He is the CEO of the company, a former Blizzard employee and one of the creators of Guild Wars. In terms of total box sales for an IP, his game was second only to WoW. 6.5 million box sales over 3 inter-playable games and an expansion to 13+ million for a game + multiple expansions. So, he has a vested interest in "beating" WoW.
He never said anything about being a WoW killer. He merely wants to sell more copies than WoW did with all of its expansions. This translates to: The CEO of ArenaNet wants to sell more than 13+ million copies of Guild Wars 2 over time. And why not? He is aiming high. As an old teacher taught me: If you aim for the streetlight and fail, you will land in the gutter. If you aim for the moon and fail, you will land in the stars. How can landing in the stars be a bad thing? I want to see companies aim to be the best, the most successful, etc. And in the MMO realm, you need to be a really good game in order to be successful. So, success, in this case, means good game.
I for one wish ArenaNet luck in topping total sales of WoW. It's a lofty endeavor and a difficult one to achieve, but a commendable one IMO.
I probably wouldn't have pre-purchased the game if I thought they were only out to be mediocre.
Small details kill me, its shoot for the stars and land on the moon.
Don't know why it makes a difference but I learned it the other way....
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
So what they want and will not settle for anything other than, is a WOW killer?
Mike O'Brien said just the opposite of that in a recent interview linked in another thread. So no, they are not thinking they will be the "WoW Killer." Only Blizzard can kill WoW.
I was referring to this.
Mike O'brien:
"We were number two to World of Warcraft with Guild Wars, now we want to beat them. We’ll be satisfied when Guild Wars 2 is the most successful MMO"
And how do they consider a non-sub-based game as being number two to the number one Sub based game?
That's stupid... How can GW be second to World of Warcraft when it's not a MMO? This is my point on why I don't trust Anet's marketing. Because they claimed that GW1 wasn't advertised as a MMORPG, but here they are doing it again and advertising it as a MMO by comparing it to MMO. VERY MISLEADING!!!
Are you trying to mislead people into believing GW2 ISNT an MMO?
Have you learned how to read?
I misunderstood.
I forgot people still bring up whether Guild Wars is an mmo,
Isn't an mmo, who cares?
That horse was beat to death long before you resurrected it.
He is the CEO of the company, a former Blizzard employee and one of the creators of Guild Wars. In terms of total box sales for an IP, his game was second only to WoW. 6.5 million box sales over 3 inter-playable games and an expansion to 13+ million for a game + multiple expansions. So, he has a vested interest in "beating" WoW.
He never said anything about being a WoW killer.
First that's a pretty good explanation of what he means about GW1's success.
Second, WOW killer is a quip, I'm surprised to find even O'brien taking a proverbial meaning in such a literal direction. It's no different than saying dethrone WOW, it's not stated to be a literal outcome. There's no actual throne as there is no actual death.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sure it is. For better or worse, WoW is THE standard for MMOs. If you want to be considered the best, (i.e. most successful - because that's how these things are judged by the world) then you need to "beat" the best. Beating in this case refers to selling more boxes, not making it so the game has to shut down because everyone fled for your game.
Selling more boxes doesn't mean they are more successful than WOW as an MMO though. Beating WOW to me means keeping more people playing for a longer amount of time.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
First that's a pretty good explanation of what he means about GW1's success.
Second, WOW killer is a quip, I'm surprised to find even O'brien taking a proverbial meaning in such a literal direction. It's no different than saying dethrone WOW, it's not stated to be a literal outcome. There's no actual throne as there is no actual death.
Alright, now I am a bit confused. Who is saying that WoW is literally sitting on a throne and needs to be defeated, like some kind of raid boss? I thought it was mutually understand that being a 'wow-killer' was basically referring to either taking away a majority of it's subs, or beating it in terms of sub numbers. I didn't realize people mistook that phrase for game of thrones.
Alright, now I am a bit confused. Who is saying that WoW is literally sitting on a throne and needs to be defeated, like some kind of raid boss? I thought it was mutually understand that being a 'wow-killer' was basically referring to either taking away a majority of it's subs, or beating it in terms of sub numbers. I didn't realize people mistook that phrase for game of thrones.
