I don't know.. Many that play MMO have a main game that they subscribe to with either a secondary subscription game to fall back on, or a free to play game (or two) to fall back on.
With GW2 being free to play it will be a very easy decision for me, (currently having no game I pay a subscription fee to, LOTRO Lifer), to subscribe to SW TOR and still buy and play GW2, and I think others may follow suit.
And as far as vaulting it to number 2 MMO, how do you determine that for a game that isn't based on subscription numbers. Box sales won't work for GW2 because how do you track the retention of gamers that aren't paying a subscribtion fee?
Here's the thing, why does GW2 have to beat ToR? GW2 is subless meaning you can buy the box and play when ever you feel like, and also pickup a sub based game if you feel like it. I don't see ToR and GW2 being in direct competition with one another, because that are not competing for subs.
While I agree with him, it is just another opinion among millions. So I expect this thread to be very productive...
edit: my favorite apart about the video was finding out I'm not the only one that pronounces out swtor likes its a word instead of an abrevation.
It's just an opinion, until some of us can say, "I told you so"
I do expect to see a lot more dissillusionment over TOR than GW2. Which will turn out to be right or wrong, meaning it's not an opinion, but an assessment, or at worst, a guess. How that will actually effect the success of each game is a lot more complicated, but I'm thinking we'll still be able to see a clear winner in terms of overall numbers of people actually playing.
People watching TOR know what to expect, thay are also a lot more grounded in their outlook on the game. That comes with familiar territory. Now on the other hand people have really, really high hopes for GW2, I'd say it's one of the most hyped games I have ever seen.
New though is questionable, as it all comes down to execution of those new elements. The press will always say this or that is great, until it's time to rip it apart in their launch review. Just look at LA Noire.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Who cares about GW2 player base? they don't generate sub revenue, so only box sales count.
Once the box is sold, they made their money and that's that. Whether someone plays an hour or a year is irrelevant.
The quote is about number of players not revenue. And I agree.
How do you even count player base for GW2?
What if I buy the box, play for a month, then stop. Then, since it's free, what the heck I'll log on for an hour 6 months later. Am I part of the "player base"?
With ToR they will count subs. Players paying with credit cards, or those with a free month after buying the box.
I don't know what counts for GW2 since there's no sub.
Once someone buys the GW2 box and registers, they could just count them forever, whether they play or not, since there's no sub, no reason to "cancel".
With that argument about 90% of MMOs don't have players because it's 'impossible' to count them.
I don't know.. Many that play MMO have a main game that they subscribe to with either a secondary subscription game to fall back on, or a free to play game (or two) to fall back on.
With GW2 being free to play it will be a very easy decision for me, (currently having no game I pay a subscription fee to, LOTRO Lifer), to subscribe to SW TOR and still buy and play GW2, and I think others may follow suit.
And as far as vaulting it to number 2 MMO, how do you determine that for a game that isn't based on subscription numbers. Box sales won't work for GW2 because how do you track the retention of gamers that aren't paying a subscribtion fee?
Whoa! GW2 is supposed to be BUY TO PLAY (B2P).
Free to play means item mall.
I haven't heard GW2 will have an item mall.
If so, then it's like every other F2P game, except you have to pay for the box.
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Who cares about GW2 player base? they don't generate sub revenue, so only box sales count.
Once the box is sold, they made their money and that's that. Whether someone plays an hour or a year is irrelevant.
I think ArenaNet cares if they have a stable playerbase. Firstly, from their shop which will generate additional revenue and secondly from their expansions which a dev has recently said in an interview they won't be standalone if I'm not mistaken.
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Pretty much this, especially if the open-world dynamic game-play for an entertainment product doesn't have me subscribing $15/month; excellent.
I just cant see paying $15/months 3-months post-launch with SWTOR when it turns into the same mundane single-player lobby system instanced game that most mmorpgs do by forcing me to sit in a chair repeatedly for 2-hours just to complete a Raid. Redundent Raid content is for dummies. And I might be a dummy, but not one that pays $15/month for it.
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Who cares about GW2 player base? they don't generate sub revenue, so only box sales count.
Once the box is sold, they made their money and that's that. Whether someone plays an hour or a year is irrelevant.
The quote is about number of players not revenue. And I agree.
How do you even count player base for GW2?
