There are eight crafting professions, each specializing in a different discipline:
Weaponsmiths craft melee weapons, such as swords, axes and hammers.
Huntsmen craft ranged weapons like shortbows, longbows and pistols, as well as torches and warhorns.
Artificers craft magical weapons such as staves and scepters.
Armorsmiths craft heavy armor pieces.
Leatherworkers craft medium armor pieces.
Tailors craft light armor pieces.
Jewelers craft jewelry, such as rings and necklaces.
Cooks can prepare food which characters can eat for temporary combat buffs.
A character can have two crafting disciplines active at a time, but can change their specializations at any time by visiting a master craftsman and paying a fee. All skill points and recipes learned in a discipline are saved when switching. The more points already invested in a discipline however, the more it will cost for a player to switch to that discipline. The intent of this system is to encourage trading while allowing every player to feasibly craft items that they want.
Skill level
Each discipline has 400 skill points spread over several levels. A novice will become an initiate in a discipline when they have completed 100 skill points in that discipline.
As a player advances in skill additional basic components will automatically be unlocked, allowing more combinations and thus the chance to discover new recipes. This helps to maintain a measure of progress and restricts players from creating items beyond their level.[1] The crafting skill level is also used to determine some titles and achievements.[
Crafting experience
Each item crafted gives a certain amount of crafting experience; this experience applies to any of the character's currently active disciplines that could use that item. For example, a basal mace haft only gives experience to the weaponsmith track, while making cured leather hide will level both huntsman and weaponsmith. 500 experience is equal to one skill point.
In addition to the experience received, there are some special cases that award bonus experience; this bonus experience is a percentage of the base experience.
Discovering a recipe — 100-150% bonus
Crafting multiple items in a stack — 15-50% bonus
Creating items
Items can be made at crafting stations present in cities and major outposts. Each discipline has a different station to use; swords are created at an anvil and logs are made into planks on a woodworking bench. When interacting with a station, an interface appears, and up to four types of materials can be combined. When the correct materials to create a specific item are placed in the station then the item can be made.
The crafting process cannot fail. Critical success is possible but this does not improve the quality of the item; instead it grants another bonus such as increased experience or a "refund" of some of the materials used.[2]
Recipes
Recipes tell players what materials are necessary to craft an item. Some recipes are learned as a player's level in a crafting discipline rises, while others are available exclusively from trainers or as loot. However, most recipes must be discovered through experimenting with various combinations of materials. When a new item is created, its recipe is learned for the character, allowing this character to access it at any time. Recipes for items are universal across the player base.
You want a Prediction?, GW2 at the end will be an E-sport MMO where players will log to play some BGs and tournaments with friends and try the WvWvW pvp once every 15 days, and is all about how fun the pvp will be, and we dont know that yet, if the pvp fail, gw2 will fail is easy like that.
This is all speculation of course, but based on predictions, will GW2 effect the way post GW2 MMO are designed in a similar manner that Everquest 1 and WoW did after their successful run?
If so, which areas of MMO development will GW2 have the most influence on?
In some areas it will affect later MMOs.
DEs will be seen as a common replacement for questing, even if I think many games will mix between those. It is however rather expensive to make so many MMOs will keep questing instead.
B2P will also be considered a proven model after GW2.
I also belive that free server transfers will be common after GW2.
GW2 will not affect the genre as much as Wow, I don´t think any future MMO will. The genre will have a few larger games in the future instead of a single one.
I honestly can not fathom how some of you develop such predictions without even testing the game. Simply, all this speculation is based on merely the words of other people. You need concrete experience to accurately and reasonably formulate such "visions". What may sound terrific on paper, may utterly fail in reality. I advise some of you to actually test things out before delving into the realms of "Game X's influences on the industry". Your amounts of overpraise can only lead to greater disappointment. Try and maintain a reasonable level of expectation to protect yourself and others around you.
People will always speculate no matter what so let em speculate. Hell... look at SWTOR, before release and open betas people were proclaiming that it'll be the king of MMOs that'll destroy WoW and the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now look at the contreversy of how it is a total failure vs people trying to justify it being a decent game worth a sub.
But back to topic, if GW2 becomes very successful and people can get over the whole "F2P pfffft, if it ain't P2P then it's a fail" mentality then they will change things up a bit. Yes I know the game is B2P but people will who this applies to see all games not P2P as F2P category. Companies will see GW2 being highly successful and look to see how they could work that into their designs. WoW is a perfect example, when they see elements/mechanics working in an MMO then they anylize and incorperate it into their plans. If GW2 is highly successful then hopefully more and more companies will change up their buisness model as a P2P buisness model are simply not justified anymore and is more of greedy coperations bleeding every single penny out of their customers.
The point that tons of people will get overhyped on the game, end up disappointed, and use the 1-month population loss as rationalization of their disappointment.
Meanwhile, specifically because it's not a subscription game is exactly why people should be overly suspicious of the hype.
Buy2Play games make money based on hype. Convince players it's fun before they've played = profit.
Yeah because you don't have to buy a box for a sub game right? Oh and sub games NEVER build up a bunch of hype and then disappoint right? Oh and also, B2P games are all just black boxes that players know absolutely nothing about before purchasing.
If this were true, then EVERY SINGLE NON-MMORPG GAME would be based solely on hype and nothing else.
Recurring fee games (like sub-based ones) make money based on enjoyable gameplay. Until players have fun, you get no profit.
Hey that's one way to do it. But in reality, all sub games have to do is keep you subbed. They can do this by making a single game enjoyable to play for years on end (difficult) or they can do it by using psychological tactics to addict players (easier). Guess which one is used more often .
I never said the two elements were exclusive. A game can both cash in on hype and have recurring fees.
