I can see DLC or some type of Cash Shop playing a huge roll in the final money making process of this game. If they do not then I'm afraid the content will be a little bare. I'm sure they realize that they have to compete with a couple of strong mmo's (WoW,Lotro,Aion,DDO,EvE) that all have either sub or cash shops set up to finance the continuation of there game. I just personally find it hard to believe a company can use the money they make from sales of the game to: cover the cost of development, hire employees such as gms and tech support to handle the game after release, cover the cost of the servers upkeep, and still actually pull in a substantial profit. I could be wrong though... I often am.
Playing: Lotro Have Played: EQII,DAOC,SWG,COH,EQ,DDO, Lotro,AoC, EvE,Guild Wars, Silkroad Online,Aion,and WoW Favorite of all time: WoW Waiting on:Swtor,Gw2, and Tera
I can see DLC or some type of Cash Shop playing a huge roll in the final money making process of this game. If they do not then I'm afraid the content will be a little bare. I'm sure they realize that they have to compete with a couple of strong mmo's (WoW,Lotro,Aion,DDO,EvE) that all have either sub or cash shops set up to finance the continuation of there game. I just personally find it hard to believe a company can use the money they make from sales of the game to: cover the cost of development, hire employees such as gms and tech support to handle the game after release, cover the cost of the servers upkeep, and still actually pull in a substantial profit. I could be wrong though... I often am.
Well, the money from the cashshop will be a welcome addition to the sales of boxes and expansions. And Guildwars 2 will not make ANET rich in the same way Wow is getting rich on it's western subs. But as long as they sell many copies and release an expansion every year I think they can do fine together with selling fluff.
GW earned loads of money because it sold so well. GW2 will need to sell even more but I think it will if the game is solid enough. I don't think GW2 will compete as much with Wow, Aion, Eve or other P2P games since buying a copy does not require you to pay any additional fees and you can play it every now and then like a single player game. But if they start to rely to haevily on the cash shop and forces people to actually buy a lot of stuff that would change and it would compete in another way so I think they will be careful about that.
an you guys who said you can tank but it costs a lot of mana: You have not played GW (or forgotten how it works). There is no CC in GW and no tanking skills. None whatsoever and I really doubt GW2 will have either.
an you guys who said you can tank but it costs a lot of mana: You have not played GW (or forgotten how it works). There is no CC in GW and no tanking skills. None whatsoever and I really doubt GW2 will have either.
There are tanking and defensive skills in GW1. For instance, Save Yourselves gives party members additional armor, Defensive Stance increases your chance to block, Defy Pain gives additional HPs/Block/Damage Reduction. There might not be crowd control, but there are some serious interrupts, like Distracting Shot that interrupts a skill and disables it for 20 seconds. Also, I think GW1 was kind of a precursor to GW2 in that there isn't such a clear divisions of roles. For instance, elementalists can cast a Ward Against Melee to give all allies in it a 50% chance to block melee.
As far as GW2 is concerned, here is a Shield Stance video that shows a defensive move that not only blocks attacks on the warrior, but also protects people behind the warrior. This article also talks about how maces can be used to stun.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
The original GW has a trial, after playing almost every MMO since EQ release (I missed UO and AC), and a good variety of the F2P market over the years, I finally decided to try it.
That decision helped me to buy the game, well worth it. The world is immense, and you can play solo or with a guild. pve or pvp
blah blah blah, I like the game, and I extremely like the fact it is B2P. The devs really tried to impress with this, and they did a great job. I hope they keep to the format, it's a definite winner.
Subscription doesn't quarantee quality or quantity. GW1 can compete, and does well against anything out there. It is not a moneymaker but it sure is a very good game. Anyone who thinks subscription would make GW2 better is wrong. Anti-grind mentality doesn't fit with subscription model.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Damn man. I never Knew Asura were real in the form of RobertDinh. "I know more cos I have played more" "I'm smarter than you blah blah blah"
Anyway. Grinding doesn't = depth :P
GW2 doesn't need P2P, P2P is a legal scamming of people. Simple as that. B2P is the way forward GW2 is not aiming 4 MMO community they are aiming for all. As said in MAnifesto "iF u have never played a MMO u will really like to try GW2"
I can see DLC or some type of Cash Shop playing a huge roll in the final money making process of this game. If they do not then I'm afraid the content will be a little bare. I'm sure they realize that they have to compete with a couple of strong mmo's (WoW,Lotro,Aion,DDO,EvE) that all have either sub or cash shops set up to finance the continuation of there game. I just personally find it hard to believe a company can use the money they make from sales of the game to: cover the cost of development, hire employees such as gms and tech support to handle the game after release, cover the cost of the servers upkeep, and still actually pull in a substantial profit. I could be wrong though... I often am.