What if I buy the box, play for a month, then stop. Then, since it's free, what the heck I'll log on for an hour 6 months later. Am I part of the "player base"?
With ToR they will count subs. Players paying with credit cards, or those with a free month after buying the box.
I don't know what counts for GW2 since there's no sub.
Once someone buys the GW2 box and registers, they could just count them forever, whether they play or not, since there's no sub, no reason to "cancel".
With that argument about 90% of MMOs don't have players because it's 'impossible' to count them.
Um, no.
I'm saying you have to compare apples to apples.
With a P2P game, you count active subs.
How do you know they are active?
They are paying a monthly fee.
What's active for a Buy to play game?
I buy the game and register.
It's free to play every month, so maybe I play, maybe I don't.
If I log on for an hour in 3 months, do I count as part of the player base? What if I don't log on at all. I'm still part of the "player base"? When am I NOT part of the player base? I mean, there's no reason to "cancel", it doesn't cost anything.
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Who cares about GW2 player base? they don't generate sub revenue, so only box sales count.
Once the box is sold, they made their money and that's that. Whether someone plays an hour or a year is irrelevant.
The quote is about number of players not revenue. And I agree.
How do you even count player base for GW2?
What if I buy the box, play for a month, then stop. Then, since it's free, what the heck I'll log on for an hour 6 months later. Am I part of the "player base"?
With ToR they will count subs. Players paying with credit cards, or those with a free month after buying the box.
I don't know what counts for GW2 since there's no sub.
Once someone buys the GW2 box and registers, they could just count them forever, whether they play or not, since there's no sub, no reason to "cancel".
With that argument about 90% of MMOs don't have players because it's 'impossible' to count them.
Um, no.
I'm saying you have to compare apples to apples.
With a P2P game, you count active subs.
How do you know they are active?
They are paying a monthly fee.
What's active for a Buy to play game?
I buy the game and register.
It's free to play every month, so maybe I play, maybe I don't.
If I log on for an hour in 3 months, do I count as part of the player base? What if I don't log on at all. I'm still part of the "player base"? When am I NOT part of the player base? I mean, there's no reason to "cancel", it doesn't cost anything.
Is that the same as someone paying 14.95 a month?
MMOs are judged by quality and size of the playerbase. No one cares how those players are billed.
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Pretty much this, especially if the open-world dynamic game-play for an entertainment product doesn't have me subscribing $15/month; excellent.
I just cant see paying $15/months 3-months post-launch with SWTOR when it turns into the same mundane single-player lobby system instanced game that most mmorpgs do by forcing me to sit in a chair repeatedly for 2-hours just to complete a Raid. Redundent Raid content is for dummies. And I might be a dummy, but not one that pays $15/month for it.
The way you feel about the sub model, is the same way I feel about the F2P and B2P models. I feel with those models I won't get my money's worth and still have to end up subbing to a sub based game. See it works both ways, I have always felt that if it was free it wasn't worth it.
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Who cares about GW2 player base? they don't generate sub revenue, so only box sales count.
Once the box is sold, they made their money and that's that. Whether someone plays an hour or a year is irrelevant.
The quote is about number of players not revenue. And I agree.
How do you even count player base for GW2?
What if I buy the box, play for a month, then stop. Then, since it's free, what the heck I'll log on for an hour 6 months later. Am I part of the "player base"?
With ToR they will count subs. Players paying with credit cards, or those with a free month after buying the box.
I don't know what counts for GW2 since there's no sub.
Once someone buys the GW2 box and registers, they could just count them forever, whether they play or not, since there's no sub, no reason to "cancel".
With that argument about 90% of MMOs don't have players because it's 'impossible' to count them.
Um, no.
I'm saying you have to compare apples to apples.
With a P2P game, you count active subs.
How do you know they are active?
They are paying a monthly fee.
What's active for a Buy to play game?
I buy the game and register.
It's free to play every month, so maybe I play, maybe I don't.
If I log on for an hour in 3 months, do I count as part of the player base? What if I don't log on at all. I'm still part of the "player base"? When am I NOT part of the player base? I mean, there's no reason to "cancel", it doesn't cost anything.
Is that the same as someone paying 14.95 a month?
This...
^^^B2P vs Sub-based for dummies^^^
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Who cares about GW2 player base? they don't generate sub revenue, so only box sales count.
