The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
MMO players will keep buying whatever is out there just so they can play something new. Not that it really matters for this company but I don't think they will have a ton of people staying and playing consistently for long. They are cashing in on the initial box sales so you'd figure they wouldn't have that much incentive after that keeping the game strong.
MMO players will keep buying whatever is out there just so they can play something new. Not that it really matters for this company but I don't think they will have a ton of people staying and playing consistently for long. They are cashing in on the initial box sales so you'd figure they wouldn't have that much incentive after that keeping the game strong.
what game looks good to you? I mean so we can compare and contrast . At least see where your preferences are. If you make a statement like that, at least back it up.
Hype well deserved. They delivered on what they showed and there are still plenty of other things they still have yet to show us like pvp,crafting and character creation.
If you haven't seen that vid, watch it in HD widescreen(or any resolution you can). Your attention is called to something near the end of the video that sparked a "that's pretty cool" comment from me. Keep in mind that I've watched most of the vids about GW2.
If you haven't seen that vid, watch it in HD widescreen(or any resolution you can). Your attention is called to something near the end of the video that sparked a "that's pretty cool" comment from me. Keep in mind that I've watched most of the vids about GW2.
Wow. This is a video with the best looking, highest resolution (1080p) shots I've seen from Gamescom.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
If you haven't seen that vid, watch it in HD widescreen(or any resolution you can). Your attention is called to something near the end of the video that sparked a "that's pretty cool" comment from me. Keep in mind that I've watched most of the vids about GW2.
Wow. This is a video with the best looking, highest resolution (1080p) shots I've seen from Gamescom.
Thanks for this one
You're welcome. If you haven't seen them already, the other vids show someone in a golem battlesuit. Was pretty funny when Eric chose to move away from him.
Its true many mmos have promised things causing hype to be generated, and then got backlash because they failed to deliver. But so far Arenanet has been very strait forward with what will be in there game and what wont, and they backed it up at gamescom. Having too much hype for a game is bad if the game developers fail to deliver upon release, but so far Anet has delivered what they promised so Im gonna take it with a bit of faith that they will continue to do so.
Its true many mmos have promised things causing hype to be generated, and then got backlash because they failed to deliver. But so far Arenanet has been very strait forward with what will be in there game and what wont, and they backed it up at gamescom. Having too much hype for a game is bad if the game developers fail to deliver upon release, but so far Anet has delivered what they promised so Im gonna take it with a bit of faith that they will continue to do so.
QFT
Their openness is what's impressed me the most as well. They have shown actual gameplay, not just photoshoped screenshots and scripted machinimas.
And what they've shown really does look fun and it practically oozes quality. There is a difference between this kind of hype, and simply having Paul Barnett show a bit of concept art while explaining that the game will be the greatest thing since sliced bread in a verbose and amusing way.
What's even more important is that they've been clear about their business model as well, and while I personally would have preferred a subscription model I can respect their choice, even if it means a smaller scope of the game. If I get half as much enjoyable gametime from it as from some online shooters I've bought I'll be more than satisfied.
Its true many mmos have promised things causing hype to be generated, and then got backlash because they failed to deliver. But so far Arenanet has been very strait forward with what will be in there game and what wont, and they backed it up at gamescom. Having too much hype for a game is bad if the game developers fail to deliver upon release, but so far Anet has delivered what they promised so Im gonna take it with a bit of faith that they will continue to do so.
QFT
Their openness is what's impressed me the most as well. They have shown actual gameplay, not just photoshoped screenshots and scripted machinimas.
And what they've shown really does look fun and it practically oozes quality. There is a difference between this kind of hype, and simply having Paul Barnett show a bit of concept art while explaining that the game will be the greatest thing since sliced bread in a verbose and amusing way.
What's even more important is that they've been clear about their business model as well, and while I personally would have preferred a subscription model I can respect their choice, even if it means a smaller scope of the game. If I get half as much enjoyable gametime from it as from some online shooters I've bought I'll be more than satisfied.
