i honestly think that the main reason why anyone would buy GW2 is strictly for the PVP, or in this case, the WvWvW PVP... the PVE is just something to do between battles, if at all.. as has already been pointed out, there are quite a few games out already that handle PVE better anyway, the huge advantage that GW2 has, is that there is no monthly sub, which means you can play X game however much you like, and then hop onto GW2 for a few rounds of PVP... players can pretty much afford to 'cherry pick' which type of content they want these days, GW2 just makes this easier by being B2P.. which is why i don't see GW2 as being a 'competitor' in the MMO market, its almost like an add-on for whatever game your into, PVP in WoW for instance is fairly rubbish, so playing WoW for the PVE and slipping over onto GW2 for the PVP fix is definitely a valid option, i could realistically see the same kind of thing happening for SW;TOR... rather than people not understanding why a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition, i would ask, why would GW2 not be considered an asset that 'completes' the WoW - SW;TOR experience..
Actually, there is also a part of the MMO community that are tired of always being told exactly what to do and when.
In regular MMOs you more or less gets a long line of quests and many of them must be done in a certain order.
Sandboxes have nothing like that at all.
GW2 will hopefully be the bridge between those games. You still get quests but can decide which part of a certain quest you will do and in which order you will do them (if they are up at all).
If you either are a 100% team park fan who loves linear quests or if you are a sandbox fan that hates quests then you are 100% right. But far from all players are that fanatic and if the DEs work as well in long term as they do in a 40 minutes demo the game might very well take PvE players from the other games.
i honestly think that the main reason why anyone would buy GW2 is strictly for the PVP, or in this case, the WvWvW PVP... the PVE is just something to do between battles, if at all.. as has already been pointed out, there are quite a few games out already that handle PVE better anyway, the huge advantage that GW2 has, is that there is no monthly sub, which means you can play X game however much you like, and then hop onto GW2 for a few rounds of PVP... players can pretty much afford to 'cherry pick' which type of content they want these days, GW2 just makes this easier by being B2P.. which is why i don't see GW2 as being a 'competitor' in the MMO market, its almost like an add-on for whatever game your into, PVP in WoW for instance is fairly rubbish, so playing WoW for the PVE and slipping over onto GW2 for the PVP fix is definitely a valid option, i could realistically see the same kind of thing happening for SW;TOR... rather than people not understanding why a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition, i would ask, why would GW2 not be considered an asset that 'completes' the WoW - SW;TOR experience..
I honestly do not think so.
I played GW1 just for the PvE, and I played every class. The game mechanism is good on its own. Short runs between towns, lots of skills some of them unique, multiple roles, low cost of "respec", 8 skills to bring.
I hardly PvP much. And sadly, I never got to play the expansion, too little time and some good RPGs. GW1 is a good game for non raid type of gaming.
People keep saying that because if it's the case, then if the game is crazy popular for two or three years before fading into relative obscurity just like the original Guild Wars, the fanboys can still say the game was a resounding success just because Anet's only intention was for the game was for it to sell a lot of boxes.
Because you're not going to pay a monthly fee, you're going to get a game that plays quite differently than WoW, SW:TOR, so they will certainly be different experiences. Anyone who tells you the games won't be in competition with one another though is quite foolish. With its flat leveling curve, minigames, and dynamic event system, GW2 seems tailor made for quick, casual play where more traditional MMORPGs tend to promote subscription retention by designing their game around achievement based on time spent in-game.
i honestly think that the main reason why anyone would buy GW2 is strictly for the PVP, or in this case, the WvWvW PVP... the PVE is just something to do between battles, if at all.. as has already been pointed out, there are quite a few games out already that handle PVE better anyway, the huge advantage that GW2 has, is that there is no monthly sub, which means you can play X game however much you like, and then hop onto GW2 for a few rounds of PVP... players can pretty much afford to 'cherry pick' which type of content they want these days, GW2 just makes this easier by being B2P.. which is why i don't see GW2 as being a 'competitor' in the MMO market, its almost like an add-on for whatever game your into, PVP in WoW for instance is fairly rubbish, so playing WoW for the PVE and slipping over onto GW2 for the PVP fix is definitely a valid option, i could realistically see the same kind of thing happening for SW;TOR... rather than people not understanding why a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition, i would ask, why would GW2 not be considered an asset that 'completes' the WoW - SW;TOR experience..
I've seen people argue in this thread that PVE in GW2 is incomplete because it doesn't feature endgame raiding, but 'quite a few games out already that handle PVE better?' I mean, if that's your opinion, then by all means you're entitled to it. I don't agree with it, I don't know what games those are, and I don't think anybody who truly understands dynamic events would ever claim it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I dont understand how people think a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition with P2P MMO like WoW, Rift, War, etc.
yes the payment models may be different, but what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
Also keep in mind, even though consumers can get GW2 and another MMO like SWTOR, that doesnt mean players can play both at the same time. which again, means the developers are fighting over player's time and interest.
For instances; had Allod been better and more quality, less P2W/IM it may been a great competitor with games like WoW and Rift. Why play Rift and WoW when you can play a quality free MMO that does the same thing pretty much?
again,,, Direct Competition.
If you disagree, prove me wrong.
Learn simple economics you will prove yourself wrong yourself. Any economist [starting with me] will tell you that GW2 doesn't really compete aganst P2P mmos to a degree like p2p mmos with it. GW2 needs to sell the game, whether or not someone plays after is important to lesser extent although not entirely without importance [community, microtransactions etc].
P2P games compete for gamers money and time. If i got a lot of work and family life i only have limited ammount of time on my hands - enough to play just 1 game. I can buy GW2 and TOR for example because GW2 doesnt require subs. In case i like TOR more i sub tor and play tor only seldom logging into GW2 since it has no sub. But if i dont like TOR and instead play GW2 chances are very slim i will ever pay sub or keep paying it "just in case" or to play it.
Again, there is nothing to prove. Simple laws of economics. Not everyone knows them, learns them, understands them but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in place ^^.
People keep saying that because if it's the case, then if the game is crazy popular for two or three years before fading into relative obscurity just like the original Guild Wars, the fanboys can still say the game was a resounding success just because Anet's only intention was for the game was for it to sell a lot of boxes.