Once the box is sold, they made their money and that's that. Whether someone plays an hour or a year is irrelevant.
The quote is about number of players not revenue. And I agree.
How do you even count player base for GW2?
What if I buy the box, play for a month, then stop. Then, since it's free, what the heck I'll log on for an hour 6 months later. Am I part of the "player base"?
With ToR they will count subs. Players paying with credit cards, or those with a free month after buying the box.
I don't know what counts for GW2 since there's no sub.
Once someone buys the GW2 box and registers, they could just count them forever, whether they play or not, since there's no sub, no reason to "cancel".
With that argument about 90% of MMOs don't have players because it's 'impossible' to count them.
Um, no.
I'm saying you have to compare apples to apples.
With a P2P game, you count active subs.
How do you know they are active?
They are paying a monthly fee.
What's active for a Buy to play game?
I buy the game and register.
It's free to play every month, so maybe I play, maybe I don't.
If I log on for an hour in 3 months, do I count as part of the player base? What if I don't log on at all. I'm still part of the "player base"? When am I NOT part of the player base? I mean, there's no reason to "cancel", it doesn't cost anything.
Is that the same as someone paying 14.95 a month?
MMOs are judged by quality and size of the playerbase. No one cares how those players are billed.
Ok.
What's the player base for a buy to play game?
Once I buy the box, I'm forever part of the player base?
Or, only if I play the game? how much do I have to play the game?
One hour in three months, and I'm still part of the player base?
More than that? How much more?
If I play one hour in three months, am I part of the player base just the month I played the hour in, or all the months because I haven't "cancelled"?
With P2P we don't worry about how much they play.
We count how many people are paying.
Whether they log on or not, they are counted if they pay the sub fee.
That's exactly what we needed, more animosity between the two games' "followers"... this is like team rivalry in sports.
The fact that there are even two teams of "followers" that have sprouted from a couple of un-friggin-released competing video games is the epitome of pathetic.
If I feel the need to "choose a side" (lol), I'll wait until I've actually had the opportunity to spend a reasonable amount of time in either of these titles.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Who cares about GW2 player base? they don't generate sub revenue, so only box sales count.
Once the box is sold, they made their money and that's that. Whether someone plays an hour or a year is irrelevant.
The quote is about number of players not revenue. And I agree.
How do you even count player base for GW2?
What if I buy the box, play for a month, then stop. Then, since it's free, what the heck I'll log on for an hour 6 months later. Am I part of the "player base"?
With ToR they will count subs. Players paying with credit cards, or those with a free month after buying the box.
I don't know what counts for GW2 since there's no sub.
Once someone buys the GW2 box and registers, they could just count them forever, whether they play or not, since there's no sub, no reason to "cancel".
With that argument about 90% of MMOs don't have players because it's 'impossible' to count them.
Um, no.
I'm saying you have to compare apples to apples.
With a P2P game, you count active subs.
How do you know they are active?
They are paying a monthly fee.
What's active for a Buy to play game?
I buy the game and register.
It's free to play every month, so maybe I play, maybe I don't.
If I log on for an hour in 3 months, do I count as part of the player base? What if I don't log on at all. I'm still part of the "player base"? When am I NOT part of the player base? I mean, there's no reason to "cancel", it doesn't cost anything.
Is that the same as someone paying 14.95 a month?
MMOs are judged by quality and size of the playerbase. No one cares how those players are billed.
Ok.
What's the player base for a buy to play game?
Once I buy the box, I'm forever part of the player base?
Or, only if I play the game? how much do I have to play the game?
One hour in three months, and I'm still part of the player base?
More than that? How much more?
If I play one hour in three months, am I part of the player base just the month I played the hour in, or all the months because I haven't "cancelled"?
With P2P we don't worry about how much they play.
We count how many people are paying.
Whether they log on or not, they are counted if they pay the sub fee.
How do you compare that to B2P?
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
I don't know which game is going to do better. What is better? More box sales? More revenue?
If you sell one SWTOR box, but that person subs for 6 months, that's more revenue than one purchase of GW2, because it has no sub fee.
See what I mean?
Each SWTOR box can make more money than each GW2 box, because of subs, so you could sell less boxes, but make more revenue.
But, here's the thing about "innovation".
