Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by maccarthur2004Originally posted by Thorqemada there will be no successfull FFA-PvP MMORPG in the west.
UO, L2 and EVE are proofs you're wrong.Uh?UO & Eve are not that successful.
UO never get more than 300k subs. Eve spent almost a decade and get to only half a million. TOR, many considered a failure, hit 2M in a month.
UO got 278k subs at a time when developers and publishers thought 200k subs was impossible. By today's standards UO is not successful, by the standards at the time it was released, it was ridiculously successful. I don't know if I would hold it up as an example now though, since it's biggest success came after it introduced Trammel, not during the PvP hay days.
Right now, Eve has as many subs as SWToR. If you removed WoW from the market, Eve and SWToR are the most successful MMORPGs running in the West right now. Eve has done far better than the developer thought it would, while SWToR did far worse than the developer thought it would. Eve is spawning some additional MMORPGs, though slowly. SWToR pretty much put the nail in the coffin of any new SW themed MMORPGs. It's all about context.
I have no real idea about L2, but it's apparently successful.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Tierless It ruins the illusion that they are the uber hero of the entire game world when they get owned. It also snaps them back to who they might be IRL, that being not the best eva. I'm fine with it, I know Im not a great PVPer. I prefer to think of myself as a greatly annoying PVPer, a role that I embrace.
Most people do things "IRL" that have much higher value than acting like an ass or a hero in a video game. One of those people you just insulted the real life of may be the doctor who will save your life someday. Or a veteran who saved your country.Same for the guy you just ganked when he was already fighting three mobs, and then camped the body of... he's a real person behind the screen, and there's a good chance that he's doing something much more important in his real life than being an ass to others in a game.Food for thoughts...
Don't jump to conclusions. When I say "annoying PVPer" I mean I like to play a debuffer or CC guy so I can help out the group even though I'm not great at actually killing.Your entire pretense is based on the idea that I'm some mean ganker person lol. I haven't bothered doing that in 8 years. Even if I tried I'd be the one to die #failgank. I hate ganking, I think PVP should be a choice but in MMO limited MMO experience most of the people that dislike PVP only dislike it when they are losing
He's not the only one who thought what he did. You made no mention of PvP in groups or buffing/debuffing. You made snide inferences about "the other player" being a "loser IRL" which is a very "ganker" thing to say.Or are you just backpedaling now?
No just the opposite. The "loser IRL" I'm talking about is me. I'm the guy who had the dead end job and recall getting mauled and going "crap I'm not as good at this as I thought, I suxk IRL and in game!". I was pretty young and frustrated with life back then so the virtual world was the place where I felt better about myself. Once I got owned in it I thought, "man, I suck at everything". That was a long time ago and I'm a different person now, but back then, I was the guy that didn't like to PVP because it was depressing lol. Now I accept that I'm not a great PVPer but can contribute to the whole via CC or debuffs which I actually really like doing. It feels good and I get to help out.
Understood... now.
You must admit that calling yourself "the annoying PvPer" brings up visions of gankers, not a CC/debuffer without explanation I don't find that kind of PvPer annoying, just doing their job. Unless they are in a group of PvPers facing one opponent...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
It might be helpful to note that what a lot of people talk about when they talk about not liking PvP is individual encounters. Dueling even. There don't seem to be nearly as many complaints about group PvP in general.
Not sure where to slot that into the conversation, so I'm just dropping it in the pile.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You just watch, my comment here will attract all the babies and they will whine and whine trying to prove me wrong. Its getting kinda pathetic.
And this is why you hate PvP?
( hint: look at the title of the thread )
You completely misunderstood my comment....
I don't play MMOs unless it has PvP
If I was the sort of person who enjoyed forum PvP, this is the point where I'd be having a lot of fun. Alas, all I feel is sort of awkward and embarassed (again).
Bunch of extremely self-centered babies is what the current MMO crowd is.
Every single game that gets listed here is immediately attacked if it has PvP or a sub.
The constant whining has got to a point where its impossible to even discuss a game anymore.
The lamest excuse so far is that there are not enough PvPers to support a game, which is absolutely false!
Its the PvEers that hop from game to game, once they have finished the content, they whine then move on.
The PvPers are the most loyal of all the MMO crowd. The proof is in games like EVE and DAOC, which are heavy PvP games are are still around after years, and they still have a sub!
You just watch, my comment here will attract all the babies and they will whine and whine trying to prove me wrong. Its getting kinda pathetic.