Again you seem to be applying literal meanings here, to things that are not meant in a literal sense.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sure it is. For better or worse, WoW is THE standard for MMOs. If you want to be considered the best, (i.e. most successful - because that's how these things are judged by the world) then you need to "beat" the best. Beating in this case refers to selling more boxes, not making it so the game has to shut down because everyone fled for your game.
Selling more boxes doesn't mean they are more successful than WOW as an MMO though. Beating WOW to me means keeping more people playing for a longer amount of time.
Since both GW1 and GW2 are B2P, the only way you can apples to apples compare them to WoW is by box sales. And, to the outside world, the box sales are the measure, not the subs. For example, if the subs were the standard, WoW would put that number on their boxes, but they don't. They put the box sales number on the box, as in: Over 13 million copies sold!
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Alright, now I am a bit confused. Who is saying that WoW is literally sitting on a throne and needs to be defeated, like some kind of raid boss? I thought it was mutually understand that being a 'wow-killer' was basically referring to either taking away a majority of it's subs, or beating it in terms of sub numbers. I didn't realize people mistook that phrase for game of thrones.
Again you seem to be applying literal meanings here, to things that are not meant in a literal sense.
Maybe they do mean it in LITERAL sense? Prove to me that Anet employees are not just outside of blizzard HQ, swords and axes in hand, ready to attack and de-throne Blizzard permentaly!
I think out of all MMO's to release this one has a big chance of taking a good chunk of wow players that being said this is B2P and wow is P2P so people may still keep wow subs running and play both.
Selling more boxes doesn't mean they are more successful than WOW as an MMO though. Beating WOW to me means keeping more people playing for a longer amount of time.
Since both GW1 and GW2 are B2P, the only way you can apples to apples compare them to WoW is by box sales. And, to the outside world, the box sales are the measure, not the subs. For example, if the subs were the standard, WoW would put that number on their boxes, but they don't. They put the box sales number on the box, as in: Over 13 million copies sold!
Of course, and many MMO's at this point don't even require a box purchase, just an initial sub rate. It's a really poor area to judge success as an MMORPG. if 13 mil buy an MMO box yet only 200k, play does that make it a greater success as an MMO; than one that sold 1mil boxes yet has 3 mil subscribers/players?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Alright, now I am a bit confused. Who is saying that WoW is literally sitting on a throne and needs to be defeated, like some kind of raid boss? I thought it was mutually understand that being a 'wow-killer' was basically referring to either taking away a majority of it's subs, or beating it in terms of sub numbers. I didn't realize people mistook that phrase for game of thrones.
Again you seem to be applying literal meanings here, to things that are not meant in a literal sense.
Just give up. This isn't going to take anybody's rose glasses off
Maybe they do mean it in LITERAL sense? Prove to me that Anet employees are not just outside of blizzard HQ, swords and axes in hand, ready to attack and de-throne Blizzard permentaly!
(ok, now I am just getting silly, I admitt that)
"Dammit! where's the popcorn" is what I'd say to that .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sure it is. For better or worse, WoW is THE standard for MMOs. If you want to be considered the best, (i.e. most successful - because that's how these things are judged by the world) then you need to "beat" the best. Beating in this case refers to selling more boxes, not making it so the game has to shut down because everyone fled for your game.
Selling more boxes doesn't mean they are more successful than WOW as an MMO though. Beating WOW to me means keeping more people playing for a longer amount of time.
Since both GW1 and GW2 are B2P, the only way you can apples to apples compare them to WoW is by box sales. And, to the outside world, the box sales are the measure, not the subs. For example, if the subs were the standard, WoW would put that number on their boxes, but they don't. They put the box sales number on the box, as in: Over 13 million copies sold!
Problem here is that WoW has way more accounts sold than they have subs. That would be no match. Even games like Warhammer have lots of account sells. MMO aren't measured by that, because boxes can sell big for a failure of a MMO with lots of hype.