This statement sort of acts like everyone that plays MMORPGs has already played MMORPGs, and they are looking for something new.
But in reality, there are new gamers every day, that have never played an MMORPG.
Everything about MMORPGs is "innovative" for those players. They've never played WoW before. They are nto burnt out on MMORPGs.
They are just now getting online and starting to play online games.
Will those people like SWTOR or not? I don't know.
But I don't think those players are going to require "innovation".
That's the jaded veteran MMORPG player or dev talking.
But there are kids born all the time, and they arent' jaded. They never played an MMORPG before. They just need a good game, not innovation.
Good points.
Besides, the whole 'this game is gonna beat that game' speculation is kinda childish (didn't watch the video, maybe in context his comments made more sense and were less epeenish and childish)
Originally posted by Archeminos
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't they both kick ass?
I agree. All those 'this beats that' and 'my game is bigger than your game' kind of discussions all the time are tiresomely immature, it often feels like being back at high school again or elementary school.
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."
I agree with him. I think TOR will draw in a larger crowd at first with GW2 sustaining a larger player base 6-12 months after release.
Pretty much this, especially if the open-world dynamic game-play for an entertainment product doesn't have me subscribing $15/month; excellent.
I just cant see paying $15/months 3-months post-launch with SWTOR when it turns into the same mundane single-player lobby system instanced game that most mmorpgs do by forcing me to sit in a chair repeatedly for 2-hours just to complete a Raid. Redundent Raid content is for dummies. And I might be a dummy, but not one that pays $15/month for it.
The way you feel about the sub model, is the same way I feel about the F2P and B2P models. I feel with those models I won't get my money's worth and still have to end up subbing to a sub based game. See it works both ways, I have always felt that if it was free it wasn't worth it.
It's far less about the sub vs b2p model and more about content comparisons to me. The sub model content, up through Rift, for the last several years, and including SWTOR from what I read, is an instanced Raid model of playing the same content ad-nauseum.
It certainly hasn't been worth it to me, that sub model, but the GW series with ANet has been worth it, especially with their expansions, for the money.
That's exactly what we needed, more animosity between the two games' "followers"... this is like team rivalry in sports.
The fact that there are even two teams of "followers" that have sprouted from a couple of un-friggin-released competing video games is the epitome of pathetic.
If I feel the need to "choose a side" (lol), I'll wait until I've actually had the opportunity to spend a reasonable amount of time in either of these titles.
Well said, I will never understand chosing sides of a video-game argument. I'd prefer they both turn out great.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't know.. Many that play MMO have a main game that they subscribe to with either a secondary subscription game to fall back on, or a free to play game (or two) to fall back on.
With GW2 being free to play it will be a very easy decision for me, (currently having no game I pay a subscription fee to, LOTRO Lifer), to subscribe to SW TOR and still buy and play GW2, and I think others may follow suit.
And as far as vaulting it to number 2 MMO, how do you determine that for a game that isn't based on subscription numbers. Box sales won't work for GW2 because how do you track the retention of gamers that aren't paying a subscribtion fee?
Whoa! GW2 is supposed to be BUY TO PLAY (B2P).
Free to play means item mall.
I haven't heard GW2 will have an item mall.
If so, then it's like every other F2P game, except you have to pay for the box.
Question: do you think that a P2P game has an "item mall" if you can buy character slots or server transfers or name/gender changes? Do you think about wow, "it's just like every other F2P game" because you can buy cosmetic pets?
If so, is there any "true" P2P game without an item mall at this moment? And if not, why differentiate between GW2 and SWTOR just because there is no monthly sub? (aside from the matter of counting subscriptions, which I agree with and which is why ANet will not ever say they have "beat" SWTOR or have more "subs" than SWTOR - or less, for that matter - all they will report on is sales figures.)
People watching TOR know what to expect, thay are also a lot more grounded in their outlook on the game. That comes with familiar territory. Now on the other hand people have really, really high hopes for GW2, I'd say it's one of the most hyped games I have ever seen.
New though is questionable, as it all comes down to execution of those new elements. The press will always say this or that is great, until it's time to rip it apart in their launch review. Just look at LA Noire.
