure? It sounds wrong and ignores the past with other MMO launches.
Too tired/indifferent to look up the figures, but if I recall correctly, AoC and WAR sold something like 700k-1 million copies of their game. Let's say that GW2, because of its ginormous hype and people going crazy in word-of-mouth, that they manage to sell 1.5 million within the first 3 months, 2 million copies tops.
Let's leave aside added sales of GW because of the transferrable rewards to GW2 you can get from its Hall of Monuments in GW (devs haven't talked in specifics about how the connection GW-GW2 will work out), and also leave aside the CE edition that'll very likely sell 100k+ copies, or any other goodies they'll sell as the novels or art books.
All that aside: with an estimated 1.5 million per game of $50 would only result in 75 million dollars in sales, 100 million dollars when you count 2 million copies sold . That is tops.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
This is not my debate, but I got curious, so here it goes.
First of all, it's all fuzzy logic speculations, I know analists could calculate all kinds of interesting figures based on prognoses, but in the end it's still all guesswork, one person's guess could become as true as the next person's guess.
Ok, working from there: how did you come up with that 350 million dollar and 7 million people figure? It sounds wrong and ignores the past with other MMO launches.
Too tired/indifferent to look up the figures, but if I recall correctly, AoC and WAR sold something like 700k-1 million copies of their game. Let's say that GW2, because of its ginormous hype and people going crazy in word-of-mouth, that they manage to sell 1.5 million within the first 3 months, 2 million copies tops.
Let's leave aside added sales of GW because of the transferrable rewards to GW2 you can get from its Hall of Monuments in GW (devs haven't talked in specifics about how the connection GW-GW2 will work out), and also leave aside the CE edition that'll very likely sell 100k+ copies, or any other goodies they'll sell as the novels or art books.
All that aside: with an estimated 1.5 million per game of $50 would only result in 75 million dollars in sales, 100 million dollars when you count 2 million copies sold . That is tops.
Your math came to the similar conclusion as my own, but you confused my figures in regaurds to equivilating GW (b2p) vs. other sub based mmo's. The 1.5 million figure was actually based on an estimate i illustrated in terms of how GW sales compare to subs in terms of money generation. I apologize if my previous posts on the subject caused some confusion. Basically the gist of it was that due to GW's B2p business model not charging monthly fee's and given the number of people likely to play GW2 (using GW1 players as the base pool) that 7 million boxed sales (matching the box sales from GW1) would be the equivalent to a sub based mmo that had roughly 1.5 million players in terms of revenue generated. But your math was accurate, basically 1 million sales =$50 million dollars and given the likely 7 million players, would =$350 million which is about the same amount of revune generated by a subscription mmo with 1.5 million players over the course of a year(by which time GW2 next expansion will likely be released starting the comparison over again for the next year)
Now i know that this figure doesnt take into account people who bough multiple copies of the game/expansion which unfortunatly we dont know, especially since they were selling multiple expansion/games all in the same box and the 7 million was box sales( which would lower the figures), but it also doesnt take into account players who never purchased GW1 who will buy GW2 (which will raise the figures) and of course the Collectors Edition purchases and Cash Shop and merchandise (also raising the figures) so i simply used 7 million players as the baseline for illustration sake. Im not saying that GW2 will sell that much just at launch, but given past success which there building on, i wouldnt be surprised given the hype that they could realize this number within the first year or 2, assuming of course the game doesnt deliver like most havent. But i have some faith in arenanet.
Now i know that this figure doesnt take into account people who bough multiple copies of the game/expansion which unfortunatly we dont know, especially since they were selling multiple expansion/games all in the same box and the 7 million was box sales( which would lower the figures), but it also doesnt take into account players who never purchased GW1 who will buy GW2 (which will raise the figures) and of course the Collectors Edition purchases and Cash Shop and merchandise (also raising the figures) so i simply used 7 million players as the baseline for illustration sake. Im not saying that GW2 will sell that much just at launch, but given past success which there building on, i wouldnt be surprised given the hype that they could realize this number within the first year or 2, assuming of course the game doesnt deliver like most havent. But i have some faith in arenanet.
4,5 million accounts created is what I heard. That would lower your compare score to about 800K subs for a year if the game sells exactly the same.