GW1 was a resounding success. There was definitely a market for future expansions. The reasons they stopped were because a) their standalone expansion model was adding too much complexity for new players, b) they had an idea for a prototype of dynamic events and they didn't want to change the game from what people had grown to love, and c) they needed to build a new engine to do all they wanted to do. All these factors combined in their stopping development on GW1 and designing GW2.
In general though, all companies exist to make money, even ArenaNet. Every company hopes their game will sell lots of boxes (and possibly subs as well). Even B2P companies aren't motivated by making the game a labor of love that loses money. If you're B2P, you can sell more boxes and have a larger customer base to buy expansions or use your cash shop. You also build brand loyalty because your product is cheaper than P2P. GW1 was designed from the start to be a B2P game, but even if it hadn't, it still would have been a brilliant business decision in the face of the WoW juggernaut.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I dont understand how people think a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition with P2P MMO like WoW, Rift, War, etc.
yes the payment models may be different, but what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
Also keep in mind, even though consumers can get GW2 and another MMO like SWTOR, that doesnt mean players can play both at the same time. which again, means the developers are fighting over player's time and interest.
For instances; had Allod been better and more quality, less P2W/IM it may been a great competitor with games like WoW and Rift. Why play Rift and WoW when you can play a quality free MMO that does the same thing pretty much?
again,,, Direct Competition.
If you disagree, prove me wrong.
Learn simple economics you will prove yourself wrong yourself. Any economist [starting with me] will tell you that GW2 doesn't really compete aganst P2P mmos to a degree like p2p mmos with it. GW2 needs to sell the game, whether or not someone plays after is important to lesser extent although not entirely without importance [community, microtransactions etc].
P2P games compete for gamers money and time. If i got a lot of work and family life i only have limited ammount of time on my hands - enough to play just 1 game. I can buy GW2 and TOR for example because GW2 doesnt require subs. In case i like TOR more i sub tor and play tor only seldom logging into GW2 since it has no sub. But if i dont like TOR and instead play GW2 chances are very slim i will ever pay sub or keep paying it "just in case" or to play it.
Again, there is nothing to prove. Simple laws of economics. Not everyone knows them, learns them, understands them but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in place ^^.
What has that to do with economic? You mean microeconomics I presume as you are talking about individual people. Which branch of microeconomics is being discussed here?
Simple economic theories looks at goods as homogeneous. In your economic discussion above, do you see ToR and GW2 as same good or different goods. Are they complementary or substitutions? In your discussion above, what mechanics of consumption behaviour is being modelled? Are you using old utiltiy approach? or what?
Your simple laws of economics are really so simple, I begin to panic. I never know of "laws" unless the term is used loosely. Theories and paradigm is all I learnt. Maybe I am too old, you know better, I hope.
I dont understand how people think a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition with P2P MMO like WoW, Rift, War, etc.
yes the payment models may be different, but what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
Also keep in mind, even though consumers can get GW2 and another MMO like SWTOR, that doesnt mean players can play both at the same time. which again, means the developers are fighting over player's time and interest.
For instances; had Allod been better and more quality, less P2W/IM it may been a great competitor with games like WoW and Rift. Why play Rift and WoW when you can play a quality free MMO that does the same thing pretty much?
again,,, Direct Competition.
If you disagree, prove me wrong.
Learn simple economics you will prove yourself wrong yourself. Any economist [starting with me] will tell you that GW2 doesn't really compete aganst P2P mmos to a degree like p2p mmos with it. GW2 needs to sell the game, whether or not someone plays after is important to lesser extent although not entirely without importance [community, microtransactions etc].
P2P games compete for gamers money and time. If i got a lot of work and family life i only have limited ammount of time on my hands - enough to play just 1 game. I can buy GW2 and TOR for example because GW2 doesnt require subs. In case i like TOR more i sub tor and play tor only seldom logging into GW2 since it has no sub. But if i dont like TOR and instead play GW2 chances are very slim i will ever pay sub or keep paying it "just in case" or to play it.
Again, there is nothing to prove. Simple laws of economics. Not everyone knows them, learns them, understands them but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in place ^^.
What has that to do with economic? You mean microeconomics I presume as you are talking about individual people. Which branch of microeconomics is being discussed here?
Simple economic theories looks at goods as homogeneous. In your economic discussion above, do you see ToR and GW2 as same good or different goods. Are they complementary or substitutions? In your discussion above, what mechanics of consumption behaviour is being modelled? Are you using old utiltiy approach? or what?
Your simple laws of economics are really so simple, I begin to panic. I never know of "laws" unless the term is used loosely. Theories and paradigm is all I learnt. Maybe I am too old, you know better, I hope.
what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
I want to use words like delusional and blind, but ther moderators might warn me again.
Developers do in fact care about sub numbers and dont care about wheter or not players feel lonely. Its a bussiness, not a non-profit day care. And so what if Guild Wars competes with WoW or ToR.
People have already made up their minds about Guild Wars and SW ToR. Nothing anyone says will change anyone's mind on the matter. Theres enough people to go around for all these MMOs coming out just as there have been for many years, unless people are vanishing like the bee's are.
what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
I want to use words like delusional and blind, but ther moderators might warn me again.
Developers do in fact care about sub numbers and dont care about wheter or not players feel lonely. Its a bussiness, not a non-profit day care. And so what if Guild Wars competes with WoW or ToR.
People have already made up their minds about Guild Wars and SW ToR. Nothing anyone says will change anyone's mind on the matter. Theres enough people to go around for all these MMOs coming out just as there have been for many years, unless people are vanishing like the bee's are.
I dont understand how people think a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition with P2P MMO like WoW, Rift, War, etc.
yes the payment models may be different, but what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
Also keep in mind, even though consumers can get GW2 and another MMO like SWTOR, that doesnt mean players can play both at the same time. which again, means the developers are fighting over player's time and interest.
For instances; had Allod been better and more quality, less P2W/IM it may been a great competitor with games like WoW and Rift. Why play Rift and WoW when you can play a quality free MMO that does the same thing pretty much?
again,,, Direct Competition.