And most non-MMORPGs are very heavily hype based. Meanwhile games like League of Legends survive on a F2P model by offering superb gameplay (without great gameplay, they wouldn't make very much money; but since they have great gameplay, they are one of the most profitable games on the market currently.)
And all successful games use psychological tactics. No game has ever been successful which utterly failed to satisfy players' psychological wants. All of the most successful games of all time land squarely in the "psychological tactics" realm (if you're cynical about the development process anyway; most people just call them "fun games")
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Trying to sell a game only on hype is stupid in the long run, you ruin your reputation to make a few quick bucks.
Are there any game companies left that have a "good" reputation?
Why protect something that will not survive first contact with actual players anyway?
Stardock .
But anyway, this is really about brand value. This is not a "video game specific" topic either. People will pay lots of money for something just because it has a specific brand name on it. See the clothing industry for a great example...
The same is true with video games.
Bioware, Rockstar, Bethesda, Bungie, Call of Duty, Final Fantasy, Blizzard, Starcraft, Warcraft, Deus Ex, Mario, Nintendo, ...
All of these brands have real value. Believe me, even if a game that is better than Call of Duty in every single way comes out, but it doesn't have the Call of Duty brand on it...it may not sell as well.
They earned this value by consistently coming up with quality products.
It is possible to use a brand name like these on a crappy game to deceive customers into buying it, and this in fact happens often. But the problem is that this causes the brand name to become worthless. For a future example, see Bioware in 5 years when EA's 8 studios that are now named Bioware start coming out with their POS games.
Assuming GW2 actually lives up to the hype - which is a big assumption - the REAL question will be:
How will the players respond?
Will players enjoy a dynamic, ever changing world without static quests and quest hubs?
Will players enjoy that leveling isn't as important as skill because the levels auto-balance depending on your activity (pve/pvp/WvWvW) ?
Will players enjoy a lack of the Holy Trinity of tank/heal/dps?
WIll players enjoy eSport PvP that isn't focused on grinding for better gear?
etc. etc.
You have to remember, the "modern" MMO player - the masses - are the solo hero power level to max and grind grind grind raids/instanced PvP to get better gear.
Take away the grind and force group play (even if it is all free form) and how will they respond?
That's the big question... but if players respond really, really well to this "style" of game then yes, I could see GW2 becoming the new "standard" and/or the new touch stone for future MMO projects.
The point that tons of people will get overhyped on the game, end up disappointed, and use the 1-month population loss as rationalization of their disappointment.
Meanwhile, specifically because it's not a subscription game is exactly why people should be overly suspicious of the hype.
Buy2Play games make money based on hype. Convince players it's fun before they've played = profit.
Yeah because you don't have to buy a box for a sub game right? Oh and sub games NEVER build up a bunch of hype and then disappoint right? Oh and also, B2P games are all just black boxes that players know absolutely nothing about before purchasing.
If this were true, then EVERY SINGLE NON-MMORPG GAME would be based solely on hype and nothing else.
Recurring fee games (like sub-based ones) make money based on enjoyable gameplay. Until players have fun, you get no profit.
Hey that's one way to do it. But in reality, all sub games have to do is keep you subbed. They can do this by making a single game enjoyable to play for years on end (difficult) or they can do it by using psychological tactics to addict players (easier). Guess which one is used more often .
I never said the two elements were exclusive. A game can both cash in on hype and have recurring fees.
And most non-MMORPGs are very heavily hype based. Meanwhile games like League of Legends survive on a F2P model by offering superb gameplay (without great gameplay, they wouldn't make very much money; but since they have great gameplay, they are one of the most profitable games on the market currently.)
And all successful games use psychological tactics. No game has ever been successful which utterly failed to satisfy players' psychological wants. All of the most successful games of all time land squarely in the "psychological tactics" realm (if you're cynical about the development process anyway; most people just call them "fun games")
I just don't see this.
Every SP game I buy, I typically really like. If they were all hype based, then I would think that most of them would be piles of crap with good marketing.
I mean...sure those are out there, just like they are with MMORPGs. But it's very easy to find lots of good information on B2P games. It's not like this stuff is hidden. If you watch a flashy ad and then buy a crappy game without reading anything else about it...then well that's on you .
I would actually like to know how many B2P games you can name that are OBJECTIVELY TERRIBLE but still sold well due to hype only. I can't even think of any. And don't say Modern Warfare or Madden...yeah they are rehashes, but a lot of people genuinely like that.
My hope is that GW2 proves that the current formula for "successful MMO" and even these distinctions of what an MMO has to be to be successful will be broken, and developers will be able to try new ideas out side of this MMO Mold that we've created.
They will just copy GW2. The suits that write the checks aren't known for risking said money, as the last 5 yrs of games can attest to. I hope GW2 is as fun as it sounds. And for poster that said GW2 design will foster a better community, I'm not so sure. Usually the stronger communities were in games where you needed to group and work together more to succeed. I thopught I read where you can come and go in the DE's and not even be in a group (i might not have the facts str8 on that), which wouldn't really create need for teamwork. But the W v W v W might create some, if people try to organize it and strategize to win and not just free for all.
Most B2P games make most of their money based on having an actually good game. That's how the single player world works. Doesn't matter how much you hype it , there will be many reviews that accurately portraits them and if you fail there your numbers will be low unless you have some loyal buyers that just buy because of your brand. However, brand-loyalty and hype are two different factors.
Oh, so you think most people buy games based on reviews.
Brand loyalty is functionally part of hype (the part where prior game quality actually matters,) whereas the rest of hype is complete marketing buzz.
WAR didn't release 10+ years ago, guys, let's stop pretending like hype isn't a huge factor in box sales like WAR's hype train didn't happen.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Most B2P games make most of their money based on having an actually good game. That's how the single player world works. Doesn't matter how much you hype it , there will be many reviews that accurately portraits them and if you fail there your numbers will be low unless you have some loyal buyers that just buy because of your brand. However, brand-loyalty and hype are two different factors.