Alright, now I am a bit confused. Who is saying that WoW is literally sitting on a throne and needs to be defeated, like some kind of raid boss? I thought it was mutually understand that being a 'wow-killer' was basically referring to either taking away a majority of it's subs, or beating it in terms of sub numbers. I didn't realize people mistook that phrase for game of thrones.
Again you seem to be applying literal meanings here, to things that are not meant in a literal sense.
Kind of confused (maybe you missinterperated a joke for me believing you that WoW was literally on a throne?) Or are you referring to it being about subs... in which case, what else would it mean? It still comes down to players quitting wow for game X. That's one of the reasons most games 'fail', because they are too similar to WoW, and as such players keep going back. That's where the term originated from, at the very least. Not sure what you are trying to imply here, to be honest.
Kind of confused (maybe you missinterperated a joke for me believing you that WoW was literally on a throne?) Or are you referring to it being about subs... in which case, what else would it mean? It still comes down to players quitting wow for game X. That's one of the reasons most games 'fail', because they are too similar to WoW, and as such players keep going back. That's where the term originated from, at the very least. Not sure what you are trying to imply here, to be honest.
I'm just saying that "beat wow" could be said in many different ways, be it dethroning, killing, sacking, bagging etc.. Saying "beat" wow isn't as dramatic as saying Kill, or dethrone it. In short it essentially all means the same thing, I doubt many ever use any of those in a literal sense or to say take all of wows subs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So what they want and will not settle for anything other than, is a WOW killer?
Mike O'Brien said just the opposite of that in a recent interview linked in another thread. So no, they are not thinking they will be the "WoW Killer." Only Blizzard can kill WoW.
I was referring to this.
Mike O'brien:
"We were number two to World of Warcraft with Guild Wars, now we want to beat them. Well be satisfied when Guild Wars 2 is the most successful MMO"
And how do they consider a non-sub-based game as being number two to the number one Sub based game?
That's stupid... How can GW be second to World of Warcraft when it's not a MMO? This is my point on why I don't trust Anet's marketing. Because they claimed that GW1 wasn't advertised as a MMORPG, but here they are doing it again and advertising it as a MMO by comparing it to MMO. VERY MISLEADING!!!
Are you trying to mislead people into believing GW2 ISNT an MMO?
Have you learned how to read?
I misunderstood.
I forgot people still bring up whether Guild Wars is an mmo,
Isn't an mmo, who cares?
That horse was beat to death long before you resurrected it.
1) WoW had (and still has) Blizzard behind its name,
2) The timing of its release couldn't be any more perfect as nothing much happened in mmorpg genre before its release and the game polished a lot on the previous features done by other mmorpgs.
3) The game is based on Warcraft universe.
Guild Wars did exceptionally well considering all the odds: it was released a couple of months later after WoW, it was a completely new IP, it was heavily instanced and made by a tiny, relatively unknown company called ArenaNet.
Now think about these words: despite all the odds, the first game succeeded (ofc not as much as WoW given all the reasons above :P)
Now we come to an age where there is enormous stagnation in the mmorpg market flooded with all the so-called WoW clones. At an age where WoW itself is losing subs as more and more people get tired of the same old gameplay.
The year has never been more perfect for GW2 to release in. Everything is going in its favor. The reasons are outlined below.
1. Like mentioned, a big reason is the stagnation of the mmorpg market in terms of delivering something that feels completely fresh and plays differently. This has been going on for years and many here are just hungry to get their hands on something that feels and plays different to anything out there.
2. The sequal has a huge fanbase from the 1st game that are dying to play GW2.
3. The majority of the hands-on experiences amongst the press and gamers alike continue to be phenomenally positive. Very rare do you find anything majorly negative about the game except from some of those who haven't tried it and just don't get it and/or not their cup of tea. The general feeling one gets from reading or watching these hands-on experiences is that the game really is living up to the hype so far and all the game-changing systems that the devs talked about DO work and work WELL.
4. It is mostly an open world mmorpg, mostly free from visible walls and there is now jumping in the game. Seems like something small huh? But what if the first game was open world and had jumping without many visible walls? How well could it have done in terms of success at a time when basically expected an mmorpg to be open world? For those who hated the first game just because of the instanced world and limited movement, should be interested this time round.