There is one main difference. The journalists and FANs were able to play all the features, which were mentioned in their reviews. Not only that. Some jounalists played Guild Wars 2 for the first time and were impressed. For example:
Personally i think GW2 is going to be a hard game to beat but not because it is B2P but because it will likely be the better game, and nobody in the business has as much vested interest or is willing to work as hard as anet in releasing free content and quality expansion packs in a timely fashion to keep things fresh...
Im not saying TOR or TSW are not going to be good or even great games its really apples and oranges here but i am putting my money on GW2 and anet to steal the thunder at the end of the day..
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
He's not over-analyizing it, it's really not a hard concept to grasp is it? There's a big difference between what makes GW a success and what makes WoW a success as an example.
How does the average player judge it anyway? I wouldn't know the answer to that. Right now I see three agreeing with one point, Imoh, Mav and myself, I see one judging it another way, you. Wouldn't that mean the average right now, is judging it differently than you?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
He's not over-analyizing it, it's really not a hard concept to grasp is it? There's a big difference between what makes GW a success and what makes WoW a success as an example.
How does the average player judge it anyway? I wouldn't know the answer to that. Right now I see three people arguing one point, Imoh, Mav and myself, I see one judging it another way, you. Wouldn't that mean the average right now, is judging it differently than you?
You guys are way too caught up in subscribers to recongnize a game like GW2 can possibly have more players 6-12 months later with the buy to play model.
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
He's not over-analyizing it, it's really not a hard concept to grasp is it? There's a big difference between what makes GW a success and what makes WoW a success as an example.
How does the average player judge it anyway? I wouldn't know the answer to that. Right now I see three people arguing one point, Imoh, Mav and myself, I see one judging it another way, you. Wouldn't that mean the average right now, is judging it differently than you?
You guys are way too caught up in subscribers to recongnize a game like GW2 can possibly have more players 6-12 months later with the buy to play model.
I played GW1 for like 1 day, how would they count me? I know I counted myself as a sucker.
Comments
I don't know.. Many that play MMO have a main game that they subscribe to with either a secondary subscription game to fall back on, or a free to play game (or two) to fall back on.
With GW2 being free to play it will be a very easy decision for me, (currently having no game I pay a subscription fee to, LOTRO Lifer), to subscribe to SW TOR and still buy and play GW2, and I think others may follow suit.
And as far as vaulting it to number 2 MMO, how do you determine that for a game that isn't based on subscription numbers. Box sales won't work for GW2 because how do you track the retention of gamers that aren't paying a subscribtion fee?
Here's the thing, why does GW2 have to beat ToR? GW2 is subless meaning you can buy the box and play when ever you feel like, and also pickup a sub based game if you feel like it. I don't see ToR and GW2 being in direct competition with one another, because that are not competing for subs.
People watching TOR know what to expect, thay are also a lot more grounded in their outlook on the game. That comes with familiar territory. Now on the other hand people have really, really high hopes for GW2, I'd say it's one of the most hyped games I have ever seen.
New though is questionable, as it all comes down to execution of those new elements. The press will always say this or that is great, until it's time to rip it apart in their launch review. Just look at LA Noire.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
With that argument about 90% of MMOs don't have players because it's 'impossible' to count them.
Whoa! GW2 is supposed to be BUY TO PLAY (B2P).
Free to play means item mall.
I haven't heard GW2 will have an item mall.
If so, then it's like every other F2P game, except you have to pay for the box.
I think ArenaNet cares if they have a stable playerbase. Firstly, from their shop which will generate additional revenue and secondly from their expansions which a dev has recently said in an interview they won't be standalone if I'm not mistaken.
Pretty much this, especially if the open-world dynamic game-play for an entertainment product doesn't have me subscribing $15/month; excellent.
I just cant see paying $15/months 3-months post-launch with SWTOR when it turns into the same mundane single-player lobby system instanced game that most mmorpgs do by forcing me to sit in a chair repeatedly for 2-hours just to complete a Raid. Redundent Raid content is for dummies. And I might be a dummy, but not one that pays $15/month for it.
Does it matter that Monopoly is bigger than Scrabble..?
Secondly, GW2 is free to play after you buy the game & StarWars will have a monthly subscription. That guy on G4 must be a genius..!
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
Um, no.
I'm saying you have to compare apples to apples.
With a P2P game, you count active subs.
How do you know they are active?
They are paying a monthly fee.