Bunch of extremely self-centered babies is what the current MMO crowd is.
Every single game that gets listed here is immediately attacked if it has just pve or is f2p.
The constant whining has got to a point where its impossible to even discuss a game anymore.
Its the PvPers that hop from game to game, trying to find content and people to pvp with, they whine then move on.
The PVEers are the most loyal of all the MMO crowd. The proof is in games like EQ , which is a heavy Pve games is still around after years with a very healthy population, and still has a sub option!
You just watch, my comment here will attract all the babies and they will whine and whine trying to prove me wrong. Its getting kinda pathetic.
- I guess people only see what they want to see or are afraid it might be true. Hmm a paraphrase of Wizards first rule. Think I'll read that book again.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Adalwulff Originally posted by maplestoneOriginally posted by AdalwulffYou just watch, my comment here will attract all the babies and they will whine and whine trying to prove me wrong. Its getting kinda pathetic.
And this is why you hate PvP? ( hint: look at the title of the thread )
You completely misunderstood my comment....
I don't play MMOs unless it has PvP
Is there even an MMO that doesn't have PvP in one form or another?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Put me down for another vote of "I just don't have time to PvP."
Back when I was between jobs I was playing league of legends almost every day, and I was pretty darn awesome at the PvP mode. Then I found employment again (yay!) and had less time to play and practice. My 4 games a day turned into 1 game a day, turned into 1 game a week. I realized there was no way for me to maintain my skills for competitive PvP play with only having time for 1 game a week, so eventually I stopped playing and moved onto more of a PvE focused game.
To be really good at a PvP game requires a large time commitment, be it a time commitment for the latest and greatest gear, or the time commitment to master the muscle memory and clicks per minutes to compete with the rest. If I don't have the time to commit, then I don't PvP because I know I won't come close to being competitive to someone who does have the time to commit, it's as simple as that.
Bunch of extremely self-centered babies is what the current MMO crowd is.
Every single game that gets listed here is immediately attacked if it has PvP or a sub.
The constant whining has got to a point where its impossible to even discuss a game anymore.
The lamest excuse so far is that there are not enough PvPers to support a game, which is absolutely false!
Its the PvEers that hop from game to game, once they have finished the content, they whine then move on.
The PvPers are the most loyal of all the MMO crowd. The proof is in games like EVE and DAOC, which are heavy PvP games are are still around after years, and they still have a sub!
You just watch, my comment here will attract all the babies and they will whine and whine trying to prove me wrong. Its getting kinda pathetic.
Whats actually pathetic is you hurling insults because heaven forbid some don't like PVP
UO got 278k subs at a time when developers and publishers thought 200k subs was impossible. By today's standards UO is not successful, by the standards at the time it was released, it was ridiculously successful. I don't know if I would hold it up as an example now though, since it's biggest success came after it introduced Trammel, not during the PvP hay days.
Right now, Eve has as many subs as SWToR. If you removed WoW from the market, Eve and SWToR are the most successful MMORPGs running in the West right now. Eve has done far better than the developer thought it would, while SWToR did far worse than the developer thought it would. Eve is spawning some additional MMORPGs, though slowly. SWToR pretty much put the nail in the coffin of any new SW themed MMORPGs. It's all about context.
I have no real idea about L2, but it's apparently successful.
They thought 200k subs was impossible .. they were clearly wrong by orders of magnitude. I wouldn't use an old, and plain wrong, assessment to determine the yard-stick of success. Millions are obviously possible, and UO was never even close to half a mil.
As for Eve ... it took TOR 1 month to get 2M. It took Eve years to do the same. Obviously they are not in the same league. And you have not even count GW2, which also have sold 2M in a week.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbones
UO got 278k subs at a time when developers and publishers thought 200k subs was impossible. By today's standards UO is not successful, by the standards at the time it was released, it was ridiculously successful. I don't know if I would hold it up as an example now though, since it's biggest success came after it introduced Trammel, not during the PvP hay days. Right now, Eve has as many subs as SWToR. If you removed WoW from the market, Eve and SWToR are the most successful MMORPGs running in the West right now. Eve has done far better than the developer thought it would, while SWToR did far worse than the developer thought it would. Eve is spawning some additional MMORPGs, though slowly. SWToR pretty much put the nail in the coffin of any new SW themed MMORPGs. It's all about context. I have no real idea about L2, but it's apparently successful. They thought 200k subs was impossible .. they were clearly wrong by orders of magnitude. I wouldn't use an old, and plain wrong, assessment to determine the yard-stick of success. Millions are obviously possible, and UO was never even close to half a mil.