If you disagree, prove me wrong.
Learn simple economics you will prove yourself wrong yourself. Any economist [starting with me] will tell you that GW2 doesn't really compete aganst P2P mmos to a degree like p2p mmos with it. GW2 needs to sell the game, whether or not someone plays after is important to lesser extent although not entirely without importance [community, microtransactions etc].
P2P games compete for gamers money and time. If i got a lot of work and family life i only have limited ammount of time on my hands - enough to play just 1 game. I can buy GW2 and TOR for example because GW2 doesnt require subs. In case i like TOR more i sub tor and play tor only seldom logging into GW2 since it has no sub. But if i dont like TOR and instead play GW2 chances are very slim i will ever pay sub or keep paying it "just in case" or to play it.
Again, there is nothing to prove. Simple laws of economics. Not everyone knows them, learns them, understands them but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in place ^^.
What has that to do with economic? You mean microeconomics I presume as you are talking about individual people. Which branch of microeconomics is being discussed here?
Simple economic theories looks at goods as homogeneous. In your economic discussion above, do you see ToR and GW2 as same good or different goods. Are they complementary or substitutions? In your discussion above, what mechanics of consumption behaviour is being modelled? Are you using old utiltiy approach? or what?
Your simple laws of economics are really so simple, I begin to panic. I never know of "laws" unless the term is used loosely. Theories and paradigm is all I learnt. Maybe I am too old, you know better, I hope.
WHAT??
sounded like an overly complicated way of trying to argue against a simple economic statement.... with a huge dose of weird
in its simplest form, you only have to buy GW2 once, no further payments required of any kind..
this, more than anything else, lends itself to the casual player perfectly, you don't need to play 24/7 to feel that your getting your Value for money.. because of this, its possible to pick the game for what it does that you like, some may like it for the PVE aspects, and some for the PVP, or in this case, the WvWvW PVP... or as i call it.. 'cherry picking' imo, the WvWvW thing is the games only real saving grace, so for me, to get GW2 it would be for that reason alone.. even that is far from certain as the combat itself is something i have a few issues with regardless.. but.. given the games buy once play for free kind of thing.. its not as huge a hurdle as it might have been in a P2P game, where all the other issues would pretty much rule out the game as a purchase option completely...
I dont understand how people think a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition with P2P MMO like WoW, Rift, War, etc.
yes the payment models may be different, but what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
Also keep in mind, even though consumers can get GW2 and another MMO like SWTOR, that doesnt mean players can play both at the same time. which again, means the developers are fighting over player's time and interest.
For instances; had Allod been better and more quality, less P2W/IM it may been a great competitor with games like WoW and Rift. Why play Rift and WoW when you can play a quality free MMO that does the same thing pretty much?
again,,, Direct Competition.
If you disagree, prove me wrong.
Learn simple economics you will prove yourself wrong yourself. Any economist [starting with me] will tell you that GW2 doesn't really compete aganst P2P mmos to a degree like p2p mmos with it. GW2 needs to sell the game, whether or not someone plays after is important to lesser extent although not entirely without importance [community, microtransactions etc].
P2P games compete for gamers money and time. If i got a lot of work and family life i only have limited ammount of time on my hands - enough to play just 1 game. I can buy GW2 and TOR for example because GW2 doesnt require subs. In case i like TOR more i sub tor and play tor only seldom logging into GW2 since it has no sub. But if i dont like TOR and instead play GW2 chances are very slim i will ever pay sub or keep paying it "just in case" or to play it.
Again, there is nothing to prove. Simple laws of economics. Not everyone knows them, learns them, understands them but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in place ^^.
What has that to do with economic? You mean microeconomics I presume as you are talking about individual people. Which branch of microeconomics is being discussed here?
Simple economic theories looks at goods as homogeneous. In your economic discussion above, do you see ToR and GW2 as same good or different goods. Are they complementary or substitutions? In your discussion above, what mechanics of consumption behaviour is being modelled? Are you using old utiltiy approach? or what?
Your simple laws of economics are really so simple, I begin to panic. I never know of "laws" unless the term is used loosely. Theories and paradigm is all I learnt. Maybe I am too old, you know better, I hope.
WHAT??
sounded like an overly complicated way of trying to argue against a simple economic statement.... with a huge dose of weird
in its simplest form, you only have to buy GW2 once, no further payments required of any kind..
this, more than anything else, lends itself to the casual player perfectly, you don't need to play 24/7 to feel that your getting your Value for money.. because of this, its possible to pick the game for what it does that you like, some may like it for the PVE aspects, and some for the PVP, or in this case, the WvWvW PVP... or as i call it.. 'cherry picking' imo, the WvWvW thing is the games only real saving grace, so for me, to get GW2 it would be for that reason alone.. even that is far from certain as the combat itself is something i have a few issues with regardless.. but.. given the games buy once play for free kind of thing.. its not as huge a hurdle as it might have been in a P2P game, where all the other issues would pretty much rule out the game as a purchase option completely...
Sigh, what I am addressing is his sentence "simple law of economics", as if he is drawing upon the standard text of economic theory to back up his arguments.
He is using common sense. Agree, there is nothing wrong the way he express his ideas. But to cite "Law" of simple economics, it is what we used to call "pretence of science".
Ok let me elaborate a bit more. Simple economics is the study of choice in a setting without uncertainty, choice with limited resources, meaning you cannot have all. The theory does not apply here because first the games are not yet out, and second the games even if they are out can change. There is uncertainty, which simple economics cannot handle easily.
Second the basic premises of economics is choice against resources limitation. Until we work out the limitations clearly, and the choices, assume a preference pattern, the model of simple choice does not apply. Now we do not even have a model gamer specified, nor his resources (time/money), nor preference, nor ...
There are many many models of economic decision making processes. Too many. There are many many schools of thought, so call academics enjoy arguing for the sake of doing so. I do not recall a simple model that is applicable to this situation, so I asked him to shed us some light on his modelling process.