Oh, so you think most people buy games based on reviews.
Brand loyalty is functionally part of hype (the part where prior game quality actually matters,) whereas the rest of hype is complete marketing buzz.
WAR didn't release 10+ years ago, guys, let's stop pretending like hype isn't a huge factor in box sales like WAR's hype train didn't happen.
Okay but that doesn't make sense...
Brand loyalty is earned by consistently releasing quality products. If all games were based solely on hype, then there would be no brand loyalty lol .
As I said before, some people can manipulate brand loyalty by buying a good brand name and then stamping it on a crappy game (THQ), but this will DESTROY the brand name they use on the crappy game. It's not sustainable. In fact, THQ is basically going under, and I think this practice had a lot to do with it.
Yeah, WAR had a lot of hype, but do you honestly think that the devs were just trying to make a quick buck on it and then bail? No way, I'm sure it was a disappoint to them just like it was to us. Also, think about the value of Mythic's brand name before and after WAR.
Finally...WAR is a P2P game, so using it in your "all B2P games are just hype and P2P games are made to last" argument is ummmm..counter-productive to say the least?
Since GW2 is B2P does that mean they will have a item shop and make money this way? Will it be cosmetic only if they have one? It seems to good to be true if there is no cash shop and it's B2P.
Assuming GW2 actually lives up to the hype - which is a big assumption - the REAL question will be:
How will the players respond?
Will players enjoy a dynamic, ever changing world without static quests and quest hubs?
Will players enjoy that leveling isn't as important as skill because the levels auto-balance depending on your activity (pve/pvp/WvWvW) ?
Will players enjoy a lack of the Holy Trinity of tank/heal/dps?
WIll players enjoy eSport PvP that isn't focused on grinding for better gear?
etc. etc.
You have to remember, the "modern" MMO player - the masses - are the solo hero power level to max and grind grind grind raids/instanced PvP to get better gear.
Take away the grind and force group play (even if it is all free form) and how will they respond?
That's the big question... but if players respond really, really well to this "style" of game then yes, I could see GW2 becoming the new "standard" and/or the new touch stone for future MMO projects.
I don´t think it is a problem as long as it is fun. While some people for some reason only want a game that is basically the same as all others most people will adapt to other stylesas long as they enjoy themselves,
I don´t really think that the non trinity combat will be a big issue after a few days playing, most people will learn fast. The active dodging and the fact that you need to move while fighting will take some time to get used to though.
Nah, the most important thing for GW2 to succed is how well ANET have been able to make the game fun.
The really traditional MMO players will never leave Wow (or Eve for the sanboxers) anyways, no matter what but anyone who tries other games can be persuaded to try different systems so if ANET is able to make a polished game that is plain fun it will be very popular.
It wasn´t that many years ago that all computer games had their own mechanics instead of just copying others. EA and Activision now more or less standardized the games but I don´t think that really is what most people want. We are still willing to try out new stuff as long as it has enough quality.
Since GW2 is B2P does that mean they will have a item shop and make money this way? Will it be cosmetic only if they have one? It seems to good to be true if there is no cash shop and it's B2P.
It will have a cash shop that is similar to the GW1 cash shop:
Nothing in there is P2W, but the skill unlocks are kind of "pay to skip" because you can unlock them all and then not have to obtain them with capture signets. You still have to get enough skill points to "buy" them from a vendor though, so it's not totally pay to skip.
Anyway, every other item in there is innocuous, the skill unlocks are the only thing that is arguably pay to skip.
Since GW2 is B2P does that mean they will have a item shop and make money this way? Will it be cosmetic only if they have one? It seems to good to be true if there is no cash shop and it's B2P.
They will have a rather similar shop to GW1. We are talking about cosmetic stuff here.
In GW1 there are 2 none cosmetic stuff you can buy, a skill unlock for PvPers with little patience and a thing that turns your characters into henchies (henchies are not in Gw2). The cosmetic stuff is mostly holiday stuff but they also have wedding dresses and a few themed suits as well.
There is certain the possibility that they will sell mini expansions in the shop as well.
But shops like that is something we have to live with, almost all P2P games have them now and frankly do all I seen sell more usefull stuff than GW1.
I played GW1 for years and never bought anything in the shop, I just never felt that I needed to.
Subs, active player count...same shit in GW2. Way to completely miss the point, people.
And what point is that?
That GW2 will be an amazing game, with an active playerbase. All without requiring its players to pay a monthly fee or cash-shop item.
The point that tons of people will get overhyped on the game, end up disappointed, and use the 1-month population loss as rationalization of their disappointment.
Meanwhile, specifically because it's not a subscription game is exactly why people should be overly suspicious of the hype.
Buy2Play games make money based on hype. Convince players it's fun before they've played = profit.
Recurring fee games (like sub-based ones) make money based on enjoyable gameplay. Until players have fun, you get no profit.
You have no idea what you are talking about. P2P games make money on hype the same way B2P games make. The difference is that P2P games are allowed to make money even if they flop, whereas that is not the case with B2P because if your game flops, it will fade and the ongoing sales will not be as strong. ArenaNet above all, cannot afford the game to be bad upon release because word of mouth will kill it.
Also, both B2P and P2P rely on sustained interest to make money. B2P games have expansions and cash shops. If the game sucks, they aren't going to buy expansions, and they aren't going to spend money in the cash shops.
Trying to sell a game only on hype is stupid in the long run, you ruin your reputation to make a few quick bucks.