As for Eve ... it took TOR 1 month to get 2M. It took Eve years to do the same. Obviously they are not in the same league. And you have not even count GW2, which also have sold 2M in a week.
GW2's end game is PvP. There is PvE content at end game, but if you are playing the game on a regular basis, odds are you are playing the WvWvW aspect of the game. So if GW2 is the example, then it's success is dependent upon PvP.
Yes, millions was possible, but not in 1997 when UO was released. If you'd like to prove that millions of subs was possible in 1997, feel free. I would love to see it.
UO was very successful for the time it was released. Successful enough that several other developers started developing MMORPG. If it had not been as successful as it was, other developers would not have considered making MMORPG. I just wouldn't consider it an example of the success of PvP, since most of the game's success occurred post Trammel, not pre Trammel.
If you're going to stick to raw numbers as the measure of success, there are no successful MMORPG other than WoW. Take GW2 off the list and anything else you'd care to put up.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't really understand why people who love pvp care if people like it or not.
I enjoy pvp in some games and hate it in others. I don't like it in MMORPGS, unless its the main thrust of the game (Age of Wushu has good pvp, but its structured around it).
When I play most of the games I play, I have no interest in my playtime being derailed by someone jumping me every 5 mins, or being farmed as a resource by high lvl characters. If I want to pvp in those games, I can "join up" and pvp away.
It doesn't help that a large portion of the pvp community don't view other points of view on this issue as valid. Most PVE gamers don't lobby for no pvp servers or opt in pvp.
If you're going to stick to raw numbers as the measure of success, there are no successful MMORPG other than WoW. Take GW2 off the list and anything else you'd care to put up.
That works.
Then UO and Eve are not successful .. and should not be used to show that FFA pvp is popular.
Originally posted by lizardbones If you're going to stick to raw numbers as the measure of success, there are no successful MMORPG other than WoW. Take GW2 off the list and anything else you'd care to put up.
That works.Then UO and Eve are not successful .. and should not be used to show that FFA pvp is popular.
I'll use another entertainment industry branch as an example.
Are The Beatles and Elvis the only "successful" musicians? They've got the numbers over most everyone else. The Beatles lasted about a decade, Elvis a couple of decades.
Rush, on the other hand, has not sold as many albums/CDs. They have released more albums than either The Beatles or Elvis. They have been around for nearly four decades and still going strong, though Geddy's voice is showing his age Are they "unsuccessful" because they do not have The Beatles' or Elvis's numbers?
Let's go back even further. Is Classical music any less successful than popular music today? The population has grown significantly since Classical musical was "popular." More people to draw from. More money to spend. Does that make Classical music "unsuccessful" in your eyes?
Let's go the American Television route. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure compared to "Survivor?" She (Lucy) did not have near the numbers that "Survivor" has. Nevermind that fewer people had TVs back then, there were fewer people, or that people had less free time than now. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure in your eyes?
I am curious about how you measure success. Is it merely numbers?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Let's go the American Television route. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure compared to "Survivor?" She (Lucy) did not have near the numbers that "Survivor" has. Nevermind that fewer people had TVs back then, there were fewer people, or that people had less free time than now. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure in your eyes?
I am curious about how you measure success. Is it merely numbers?
"merely" numbers? Numbers are the most objective measure.
In fact, where do you get that I Love Lucy is a failure compared to Survivors? It is the opposite.
UO got 278k subs at a time when developers and publishers thought 200k subs was impossible. By today's standards UO is not successful, by the standards at the time it was released, it was ridiculously successful. I don't know if I would hold it up as an example now though, since it's biggest success came after it introduced Trammel, not during the PvP hay days. Right now, Eve has as many subs as SWToR. If you removed WoW from the market, Eve and SWToR are the most successful MMORPGs running in the West right now. Eve has done far better than the developer thought it would, while SWToR did far worse than the developer thought it would. Eve is spawning some additional MMORPGs, though slowly. SWToR pretty much put the nail in the coffin of any new SW themed MMORPGs. It's all about context. I have no real idea about L2, but it's apparently successful.
They thought 200k subs was impossible .. they were clearly wrong by orders of magnitude. I wouldn't use an old, and plain wrong, assessment to determine the yard-stick of success. Millions are obviously possible, and UO was never even close to half a mil.