What's active for a Buy to play game?
I buy the game and register.
It's free to play every month, so maybe I play, maybe I don't.
If I log on for an hour in 3 months, do I count as part of the player base? What if I don't log on at all. I'm still part of the "player base"? When am I NOT part of the player base? I mean, there's no reason to "cancel", it doesn't cost anything.
Is that the same as someone paying 14.95 a month?
MMOs are judged by quality and size of the playerbase. No one cares how those players are billed.
The way you feel about the sub model, is the same way I feel about the F2P and B2P models. I feel with those models I won't get my money's worth and still have to end up subbing to a sub based game. See it works both ways, I have always felt that if it was free it wasn't worth it.
This...
^^^B2P vs Sub-based for dummies^^^
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ok.
What's the player base for a buy to play game?
Once I buy the box, I'm forever part of the player base?
Or, only if I play the game? how much do I have to play the game?
One hour in three months, and I'm still part of the player base?
More than that? How much more?
If I play one hour in three months, am I part of the player base just the month I played the hour in, or all the months because I haven't "cancelled"?
With P2P we don't worry about how much they play.
We count how many people are paying.
Whether they log on or not, they are counted if they pay the sub fee.
How do you compare that to B2P?
The fact that there are even two teams of "followers" that have sprouted from a couple of un-friggin-released competing video games is the epitome of pathetic.
If I feel the need to "choose a side" (lol), I'll wait until I've actually had the opportunity to spend a reasonable amount of time in either of these titles.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
Good points.
Besides, the whole 'this game is gonna beat that game' speculation is kinda childish (didn't watch the video, maybe in context his comments made more sense and were less epeenish and childish)
I agree. All those 'this beats that' and 'my game is bigger than your game' kind of discussions all the time are tiresomely immature, it often feels like being back at high school again or elementary school.
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."
It's far less about the sub vs b2p model and more about content comparisons to me. The sub model content, up through Rift, for the last several years, and including SWTOR from what I read, is an instanced Raid model of playing the same content ad-nauseum.
It certainly hasn't been worth it to me, that sub model, but the GW series with ANet has been worth it, especially with their expansions, for the money.
Gw2 follower vs swtor follower?
They are just too excited.
Also...this thread is pretty loose butthole....
I like Workaholics...
Well said, I will never understand chosing sides of a video-game argument. I'd prefer they both turn out great.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Question: do you think that a P2P game has an "item mall" if you can buy character slots or server transfers or name/gender changes? Do you think about wow, "it's just like every other F2P game" because you can buy cosmetic pets?
If so, is there any "true" P2P game without an item mall at this moment? And if not, why differentiate between GW2 and SWTOR just because there is no monthly sub? (aside from the matter of counting subscriptions, which I agree with and which is why ANet will not ever say they have "beat" SWTOR or have more "subs" than SWTOR - or less, for that matter - all they will report on is sales figures.)
There is one main difference. The journalists and FANs were able to play all the features, which were mentioned in their reviews. Not only that. Some jounalists played Guild Wars 2 for the first time and were impressed. For example:
http://www.massiveonlinegamer.com/previews/1266-guild-wars-2-media-day-wrap-up-part-2
But i don't really care which one i'm going to play. Just play both like any other RPGs. (e.g. The Witcher 2 & DA2)
Personally i think GW2 is going to be a hard game to beat but not because it is B2P but because it will likely be the better game, and nobody in the business has as much vested interest or is willing to work as hard as anet in releasing free content and quality expansion packs in a timely fashion to keep things fresh...
Im not saying TOR or TSW are not going to be good or even great games its really apples and oranges here but i am putting my money on GW2 and anet to steal the thunder at the end of the day..
Playing GW2..
He's not over-analyizing it, it's really not a hard concept to grasp is it? There's a big difference between what makes GW a success and what makes WoW a success as an example.
How does the average player judge it anyway? I wouldn't know the answer to that. Right now I see three agreeing with one point, Imoh, Mav and myself, I see one judging it another way, you. Wouldn't that mean the average right now, is judging it differently than you?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You guys are way too caught up in subscribers to recongnize a game like GW2 can possibly have more players 6-12 months later with the buy to play model.
I played GW1 for like 1 day, how would they count me? I know I counted myself as a sucker.
In Bioware we trust!