Given everything I have stated above, and the state WoW is in now, there is every chance GW2 can beat WoW in a few years ahead. Not in terms being a "WoW Killer" where WoW becomes too unpopular and dies (as Mike O'Brien pointed out, and as anyone rational will point out that only WoW can kill WoW), but surpassing WoW in terms of generating greater sales while keeping high retention rates after years to come. Having said that, even if WoW loses 5 million subs (yes I know extreme example) throughout the next few of years it will by no means die while having 5 million odd subs a month, but at the end of the day it is easy to see GW2 grow throughout the years ahead and surpassing WoW in terms of numbers and that exactly what Mike O'Brien is on about.
While it might happen in the sense there is more people playing GW2 then there is WoW at any given time but there's no good way to show it since they have no subs.. wow's box sales including expansion packs must be quite ridiculous for such a massively popular and long running game so they wouldn't beat that. The only thing they could do is release specific population numbers for their servers like EVE and hope wow does the same.
Wow was a success because: 1) WoW had (and still has) Blizzard behind its name, 2) The timing of its release couldn't be any more perfect as nothing much happened in mmorpg genre before its release and the game polished a lot on the previous features done by other mmorpgs. 3) The game is based on Warcraft universe. Guild Wars did exceptionally well considering all the odds: it was released a couple of months later after WoW, it was a completely new IP, it was heavily instanced and made by a tiny, relatively unknown company called ArenaNet. Now think about these words: despite all the odds, the first game succeeded (ofc not as much as WoW given all the reasons above :P) Now we come to an age where there is enormous stagnation in the mmorpg market flooded with all the so-called WoW clones. At an age where WoW itself is losing subs as more and more people get tired of the same old gameplay. The year has never been more perfect for GW2 to release in. Everything is going in its favor. The reasons are outlined below. 1. Like mentioned, a big reason is the stagnation of the mmorpg market in terms of delivering something that feels completely fresh and plays differently. This has been going on for years and many here are just hungry to get their hands on something that feels and plays different to anything out there. 2. The sequal has a huge fanbase from the 1st game that are dying to play GW2. 3. The majority of the hands-on experiences amongst the press and gamers alike continue to be phenomenally positive. Very rare do you find anything majorly negative about the game except from some of those who haven't tried it and just don't get it and/or not their cup of tea. The general feeling one gets from reading or watching these hands-on experiences is that the game really is living up to the hype so far and all the game-changing systems that the devs talked about DO work and work WELL. 4. It is mostly an open world mmorpg, mostly free from visible walls and there is now jumping in the game. Seems like something small huh? But what if the first game was open world and had jumping without many visible walls? How well could it have done in terms of success at a time when basically expected an mmorpg to be open world? For those who hated the first game just because of the instanced world and limited movement, should be interested this time round. Given everything I have stated above, and the state WoW is in now, there is every chance GW2 can beat WoW in a few years ahead. Not in terms being a "WoW Killer" where WoW becomes too unpopular and dies (as Mike O'Brien pointed out, and as anyone rational will point out that only WoW can kill WoW), but surpassing WoW in terms of generating greater sales while keeping high retention rates after years to come. Having said that, even if WoW loses 5 million subs (yes I know extreme example) throughout the next few of years it will by no means die while having 5 million odd subs a month, but at the end of the day it is easy to see GW2 grow throughout the years ahead and surpassing WoW in terms of numbers and that exactly what Mike O'Brien is on about.
Agree to disagree.
Most people that play WoW, don't know anything about Warcraft IP ( just look at the number of people that didn't know about Pandaren before MoP), and most don't even know what other games Blizzard makes. Blizzard success comes from its improvements on the EQ THEMEPARK generation.
Like I pointed out earlier, the GW1 success comes from a lot of misleading info. Anet can say al, they want, that they didn't advertise the game as a MMO, but truth is that they did. The push out Box Sell numbers to compare to sub numbers of MMO, but many people fall for the illusion. Guild Wars 1 is a diablo clone with full 3D graphics. It's not a MMO. But they marketed as such. I first got the game because I thought it was a F2P MMO with only a box sell. That was new to me. Totally mislead once you get in the game and see its not anything close to a MMO.
but I did accept it for what it was. Which is why I got other expansions. But the sells went down after each expansion sadly. Many people were also mislead. But box was already sold. I have to admit, that misleading for box sells, does remind me a lot of what MMO developers been doing over the last few years.