Why would you prefer a sub model over buying a box? That doesn't ensure quality of depth of content.
If GW2 has as much quality content as other games with a sub, it's a major win for us. The whole myth that a quality product full of content can only be made by charging a monthly fee would be put to rest. It also changes the focus of the product. Selling just the box means focusing on the fun factor and not worrying about keeping people playing month to month. It's the way single player games make money and many of them have multiplayer maps and have game servers.
Why would you prefer a sub model over buying a box? That doesn't ensure quality of depth of content.
If GW2 has as much quality content as other games with a sub, it's a major win for us. The whole myth that a quality product full of content can only be made by charging a monthly fee would be put to rest. It also changes the focus of the product. Selling just the box means focusing on the fun factor and not worrying about keeping people playing month to month. It's the way single player games make money and many of them have multiplayer maps and have game servers.
I think the subscription model is more honest in the sense that they typically ask for less money up front, then ask for a fee only when the player really knows what he or she is paying for. It isn't enough to trick people once, they have to be fooled once a month, because the subscription model gives players the option of voting with their feet so to speak.
And you can hardly call it a myth that subscription based games add more content, not when all evidence we have so far support this "myth". EVE-Online for example grew and changed a LOT during the years I played it, and it was the continual income from the subscriptions that made it all possible. CCP couldn't and didn't rely on hype or huge budgets, they proved that they had a vision and the skill to make it real, that was enough to convince enough people to support them.
I think the subscription model is more honest in the sense that they typically ask for less money up front, then ask for a fee only when the player really knows what he or she is paying for. It isn't enough to trick people once, they have to be fooled once a month, because the subscription model gives players the option of voting with their feet so to speak.
And you can hardly call it a myth that subscription based games add more content, not when all evidence we have so far support this "myth". EVE-Online for example grew and changed a LOT during the years I played it, and it was the continual income from the subscriptions that made it all possible. CCP couldn't and didn't rely on hype or huge budgets, they proved that they had a vision and the skill to make it real, that was enough to convince enough people to support them.
I will state up-front that I think EVE's model has the most integrity out of MMO subscription games, and this is because they famously don't charge for expansions. I firmly believe that either you are paying for expansion content through your subscription, or you are buying them outright with a box price, and to enforce both - as many other MMOs do - is double-dipping and, in my view, indefensible. So, no complaints from me about EVE here.
However, I would argue that your first point about being obligated to provide content that is worth paying for also applies to the buy to play model that GW and GW2 use, because the game relies on additional purchases in order to survive. While you could cynically fear that a developer will "cut and run" with the initial sales prices, I think ArenaNet has earned more confidence than that. Therefore, ANet has to continue to bring their "A" game in expansions and other paid content in order to keep people paying - the same as your rationale behind a subscription. Guild Wars 1, its 2 chapters, and its expansion wouldn't still be selling copies if that were not true.
Besides, GW1 has added content to its game for "free" as well: see the War In Kryta content for the latest iteration of that fact, which is still pending additional updates.
However, I would argue that your first point about being obligated to provide content that is worth paying for also applies to the buy to play model that GW and GW2 use, because the game relies on additional purchases in order to survive. While you could cynically fear that a developer will "cut and run" with the initial sales prices, I think ArenaNet has earned more confidence than that. Therefore, ANet has to continue to bring their "A" game in expansions and other paid content in order to keep people paying - the same as your rationale behind a subscription. Guild Wars 1, its 2 chapters, and its expansion wouldn't still be selling copies if that were not true.
Besides, GW1 has added content to its game for "free" as well: see the War In Kryta content for the latest iteration of that fact, which is still pending additional updates.
I rather like ArenaNet as well, and for someone who enjoyed GW1 I would agree that they have earned a fair bit of trust. There is no doubt in my mind that they are passionate about their work and fully intend to make the best game they possibly can.