As for Eve ... it took TOR 1 month to get 2M. It took Eve years to do the same. Obviously they are not in the same league. And you have not even count GW2, which also have sold 2M in a week.
GW2's end game is PvP. There is PvE content at end game, but if you are playing the game on a regular basis, odds are you are playing the WvWvW aspect of the game. So if GW2 is the example, then it's success is dependent upon PvP.
Yes, millions was possible, but not in 1997 when UO was released. If you'd like to prove that millions of subs was possible in 1997, feel free. I would love to see it.
UO was very successful for the time it was released. Successful enough that several other developers started developing MMORPG. If it had not been as successful as it was, other developers would not have considered making MMORPG. I just wouldn't consider it an example of the success of PvP, since most of the game's success occurred post Trammel, not pre Trammel.
If you're going to stick to raw numbers as the measure of success, there are no successful MMORPG other than WoW. Take GW2 off the list and anything else you'd care to put up.
You can do PvP OR PvE in GW2 at end game. PvP IS NOT the end game to GW2 - sorry that is just wrong. If it was the end game, why can I make a character and at lvl 1 join PvP without ever maxing out my level. That is soooooo end game.....
UO got 278k subs at a time when developers and publishers thought 200k subs was impossible. By today's standards UO is not successful, by the standards at the time it was released, it was ridiculously successful. I don't know if I would hold it up as an example now though, since it's biggest success came after it introduced Trammel, not during the PvP hay days. Right now, Eve has as many subs as SWToR. If you removed WoW from the market, Eve and SWToR are the most successful MMORPGs running in the West right now. Eve has done far better than the developer thought it would, while SWToR did far worse than the developer thought it would. Eve is spawning some additional MMORPGs, though slowly. SWToR pretty much put the nail in the coffin of any new SW themed MMORPGs. It's all about context. I have no real idea about L2, but it's apparently successful.
They thought 200k subs was impossible .. they were clearly wrong by orders of magnitude. I wouldn't use an old, and plain wrong, assessment to determine the yard-stick of success. Millions are obviously possible, and UO was never even close to half a mil.As for Eve ... it took TOR 1 month to get 2M. It took Eve years to do the same. Obviously they are not in the same league. And you have not even count GW2, which also have sold 2M in a week.
GW2's end game is PvP. There is PvE content at end game, but if you are playing the game on a regular basis, odds are you are playing the WvWvW aspect of the game. So if GW2 is the example, then it's success is dependent upon PvP. Yes, millions was possible, but not in 1997 when UO was released. If you'd like to prove that millions of subs was possible in 1997, feel free. I would love to see it. UO was very successful for the time it was released. Successful enough that several other developers started developing MMORPG. If it had not been as successful as it was, other developers would not have considered making MMORPG. I just wouldn't consider it an example of the success of PvP, since most of the game's success occurred post Trammel, not pre Trammel. If you're going to stick to raw numbers as the measure of success, there are no successful MMORPG other than WoW. Take GW2 off the list and anything else you'd care to put up.
You can do PvP OR PvE in GW2 at end game. PvP IS NOT the end game to GW2 - sorry that is just wrong. If it was the end game, why can I make a character and at lvl 1 join PvP without ever maxing out my level. That is soooooo end game.....
Ah, so they have added more than PvP for the end game. Quite a bit in fact. I would still say the WvWvW is the primary focus of the game's "end game". Hence the Leader Boards as one of those updates.
It's also true that you can hop into WvWvW at level 1, or level 10 like I did and have a good ole time. So it's not just an "end game" activity. GW2, like DAoC is an example of PvP that is successful.
That does not mean GW2 is a "PvP Game", so point to you. However, it does have a successful PvP model, and the game itself is successful. At least successful enough that they haven't felt the need to offer reduces prices or anything of the kind since launch.
**
It's not clear, but that's two points to you, not just the one.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I've heard a lot of people say that not having Free For All PvP is "unrealistic," or something to that effect. Free For All PvP inevitably creates a world where damn near every individual you meet who isn't an NPC immediately and for little or no reason attempts to kill you. How is that "realistic?" To me, a fantasy world where some unknown, un-opposable "force" prevents you from harming a large, protected portion of the population makes more sense than a world populated almost exclusively by psychotic, homicidal maniacs.
It might be helpful to note that what a lot of people talk about when they talk about not liking PvP is individual encounters. Dueling even. There don't seem to be nearly as many complaints about group PvP in general.
Not sure where to slot that into the conversation, so I'm just dropping it in the pile.