Originally posted by LisXia Originally posted by Dubhlaith
Originally posted by Puremallace GW2 for quite a bit of people seems in complete. You guys try and write off pve raiding and the gerbil wheel like it is nothing, but getting rid of that and direct healers actually turns off a lot of people to this game.
So people will do this: GW2 for their pvp and SWToR for their pve GW2 for their pvp and Rift for their pve GW2 for their pvp and WoW for their pve
The game honestly looks half complete. Dynamic content is seriously just not enough atleast for me.
Saying it looks half complete is ridiculous. It might be content not suited to you. It is certainly enough content. I would be willing to bet large sums of money there will be more content in GW2 at release than there was in EQ, WoW, SWG, and most other MMOs at their respective releases. The people who want the gerbil wheel are welcome to it. There are many games that cater to that. Raiding does not make content difficult, nor do gear tiers. There is obviously a sizeable portion of players who are tired of that. GW2 is for them. There are piles of games for those who still want it. Puremallice is just saying he sees not enough content for him. I am not worried about GW2 yet, until it is due release. Comparing GW2 to EQ (upon release), or WoW (around early 2005, its release+opening new servers) is not going to help GW2. GW2 is competing against games now, that have fully decked out content, population base and so on. I sure hope GW2 success, one more option for me to choose from so that I can drop some older games. But to be so naive as to expect GW2 to succeed just because it would be a great game comparing to the 2005 standard is not going to help. Lets hope A-Net pull this off.
That isn't really what Puremallace said. He said the game looked half complete, which is patently ridiculous. A weak "at least for me" at the end of bizarre statements does not render them less false or bizarre.
As for what I said. I wasn't trying to use an old standard. I was trying to use the gold standard. Those are the games that had lots of content, and well polished for their time. If you want a more modern standard. I'd nearly guarantee GW2 will have more content at release than Aion or Rift, DDO, LOTRO, DC Online, Champions, Fallen Earth, et all. I am saying the level of content and sheer amount of stuff will be greater than previous games we have seen, and almost certainly more than The Old Republic.
As for raiding, I am also of the opinion that it is old and tired, and I am so sick of it my stomach turns when I hear about yet another game with a vertical gear progression dungeon and/or raid grind. Can I please get some innovation, something new, anything new, even if it turns out to be bad?! Something that isn't that. Please.
Raid ladders are boring. I adore a good dungeon crawl, but that is hard to do in an MMO, because unless there are hundreds of dungeons, you end up running the same ones over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Dynamic content fixes this issue completely. In addition, there will be dynamic content in the dungeons, which will make them less repetitive. I fail to see way this could be a problem or less enjoyable, unless you love vertical gear progression grinds.
As for the payment model, they say it isn't direct competition, and it isn't, really, because they just want you to buy the game, like any other game ever made before MMOs. You buy the game, you get to play it. The end. Basically, they are not in competition with those models, but they are out to prove those models are based on lies and profiteering.
I saw someone mention variety as a reason to play GW2 and a sub game, but that does not make sense if GW2 is as high a level of quality as the P2P game. Variety isn't a good enough reason to pay money each month once you realise you are being ripped off. Why pay more for the same level of quality? Just look at my signature (which I shamelessly stole from cali59). The idea is that players will not longer buy the line that we need to pay the extra money. I don't see why there is any contention on this point. Don't players resent essentially renting time in a game they've already purchased?!
Remember, these are the people that made Battle.net. and the mentality remains. We didn't have to pay for Bnet. We bought Starcraft or Diablo or Warcraft and went to town. Play as much as you want. Buy the new content. It's a model that makes sense.
The competition isn't to take their subs, it's to prove subs are BS.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
There is competition in a sense that, for instance, if someone plays a P2P game and thinks it's decent, and then proceeds to buy the B2P game, and love it, then they will, in most cases, probably drop the P2P game. I think most players of the MMO genre only prefer to sink their time into one MMO. Why pay a monthly fee for something you don't absolutely enjoy over your other option(s) that would cost you less and give you more entertainment?
Vice versa, however, as long as the player wants to spend money on the box, they can still play that B2P game anyway.
I think the only system at any potential risk here is the P2P, especially if the B2P is deemed "superior".
I dont understand how people think a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition with P2P MMO like WoW, Rift, War, etc.
yes the payment models may be different, but what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
Also keep in mind, even though consumers can get GW2 and another MMO like SWTOR, that doesnt mean players can play both at the same time. which again, means the developers are fighting over player's time and interest.
For instances; had Allod been better and more quality, less P2W/IM it may been a great competitor with games like WoW and Rift. Why play Rift and WoW when you can play a quality free MMO that does the same thing pretty much?
again,,, Direct Competition.
If you disagree, prove me wrong.
Learn simple economics you will prove yourself wrong yourself. Any economist [starting with me] will tell you that GW2 doesn't really compete aganst P2P mmos to a degree like p2p mmos with it. GW2 needs to sell the game, whether or not someone plays after is important to lesser extent although not entirely without importance [community, microtransactions etc].
P2P games compete for gamers money and time. If i got a lot of work and family life i only have limited ammount of time on my hands - enough to play just 1 game. I can buy GW2 and TOR for example because GW2 doesnt require subs. In case i like TOR more i sub tor and play tor only seldom logging into GW2 since it has no sub. But if i dont like TOR and instead play GW2 chances are very slim i will ever pay sub or keep paying it "just in case" or to play it.
Again, there is nothing to prove. Simple laws of economics. Not everyone knows them, learns them, understands them but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in place ^^.
I dont understand how people think a B2P MMO like GW2 isnt in direct competition with P2P MMO like WoW, Rift, War, etc.
yes the payment models may be different, but what developers want, is population, not just Sub numbers as many people may assume. The higher the population, the less players feel alone, or in a empty world.
Also keep in mind, even though consumers can get GW2 and another MMO like SWTOR, that doesnt mean players can play both at the same time. which again, means the developers are fighting over player's time and interest.
For instances; had Allod been better and more quality, less P2W/IM it may been a great competitor with games like WoW and Rift. Why play Rift and WoW when you can play a quality free MMO that does the same thing pretty much?
again,,, Direct Competition.
If you disagree, prove me wrong.