But it takes time to build that sort of trust, the BTP model is excellent for established and wellfunded developers who cater to the mainstream, but less so for newer and smaller companies. I think there is room for more than one model, just like there is room for both block buster movies, independant films and ad-supported tv-series. The more diversity, the better. That I happen to prefer the subscription model (with free expansions) is mostly a matter of personal preference.
Honestly, I don't think anyone has to worry about Anet 'cutting & running'. It would make little sense for them to do so. Why?
- Because the amount of time, effort, and money it takes to setup an MMO is enormous, and it would be a huge waste to g ofor the initial box sale and then ditch.
- Selling a box and then running is typical of single player games, which are far easier to create than an MMO. If they wanted to do this it would've made more sense to make a single player game.
I know that for people new to Anet, asking them to buy a box for a game w/ no contract is a bit skeptical. However, if you take a look at the big picture I think it's pretty clear that it's not in Anet's best interest to do so, and thus not worth worrying about.
Why would you prefer a sub model over buying a box? That doesn't ensure quality of depth of content.
If GW2 has as much quality content as other games with a sub, it's a major win for us. The whole myth that a quality product full of content can only be made by charging a monthly fee would be put to rest. It also changes the focus of the product. Selling just the box means focusing on the fun factor and not worrying about keeping people playing month to month. It's the way single player games make money and many of them have multiplayer maps and have game servers.
I think the subscription model is more honest in the sense that they typically ask for less money up front, then ask for a fee only when the player really knows what he or she is paying for. It isn't enough to trick people once, they have to be fooled once a month, because the subscription model gives players the option of voting with their feet so to speak.
And you can hardly call it a myth that subscription based games add more content, not when all evidence we have so far support this "myth". EVE-Online for example grew and changed a LOT during the years I played it, and it was the continual income from the subscriptions that made it all possible. CCP couldn't and didn't rely on hype or huge budgets, they proved that they had a vision and the skill to make it real, that was enough to convince enough people to support them.
I can call it a myth plenty. I played the original GW.
I payed $150 on the three campaigns and one expansion since it came out over 5 years ago.
To play WoW with the three 3 expansions for the same time period is about $830.
To play WoW with just the original box - $750.
LotR lifetime subscription - $200.
EQ2 or EQ1 - way too many expansions to add up. $830 would look like a bargain.
I can call it a myth plenty. I played the original GW.
I payed $150 on the three campaigns and one expansion since it came out over 5 years ago.
To play WoW with the three 3 expansions for the same time period is about $830.
To play WoW with just the original box - $750.
LotR lifetime subscription - $200.
EQ2 or EQ1 - way too many expansions to add up. $830 would look like a bargain.
Math will set you free.
And I played wow as much as I wanted to during the past five years for a grand total of less than $30, while you paid $150 to play GW as much as you wanted.
If only I had your mighty math skills to help me determine which is the larger number.
I can call it a myth plenty. I played the original GW.
I payed $150 on the three campaigns and one expansion since it came out over 5 years ago.
To play WoW with the three 3 expansions for the same time period is about $830.
To play WoW with just the original box - $750.
LotR lifetime subscription - $200.
EQ2 or EQ1 - way too many expansions to add up. $830 would look like a bargain.
Math will set you free.
And I played wow as much as I wanted to during the past five years for a grand total of less than $30, while you paid $150 to play GW as much as you wanted.
If only I had your mighty math skills to help me determine which is the larger number.
That's impossible.
WoW's monthly fee is $12.99 a month if you get a block of 6 months. The cost of the box is now $20. When the game came out it was $40 (may have been $50 - don't remember).
Maybe someone else paid for everything, maybe you found a way to scam and not pay for the subscription, maybe you're full of shit. This does nothing to further your flawed point. What you paid personally is irrelevant.
A person who bought all the WoW products at release and maintained a sub for 5 years would pay approx. $830.