Actually I disagree there. I brought the xpacs of GW1, not because I enjoyed the game so much, it was because I wanted to play all the class combo in PvP. PvE wasn't enjoyable for me. The PvP wasn't all that great ether, but it was better than nothing. The Hero system got me interested in getting nightfall as well because i liked the idea of having more than 8skills to use. My opinion, the game still isn't great. It's ok though. Many people will buy the xpacs, not because they are good, but because they offer some kind of feature that is wanted. Same reason people buy stuff in F2P item shops in other games.
My hope is that GW2 proves that the current formula for "successful MMO" and even these distinctions of what an MMO has to be to be successful will be broken, and developers will be able to try new ideas out side of this MMO Mold that we've created.
They will just copy GW2. The suits that write the checks aren't known for risking said money, as the last 5 yrs of games can attest to. I hope GW2 is as fun as it sounds. And for poster that said GW2 design will foster a better community, I'm not so sure. Usually the stronger communities were in games where you needed to group and work together more to succeed. I thopught I read where you can come and go in the DE's and not even be in a group (i might not have the facts str8 on that), which wouldn't really create need for teamwork. But the W v W v W might create some, if people try to organize it and strategize to win and not just free for all.
Umm...you need teamwork because when more people join a DE the mobs get stronger. Meanwhile in other games you play almost entirely by yourself until you reach max level.
That GW2 will be an amazing game, with an active playerbase. All without requiring its players to pay a monthly fee or cash-shop item.
The point that tons of people will get overhyped on the game, end up disappointed, and use the 1-month population loss as rationalization of their disappointment.
Meanwhile, specifically because it's not a subscription game is exactly why people should be overly suspicious of the hype.
Buy2Play games make money based on hype. Convince players it's fun before they've played = profit.
Recurring fee games (like sub-based ones) make money based on enjoyable gameplay. Until players have fun, you get no profit.
You have no idea what you are talking about. P2P games make money on hype the same way B2P games make. The difference is that P2P games are allowed to make money even if they flop, whereas that is not the case with B2P because if your game flops, it will fade and the ongoing sales will not be as strong. ArenaNet above all, cannot afford the game to be bad upon release because word of mouth will kill it.
Also, both B2P and P2P rely on sustained interest to make money. B2P games have expansions and cash shops. If the game sucks, they aren't going to buy expansions, and they aren't going to spend money in the cash shops.
Trying to sell a game only on hype is stupid in the long run, you ruin your reputation to make a few quick bucks.
Actually I disagree there. I brought the xpacs of GW1, not because I enjoyed the game so much, it was because I wanted to play all the class combo in PvP. PvE wasn't enjoyable for me. The PvP wasn't all that great ether, but it was better than nothing. The Hero system got me interested in getting nightfall as well because i liked the idea of having more than 8skills to use. My opinion, the game still isn't great. It's ok though. Many people will buy the xpacs, not because they are good, but because they offer some kind of feature that is wanted. Same reason people buy stuff in F2P item shops in other games.
Then that was a good reason for you to buy them. I don't see how you disagree with him.
The point that tons of people will get overhyped on the game, end up disappointed, and use the 1-month population loss as rationalization of their disappointment. Meanwhile, specifically because it's not a subscription game is exactly why people should be overly suspicious of the hype.
Buy2Play games make money based on hype. Convince players it's fun before they've played = profit.
Yeah because you don't have to buy a box for a sub game right? Oh and sub games NEVER build up a bunch of hype and then disappoint right? Oh and also, B2P games are all just black boxes that players know absolutely nothing about before purchasing.
If this were true, then EVERY SINGLE NON-MMORPG GAME would be based solely on hype and nothing else.
Recurring fee games (like sub-based ones) make money based on enjoyable gameplay. Until players have fun, you get no profit.
Hey that's one way to do it. But in reality, all sub games have to do is keep you subbed. They can do this by making a single game enjoyable to play for years on end (difficult) or they can do it by using psychological tactics to addict players (easier). Guess which one is used more often .
I never said the two elements were exclusive. A game can both cash in on hype and have recurring fees.
And most non-MMORPGs are very heavily hype based. Meanwhile games like League of Legends survive on a F2P model by offering superb gameplay (without great gameplay, they wouldn't make very much money; but since they have great gameplay, they are one of the most profitable games on the market currently.)
And all successful games use psychological tactics. No game has ever been successful which utterly failed to satisfy players' psychological wants. All of the most successful games of all time land squarely in the "psychological tactics" realm (if you're cynical about the development process anyway; most people just call them "fun games")
I just don't see this.
Every SP game I buy, I typically really like. If they were all hype based, then I would think that most of them would be piles of crap with good marketing.
I mean...sure those are out there, just like they are with MMORPGs. But it's very easy to find lots of good information on B2P games. It's not like this stuff is hidden. If you watch a flashy ad and then buy a crappy game without reading anything else about it...then well that's on you .
I would actually like to know how many B2P games you can name that are OBJECTIVELY TERRIBLE but still sold well due to hype only. I can't even think of any. And don't say Modern Warfare or Madden...yeah they are rehashes, but a lot of people genuinely like that.
GTA 5 was over hyped. It was worst than the last ps2 GTA. Skyrim was over hyped. It had less content than Oblivion. LOTRC was over hyped piece of shit. And so was the sequel!!! Crisis 2 was over hyped. Tekken 6 was over hyped. Fallout3,,,come on,,,.. Dragon Age was over hyped. The list goes on. Yes this does happen with console games as well.
Subs, active player count...same shit in GW2. Way to completely miss the point, people.
And what point is that?
That GW2 will be an amazing game, with an active playerbase. All without requiring its players to pay a monthly fee or cash-shop item.
The point that tons of people will get overhyped on the game, end up disappointed, and use the 1-month population loss as rationalization of their disappointment.
Meanwhile, specifically because it's not a subscription game is exactly why people should be overly suspicious of the hype.
Buy2Play games make money based on hype. Convince players it's fun before they've played = profit.