As I've stated before, box sales will not be their only source of income, but it will comprise the majority of their income. If they release an incomplete game...relying on box sales for the majority of the income, then the next expansion will not sell. If they do not make money on the next expansion, things will not go well. So this buy to play model really does make sure the developer is honest. If the game is lacking in features, and content, no one is going to pay for another expansion.
Except his way of saying things and talking to people in his usual piss poor manner makes him extremely abrasive and a general nuisance.
GW2 is going to be EXTREEEEEEEEMELY CASUAL as far as DEs are concerned. They have mentioned the possibility of harder DEs at the end game but I doubt they will really amount to much in the way of challenge.
Before I go any farther let me reiterate... Anet is making the process casual because casual is more fun than tedius grind. DEs are intended to be fun and casual, with anyone able to jump in and pick it apart. Denying this is indeed delusional, not that I am calling any of you that.
To say the game won't be rich in content however... there are far too many intangibles at this point to be able to say anything solid in this regard. If you are ONLY playing for DEs and the Story, you will probably be done with the game in a month. If you however view these things as roadstops on the way to end game content such as PvP and the alleged high end PvE content they are going to offer, you probably won't be.
I nor anyone else here knows enough about what they have planned for hardcore gamers at the end game, but what we do know is that even with "hard" content present, everyone will be able to attempt it. So with that been said, unless they make it where a wipe locks you out of a place, and forces you to grind tier after tier of the same dungeon for hours (which is preferred... but doubtful) the game is going to gain the title of "Too Easy".
Another option for you all is to view the game as what it advertises itself as, pure fun for however long it lasts. PvPers will find the most bang for their buck considering the amount of "E-sport" throwarounds we are getting from Izzy. Again though, there are a lot of intangibles present for us to grasp before we can even begin to draw any final conclusions.
One thing is for sure though, box sales will indeed be enough funds for them to keep their current team plus a few more and work on future content. Just hope that some of that content is end game, unlike the first game. A subscription model (which they will NEVER adapt) just wouldn't change the facts mentioned above. So it wouldn't be better, no matter how you slice it.
Edit: Also, 40 man raids are a broken process. The amount of fine tuning required to make a 40 man work, was hair splitting both on the player and developers state of mind. There are plenty of unexplored options with 5 man content, but none of which will ever be as "hard" as 40 man content simply because you cut out the retard factor. There is much more room for error with 40 people than with 5 people. Unfortunately, that is really all the difference. tuning an encounter for 40 people is just "more" of everything. More Health, More potential for human error, more headache.
I'd like to see if anyone could potentially carry the same difficulty without the hassle in 5 mans.
A few simple[well not so simple really] questions related to the topic.....
#1 Does a subbed game keep RMT away from ruining your game more than a F2P game?I know the answer i am sure others do as well.Easier to remember an asshat player on your server if he can't go out and make new players all the time?
#2 If A-net knows they have a great following from GW1 and they have everyone believing GW2 is a much superior product,why would they not ask for even 10 bucks?This leads to the second part of this question....Is the GW's franchise selling itself on the qaulity of the game or the fact that it is free?
#3 If A-net knows they could achieve a subscription model,why wouldn't they?IMO not one single developer would be appreciated by it's parent company/board/stock members if it did not try to achieve as much profit as possible.So imo A-net has decided it is the free to play that makes this franchise work,correct assumption or not?
#4 If i feel my game is easily as good as other games out there that charge $15,i would assume i can easily get $10 for my game no?
This all adds up to an easy two part answer,yes a subscripton is always best,but A-net feels they cannot survive on a subscription model.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
A few simple[well not so simple really] questions related to the topic.....
#1 Does a subbed game keep RMT away from ruining your game more than a F2P game?I know the answer i am sure others do as well.Easier to remember an asshat player on your server if he can't go out and make new players all the time?
#2 If A-net knows they have a great following from GW1 and they have everyone believing GW2 is a much superior product,why would they not ask for even 10 bucks?This leads to the second part of this question....Is the GW's franchise selling itself on the qaulity of the game or the fact that it is free?
#3 If A-net knows they could achieve a subscription model,why wouldn't they?IMO not one single developer would be appreciated by it's parent company/board/stock members if it did not try to achieve as much profit as possible.So imo A-net has decided it is the free to play that makes this franchise work,correct assumption or not?
#4 If i feel my game is easily as good as other games out there that charge $15,i would assume i can easily get $10 for my game no?
This all adds up to an easy two part answer,yes a subscripton is always best,but A-net feels they cannot survive on a subscription model.
You bring up excellent points.
1) I think both P2P and B2P (like GW2 will be) games have less asshats than F2P just because there's plenty of places to be an asshat for free, so why pay for the priviledge? Both WoW and GW1 have paid name change, so I think a certain amount of asshattery is to be expected because people know they can always fall back on that.