That's what most people think of when you say PvP. I don't want to engage in that. Likewise, I don't want to engage in large scale combat against other PCs on any scale you can possibly mention. I think it gets ridiculous when PvP people start asserting that auction houses and buying things from stores counts as PvP because there might be some vague competitive element involved. I don't consider those things to be PvP at all, I think it has to involve direct physical combat with other players and I opt out of all of that, without exception.
Comments
Uh?UO & Eve are not that successful.
UO never get more than 300k subs. Eve spent almost a decade and get to only half a million. TOR, many considered a failure, hit 2M in a month.
UO got 278k subs at a time when developers and publishers thought 200k subs was impossible. By today's standards UO is not successful, by the standards at the time it was released, it was ridiculously successful. I don't know if I would hold it up as an example now though, since it's biggest success came after it introduced Trammel, not during the PvP hay days.
Right now, Eve has as many subs as SWToR. If you removed WoW from the market, Eve and SWToR are the most successful MMORPGs running in the West right now. Eve has done far better than the developer thought it would, while SWToR did far worse than the developer thought it would. Eve is spawning some additional MMORPGs, though slowly. SWToR pretty much put the nail in the coffin of any new SW themed MMORPGs. It's all about context.
I have no real idea about L2, but it's apparently successful.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And this is why you hate PvP?
( hint: look at the title of the thread )
You must admit that calling yourself "the annoying PvPer" brings up visions of gankers, not a CC/debuffer without explanation
I don't find that kind of PvPer annoying, just doing their job. Unless they are in a group of PvPers facing one opponent...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
It might be helpful to note that what a lot of people talk about when they talk about not liking PvP is individual encounters. Dueling even. There don't seem to be nearly as many complaints about group PvP in general.
Not sure where to slot that into the conversation, so I'm just dropping it in the pile.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You completely misunderstood my comment....
I don't play MMOs unless it has PvP
Mmo's with ganking are the most fun
if you can draw the gankers out and kill them its so much fun somthing you cant get from pve
bring on the pvp and just try and gank meh
If I was the sort of person who enjoyed forum PvP, this is the point where I'd be having a lot of fun. Alas, all I feel is sort of awkward and embarassed (again).
Bunch of extremely self-centered babies is what the current MMO crowd is.
Every single game that gets listed here is immediately attacked if it has just pve or is f2p.
The constant whining has got to a point where its impossible to even discuss a game anymore.
Its the PvPers that hop from game to game, trying to find content and people to pvp with, they whine then move on.
The PVEers are the most loyal of all the MMO crowd. The proof is in games like EQ , which is a heavy Pve games is still around after years with a very healthy population, and still has a sub option!
You just watch, my comment here will attract all the babies and they will whine and whine trying to prove me wrong. Its getting kinda pathetic.
- I guess people only see what they want to see or are afraid it might be true. Hmm a paraphrase of Wizards first rule. Think I'll read that book again.
You completely misunderstood my comment....
I don't play MMOs unless it has PvP
Is there even an MMO that doesn't have PvP in one form or another?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Put me down for another vote of "I just don't have time to PvP."
Back when I was between jobs I was playing league of legends almost every day, and I was pretty darn awesome at the PvP mode. Then I found employment again (yay!) and had less time to play and practice. My 4 games a day turned into 1 game a day, turned into 1 game a week. I realized there was no way for me to maintain my skills for competitive PvP play with only having time for 1 game a week, so eventually I stopped playing and moved onto more of a PvE focused game.
To be really good at a PvP game requires a large time commitment, be it a time commitment for the latest and greatest gear, or the time commitment to master the muscle memory and clicks per minutes to compete with the rest. If I don't have the time to commit, then I don't PvP because I know I won't come close to being competitive to someone who does have the time to commit, it's as simple as that.
I wonder who the OP is addressing. I don't hate PvP, I don't hate PvE.
Why would the OP think I* hate anything?
*I in this case the random forum reader as he doesn't seem to address his post to anyone in particular
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
Whats actually pathetic is you hurling insults because heaven forbid some don't like PVP
Have you considered the possibility the OP is addressing people who hate PvP? Is that really such a radical notion?
They thought 200k subs was impossible .. they were clearly wrong by orders of magnitude. I wouldn't use an old, and plain wrong, assessment to determine the yard-stick of success. Millions are obviously possible, and UO was never even close to half a mil.
As for Eve ... it took TOR 1 month to get 2M. It took Eve years to do the same. Obviously they are not in the same league. And you have not even count GW2, which also have sold 2M in a week.