Dispute that with facts. Saying it aint so means nothing. Prove it.
I can call it a myth plenty. I played the original GW.
I payed $150 on the three campaigns and one expansion since it came out over 5 years ago.
To play WoW with the three 3 expansions for the same time period is about $830.
To play WoW with just the original box - $750.
LotR lifetime subscription - $200.
EQ2 or EQ1 - way too many expansions to add up. $830 would look like a bargain.
Math will set you free.
And I played wow as much as I wanted to during the past five years for a grand total of less than $30, while you paid $150 to play GW as much as you wanted.
If only I had your mighty math skills to help me determine which is the larger number.
Someone else paying for your subscription doesn't count ;-p
And I played wow as much as I wanted to during the past five years for a grand total of less than $30, while you paid $150 to play GW as much as you wanted.
If only I had your mighty math skills to help me determine which is the larger number.
That's impossible.
WoW's monthly fee is $12.99 a month if you get a block of 6 months. The cost of the box is now $20. When the game came out it was $40 (may have been $50 - don't remember).
Maybe someone else paid for everything, maybe you found a way to scam and not pay for the subscription, maybe you're full of shit. This does nothing to further your flawed point. What you paid personally is irrelevant.
A person who bought all the WoW products at release and maintained a sub for 5 years would pay approx. $830.
Dispute that with facts. Saying it aint so means nothing. Prove it.
No, it isn't impossible.
I played the beta (for free). Waited about a year before picking up a copy of the finished game for $29, and quit after one month. Later on I've returned sporadically with free trials to check out if anything has changed. It all sums up to a grand total of less than $30, and I've played exactly as much as I want to, perhaps even a few minutes more.
Now that that's out of the way I must inform you that you are COMPLETELY missing the point. How much a single individual might end up paying under some specific circumstances is utterly irrelevant. Because we were talking about the scope of the games, not the monetary cost of them. If all you care about is cheap content, then there are plenty of completely free games out there. But I really don't care how much a gaming company charges, because it never comes close to the value of the time I spend on the games. Therefore I am mostly concerned about the quality and quantity of the content, not the price of a subscription.
I'm not particularly fond of wow (hence the early quiting ) , but I've spent enough time there to determine that GW doesn't hold a candle to it content wise. GW has a lot more in common with Diablo than WoW, if you really want to compare it to a Blizzard game.
Because we were talking about the scope of the games, not the monetary cost of them. If all you care about is cheap content, then there are plenty of completely free games out there. But I really don't care how much a gaming company charges, because it never comes close to the value of the time I spend on the games. Therefore I am mostly concerned about the quality and quantity of the content, not the price of a subscription.
I'm not particularly fond of wow (hence the early quiting ) , but I've spent enough time there to determine that GW doesn't hold a candle to it content wise. GW has a lot more in common with Diablo than WoW, if you really want to compare it to a Blizzard game.
I'm going to budge in here, since the discussion is interesting.
While it's true that P2P is a payment model that a lot of MMO gamers like and have learnt to depend on, it's also true that P2P doesn't always guarantee quality, and in the same way F2P and B2P don't always mean inferior quality. they're simply different models to generate revenues for the gaming company.
In fact, I'm hoping that Games like DDO, LotrO and EQ2 are only pioneers of an ongoing trend that can prove that different payment models can deliver and maintain MMO games that are equals of eachother in quality and enjoyment.
I'm looking forward to MMO gaming a la carte, provided by flexible hybrid payment models where depending on the time available you can switch from casual to a period of intensive gameplay and be able to adjust your payment likewise.
I can accept that not everyone likes GW because they feel it's not a real MMORPG, but it certainly has enough quality content to offer, especially when you include the expansions. In fact, it has more explorable area than a WoW and other MMO's and GW rivals AAA titles easily when it comes to content, in quantity AND quality. It isn't for nothing that GW is still played so much even after 5 years. Heck, they even sold 0.5 million more copies of GW the last year even when there hasn't been any expansion since 2007.