He is talking about selling more copies then WoW, not killing WoW. This is also the only way to compare p2p with b2p MMO's. Also, you can sell more copies without killing the other popular games. He even specifically said in this interview that only WoW can kill WoW.
It is also obvious that he was talking in terms of sold copies when comparing GW1 with WoW.
WOW is a great game. I returned to WOW to pass the time until GW2. The newbie areas are fairly dense with new players. I believe the marketing of playing WOW free until level 20 is pulling in a lot of new folks.
WOW is ultimately responsible for making MMO's a household name. It was the first polished, user-friendly, approachable mmo in the market that wasn't aimed at the tech-proficient user.
That being said, the market has grown and other mmo's have taken their chunk out of the market. In fact, the market is saturated with MMO's as evidenced by WOW's slightly declining subs.
GW2 can't be 'just as good' as WOW, it has to be better and has to offer more, to win it's share of the market. With BTP, artistic excellence, interesting and polished gameplay, and a sincere commitment to their players, Anet is aiming high.
GW2 will succeed. The GW2 community will flourish...and we can still play WOW for an oldies but goodies flashbacks.
GW2 will have an edge over WOW...because Anet seems to care about its devs, the community and their game. Blizzard went through a time where they didn't value their employees. When that happens the devs lose their passion for the game and it shows up in the game.
GW2, Anet has the passion. THAT is what will make this one of the most successful and enjoyable games we've seen since the early WOW days.
Comments
Don't know why it makes a difference but I learned it the other way....
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
I misunderstood.
I forgot people still bring up whether Guild Wars is an mmo,
Isn't an mmo, who cares?
That horse was beat to death long before you resurrected it.
First that's a pretty good explanation of what he means about GW1's success.
Second, WOW killer is a quip, I'm surprised to find even O'brien taking a proverbial meaning in such a literal direction. It's no different than saying dethrone WOW, it's not stated to be a literal outcome. There's no actual throne as there is no actual death.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Selling more boxes doesn't mean they are more successful than WOW as an MMO though. Beating WOW to me means keeping more people playing for a longer amount of time.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Alright, now I am a bit confused. Who is saying that WoW is literally sitting on a throne and needs to be defeated, like some kind of raid boss? I thought it was mutually understand that being a 'wow-killer' was basically referring to either taking away a majority of it's subs, or beating it in terms of sub numbers. I didn't realize people mistook that phrase for game of thrones.
Again you seem to be applying literal meanings here, to things that are not meant in a literal sense.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Since both GW1 and GW2 are B2P, the only way you can apples to apples compare them to WoW is by box sales. And, to the outside world, the box sales are the measure, not the subs. For example, if the subs were the standard, WoW would put that number on their boxes, but they don't. They put the box sales number on the box, as in: Over 13 million copies sold!
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Maybe they do mean it in LITERAL sense? Prove to me that Anet employees are not just outside of blizzard HQ, swords and axes in hand, ready to attack and de-throne Blizzard permentaly!
(ok, now I am just getting silly, I admitt that)
I think out of all MMO's to release this one has a big chance of taking a good chunk of wow players that being said this is B2P and wow is P2P so people may still keep wow subs running and play both.
Of course, and many MMO's at this point don't even require a box purchase, just an initial sub rate. It's a really poor area to judge success as an MMORPG. if 13 mil buy an MMO box yet only 200k, play does that make it a greater success as an MMO; than one that sold 1mil boxes yet has 3 mil subscribers/players?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Alright, now I am a bit confused. Who is saying that WoW is literally sitting on a throne and needs to be defeated, like some kind of raid boss? I thought it was mutually understand that being a 'wow-killer' was basically referring to either taking away a majority of it's subs, or beating it in terms of sub numbers. I didn't realize people mistook that phrase for game of thrones.