Learn simple economics you will prove yourself wrong yourself. Any economist [starting with me] will tell you that GW2 doesn't really compete aganst P2P mmos to a degree like p2p mmos with it. GW2 needs to sell the game, whether or not someone plays after is important to lesser extent although not entirely without importance [community, microtransactions etc].
P2P games compete for gamers money and time. If i got a lot of work and family life i only have limited ammount of time on my hands - enough to play just 1 game. I can buy GW2 and TOR for example because GW2 doesnt require subs. In case i like TOR more i sub tor and play tor only seldom logging into GW2 since it has no sub. But if i dont like TOR and instead play GW2 chances are very slim i will ever pay sub or keep paying it "just in case" or to play it.
Again, there is nothing to prove. Simple laws of economics. Not everyone knows them, learns them, understands them but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in place ^^.
What has that to do with economic? You mean microeconomics I presume as you are talking about individual people. Which branch of microeconomics is being discussed here?
Simple economic theories looks at goods as homogeneous. In your economic discussion above, do you see ToR and GW2 as same good or different goods. Are they complementary or substitutions? In your discussion above, what mechanics of consumption behaviour is being modelled? Are you using old utiltiy approach? or what?
Your simple laws of economics are really so simple, I begin to panic. I never know of "laws" unless the term is used loosely. Theories and paradigm is all I learnt. Maybe I am too old, you know better, I hope.
WHAT??
sounded like an overly complicated way of trying to argue against a simple economic statement.... with a huge dose of weird
in its simplest form, you only have to buy GW2 once, no further payments required of any kind..
this, more than anything else, lends itself to the casual player perfectly, you don't need to play 24/7 to feel that your getting your Value for money.. because of this, its possible to pick the game for what it does that you like, some may like it for the PVE aspects, and some for the PVP, or in this case, the WvWvW PVP... or as i call it.. 'cherry picking' imo, the WvWvW thing is the games only real saving grace, so for me, to get GW2 it would be for that reason alone.. even that is far from certain as the combat itself is something i have a few issues with regardless.. but.. given the games buy once play for free kind of thing.. its not as huge a hurdle as it might have been in a P2P game, where all the other issues would pretty much rule out the game as a purchase option completely...
Sigh, what I am addressing is his sentence "simple law of economics", as if he is drawing upon the standard text of economic theory to back up his arguments.
He is using common sense. Agree, there is nothing wrong the way he express his ideas. But to cite "Law" of simple economics, it is what we used to call "pretence of science".
Ok let me elaborate a bit more. Simple economics is the study of choice in a setting without uncertainty, choice with limited resources, meaning you cannot have all. The theory does not apply here because first the games are not yet out, and second the games even if they are out can change. There is uncertainty, which simple economics cannot handle easily.
Second the basic premises of economics is choice against resources limitation. Until we work out the limitations clearly, and the choices, assume a preference pattern, the model of simple choice does not apply. Now we do not even have a model gamer specified, nor his resources (time/money), nor preference, nor ...
There are many many models of economic decision making processes. Too many. There are many many schools of thought, so call academics enjoy arguing for the sake of doing so. I do not recall a simple model that is applicable to this situation, so I asked him to shed us some light on his modelling process.
I admit i used "law" a little carefree. But in defense there are some simple laws as well. Most of it is theories and paradigms and many have supporters and those in opposition [like scientists like to argue].
As for common sense. It is actually common sense + university of economics under my belt
By simple i meant "easy for most people to see and understand". I can't really expect your random mmo forum user to have economical knowledge can i ? Using language common for all and using examples instead of theories is better way to illustrate.
There are many schools of thought and i think you can agree many of them would find footing here because some normally opposing theories can coexist in this example. This is a global product aimed at global community. Each with their own distinct culture, beliefs, language etc.
Sure some people will have cash to afford both and sub TOR even if they play only 1 hour a month but that is great minority seeing as most of the people in the world are poor or average at most without such luxury option. Even those who may have the money may simply not wish to "waste" them. People with little time on their hands will pick the better option if they can only dedicate enough time for only one game.
Truth is however that the level of competition between GW2 vs TOR is a lot lower than TOR vs GW2. GW2 right now fights mostly for a one time purchase. TOR fights for purchase + subs. Many who buy TOR will also buy GW2 to just try it out or just for the story and wont have the need to sub. Others are less likely to get TOR if they have mind set mostly on TOR.
So while they do compete they do it at different levels with GW2 being in a sweeter spot.
EDIT:
to show it in very very simplified way
-Why wouldn't i buy GW2 even if i will play TOR if it's a one-time purchase only without the need to sub?
-Why would i buy TOR if i plan on playing GW2 with no sub and after TOR initial month i would have to sub to play it even if just for very short time and not getting my bang for buck?
Subscription fee of 0.01$ pays your server costs and support wages. GTFO with "mmo neeeds sub".
Would like to know how you arrived at your conclusion. Mind explaining to us in detail?
lets say 10000 users. Thats 1000$ . 300$ for server, 700$ for 3 customer suport guys. And people in east will be pleased ot have work that pays that much!!!
Indie company makes 5$ soft then microsoft type corporaiton stamples with its logo and its 500$ program.
You dont need to study economic 'laws' (lol) to determine if there is competition from gw2 to P2P games likes SWTOR, WOW, etc, just some common sense.
If you look at it from ANet poin of view - there is no competition .
They sell just box, not subs. So if you decide to go play next 2 months something else, nothing changes, no canceled subs - nothing (maybe some lost income from cash shop). If you return, you might buy something cash shop but thats it.
From P2P games point view, its something completly different.
In my time of playing mmos i have seen ppl to cancel subs for huge variety of reasons .Holidays, other even single players game, parents stopping to pay for kids account due bad school results, etc. Simply anything that can turn players attention away and stoping them to pay the sub is concern for P2P mmo .
Imo GW2 is threat to P2P games, while they are not to them. They might shake things in mmo market in the west, we will see.
Subscription fee of 0.01$ pays your server costs and support wages. GTFO with "mmo neeeds sub".