But I have a feeling that the interest is higher this time and twice the original game doesn't sound unlikely. I wouldn't worry for ANET, I think they will get enough money on this as long as they wait with the release until the game is done.
so i simply used 7 million players as the baseline for illustration sake. Im not saying that GW2 will sell that much just at launch, but given past success which there building on, i wouldnt be surprised given the hype that they could realize this number within the first year or 2, assuming of course the game doesnt deliver like most havent. But i have some faith in arenanet.
The 7 million players is the mistake, it's too unrealistic.
Looking at the GW box sales, last time checked it was something like 6.5 million: but that is if I'm correct all the expansion sales included.
So someone who bought GW + all expansions accounts I think for 4 units sold. Granted, not everyone who bought GW Prophecies will have bought all the expansions, but to be on the safe side, it means that at the least 1.6 million people have bought and played GW, with a high likelihood of this number being 2 million or such.
Remember, WAR and AoC were on the top of hype and player excitement too, but still 'only' sold 1 million units. I expect that GW2 will probably do better with their established interested player base of GW players, an even higher hype and better word-of-mouth after launch, but still, 7 million players seems just way too high, even if you take into account a full year of sales. Unless they break into Korea and China
They could generate more money of course when their expansion(s) hit the market, I expect those to follow quickly, the first within the first year just as it happened with GW.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Dunno, i think people are ready for something new in a fantasy mmo. I'm thinking Arenanet is in for a surprise and that there will be massive sales far in excess of their projections. My concern is will they we ready for it? Hope so!
Comments
This would have been a better post if you had actually read what I said and understood it.
This would be a better forum if you would disappear.
I have seen you rip on other people for being "objective" in almost every thread and not once have you provided any solid explanation for any of your comments/opinions. You try to play it like you're some elitist, but everyone who reads your posts sees your negative bias towards GW and GW2.
Just so you know what objective means... I did some research for you (since it's obviously something you do not do often).
This is from my man Webster:
Objectivity: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Seems to me, none of your responses follow that definition at all. It's obvious your personal feelings for GW2 are negative as you lost all your "OBJECTIVITY" and "CREDIBILITY" by being negative in every post you've made.
Anyone can make huge claims and argue with a community, but when asked for specifics about your history with GW, you ignore the posters and call them out by pulling your "objectivity" card. If you were truly "OBJECTIVE" you would make your point once and not argue your point like you're 100% correct. Because the vast majority of your posts have nothing to do with objectivity, but instead your opinion.
Whether you like it or not, this game is going to be a hit. This game will out sell its competition. The simplicity of GW is what made it a success. The casual nature and B2P model is what made it a success.
If nothing about GW2 appeals to you, then its probably best you leave these forums instead of wasting your time and MMORPG's bandwidth trying to argue with obvious GW2 fans about your "objectivity" and your opinions. You might find the world a much better place if you spend your time talking about a game in a positive mentality... go spend your time on that forum please.
The argument boils down to a question of money. Since your notion is money=content. Or have you allowed yourself to get so wrapped up in trolling for its own sake that you have forgotten the discussion? Overall point is that Anet has money enough for a full content mmo. Unless you actually have anything relevant to stand against this point instead of simply trying to find minor possible errors with my illustrations for how they may not have quite as much as my illustration shows....
You know what. Ill give you the possibility that my math is off by a 50% margin and not in favor of Arenanet. OH NOES!!! Arenanet only made $175 million. You cant make a full content mmo with just $175 million. Oh wait, how much are the spending on developing Rift? or SWOTOR? I guess that means all the mmo's are doomed to failure from lack of content. Better hit up OPRAH so she could make The View online: the only full content mmo. /sarcasm
Reason why im set the bar at 1 yr of each games life, is because by year 2 arenanet will release there 2nd installment/expansion and the comparison to the sub game would be the same -$50 per player which being generous would make the GW2 profit comparable to a game with only a little over 1 million subs on year 2. But im sure for you that totally destroys my argument seeing as how mmo's with only 1 million players over a course of a year clearly dont have enough money to make content. Supposedly everquest topped at somewhere between 350-500k subs in its heyday and it didnt charge as much as most modern mmo's. Pretty sure everquest has alot of content.