So, to me at least, ANet has shown that it can be done, their model works. There are some doubts I have with GW2, but this isn't one of them.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
In fact, I'm hoping that Games like DDO, LotrO and EQ2 are only pioneers of an ongoing trend that can prove that different payment models can deliver and maintain MMO games that are equals of eachother in quality and enjoyment.
So, to me at least, ANet has shown that it can be done, their model works. There are some doubts I have with GW2, but this isn't one of them.
I agree that it is a matter of quality and not how you pay for the game. However can buying items totally destroy the economy of a game and making crafting rather pointless.
DDO is just like GW a CORPG and they work great as F2P games since they can sell instances in the shop. Turbine also made it so you actually can earn enough Turbine points to actually play the game without buying a lot of stuff.
EQ2 and LOTRO are both open MMOs and I am not so sure that F2P is the best choice there. The idea of selling quest chains seems wrong to me and EQ2X is taking it even further, making it so you need to pay to be able to actually use items or even play the last 10 levels.
B2P works fine, ANET have proved that already and they say that it won't cost them more to run a MMORPG than a CORPG in bandwidth.
I think EQ2 should have aimed for B2P instead of F2P, Smed is just too greedy so the game will be a bend over game. LOTRO might work better I hope but I doubt it will go as good as it did for DDO.
I can call it a myth plenty. I played the original GW.
I payed $150 on the three campaigns and one expansion since it came out over 5 years ago.
To play WoW with the three 3 expansions for the same time period is about $830.
To play WoW with just the original box - $750.
LotR lifetime subscription - $200.
EQ2 or EQ1 - way too many expansions to add up. $830 would look like a bargain.
Math will set you free.
Yep. And GW did add some zones for free too. And if you started 2 years ago you could have gotten everything for 50 bucks.
It might of course change now but it is actually not that likely. Strain who was the founder of ANET was BTW the guy who stopped battle.net from having a monthly fee, he threatened to quit Blizzard when they wanted that. O'Brien who is the boss now is also a big spokesman for B2P.
It has ben tried and it works. Funny enough did I read an old interview with Paul Barnett when he said that Guildwars proved that B2P didn't work when they asked him why upcoming WAR had monthly fees and if that was actually needed. He also said that WAR would be the next Wow in the same interview... But I know which company I would prefer to have stocks in of Mythic and ANET.
And I played wow as much as I wanted to during the past five years for a grand total of less than $30, while you paid $150 to play GW as much as you wanted.
If only I had your mighty math skills to help me determine which is the larger number.
That's impossible.
WoW's monthly fee is $12.99 a month if you get a block of 6 months. The cost of the box is now $20. When the game came out it was $40 (may have been $50 - don't remember).
Maybe someone else paid for everything, maybe you found a way to scam and not pay for the subscription, maybe you're full of shit. This does nothing to further your flawed point. What you paid personally is irrelevant.
A person who bought all the WoW products at release and maintained a sub for 5 years would pay approx. $830.
Dispute that with facts. Saying it aint so means nothing. Prove it.
No, it isn't impossible.
I played the beta (for free). Waited about a year before picking up a copy of the finished game for $29, and quit after one month. Later on I've returned sporadically with free trials to check out if anything has changed. It all sums up to a grand total of less than $30, and I've played exactly as much as I want to, perhaps even a few minutes more.
Now that that's out of the way I must inform you that you are COMPLETELY missing the point. How much a single individual might end up paying under some specific circumstances is utterly irrelevant. Because we were talking about the scope of the games, not the monetary cost of them. If all you care about is cheap content, then there are plenty of completely free games out there. But I really don't care how much a gaming company charges, because it never comes close to the value of the time I spend on the games. Therefore I am mostly concerned about the quality and quantity of the content, not the price of a subscription.