Would like to know how you arrived at your conclusion. Mind explaining to us in detail?
lets say 10000 users. Thats 1000$ . 300$ for server, 700$ for 3 customer suport guys. And people in east will be pleased ot have work that pays that much!!!
Indie company makes 5$ soft then microsoft type corporaiton stamples with its logo and its 500$ program.
Capitalism ftw.
Oh so you are telling GTFO to other on basis of guess work and speculation.
You dont need to study economic 'laws' (lol) to determine if there is competition from gw2 to P2P games likes SWTOR, WOW, etc, just some common sense.
If you look at it from ANet poin of view - there is no competition .
They sell just box, not subs. So if you decide to go play next 2 months something else, nothing changes, no canceled subs - nothing (maybe some lost income from cash shop). If you return, you might buy something cash shop but thats it.
From P2P games point view, its something completly different.
In my time of playing mmos i have seen ppl to cancel subs for huge variety of reasons .Holidays, other even single players game, parents stopping to pay for kids account due bad school results, etc. Simply anything that can turn players attention away and stoping them to pay the sub is concern for P2P mmo .
Imo GW2 is threat to P2P games, while they are not to them. They might shake things in mmo market in the west, we will see.
F2P games didn't impact P2P games as far as I know.
Some P2P games converted to F2P and grew their profit margins / sub numbers but didn't have an actual impact.
If F2P games didn't, I can't see P2P being a 'threat'.
Some P2P might convert to B2P like GW2 or go F2P (more likely).
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You dont need to study economic 'laws' (lol) to determine if there is competition from gw2 to P2P games likes SWTOR, WOW, etc, just some common sense.
If you look at it from ANet poin of view - there is no competition .
They sell just box, not subs. So if you decide to go play next 2 months something else, nothing changes, no canceled subs - nothing (maybe some lost income from cash shop). If you return, you might buy something cash shop but thats it.
From P2P games point view, its something completly different.
In my time of playing mmos i have seen ppl to cancel subs for huge variety of reasons .Holidays, other even single players game, parents stopping to pay for kids account due bad school results, etc. Simply anything that can turn players attention away and stoping them to pay the sub is concern for P2P mmo .
Imo GW2 is threat to P2P games, while they are not to them. They might shake things in mmo market in the west, we will see.
i think i must have missed the bit where there is supposed to be a cash shop in GW2.... and as for shaking things up in the MMO market.. i think there is a mistake in your thinking.. it will, but not in the way you think, it really won't affect P2P games, but... it will have a dramatic effect on F2P games, simply because it offers things that the F2P market generally charge a huge amount for.. so yes.. it will shake things up.. but to be honest.. its about time a game was released that at least tried to make some of these F2P games a bit more honest.. perhaps GW2 is just the game to give them the much needed boot up the rear
Subscription fee of 0.01$ pays your server costs and support wages. GTFO with "mmo neeeds sub".
Would like to know how you arrived at your conclusion. Mind explaining to us in detail?
lets say 10000 users. Thats 1000$ . 300$ for server, 700$ for 3 customer suport guys. And people in east will be pleased ot have work that pays that much!!!
Indie company makes 5$ soft then microsoft type corporaiton stamples with its logo and its 500$ program.
Capitalism ftw.
Oh so you are telling GTFO to other on basis of guess work and speculation.
And you give briliant arguments. Why my statements are untrue. Go check how much in russia or china people earn.
You dont need to study economic 'laws' (lol) to determine if there is competition from gw2 to P2P games likes SWTOR, WOW, etc, just some common sense.
If you look at it from ANet poin of view - there is no competition .
They sell just box, not subs. So if you decide to go play next 2 months something else, nothing changes, no canceled subs - nothing (maybe some lost income from cash shop). If you return, you might buy something cash shop but thats it.
From P2P games point view, its something completly different.
In my time of playing mmos i have seen ppl to cancel subs for huge variety of reasons .Holidays, other even single players game, parents stopping to pay for kids account due bad school results, etc. Simply anything that can turn players attention away and stoping them to pay the sub is concern for P2P mmo .
Imo GW2 is threat to P2P games, while they are not to them. They might shake things in mmo market in the west, we will see.
F2P games didn't impact P2P games as far as I know.
Some P2P games converted to F2P and grew their profit margins / sub numbers but didn't have an actual impact.
If F2P games didn't, I can't see P2P being a 'threat'.
Some P2P might convert to B2P like GW2 or go F2P (more likely).
I don't think any P2P-MMORPG that has been around for some time will go B2P= if it needs to go F2P or B2P to get customers back mostly people who had left the game will return, and since they've already got the box they want generate any revenue for the developer/publisher.
Comments
Actually, there is also a part of the MMO community that are tired of always being told exactly what to do and when.
In regular MMOs you more or less gets a long line of quests and many of them must be done in a certain order.
Sandboxes have nothing like that at all.
GW2 will hopefully be the bridge between those games. You still get quests but can decide which part of a certain quest you will do and in which order you will do them (if they are up at all).
If you either are a 100% team park fan who loves linear quests or if you are a sandbox fan that hates quests then you are 100% right. But far from all players are that fanatic and if the DEs work as well in long term as they do in a 40 minutes demo the game might very well take PvE players from the other games.
I honestly do not think so.
I played GW1 just for the PvE, and I played every class. The game mechanism is good on its own. Short runs between towns, lots of skills some of them unique, multiple roles, low cost of "respec", 8 skills to bring.
I hardly PvP much. And sadly, I never got to play the expansion, too little time and some good RPGs. GW1 is a good game for non raid type of gaming.
People keep saying that because if it's the case, then if the game is crazy popular for two or three years before fading into relative obscurity just like the original Guild Wars, the fanboys can still say the game was a resounding success just because Anet's only intention was for the game was for it to sell a lot of boxes.
Because you're not going to pay a monthly fee, you're going to get a game that plays quite differently than WoW, SW:TOR, so they will certainly be different experiences. Anyone who tells you the games won't be in competition with one another though is quite foolish. With its flat leveling curve, minigames, and dynamic event system, GW2 seems tailor made for quick, casual play where more traditional MMORPGs tend to promote subscription retention by designing their game around achievement based on time spent in-game.