And yes, some people wont pay full retail price for GW2, they also wont pay it for the box copy of the subscription game. Do you have a point with this? Some people will steal internet, some people will steal game time cards. Do you really expect this to matter? Your trying to apply a standard to 1 of these games without applying it to another? Thats just stupid. My approach may not be perfect, but at least im not resorting to double standards.
So robert. How many GW1 players are there? You seem to object to my methodology in coming up with a number based on sales. So where are your numbers? Where is your info? What is it based on? Oh thats right, you dont have any of that....
If your going to acuse others of not being objective(hilarious hypocrisy btw) at least bring something to the table that could resemble something that makes sense. Unlike you i dont expect you to come at me with hard evidence that doesnt exist, but at least give some reasoning that doesnt involve out of hand dismissal will offering no counterpoint that could possibly make you have a valid point. Hell you pointed out my math is possibly flawed, so i gave you a 50% margin for my error in your favor and it still supports my point. Ill be more objective when you bring a counterpoint to the table that accounts for something that supports your overall notion that GW2 needs more money to be a content rich mmo than they are already looking at.
Don't copy and paste a definition for the word objective and then turn around and be the complete opposite. People who are objective will look negative to people who are blindly biased.
I never said gw2 would not be a success, as a matter of fact I have said it will be very successful many times. It won't outsell it's competition (any blizzard mmorpg) though. They both try to appeal to casuals with an extremely easy-to-play game. But blizzard has better funding/experience and a larger fanbase.
This is boring to me, you aren't objective at all, you try to skew information so that it can fit your argument instead of accepting information for what it is and then formulating an argument and idea afterwards. I can't take someone seriously when they accuse people of being trolls just because they don't agree with them.
mmmkay had to say something first off your being called a troll becuase your arguments dont make the slightest bit of sense if you think about them for longer than it takes to read them. (for the most part you do on occasion in some of the posts i have seen you make, say some valid things).
second no person is completely objective its just not possible (unless said person has a mental disorder, not a slam at you just a statement to prevent confusion).
on another inturesting note i checked your account it has no real info in it and every one of your posts listed in ur history that i saw were in the gw2 forums making the same troll like posts against this game, dude if you dont like the game dont obsess over it and go do something meaningfull. Even if lets say you are right and the only person being objective then why are you wasting ur time on us? its obvious none of us are gonna change our viewpoints so why don't you go do something like say get a hobby (besides trolling of course) and leave us all to our happy stupor?
P.S. on a side note im a fanboy and i think this game will rock and keep me away from most other games for a long time *outside of my RL life* but i do acknowledge that any game no matter what could flop including this one so many things could go wrong its not funny, lol
(on a lighter note i know a hardcore WoW player who at the very least is looking towards this game with a bit of interest)
RobertDinh are you trolling the GW2 forums? I see you have only ever posted in the GW2 forums 290ish posts so far. Do you have an agenda? You do realize trolling is against the rules of conduct for this site? Seeing as you have no posts anywhere else, one might come to this conclusion. Just seems odd to me.
Archlinux ftw
Ok so casual dismisal, no evidence of any kind, hiding behind emotion, no counterpoint, accusation based on dubious criteria. You sure your not a troll robert? What information have you brought to the table here that at all supports your stance that im supposed to be considering? I have no shame admitting that i am biased in favor of GW2. I dont hide it, and most people arent stupid enough to not consider that when they read what i say. So why are you so shocked? That being said, bias is just that. If im so biased and clearly not living in objective reality due to it, then disputing my overall point should be cake for you since your soooo objective and without any bias at all. C'mon robert, prove your not the troll you have everyone convinced you are. Im rooting for you here. Dont let us down
nailzzz, i read a lot of threads each day and i can recall seeing robert troll several times in different threads... there is no point in arguing since trolls feed up on your wall of text and reply with pointless more information just to make you waste more time... forget it
GW2 will be more successfull then GW1 and that is a fact
I played GW1 over 300+hours ingame, so I'm expecting GW2 to double that amount
and last thing is that this game is not for hard core PVE players who want to get to end cap in a week to get the best gear and bragg all day long, they said it numerous times that this game is focused on exploring and finding out secret dynamic events which aren't on your map etc etc....
It is not really a fact even if it is very likely. Nothing is a fact before it has happened, not even that you will die if you jump empire state building (Well, it is extremely likely but not a fact still).