I'm not particularly fond of wow (hence the early quiting ) , but I've spent enough time there to determine that GW doesn't hold a candle to it content wise. GW has a lot more in common with Diablo than WoW, if you really want to compare it to a Blizzard game.
It's not about money but your original point is that paying for subscription makes it better. Yeah - ok. Talk about an inconsistent argument.
Fine - your right. Paying a fee is better. You go pay your fee and I'll go buy a box.
Pay a fee if it makes you feel better. This game is looking so awesome it should be what everybody playing f2p should be seriously looking at. Many people playing p2p games are doing the same. Too bad it's going to take a while before it gets here.
Waiting for Guild Wars 2, and maybe SWTOR until that time...
Comments
Lol. Just saw a funny video
this will probably stir up some angry or at least irritated voices, but here it goes 
GW2 vs WoW
edit: ah wait, also found another one linked to it:
GW vs WoW "U can't thouch this"
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
This game looks like shit.
MMO players will keep buying whatever is out there just so they can play something new. Not that it really matters for this company but I don't think they will have a ton of people staying and playing consistently for long. They are cashing in on the initial box sales so you'd figure they wouldn't have that much incentive after that keeping the game strong.
what game looks good to you? I mean so we can compare and contrast . At least see where your preferences are. If you make a statement like that, at least back it up.
Hype well deserved. They delivered on what they showed and there are still plenty of other things they still have yet to show us like pvp,crafting and character creation.
I just watched another vid I hadn't really taken notice of before and I can say with confidence; THE HYPE IS TEH JUSTIFIED!11011!!
If you haven't seen that vid, watch it in HD widescreen(or any resolution you can). Your attention is called to something near the end of the video that sparked a "that's pretty cool" comment from me. Keep in mind that I've watched most of the vids about GW2.
This is not a game.
Wow. This is a video with the best looking, highest resolution (1080p) shots I've seen from Gamescom.
Thanks for this one
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You're welcome. If you haven't seen them already, the other vids show someone in a golem battlesuit. Was pretty funny when Eric chose to move away from him.
This is not a game.
Its true many mmos have promised things causing hype to be generated, and then got backlash because they failed to deliver. But so far Arenanet has been very strait forward with what will be in there game and what wont, and they backed it up at gamescom. Having too much hype for a game is bad if the game developers fail to deliver upon release, but so far Anet has delivered what they promised so Im gonna take it with a bit of faith that they will continue to do so.
QFT
Their openness is what's impressed me the most as well. They have shown actual gameplay, not just photoshoped screenshots and scripted machinimas.
And what they've shown really does look fun and it practically oozes quality. There is a difference between this kind of hype, and simply having Paul Barnett show a bit of concept art while explaining that the game will be the greatest thing since sliced bread in a verbose and amusing way.
What's even more important is that they've been clear about their business model as well, and while I personally would have preferred a subscription model I can respect their choice, even if it means a smaller scope of the game. If I get half as much enjoyable gametime from it as from some online shooters I've bought I'll be more than satisfied.
Thank god for GW2, it will save the genre for me, I've been playing MMOs for over a decade but haven't touched one in over six months
This game looks and feels like exactly what the MMO doctor ordered, very refreshing.
I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.
Why would you prefer a sub model over buying a box? That doesn't ensure quality of depth of content.
If GW2 has as much quality content as other games with a sub, it's a major win for us. The whole myth that a quality product full of content can only be made by charging a monthly fee would be put to rest. It also changes the focus of the product. Selling just the box means focusing on the fun factor and not worrying about keeping people playing month to month. It's the way single player games make money and many of them have multiplayer maps and have game servers.
I think the subscription model is more honest in the sense that they typically ask for less money up front, then ask for a fee only when the player really knows what he or she is paying for. It isn't enough to trick people once, they have to be fooled once a month, because the subscription model gives players the option of voting with their feet so to speak.