I've seen people argue in this thread that PVE in GW2 is incomplete because it doesn't feature endgame raiding, but 'quite a few games out already that handle PVE better?' I mean, if that's your opinion, then by all means you're entitled to it. I don't agree with it, I don't know what games those are, and I don't think anybody who truly understands dynamic events would ever claim it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Learn simple economics you will prove yourself wrong yourself. Any economist [starting with me] will tell you that GW2 doesn't really compete aganst P2P mmos to a degree like p2p mmos with it. GW2 needs to sell the game, whether or not someone plays after is important to lesser extent although not entirely without importance [community, microtransactions etc].
P2P games compete for gamers money and time. If i got a lot of work and family life i only have limited ammount of time on my hands - enough to play just 1 game. I can buy GW2 and TOR for example because GW2 doesnt require subs. In case i like TOR more i sub tor and play tor only seldom logging into GW2 since it has no sub. But if i dont like TOR and instead play GW2 chances are very slim i will ever pay sub or keep paying it "just in case" or to play it.
Again, there is nothing to prove. Simple laws of economics. Not everyone knows them, learns them, understands them but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in place ^^.
GW1 was a resounding success. There was definitely a market for future expansions. The reasons they stopped were because a) their standalone expansion model was adding too much complexity for new players, b) they had an idea for a prototype of dynamic events and they didn't want to change the game from what people had grown to love, and c) they needed to build a new engine to do all they wanted to do. All these factors combined in their stopping development on GW1 and designing GW2.
In general though, all companies exist to make money, even ArenaNet. Every company hopes their game will sell lots of boxes (and possibly subs as well). Even B2P companies aren't motivated by making the game a labor of love that loses money. If you're B2P, you can sell more boxes and have a larger customer base to buy expansions or use your cash shop. You also build brand loyalty because your product is cheaper than P2P. GW1 was designed from the start to be a B2P game, but even if it hadn't, it still would have been a brilliant business decision in the face of the WoW juggernaut.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
What has that to do with economic? You mean microeconomics I presume as you are talking about individual people. Which branch of microeconomics is being discussed here?
Simple economic theories looks at goods as homogeneous. In your economic discussion above, do you see ToR and GW2 as same good or different goods. Are they complementary or substitutions? In your discussion above, what mechanics of consumption behaviour is being modelled? Are you using old utiltiy approach? or what?
Your simple laws of economics are really so simple, I begin to panic. I never know of "laws" unless the term is used loosely. Theories and paradigm is all I learnt. Maybe I am too old, you know better, I hope.
I want to use words like delusional and blind, but ther moderators might warn me again.
Developers do in fact care about sub numbers and dont care about wheter or not players feel lonely. Its a bussiness, not a non-profit day care. And so what if Guild Wars competes with WoW or ToR.
People have already made up their minds about Guild Wars and SW ToR. Nothing anyone says will change anyone's mind on the matter. Theres enough people to go around for all these MMOs coming out just as there have been for many years, unless people are vanishing like the bee's are.
Tell that to APB, Matrix Online, and SWG. :P
sounded like an overly complicated way of trying to argue against a simple economic statement.... with a huge dose of weird
in its simplest form, you only have to buy GW2 once, no further payments required of any kind..
this, more than anything else, lends itself to the casual player perfectly, you don't need to play 24/7 to feel that your getting your Value for money.. because of this, its possible to pick the game for what it does that you like, some may like it for the PVE aspects, and some for the PVP, or in this case, the WvWvW PVP... or as i call it.. 'cherry picking' imo, the WvWvW thing is the games only real saving grace, so for me, to get GW2 it would be for that reason alone.. even that is far from certain as the combat itself is something i have a few issues with regardless.. but.. given the games buy once play for free kind of thing.. its not as huge a hurdle as it might have been in a P2P game, where all the other issues would pretty much rule out the game as a purchase option completely...
Sigh, what I am addressing is his sentence "simple law of economics", as if he is drawing upon the standard text of economic theory to back up his arguments.
He is using common sense. Agree, there is nothing wrong the way he express his ideas. But to cite "Law" of simple economics, it is what we used to call "pretence of science".
Ok let me elaborate a bit more. Simple economics is the study of choice in a setting without uncertainty, choice with limited resources, meaning you cannot have all. The theory does not apply here because first the games are not yet out, and second the games even if they are out can change. There is uncertainty, which simple economics cannot handle easily.
Second the basic premises of economics is choice against resources limitation. Until we work out the limitations clearly, and the choices, assume a preference pattern, the model of simple choice does not apply. Now we do not even have a model gamer specified, nor his resources (time/money), nor preference, nor ...
There are many many models of economic decision making processes. Too many. There are many many schools of thought, so call academics enjoy arguing for the sake of doing so. I do not recall a simple model that is applicable to this situation, so I asked him to shed us some light on his modelling process.
The people who want the gerbil wheel are welcome to it. There are many games that cater to that. Raiding does not make content difficult, nor do gear tiers. There is obviously a sizeable portion of players who are tired of that. GW2 is for them. There are piles of games for those who still want it.
Puremallice is just saying he sees not enough content for him. I am not worried about GW2 yet, until it is due release.
Comparing GW2 to EQ (upon release), or WoW (around early 2005, its release+opening new servers) is not going to help GW2. GW2 is competing against games now, that have fully decked out content, population base and so on. I sure hope GW2 success, one more option for me to choose from so that I can drop some older games. But to be so naive as to expect GW2 to succeed just because it would be a great game comparing to the 2005 standard is not going to help.
Lets hope A-Net pull this off.
That isn't really what Puremallace said. He said the game looked half complete, which is patently ridiculous. A weak "at least for me" at the end of bizarre statements does not render them less false or bizarre.
As for what I said. I wasn't trying to use an old standard. I was trying to use the gold standard. Those are the games that had lots of content, and well polished for their time. If you want a more modern standard. I'd nearly guarantee GW2 will have more content at release than Aion or Rift, DDO, LOTRO, DC Online, Champions, Fallen Earth, et all. I am saying the level of content and sheer amount of stuff will be greater than previous games we have seen, and almost certainly more than The Old Republic.