Still, there are many thing that suggest that GW2 will be a big game.
It have veteran devs from Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft 3, all huge successes.
It have a really good budget and the devs have promised to not release the game before it is ready (something most devs never would promise).
It have no monthly fee.
It is well funded and have a lot of good people working on it.
It offers RvRvR PvO, something very popular in DaoC and many players have asked after something similar.
The lore is written by an actual author.
And more. On the other hand does it try many new things and it is always hard to be sure how they will liked by the more traditional players or the players comparing every game to Wow. You can never be really sure about things that way.
It will however be the only F2P true MMORPG, a business model only seen in CORPGs before and that is very popular. It makes the game an ideal gift and it makes things easier for people who either don't own a VISA or are slightly paranoid.
So I would estimate it to about 90% chance that it sells better than the fist game. I don't find it unlikely that it will eventually surpass Wow in subs either but it wont kill it.
The competition is mainly Wow, Rift and TOR but GW2s great advantage is that since you have no monthly fees people can also play it as an alt game, something few people do otherwise with MMOs due to the monthly fees. GW1 were very popular earlier as an alt game, particularly with Wow players, I know many people playing it for the PvP.
I know. He may think hes getting something out of me and probably thinks that hes acomplishing wasting my time (who knows though, maybe he'll come back with a well reasoned thoughtful responce to my last post), but tbh these "walls of text" dont really take me much time and i have lots of time to think about things all day at work so its not like it takes much effort on my part to come up with what i write. Im actually enjoying the troll attempts. Its good for ones self esteem to know there are people more pathetic than myself. But im sorry to everyone else if they find my posts to be a bit much.
Where was I wrong? Glorified Hub game. Meaning like GW1 but bigger and better. Again, where am I wrong? The only difference that I've gathered is that there are persistant 'zones', or maps that don't have much to do with the storyline. So in escense, sort of like EQ with a ton of storyline and dungeon instances. Obviously there are tons of other advancements, I'm just talking about the world design.
Which still IMO isn't a real MMO. Close.. just not quite. Once you experience a massive seamless world up close, it's really hard to go back. It completely breaks immersion for me. If I'm going to invest years of my life on something, I better damn well like it. It's just my opinion. No need to get your panties in a bunch.
I answered the OP's question. I've done my part here. I'm not going to argue with someone who's intent is to start them. We can just agree to disagree.
Loke, ive been watching the forums here quite a bit lately and overall it seems we are of the same mind on this. Some of what you and some of the other posters here have been dealing with with the naysayers prompted me to get into it with robert and a few of the others here and there. I just hope what i was able to illustrate for you guys in my earlier posts in this thread can serve as some some basis for assurance that the odds are quite likely that GW2 will be a success(financially), aside from all the great points you brought up here(successful in gameplay).
I think we all need to be able to hang onto a little hope for the mmorpg genre, otherwise we may never get to play another well funded project again with so many on the verge of giving up. Sure some will always play but without the numbers and interest, funding will suffer and quality of games may as well. Im not saying that GW2 is the only good option coming that i have hopes for. But tbh i see it as the best hope, if not the last. I wish SWOTOR success, as well as The Secret World, World of Darkness, Blade and Soul, Tera, Vindictus(beta was a blast), and project copernicus. I dont feel the need to troll any of these games as i want them to do well. But if i was a betting man.....
SOoooo.... EQ isnt an MMO? Just have to say, you know what breaks immersion for me? Sitting in front of a computer screen. Yeah i just cant shake the feeling that im playing a computer game. i know its weird. That and even when i do get really involved i have to get up and use the bathroom and the immersion is just gone. Why cant they make a game that truly creates immersion?
Ok all joking aside. Ive played seemless mmo's. You know what they also have that breaks immersion? Either shitty graphics, or lag/rubberbanding. Actually there is one other exception where it doesnt have shitty graphics or lag. Almost no one playing.
I have to ask. What mmo's do you actually qualify as mmo's?
Wow looks like you couldn't even be bothered to even watch the video manifesto.....
If you bothered to do any research AT ALL you would know that you know pretty much zero about GW2.