And you can hardly call it a myth that subscription based games add more content, not when all evidence we have so far support this "myth". EVE-Online for example grew and changed a LOT during the years I played it, and it was the continual income from the subscriptions that made it all possible. CCP couldn't and didn't rely on hype or huge budgets, they proved that they had a vision and the skill to make it real, that was enough to convince enough people to support them.
I will state up-front that I think EVE's model has the most integrity out of MMO subscription games, and this is because they famously don't charge for expansions. I firmly believe that either you are paying for expansion content through your subscription, or you are buying them outright with a box price, and to enforce both - as many other MMOs do - is double-dipping and, in my view, indefensible. So, no complaints from me about EVE here.
However, I would argue that your first point about being obligated to provide content that is worth paying for also applies to the buy to play model that GW and GW2 use, because the game relies on additional purchases in order to survive. While you could cynically fear that a developer will "cut and run" with the initial sales prices, I think ArenaNet has earned more confidence than that. Therefore, ANet has to continue to bring their "A" game in expansions and other paid content in order to keep people paying - the same as your rationale behind a subscription. Guild Wars 1, its 2 chapters, and its expansion wouldn't still be selling copies if that were not true.
Besides, GW1 has added content to its game for "free" as well: see the War In Kryta content for the latest iteration of that fact, which is still pending additional updates.
I rather like ArenaNet as well, and for someone who enjoyed GW1 I would agree that they have earned a fair bit of trust. There is no doubt in my mind that they are passionate about their work and fully intend to make the best game they possibly can.
But it takes time to build that sort of trust, the BTP model is excellent for established and wellfunded developers who cater to the mainstream, but less so for newer and smaller companies. I think there is room for more than one model, just like there is room for both block buster movies, independant films and ad-supported tv-series. The more diversity, the better. That I happen to prefer the subscription model (with free expansions) is mostly a matter of personal preference.
Honestly, I don't think anyone has to worry about Anet 'cutting & running'. It would make little sense for them to do so. Why?
- Because the amount of time, effort, and money it takes to setup an MMO is enormous, and it would be a huge waste to g ofor the initial box sale and then ditch.
- Selling a box and then running is typical of single player games, which are far easier to create than an MMO. If they wanted to do this it would've made more sense to make a single player game.
I know that for people new to Anet, asking them to buy a box for a game w/ no contract is a bit skeptical. However, if you take a look at the big picture I think it's pretty clear that it's not in Anet's best interest to do so, and thus not worth worrying about.
I can call it a myth plenty. I played the original GW.
I payed $150 on the three campaigns and one expansion since it came out over 5 years ago.
To play WoW with the three 3 expansions for the same time period is about $830.
To play WoW with just the original box - $750.
LotR lifetime subscription - $200.
EQ2 or EQ1 - way too many expansions to add up. $830 would look like a bargain.
Math will set you free.
And I played wow as much as I wanted to during the past five years for a grand total of less than $30, while you paid $150 to play GW as much as you wanted.
If only I had your mighty math skills to help me determine which is the larger number.
That's impossible.
WoW's monthly fee is $12.99 a month if you get a block of 6 months. The cost of the box is now $20. When the game came out it was $40 (may have been $50 - don't remember).
Maybe someone else paid for everything, maybe you found a way to scam and not pay for the subscription, maybe you're full of shit. This does nothing to further your flawed point. What you paid personally is irrelevant.
A person who bought all the WoW products at release and maintained a sub for 5 years would pay approx. $830.
Dispute that with facts. Saying it aint so means nothing. Prove it.
Someone else paying for your subscription doesn't count ;-p
No, it isn't impossible.
I played the beta (for free). Waited about a year before picking up a copy of the finished game for $29, and quit after one month. Later on I've returned sporadically with free trials to check out if anything has changed. It all sums up to a grand total of less than $30, and I've played exactly as much as I want to, perhaps even a few minutes more.