Again you seem to be applying literal meanings here, to things that are not meant in a literal sense.
Just give up. This isn't going to take anybody's rose glasses offPhilosophy of MMO Game Design
"Dammit! where's the popcorn" is what I'd say to that
.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sure it is. For better or worse, WoW is THE standard for MMOs. If you want to be considered the best, (i.e. most successful - because that's how these things are judged by the world) then you need to "beat" the best. Beating in this case refers to selling more boxes, not making it so the game has to shut down because everyone fled for your game.
Selling more boxes doesn't mean they are more successful than WOW as an MMO though. Beating WOW to me means keeping more people playing for a longer amount of time.
Since both GW1 and GW2 are B2P, the only way you can apples to apples compare them to WoW is by box sales. And, to the outside world, the box sales are the measure, not the subs. For example, if the subs were the standard, WoW would put that number on their boxes, but they don't. They put the box sales number on the box, as in: Over 13 million copies sold!
Problem here is that WoW has way more accounts sold than they have subs. That would be no match. Even games like Warhammer have lots of account sells. MMO aren't measured by that, because boxes can sell big for a failure of a MMO with lots of hype.Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Kind of confused (maybe you missinterperated a joke for me believing you that WoW was literally on a throne?) Or are you referring to it being about subs... in which case, what else would it mean? It still comes down to players quitting wow for game X. That's one of the reasons most games 'fail', because they are too similar to WoW, and as such players keep going back. That's where the term originated from, at the very least. Not sure what you are trying to imply here, to be honest.
=/ You may be right. Guess it's time to 'literally' watch the last game of thrones =P.
I'm just saying that "beat wow" could be said in many different ways, be it dethroning, killing, sacking, bagging etc.. Saying "beat" wow isn't as dramatic as saying Kill, or dethrone it. In short it essentially all means the same thing, I doubt many ever use any of those in a literal sense or to say take all of wows subs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Mike O'Brien said just the opposite of that in a recent interview linked in another thread. So no, they are not thinking they will be the "WoW Killer." Only Blizzard can kill WoW.
I was referring to this.
Mike O'brien:
"We were number two to World of Warcraft with Guild Wars, now we want to beat them. Well be satisfied when Guild Wars 2 is the most successful MMO"
And how do they consider a non-sub-based game as being number two to the number one Sub based game?
That's stupid... How can GW be second to World of Warcraft when it's not a MMO? This is my point on why I don't trust Anet's marketing. Because they claimed that GW1 wasn't advertised as a MMORPG, but here they are doing it again and advertising it as a MMO by comparing it to MMO. VERY MISLEADING!!!Are you trying to mislead people into believing GW2 ISNT an MMO?
Have you learned how to read?I misunderstood.
I forgot people still bring up whether Guild Wars is an mmo,
Isn't an mmo, who cares?
That horse was beat to death long before you resurrected it.
Yeah tell that to AnetPhilosophy of MMO Game Design
Wow was a success because:
1) WoW had (and still has) Blizzard behind its name,
2) The timing of its release couldn't be any more perfect as nothing much happened in mmorpg genre before its release and the game polished a lot on the previous features done by other mmorpgs.
3) The game is based on Warcraft universe.
Guild Wars did exceptionally well considering all the odds: it was released a couple of months later after WoW, it was a completely new IP, it was heavily instanced and made by a tiny, relatively unknown company called ArenaNet.
Now think about these words: despite all the odds, the first game succeeded (ofc not as much as WoW given all the reasons above :P)
Now we come to an age where there is enormous stagnation in the mmorpg market flooded with all the so-called WoW clones. At an age where WoW itself is losing subs as more and more people get tired of the same old gameplay.
The year has never been more perfect for GW2 to release in. Everything is going in its favor. The reasons are outlined below.
1. Like mentioned, a big reason is the stagnation of the mmorpg market in terms of delivering something that feels completely fresh and plays differently. This has been going on for years and many here are just hungry to get their hands on something that feels and plays different to anything out there.