Recurring fee games (like sub-based ones) make money based on enjoyable gameplay. Until players have fun, you get no profit.
You have no idea what you are talking about. P2P games make money on hype the same way B2P games make. The difference is that P2P games are allowed to make money even if they flop, whereas that is not the case with B2P because if your game flops, it will fade and the ongoing sales will not be as strong. ArenaNet above all, cannot afford the game to be bad upon release because word of mouth will kill it.
Also, both B2P and P2P rely on sustained interest to make money. B2P games have expansions and cash shops. If the game sucks, they aren't going to buy expansions, and they aren't going to spend money in the cash shops.
Trying to sell a game only on hype is stupid in the long run, you ruin your reputation to make a few quick bucks.
Actually I disagree there. I brought the xpacs of GW1, not because I enjoyed the game so much, it was because I wanted to play all the class combo in PvP. PvE wasn't enjoyable for me. The PvP wasn't all that great ether, but it was better than nothing. The Hero system got me interested in getting nightfall as well because i liked the idea of having more than 8skills to use. My opinion, the game still isn't great. It's ok though. Many people will buy the xpacs, not because they are good, but because they offer some kind of feature that is wanted. Same reason people buy stuff in F2P item shops in other games.
Then that was a good reason for you to buy them. I don't see how you disagree with him.
let's see. I can play the Same game against players who have access to many more useful skills than I do. They also have heroes for PvE rather than the henchmen. Seems like a advantage to me. In WoW for example. All the expansion contents takes place in a different bracket, so it doesn't effect me much if I didn't buy it. In gw1, all the gameplay stayed in the same bracket. So even if you didn't own the new games, you still had to fight against people with them. Meaning they had access to more powerful class combo builds. Being creamed by early op dervish transformation builds wasn't fun.
Most B2P games make most of their money based on having an actually good game. That's how the single player world works. Doesn't matter how much you hype it , there will be many reviews that accurately portraits them and if you fail there your numbers will be low unless you have some loyal buyers that just buy because of your brand. However, brand-loyalty and hype are two different factors.
Oh, so you think most people buy games based on reviews.
Brand loyalty is functionally part of hype (the part where prior game quality actually matters,) whereas the rest of hype is complete marketing buzz.
WAR didn't release 10+ years ago, guys, let's stop pretending like hype isn't a huge factor in box sales like WAR's hype train didn't happen.
Okay but that doesn't make sense...
Brand loyalty is earned by consistently releasing quality products. If all games were based solely on hype, then there would be no brand loyalty lol .
As I said before, some people can manipulate brand loyalty by buying a good brand name and then stamping it on a crappy game (THQ), but this will DESTROY the brand name they use on the crappy game. It's not sustainable. In fact, THQ is basically going under, and I think this practice had a lot to do with it.
Yeah, WAR had a lot of hype, but do you honestly think that the devs were just trying to make a quick buck on it and then bail? No way, I'm sure it was a disappoint to them just like it was to us. Also, think about the value of Mythic's brand name before and after WAR.
Finally...WAR is a P2P game, so using it in your "all B2P games are just hype and P2P games are made to last" argument is ummmm..counter-productive to say the least?
Read a few words past the part you highlighted and you'll see I already said that.
Look at what actually happened with WAR. Hype was huge and sold a ton of boxes, but the fun wasn't there so it didn't sell a ton of recurring subscriptions. It's a textbook example of exactly how I've described the two forms of income.
...and it proves exactly why customers should prefer games without up front box sales.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Oh, so you think most people buy games based on reviews.
Brand loyalty is functionally part of hype (the part where prior game quality actually matters,) whereas the rest of hype is complete marketing buzz.
WAR didn't release 10+ years ago, guys, let's stop pretending like hype isn't a huge factor in box sales like WAR's hype train didn't happen.
Okay but that doesn't make sense...
Brand loyalty is earned by consistently releasing quality products. If all games were based solely on hype, then there would be no brand loyalty lol .
As I said before, some people can manipulate brand loyalty by buying a good brand name and then stamping it on a crappy game (THQ), but this will DESTROY the brand name they use on the crappy game. It's not sustainable. In fact, THQ is basically going under, and I think this practice had a lot to do with it.
Yeah, WAR had a lot of hype, but do you honestly think that the devs were just trying to make a quick buck on it and then bail? No way, I'm sure it was a disappoint to them just like it was to us. Also, think about the value of Mythic's brand name before and after WAR.
Finally...WAR is a P2P game, so using it in your "all B2P games are just hype and P2P games are made to last" argument is ummmm..counter-productive to say the least?
Read a few words past the part you highlighted and you'll see I already said that.
Look at what actually happened with WAR. Hype was huge and sold a ton of boxes, but the fun wasn't there so it didn't sell a ton of recurring subscriptions. It's a textbook example of exactly how I've described the two forms of income.
...and it proves exactly why customers should prefer games without up front box sales.
I will concede that there are certain game designs that lend themselves very well to the "a la carte" F2P approach. For example...League of Legends. They are able to sell players all kinds of different heroes (that they want to buy) without completely imbalancing the game...it just gives your more options. This is great.
But there are also certain designs that do not lend themselves well to this. Like...Battlefield Heroes, of Battlefield Free to Play. These games rely on P2W crap like better weapons that give you a CLEAR advantage over other players. Instead of making the game better, the business model makes the game worse.
I think most MMORPGs fall into this category too. They are either "pay to win" or "pay to skip." They are either designed so that you will have a big disadvantage in PvP without paying, or so they are so grindy that you want to pay real money to skip playing the game...BAD.
There is also the "freemium" model where you unlock areas by paying for them. And this kind of sucks because it segments the world.
No...I would prefer an MMORPG to be in one package with maybe expansions and stuff down the road.
Comments
There are eight crafting professions, each specializing in a different discipline:
Weaponsmiths craft melee weapons, such as swords, axes and hammers.