I suggest you start here http://www.guildwars2.com/en/
There are plenty of threads here that will answer your questions
Where was I wrong? Glorified Hub game. Meaning like GW1 but bigger and better. Again, where am I wrong? The only difference that I've gathered is that there are persistant 'zones', or maps that don't have much to do with the storyline. So in escense, sort of like EQ with a ton of storyline and dungeon instances. Obviously there are tons of other advancements, I'm just talking about the world design.
Which still IMO isn't a real MMO. Close.. just not quite. Once you experience a massive seamless world up close, it's really hard to go back. It completely breaks immersion for me. If I'm going to invest years of my life on something, I better damn well like it. It's just my opinion. No need to get your panties in a bunch.
I answered the OP's question. I've done my part here. I'm not going to argue with someone who's intent is to start them. We can just agree to disagree.
So what mmorpg have you played with no instances and no invisible walls and no mountains that block your way. A mmorpg where i can go where i want and fly where i want. A mmorpg thay if i keep running ill end up the same spot hours later.A mmorpg that has no forced zoning or loading.
I can only think of one current mmorpg that comes anywhere near that.
Every mmorpg is a 'glorified hub game'. Just because you don't see the portals doesn't mean they don't exist. Plus there are always borders to the maps too
Still, if having a load screen really breaks immersion that much, maybe you shouldn't be a gamer. You should join that MMRPG known as the real world, it doesn't have loading screens and is truly persistant!
Also, no big mmo can survive open worlds now. fact. Some give the illusion such as WoW, but only small time f2p mmo's can have open worlds with no loading screens because they have so few players relatively (or in the case of silkroad, 2 million servers of around 500 people each). Players prefer less lag over less loading screens after all.
On the flip side i get that you're worried that maps will only have a few exits ect. and it's perfectly justified and is perfectly true
but that won't make it less fun! However, we all have our own preferences, such as i wouldn't give gw2 the light of day if it asked a sub (same as everything else, no game is worth £120 a year, no game at all) and you are perfectly entitled to have yours 
I find it comical that you can sit there nailzz and think you've made a single valid argument when your figures are off and the context behind those figures isn't logical at all.
As I said before, if you aren't objective I can't take your argument seriously. You really need to just re-evaluate your own posts and analyze your logic and you will see how skewed it is.
k i will run under the assumption for the moment that you simply missed my post the question has been posed Robert and although i know that it is ultimately useless to argue the above facts to you and the only proper way to outdo a troll using circular logic would take someone with no life or a dedicated company for each troll (the post post to do that alone would probably take up a whole thread in and of itself), i am none the less curious to see your answer.
Yes, this is a very strong point you raise.
One of the features of hardcore (or some sandbox games) has often been that actions have repercussions that have cascade effects, not just a binary win-lose then repeat. That can be very severe but also very rewarding way of extending the experience on the game world.
That's clearly not going to be in the game in any form, by all accounts. One of the few things I will miss in GW2.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Wow irony FTW!!!
This comment is a gem!
Its also a basic carbon copy of every other post you make. It contains some uninteresting fiction about logical arguement which by default logic requires the implementation of fact. But thats not your bag is it?
Yawn...
Cool story bro?
In order for me to have an argument robert, i would need to have an opposing viewpoint with which to argue against. Something you seem unable to at all support with anything aside from casual dismissal, which is pretty disrespectful, but not the basis for an objective (your favorite word. maybe you'll someday learn what it means) argument.
I have reevaluated what ive written, and your right. I realize that what i was doing was actually erroring in your favor in every possible way to support your idea. I was only counting GW1 players as potentially buying GW2, while leaving out the many people who never bought GW1 in my figures (a factor that would help your notion while hurting mine) right from the start. I also didnt bring up how they have the backing of the worlds biggest mmo publisher (NCSoft) also willing to push funds should they need it (another omission on my part that hurts my notion while helping yours). Shall i go on? Just about every error i made was skewed to undercut arenanet in your favor and your claiming im not being objective. Your right, by only working with the numbers available from 1 possible source of players among many, im not being fair... to arenanet.
Well, since you seem to believe that my figures arent logical, Throw me some logical numbers and ill work with those. But i will expect a convincing context for them.