They thought 200k subs was impossible .. they were clearly wrong by orders of magnitude. I wouldn't use an old, and plain wrong, assessment to determine the yard-stick of success. Millions are obviously possible, and UO was never even close to half a mil.
As for Eve ... it took TOR 1 month to get 2M. It took Eve years to do the same. Obviously they are not in the same league. And you have not even count GW2, which also have sold 2M in a week.
GW2's end game is PvP. There is PvE content at end game, but if you are playing the game on a regular basis, odds are you are playing the WvWvW aspect of the game. So if GW2 is the example, then it's success is dependent upon PvP.
Yes, millions was possible, but not in 1997 when UO was released. If you'd like to prove that millions of subs was possible in 1997, feel free. I would love to see it.
UO was very successful for the time it was released. Successful enough that several other developers started developing MMORPG. If it had not been as successful as it was, other developers would not have considered making MMORPG. I just wouldn't consider it an example of the success of PvP, since most of the game's success occurred post Trammel, not pre Trammel.
If you're going to stick to raw numbers as the measure of success, there are no successful MMORPG other than WoW. Take GW2 off the list and anything else you'd care to put up.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't really understand why people who love pvp care if people like it or not.
I enjoy pvp in some games and hate it in others. I don't like it in MMORPGS, unless its the main thrust of the game (Age of Wushu has good pvp, but its structured around it).
When I play most of the games I play, I have no interest in my playtime being derailed by someone jumping me every 5 mins, or being farmed as a resource by high lvl characters. If I want to pvp in those games, I can "join up" and pvp away.
It doesn't help that a large portion of the pvp community don't view other points of view on this issue as valid. Most PVE gamers don't lobby for no pvp servers or opt in pvp.
That works.
Then UO and Eve are not successful .. and should not be used to show that FFA pvp is popular.
Are The Beatles and Elvis the only "successful" musicians? They've got the numbers over most everyone else. The Beatles lasted about a decade, Elvis a couple of decades.
Rush, on the other hand, has not sold as many albums/CDs. They have released more albums than either The Beatles or Elvis. They have been around for nearly four decades and still going strong, though Geddy's voice is showing his age
Are they "unsuccessful" because they do not have The Beatles' or Elvis's numbers?
Let's go back even further. Is Classical music any less successful than popular music today? The population has grown significantly since Classical musical was "popular." More people to draw from. More money to spend. Does that make Classical music "unsuccessful" in your eyes?
Let's go the American Television route. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure compared to "Survivor?" She (Lucy) did not have near the numbers that "Survivor" has. Nevermind that fewer people had TVs back then, there were fewer people, or that people had less free time than now. Was "I Love Lucy" a failure in your eyes?
I am curious about how you measure success. Is it merely numbers?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
"merely" numbers? Numbers are the most objective measure.
In fact, where do you get that I Love Lucy is a failure compared to Survivors? It is the opposite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy
"I Love Lucy remains popular, with an American audience of 40 million each year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_(U.S._TV_series)#U.S._television_ratings
The highest season is only 28.3M. One show is higher than this 40M number though. But on average, Survivor is a failure compared to I love lucy.
You can do PvP OR PvE in GW2 at end game. PvP IS NOT the end game to GW2 - sorry that is just wrong. If it was the end game, why can I make a character and at lvl 1 join PvP without ever maxing out my level. That is soooooo end game.....
Ah, so they have added more than PvP for the end game. Quite a bit in fact. I would still say the WvWvW is the primary focus of the game's "end game". Hence the Leader Boards as one of those updates.
It's also true that you can hop into WvWvW at level 1, or level 10 like I did and have a good ole time. So it's not just an "end game" activity. GW2, like DAoC is an example of PvP that is successful.
That does not mean GW2 is a "PvP Game", so point to you. However, it does have a successful PvP model, and the game itself is successful. At least successful enough that they haven't felt the need to offer reduces prices or anything of the kind since launch.
**
It's not clear, but that's two points to you, not just the one.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Only if you like melee.
What if i want range pvp? Or control-magic pvp?
That's what most people think of when you say PvP. I don't want to engage in that. Likewise, I don't want to engage in large scale combat against other PCs on any scale you can possibly mention. I think it gets ridiculous when PvP people start asserting that auction houses and buying things from stores counts as PvP because there might be some vague competitive element involved. I don't consider those things to be PvP at all, I think it has to involve direct physical combat with other players and I opt out of all of that, without exception.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None