Huntsmen craft ranged weapons like shortbows, longbows and pistols, as well as torches and warhorns.
Artificers craft magical weapons such as staves and scepters.
Armorsmiths craft heavy armor pieces.
Leatherworkers craft medium armor pieces.
Tailors craft light armor pieces.
Jewelers craft jewelry, such as rings and necklaces.
Cooks can prepare food which characters can eat for temporary combat buffs.
A character can have two crafting disciplines active at a time, but can change their specializations at any time by visiting a master craftsman and paying a fee. All skill points and recipes learned in a discipline are saved when switching. The more points already invested in a discipline however, the more it will cost for a player to switch to that discipline. The intent of this system is to encourage trading while allowing every player to feasibly craft items that they want.
Skill level
Each discipline has 400 skill points spread over several levels. A novice will become an initiate in a discipline when they have completed 100 skill points in that discipline.
As a player advances in skill additional basic components will automatically be unlocked, allowing more combinations and thus the chance to discover new recipes. This helps to maintain a measure of progress and restricts players from creating items beyond their level.[1] The crafting skill level is also used to determine some titles and achievements.[
Crafting experience
Each item crafted gives a certain amount of crafting experience; this experience applies to any of the character's currently active disciplines that could use that item. For example, a basal mace haft only gives experience to the weaponsmith track, while making cured leather hide will level both huntsman and weaponsmith. 500 experience is equal to one skill point.
In addition to the experience received, there are some special cases that award bonus experience; this bonus experience is a percentage of the base experience.
Discovering a recipe — 100-150% bonus
Crafting multiple items in a stack — 15-50% bonus
Creating items
Items can be made at crafting stations present in cities and major outposts. Each discipline has a different station to use; swords are created at an anvil and logs are made into planks on a woodworking bench. When interacting with a station, an interface appears, and up to four types of materials can be combined. When the correct materials to create a specific item are placed in the station then the item can be made.
The crafting process cannot fail. Critical success is possible but this does not improve the quality of the item; instead it grants another bonus such as increased experience or a "refund" of some of the materials used.[2]
Recipes
Recipes tell players what materials are necessary to craft an item. Some recipes are learned as a player's level in a crafting discipline rises, while others are available exclusively from trainers or as loot. However, most recipes must be discovered through experimenting with various combinations of materials. When a new item is created, its recipe is learned for the character, allowing this character to access it at any time. Recipes for items are universal across the player base.
From GW2 wiki.
there's going to be 8 crafting professions. that's all i know so far.
You want a Prediction?, GW2 at the end will be an E-sport MMO where players will log to play some BGs and tournaments with friends and try the WvWvW pvp once every 15 days, and is all about how fun the pvp will be, and we dont know that yet, if the pvp fail, gw2 will fail is easy like that.
In some areas it will affect later MMOs.
DEs will be seen as a common replacement for questing, even if I think many games will mix between those. It is however rather expensive to make so many MMOs will keep questing instead.
B2P will also be considered a proven model after GW2.
I also belive that free server transfers will be common after GW2.
GW2 will not affect the genre as much as Wow, I don´t think any future MMO will. The genre will have a few larger games in the future instead of a single one.
People will always speculate no matter what so let em speculate. Hell... look at SWTOR, before release and open betas people were proclaiming that it'll be the king of MMOs that'll destroy WoW and the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now look at the contreversy of how it is a total failure vs people trying to justify it being a decent game worth a sub.
But back to topic, if GW2 becomes very successful and people can get over the whole "F2P pfffft, if it ain't P2P then it's a fail" mentality then they will change things up a bit. Yes I know the game is B2P but people will who this applies to see all games not P2P as F2P category. Companies will see GW2 being highly successful and look to see how they could work that into their designs. WoW is a perfect example, when they see elements/mechanics working in an MMO then they anylize and incorperate it into their plans. If GW2 is highly successful then hopefully more and more companies will change up their buisness model as a P2P buisness model are simply not justified anymore and is more of greedy coperations bleeding every single penny out of their customers.
I never said the two elements were exclusive. A game can both cash in on hype and have recurring fees.
And most non-MMORPGs are very heavily hype based. Meanwhile games like League of Legends survive on a F2P model by offering superb gameplay (without great gameplay, they wouldn't make very much money; but since they have great gameplay, they are one of the most profitable games on the market currently.)
And all successful games use psychological tactics. No game has ever been successful which utterly failed to satisfy players' psychological wants. All of the most successful games of all time land squarely in the "psychological tactics" realm (if you're cynical about the development process anyway; most people just call them "fun games")
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Stardock
.
But anyway, this is really about brand value. This is not a "video game specific" topic either. People will pay lots of money for something just because it has a specific brand name on it. See the clothing industry for a great example...
The same is true with video games.
Bioware, Rockstar, Bethesda, Bungie, Call of Duty, Final Fantasy, Blizzard, Starcraft, Warcraft, Deus Ex, Mario, Nintendo, ...
All of these brands have real value. Believe me, even if a game that is better than Call of Duty in every single way comes out, but it doesn't have the Call of Duty brand on it...it may not sell as well.
They earned this value by consistently coming up with quality products.
It is possible to use a brand name like these on a crappy game to deceive customers into buying it, and this in fact happens often. But the problem is that this causes the brand name to become worthless. For a future example, see Bioware in 5 years when EA's 8 studios that are now named Bioware start coming out with their POS games.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Assuming GW2 actually lives up to the hype - which is a big assumption - the REAL question will be:
How will the players respond?
Will players enjoy a dynamic, ever changing world without static quests and quest hubs?
Will players enjoy that leveling isn't as important as skill because the levels auto-balance depending on your activity (pve/pvp/WvWvW) ?