The best you could come up with was "not everyone pays full retail price" last time. I'll humour you. How many People didnt pay full price? Either bring the math and the context or GTFO. (BTW, you can grab that "context" word from me so that you can add it to your list of words like "objective" and "logical" so that maybe you can sound smart to people who only pay attention to you for 30 sec's at a time. Any longer though and im afraid your BS might show through.)
This is not my debate, but I got curious, so here it goes.
First of all, it's all fuzzy logic speculations, I know analists could calculate all kinds of interesting figures based on prognoses, but in the end it's still all guesswork, one person's guess could become as true as the next person's guess.
Ok, working from there: how did you come up with that 350 million dollar and 7 million people figure? It sounds wrong and ignores the past with other MMO launches.
Too tired/indifferent to look up the figures, but if I recall correctly, AoC and WAR sold something like 700k-1 million copies of their game. Let's say that GW2, because of its ginormous hype and people going crazy in word-of-mouth, that they manage to sell 1.5 million within the first 3 months, 2 million copies tops.
Let's leave aside added sales of GW because of the transferrable rewards to GW2 you can get from its Hall of Monuments in GW (devs haven't talked in specifics about how the connection GW-GW2 will work out), and also leave aside the CE edition that'll very likely sell 100k+ copies, or any other goodies they'll sell as the novels or art books.
All that aside: with an estimated 1.5 million per game of $50 would only result in 75 million dollars in sales, 100 million dollars when you count 2 million copies sold . That is tops.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Your math came to the similar conclusion as my own, but you confused my figures in regaurds to equivilating GW (b2p) vs. other sub based mmo's. The 1.5 million figure was actually based on an estimate i illustrated in terms of how GW sales compare to subs in terms of money generation. I apologize if my previous posts on the subject caused some confusion. Basically the gist of it was that due to GW's B2p business model not charging monthly fee's and given the number of people likely to play GW2 (using GW1 players as the base pool) that 7 million boxed sales (matching the box sales from GW1) would be the equivalent to a sub based mmo that had roughly 1.5 million players in terms of revenue generated. But your math was accurate, basically 1 million sales =$50 million dollars and given the likely 7 million players, would =$350 million which is about the same amount of revune generated by a subscription mmo with 1.5 million players over the course of a year(by which time GW2 next expansion will likely be released starting the comparison over again for the next year)
Now i know that this figure doesnt take into account people who bough multiple copies of the game/expansion which unfortunatly we dont know, especially since they were selling multiple expansion/games all in the same box and the 7 million was box sales( which would lower the figures), but it also doesnt take into account players who never purchased GW1 who will buy GW2 (which will raise the figures) and of course the Collectors Edition purchases and Cash Shop and merchandise (also raising the figures) so i simply used 7 million players as the baseline for illustration sake. Im not saying that GW2 will sell that much just at launch, but given past success which there building on, i wouldnt be surprised given the hype that they could realize this number within the first year or 2, assuming of course the game doesnt deliver like most havent. But i have some faith in arenanet.
4,5 million accounts created is what I heard. That would lower your compare score to about 800K subs for a year if the game sells exactly the same.
But I have a feeling that the interest is higher this time and twice the original game doesn't sound unlikely. I wouldn't worry for ANET, I think they will get enough money on this as long as they wait with the release until the game is done.
The 7 million players is the mistake, it's too unrealistic.
Looking at the GW box sales, last time checked it was something like 6.5 million: but that is if I'm correct all the expansion sales included.
So someone who bought GW + all expansions accounts I think for 4 units sold. Granted, not everyone who bought GW Prophecies will have bought all the expansions, but to be on the safe side, it means that at the least 1.6 million people have bought and played GW, with a high likelihood of this number being 2 million or such.
Remember, WAR and AoC were on the top of hype and player excitement too, but still 'only' sold 1 million units. I expect that GW2 will probably do better with their established interested player base of GW players, an even higher hype and better word-of-mouth after launch, but still, 7 million players seems just way too high, even if you take into account a full year of sales. Unless they break into Korea and China
They could generate more money of course when their expansion(s) hit the market, I expect those to follow quickly, the first within the first year just as it happened with GW.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Dunno, i think people are ready for something new in a fantasy mmo. I'm thinking Arenanet is in for a surprise and that there will be massive sales far in excess of their projections. My concern is will they we ready for it? Hope so!
Archlinux ftw