As for raiding, I am also of the opinion that it is old and tired, and I am so sick of it my stomach turns when I hear about yet another game with a vertical gear progression dungeon and/or raid grind. Can I please get some innovation, something new, anything new, even if it turns out to be bad?! Something that isn't that. Please.
Raid ladders are boring. I adore a good dungeon crawl, but that is hard to do in an MMO, because unless there are hundreds of dungeons, you end up running the same ones over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Dynamic content fixes this issue completely. In addition, there will be dynamic content in the dungeons, which will make them less repetitive. I fail to see way this could be a problem or less enjoyable, unless you love vertical gear progression grinds.
As for the payment model, they say it isn't direct competition, and it isn't, really, because they just want you to buy the game, like any other game ever made before MMOs. You buy the game, you get to play it. The end. Basically, they are not in competition with those models, but they are out to prove those models are based on lies and profiteering.
I saw someone mention variety as a reason to play GW2 and a sub game, but that does not make sense if GW2 is as high a level of quality as the P2P game. Variety isn't a good enough reason to pay money each month once you realise you are being ripped off. Why pay more for the same level of quality? Just look at my signature (which I shamelessly stole from cali59). The idea is that players will not longer buy the line that we need to pay the extra money. I don't see why there is any contention on this point. Don't players resent essentially renting time in a game they've already purchased?!
Remember, these are the people that made Battle.net. and the mentality remains. We didn't have to pay for Bnet. We bought Starcraft or Diablo or Warcraft and went to town. Play as much as you want. Buy the new content. It's a model that makes sense.
The competition isn't to take their subs, it's to prove subs are BS.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
There is competition in a sense that, for instance, if someone plays a P2P game and thinks it's decent, and then proceeds to buy the B2P game, and love it, then they will, in most cases, probably drop the P2P game. I think most players of the MMO genre only prefer to sink their time into one MMO. Why pay a monthly fee for something you don't absolutely enjoy over your other option(s) that would cost you less and give you more entertainment?
Vice versa, however, as long as the player wants to spend money on the box, they can still play that B2P game anyway.
I think the only system at any potential risk here is the P2P, especially if the B2P is deemed "superior".
If you can't see it i won't force it on you.
I admit i used "law" a little carefree. But in defense there are some simple laws as well. Most of it is theories and paradigms and many have supporters and those in opposition [like scientists like to argue].
As for common sense. It is actually common sense + university of economics under my belt
By simple i meant "easy for most people to see and understand". I can't really expect your random mmo forum user to have economical knowledge can i ? Using language common for all and using examples instead of theories is better way to illustrate.
There are many schools of thought and i think you can agree many of them would find footing here because some normally opposing theories can coexist in this example. This is a global product aimed at global community. Each with their own distinct culture, beliefs, language etc.
Sure some people will have cash to afford both and sub TOR even if they play only 1 hour a month but that is great minority seeing as most of the people in the world are poor or average at most without such luxury option. Even those who may have the money may simply not wish to "waste" them. People with little time on their hands will pick the better option if they can only dedicate enough time for only one game.
Truth is however that the level of competition between GW2 vs TOR is a lot lower than TOR vs GW2. GW2 right now fights mostly for a one time purchase. TOR fights for purchase + subs. Many who buy TOR will also buy GW2 to just try it out or just for the story and wont have the need to sub. Others are less likely to get TOR if they have mind set mostly on TOR.
So while they do compete they do it at different levels with GW2 being in a sweeter spot.
EDIT:
to show it in very very simplified way
-Why wouldn't i buy GW2 even if i will play TOR if it's a one-time purchase only without the need to sub?
-Why would i buy TOR if i plan on playing GW2 with no sub and after TOR initial month i would have to sub to play it even if just for very short time and not getting my bang for buck?
Subscription fee of 0.01$ pays your server costs and support wages. GTFO with "mmo neeeds sub".
Would like to know how you arrived at your conclusion. Mind explaining to us in detail?
lets say 10000 users. Thats 1000$ . 300$ for server, 700$ for 3 customer suport guys. And people in east will be pleased ot have work that pays that much!!!
Indie company makes 5$ soft then microsoft type corporaiton stamples with its logo and its 500$ program.
Capitalism ftw.
You dont need to study economic 'laws' (lol) to determine if there is competition from gw2 to P2P games likes SWTOR, WOW, etc, just some common sense.
If you look at it from ANet poin of view - there is no competition .
They sell just box, not subs. So if you decide to go play next 2 months something else, nothing changes, no canceled subs - nothing (maybe some lost income from cash shop). If you return, you might buy something cash shop but thats it.
From P2P games point view, its something completly different.
In my time of playing mmos i have seen ppl to cancel subs for huge variety of reasons .Holidays, other even single players game, parents stopping to pay for kids account due bad school results, etc. Simply anything that can turn players attention away and stoping them to pay the sub is concern for P2P mmo .
Imo GW2 is threat to P2P games, while they are not to them. They might shake things in mmo market in the west, we will see.
Oh so you are telling GTFO to other on basis of guess work and speculation.
F2P games didn't impact P2P games as far as I know.
Some P2P games converted to F2P and grew their profit margins / sub numbers but didn't have an actual impact.
If F2P games didn't, I can't see P2P being a 'threat'.
Some P2P might convert to B2P like GW2 or go F2P (more likely).
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
i think i must have missed the bit where there is supposed to be a cash shop in GW2.... and as for shaking things up in the MMO market.. i think there is a mistake in your thinking.. it will, but not in the way you think, it really won't affect P2P games, but... it will have a dramatic effect on F2P games, simply because it offers things that the F2P market generally charge a huge amount for.. so yes.. it will shake things up.. but to be honest.. its about time a game was released that at least tried to make some of these F2P games a bit more honest.. perhaps GW2 is just the game to give them the much needed boot up the rear
And you give briliant arguments. Why my statements are untrue. Go check how much in russia or china people earn.
I don't think any P2P-MMORPG that has been around for some time will go B2P= if it needs to go F2P or B2P to get customers back mostly people who had left the game will return, and since they've already got the box they want generate any revenue for the developer/publisher.