Will players enjoy a lack of the Holy Trinity of tank/heal/dps?
WIll players enjoy eSport PvP that isn't focused on grinding for better gear?
etc. etc.
You have to remember, the "modern" MMO player - the masses - are the solo hero power level to max and grind grind grind raids/instanced PvP to get better gear.
Take away the grind and force group play (even if it is all free form) and how will they respond?
That's the big question... but if players respond really, really well to this "style" of game then yes, I could see GW2 becoming the new "standard" and/or the new touch stone for future MMO projects.
I just don't see this.
Every SP game I buy, I typically really like. If they were all hype based, then I would think that most of them would be piles of crap with good marketing.
I mean...sure those are out there, just like they are with MMORPGs. But it's very easy to find lots of good information on B2P games. It's not like this stuff is hidden. If you watch a flashy ad and then buy a crappy game without reading anything else about it...then well that's on you
.
I would actually like to know how many B2P games you can name that are OBJECTIVELY TERRIBLE but still sold well due to hype only. I can't even think of any. And don't say Modern Warfare or Madden...yeah they are rehashes, but a lot of people genuinely like that.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It will change the number of non sub mmo's. From that point it could go downhill very quickly.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
They will just copy GW2. The suits that write the checks aren't known for risking said money, as the last 5 yrs of games can attest to. I hope GW2 is as fun as it sounds. And for poster that said GW2 design will foster a better community, I'm not so sure. Usually the stronger communities were in games where you needed to group and work together more to succeed. I thopught I read where you can come and go in the DE's and not even be in a group (i might not have the facts str8 on that), which wouldn't really create need for teamwork. But the W v W v W might create some, if people try to organize it and strategize to win and not just free for all.
Oh, so you think most people buy games based on reviews.
Brand loyalty is functionally part of hype (the part where prior game quality actually matters,) whereas the rest of hype is complete marketing buzz.
WAR didn't release 10+ years ago, guys, let's stop pretending like hype isn't a huge factor in box sales like WAR's hype train didn't happen.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Okay but that doesn't make sense...
Brand loyalty is earned by consistently releasing quality products. If all games were based solely on hype, then there would be no brand loyalty lol
.
As I said before, some people can manipulate brand loyalty by buying a good brand name and then stamping it on a crappy game (THQ), but this will DESTROY the brand name they use on the crappy game. It's not sustainable. In fact, THQ is basically going under, and I think this practice had a lot to do with it.
Yeah, WAR had a lot of hype, but do you honestly think that the devs were just trying to make a quick buck on it and then bail? No way, I'm sure it was a disappoint to them just like it was to us. Also, think about the value of Mythic's brand name before and after WAR.
Finally...WAR is a P2P game, so using it in your "all B2P games are just hype and P2P games are made to last" argument is ummmm..counter-productive to say the least?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Since GW2 is B2P does that mean they will have a item shop and make money this way? Will it be cosmetic only if they have one? It seems to good to be true if there is no cash shop and it's B2P.
I don´t think it is a problem as long as it is fun. While some people for some reason only want a game that is basically the same as all others most people will adapt to other stylesas long as they enjoy themselves,
I don´t really think that the non trinity combat will be a big issue after a few days playing, most people will learn fast. The active dodging and the fact that you need to move while fighting will take some time to get used to though.
Nah, the most important thing for GW2 to succed is how well ANET have been able to make the game fun.
The really traditional MMO players will never leave Wow (or Eve for the sanboxers) anyways, no matter what but anyone who tries other games can be persuaded to try different systems so if ANET is able to make a polished game that is plain fun it will be very popular.
It wasn´t that many years ago that all computer games had their own mechanics instead of just copying others. EA and Activision now more or less standardized the games but I don´t think that really is what most people want. We are still willing to try out new stuff as long as it has enough quality.
It will have a cash shop that is similar to the GW1 cash shop:
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_In-Game_Store#Products
Nothing in there is P2W, but the skill unlocks are kind of "pay to skip" because you can unlock them all and then not have to obtain them with capture signets. You still have to get enough skill points to "buy" them from a vendor though, so it's not totally pay to skip.
Anyway, every other item in there is innocuous, the skill unlocks are the only thing that is arguably pay to skip.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
They will have a rather similar shop to GW1. We are talking about cosmetic stuff here.
In GW1 there are 2 none cosmetic stuff you can buy, a skill unlock for PvPers with little patience and a thing that turns your characters into henchies (henchies are not in Gw2). The cosmetic stuff is mostly holiday stuff but they also have wedding dresses and a few themed suits as well.
There is certain the possibility that they will sell mini expansions in the shop as well.
But shops like that is something we have to live with, almost all P2P games have them now and frankly do all I seen sell more usefull stuff than GW1.
I played GW1 for years and never bought anything in the shop, I just never felt that I needed to.
And what point is that?
That GW2 will be an amazing game, with an active playerbase. All without requiring its players to pay a monthly fee or cash-shop item.
The point that tons of people will get overhyped on the game, end up disappointed, and use the 1-month population loss as rationalization of their disappointment.
Meanwhile, specifically because it's not a subscription game is exactly why people should be overly suspicious of the hype.
Buy2Play games make money based on hype. Convince players it's fun before they've played = profit.
Recurring fee games (like sub-based ones) make money based on enjoyable gameplay. Until players have fun, you get no profit.
You have no idea what you are talking about. P2P games make money on hype the same way B2P games make. The difference is that P2P games are allowed to make money even if they flop, whereas that is not the case with B2P because if your game flops, it will fade and the ongoing sales will not be as strong. ArenaNet above all, cannot afford the game to be bad upon release because word of mouth will kill it.
Also, both B2P and P2P rely on sustained interest to make money. B2P games have expansions and cash shops. If the game sucks, they aren't going to buy expansions, and they aren't going to spend money in the cash shops.