2. The sequal has a huge fanbase from the 1st game that are dying to play GW2.
3. The majority of the hands-on experiences amongst the press and gamers alike continue to be phenomenally positive. Very rare do you find anything majorly negative about the game except from some of those who haven't tried it and just don't get it and/or not their cup of tea. The general feeling one gets from reading or watching these hands-on experiences is that the game really is living up to the hype so far and all the game-changing systems that the devs talked about DO work and work WELL.
4. It is mostly an open world mmorpg, mostly free from visible walls and there is now jumping in the game. Seems like something small huh? But what if the first game was open world and had jumping without many visible walls? How well could it have done in terms of success at a time when basically expected an mmorpg to be open world? For those who hated the first game just because of the instanced world and limited movement, should be interested this time round.
Given everything I have stated above, and the state WoW is in now, there is every chance GW2 can beat WoW in a few years ahead. Not in terms being a "WoW Killer" where WoW becomes too unpopular and dies (as Mike O'Brien pointed out, and as anyone rational will point out that only WoW can kill WoW), but surpassing WoW in terms of generating greater sales while keeping high retention rates after years to come. Having said that, even if WoW loses 5 million subs (yes I know extreme example) throughout the next few of years it will by no means die while having 5 million odd subs a month, but at the end of the day it is easy to see GW2 grow throughout the years ahead and surpassing WoW in terms of numbers and that exactly what Mike O'Brien is on about.
Looking forward to EQL and EQN.
While it might happen in the sense there is more people playing GW2 then there is WoW at any given time but there's no good way to show it since they have no subs.. wow's box sales including expansion packs must be quite ridiculous for such a massively popular and long running game so they wouldn't beat that. The only thing they could do is release specific population numbers for their servers like EVE and hope wow does the same.
Blah, just realized that my comment was mentioned before... carry on!
Agree to disagree.Most people that play WoW, don't know anything about Warcraft IP ( just look at the number of people that didn't know about Pandaren before MoP), and most don't even know what other games Blizzard makes. Blizzard success comes from its improvements on the EQ THEMEPARK generation.
Like I pointed out earlier, the GW1 success comes from a lot of misleading info. Anet can say al, they want, that they didn't advertise the game as a MMO, but truth is that they did. The push out Box Sell numbers to compare to sub numbers of MMO, but many people fall for the illusion. Guild Wars 1 is a diablo clone with full 3D graphics. It's not a MMO. But they marketed as such. I first got the game because I thought it was a F2P MMO with only a box sell. That was new to me. Totally mislead once you get in the game and see its not anything close to a MMO.
but I did accept it for what it was. Which is why I got other expansions. But the sells went down after each expansion sadly. Many people were also mislead. But box was already sold. I have to admit, that misleading for box sells, does remind me a lot of what MMO developers been doing over the last few years.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
He is talking about selling more copies then WoW, not killing WoW. This is also the only way to compare p2p with b2p MMO's. Also, you can sell more copies without killing the other popular games. He even specifically said in this interview that only WoW can kill WoW.
It is also obvious that he was talking in terms of sold copies when comparing GW1 with WoW.
...So you've joined the dark side now?
WOW is a great game. I returned to WOW to pass the time until GW2. The newbie areas are fairly dense with new players. I believe the marketing of playing WOW free until level 20 is pulling in a lot of new folks.
WOW is ultimately responsible for making MMO's a household name. It was the first polished, user-friendly, approachable mmo in the market that wasn't aimed at the tech-proficient user.
That being said, the market has grown and other mmo's have taken their chunk out of the market. In fact, the market is saturated with MMO's as evidenced by WOW's slightly declining subs.
GW2 can't be 'just as good' as WOW, it has to be better and has to offer more, to win it's share of the market. With BTP, artistic excellence, interesting and polished gameplay, and a sincere commitment to their players, Anet is aiming high.
GW2 will succeed. The GW2 community will flourish...and we can still play WOW for an oldies but goodies flashbacks.
GW2 will have an edge over WOW...because Anet seems to care about its devs, the community and their game. Blizzard went through a time where they didn't value their employees. When that happens the devs lose their passion for the game and it shows up in the game.
GW2, Anet has the passion. THAT is what will make this one of the most successful and enjoyable games we've seen since the early WOW days.