Now that that's out of the way I must inform you that you are COMPLETELY missing the point. How much a single individual might end up paying under some specific circumstances is utterly irrelevant. Because we were talking about the scope of the games, not the monetary cost of them. If all you care about is cheap content, then there are plenty of completely free games out there. But I really don't care how much a gaming company charges, because it never comes close to the value of the time I spend on the games. Therefore I am mostly concerned about the quality and quantity of the content, not the price of a subscription.
I'm not particularly fond of wow (hence the early quiting ) , but I've spent enough time there to determine that GW doesn't hold a candle to it content wise. GW has a lot more in common with Diablo than WoW, if you really want to compare it to a Blizzard game.
I'm going to budge in here, since the discussion is interesting.
While it's true that P2P is a payment model that a lot of MMO gamers like and have learnt to depend on, it's also true that P2P doesn't always guarantee quality, and in the same way F2P and B2P don't always mean inferior quality. they're simply different models to generate revenues for the gaming company.
In fact, I'm hoping that Games like DDO, LotrO and EQ2 are only pioneers of an ongoing trend that can prove that different payment models can deliver and maintain MMO games that are equals of eachother in quality and enjoyment.
I'm looking forward to MMO gaming a la carte, provided by flexible hybrid payment models where depending on the time available you can switch from casual to a period of intensive gameplay and be able to adjust your payment likewise.
I can accept that not everyone likes GW because they feel it's not a real MMORPG, but it certainly has enough quality content to offer, especially when you include the expansions. In fact, it has more explorable area than a WoW and other MMO's and GW rivals AAA titles easily when it comes to content, in quantity AND quality. It isn't for nothing that GW is still played so much even after 5 years. Heck, they even sold 0.5 million more copies of GW the last year even when there hasn't been any expansion since 2007.
So, to me at least, ANet has shown that it can be done, their model works. There are some doubts I have with GW2, but this isn't one of them.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I agree that it is a matter of quality and not how you pay for the game. However can buying items totally destroy the economy of a game and making crafting rather pointless.
DDO is just like GW a CORPG and they work great as F2P games since they can sell instances in the shop. Turbine also made it so you actually can earn enough Turbine points to actually play the game without buying a lot of stuff.
EQ2 and LOTRO are both open MMOs and I am not so sure that F2P is the best choice there. The idea of selling quest chains seems wrong to me and EQ2X is taking it even further, making it so you need to pay to be able to actually use items or even play the last 10 levels.
B2P works fine, ANET have proved that already and they say that it won't cost them more to run a MMORPG than a CORPG in bandwidth.
I think EQ2 should have aimed for B2P instead of F2P, Smed is just too greedy so the game will be a bend over game. LOTRO might work better I hope but I doubt it will go as good as it did for DDO.
Yep. And GW did add some zones for free too. And if you started 2 years ago you could have gotten everything for 50 bucks.
It might of course change now but it is actually not that likely. Strain who was the founder of ANET was BTW the guy who stopped battle.net from having a monthly fee, he threatened to quit Blizzard when they wanted that. O'Brien who is the boss now is also a big spokesman for B2P.
It has ben tried and it works. Funny enough did I read an old interview with Paul Barnett when he said that Guildwars proved that B2P didn't work when they asked him why upcoming WAR had monthly fees and if that was actually needed. He also said that WAR would be the next Wow in the same interview... But I know which company I would prefer to have stocks in of Mythic and ANET.
It's not about money but your original point is that paying for subscription makes it better. Yeah - ok. Talk about an inconsistent argument.
Fine - your right. Paying a fee is better. You go pay your fee and I'll go buy a box.
Pay a fee if it makes you feel better. This game is looking so awesome it should be what everybody playing f2p should be seriously looking at. Many people playing p2p games are doing the same. Too bad it's going to take a while before it gets here.
Waiting for Guild Wars 2, and maybe SWTOR until that time...