Trying to sell a game only on hype is stupid in the long run, you ruin your reputation to make a few quick bucks.
Actually I disagree there. I brought the xpacs of GW1, not because I enjoyed the game so much, it was because I wanted to play all the class combo in PvP. PvE wasn't enjoyable for me. The PvP wasn't all that great ether, but it was better than nothing. The Hero system got me interested in getting nightfall as well because i liked the idea of having more than 8skills to use. My opinion, the game still isn't great. It's ok though. Many people will buy the xpacs, not because they are good, but because they offer some kind of feature that is wanted. Same reason people buy stuff in F2P item shops in other games.Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Umm...you need teamwork because when more people join a DE the mobs get stronger. Meanwhile in other games you play almost entirely by yourself until you reach max level.
@topic - we can only hope!
Then that was a good reason for you to buy them. I don't see how you disagree with him.
I never said the two elements were exclusive. A game can both cash in on hype and have recurring fees.
And most non-MMORPGs are very heavily hype based. Meanwhile games like League of Legends survive on a F2P model by offering superb gameplay (without great gameplay, they wouldn't make very much money; but since they have great gameplay, they are one of the most profitable games on the market currently.)
And all successful games use psychological tactics. No game has ever been successful which utterly failed to satisfy players' psychological wants. All of the most successful games of all time land squarely in the "psychological tactics" realm (if you're cynical about the development process anyway; most people just call them "fun games")
I just don't see this.
Every SP game I buy, I typically really like. If they were all hype based, then I would think that most of them would be piles of crap with good marketing.
I mean...sure those are out there, just like they are with MMORPGs. But it's very easy to find lots of good information on B2P games. It's not like this stuff is hidden. If you watch a flashy ad and then buy a crappy game without reading anything else about it...then well that's on you
.
I would actually like to know how many B2P games you can name that are OBJECTIVELY TERRIBLE but still sold well due to hype only. I can't even think of any. And don't say Modern Warfare or Madden...yeah they are rehashes, but a lot of people genuinely like that.
GTA 5 was over hyped. It was worst than the last ps2 GTA. Skyrim was over hyped. It had less content than Oblivion. LOTRC was over hyped piece of shit. And so was the sequel!!! Crisis 2 was over hyped. Tekken 6 was over hyped. Fallout3,,,come on,,,.. Dragon Age was over hyped. The list goes on. Yes this does happen with console games as well.Philosophy of MMO Game Design
And what point is that?
That GW2 will be an amazing game, with an active playerbase. All without requiring its players to pay a monthly fee or cash-shop item.
The point that tons of people will get overhyped on the game, end up disappointed, and use the 1-month population loss as rationalization of their disappointment.
Meanwhile, specifically because it's not a subscription game is exactly why people should be overly suspicious of the hype.
Buy2Play games make money based on hype. Convince players it's fun before they've played = profit.
Recurring fee games (like sub-based ones) make money based on enjoyable gameplay. Until players have fun, you get no profit.
You have no idea what you are talking about. P2P games make money on hype the same way B2P games make. The difference is that P2P games are allowed to make money even if they flop, whereas that is not the case with B2P because if your game flops, it will fade and the ongoing sales will not be as strong. ArenaNet above all, cannot afford the game to be bad upon release because word of mouth will kill it.
Also, both B2P and P2P rely on sustained interest to make money. B2P games have expansions and cash shops. If the game sucks, they aren't going to buy expansions, and they aren't going to spend money in the cash shops.
Trying to sell a game only on hype is stupid in the long run, you ruin your reputation to make a few quick bucks.
Actually I disagree there. I brought the xpacs of GW1, not because I enjoyed the game so much, it was because I wanted to play all the class combo in PvP. PvE wasn't enjoyable for me. The PvP wasn't all that great ether, but it was better than nothing. The Hero system got me interested in getting nightfall as well because i liked the idea of having more than 8skills to use. My opinion, the game still isn't great. It's ok though. Many people will buy the xpacs, not because they are good, but because they offer some kind of feature that is wanted. Same reason people buy stuff in F2P item shops in other games.Then that was a good reason for you to buy them. I don't see how you disagree with him.
let's see. I can play the Same game against players who have access to many more useful skills than I do. They also have heroes for PvE rather than the henchmen. Seems like a advantage to me. In WoW for example. All the expansion contents takes place in a different bracket, so it doesn't effect me much if I didn't buy it. In gw1, all the gameplay stayed in the same bracket. So even if you didn't own the new games, you still had to fight against people with them. Meaning they had access to more powerful class combo builds. Being creamed by early op dervish transformation builds wasn't fun.Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Read a few words past the part you highlighted and you'll see I already said that.
Look at what actually happened with WAR. Hype was huge and sold a ton of boxes, but the fun wasn't there so it didn't sell a ton of recurring subscriptions. It's a textbook example of exactly how I've described the two forms of income.
...and it proves exactly why customers should prefer games without up front box sales.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I will concede that there are certain game designs that lend themselves very well to the "a la carte" F2P approach. For example...League of Legends. They are able to sell players all kinds of different heroes (that they want to buy) without completely imbalancing the game...it just gives your more options. This is great.
But there are also certain designs that do not lend themselves well to this. Like...Battlefield Heroes, of Battlefield Free to Play. These games rely on P2W crap like better weapons that give you a CLEAR advantage over other players. Instead of making the game better, the business model makes the game worse.
I think most MMORPGs fall into this category too. They are either "pay to win" or "pay to skip." They are either designed so that you will have a big disadvantage in PvP without paying, or so they are so grindy that you want to pay real money to skip playing the game...BAD.
There is also the "freemium" model where you unlock areas by paying for them. And this kind of sucks because it segments the world.
No...I would prefer an MMORPG to be in one package with maybe expansions and stuff down the road.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?