GW2 is designed from the ground up to prevent griefing though. There's no kill stealing, no node stealing, no ninja looting, and if they find a way that people are ruining an event for other people and they can't fix it, they scrap the event. Events also scale back down if people suddenly decide they want to stop contributing. About the only way off the top of my head I think people will be able to be asshats is verbally, and I'm sure the game will have an ignore feature.
2,3,4) I think the answer is multifaceted. GW1 is a deeper game than I gave it credit for the first time around, but it's not a WoW-Killer. I know the only reason I even tried it is because it's free. Maybe they feel like the Guild Wars brand is too valuable and that people would feel betrayed by switching to a P2P model. It could be that they feel like name recognition+B2P is more profitable than unknown name+P2P.
Also, if there were a dozen games out there, all with 1 million subs for $15 a month, then I think maybe they could say that they think their game is straight up better than other games and they could lure people away. But right now there is that WoW juggernaut still. So maybe they feel like again they're not in a position where they can topple them, no matter how good their game is. People are way more willing to try a B2P game than they would a P2P. If they can get millions of more purchases, and then some of them sticking around for expansions, that's real money.
Finally, I think there's been a big rise in F2P games lately. I know I've tried EQ2X, LOTRO, and Vindictus myself. I haven't even explored even the tip of the what looks to me like hundreds of other games listed on this site. Maybe they feel like the P2P model is dying, and they feel like Blizzard is the last company that is ever going to get serious returns from it. Casual gamers aren't going to pay two subscriptions.
Anyway, I feel like they're selling their game both on the quality of the game AND the fact that it's got no subscription.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Well, I am kind of worried they will not pull enough money in order to make the game content rich and such. I would pay 15 dollars a month if they make a great game and if I feel my money is well, spent.
if they change it to p2p, it will take a couple more years of development to get a game good enough that worth a sub. So far the game is very good as f2p(buy to play). I think i would sub for other games rather than gw2 if they go p2p. it is just perfect as f2p.
1. With a few assumptions on the info, we have about 20 dungeons. Each dungeon has a repeat mode after the story so you can virtually double that number also. Each dungeon is 5-man and apart from perhaps an extra 2-3 at lvl 80 each dungeon per 10 lvls with 3 per race before lvl 30 might be the case that reaches this total number more or less.
2. Main thing is dungeons are predominantly spread across the levels & repeatable by (only) 5-unit groups.
This enables greater accessibility and gradual learning of dungeons and more frequent dungeon runs by smaller groups with less inhibitions on forming a group. This content is more efficient than a big raid at the end of the game. Also a big reward at the end of a grind curve makes no sense as people should level up on flat curve and better to addict them to dungeons along the way than expect them to adapt to new content at the end (each dungeon run: 0-1Hr?). Also the instances allow additional vip story structure and special loot completion sub-game modes optionally per 10 levels.
The other thing I like about this design (apart from what has been mentioned already concerning 5-man being less complicated than larger groups raid content) is that the 5-person structure is the same number for Structured PvP. I think that's a neat little equivalence there for people to try their hand at pvp if they think they rock at the pve structured group content and don't normally consider pvp? In fact the overall game design of GW2 is suited to allowing lots of opportunity for players to go on tangents from the main game only leads to suit the game design more.
@ Wizardry: The game design and business model are one and the same and serve each other's purpose I think. Eg Progression, Combat, Dungeons... it's all there.
the reason why people talk about guild wars 2 not having enough content for a sub is because it doesnt stretch its content out in a minotinous way the same way most quest based MMOs do; basically they give you thousands of kill x of y creatures quests stretching out the time it takes for you to get to the endgame content (which is mostly considered the most desired content of those MMOs) they do this as a marketing technique to keep players addicted (people will keep paying you to do simular tasks over and over as long as you reward them at the end). Guild Wars 2 would not work as a P2P game because its content is meant to be more condensed (so like 30 min of progress in guild wars 2 would be the same as like 1-2 hours in a game like WoW, what with the differences of level progession and the fact that Guild Wars 2's storyline is fairly seperate from the content available in the world) its not that Guild Wars 2 has a lack of content to keep you busy, its just that they dont spread it out in a way that would force you to play hours to feel like you made any progress, so its not fit to be P2P as P2P models are meant to keep someone playing several hours before the're satified (not to say peopel wont want to play gw2 for hours, but they wont have to in order to make significant progress)
A few simple[well not so simple really] questions related to the topic.....
#1 Does a subbed game keep RMT away from ruining your game more than a F2P game?I know the answer i am sure others do as well.Easier to remember an asshat player on your server if he can't go out and make new players all the time?
#2 If A-net knows they have a great following from GW1 and they have everyone believing GW2 is a much superior product,why would they not ask for even 10 bucks?This leads to the second part of this question....Is the GW's franchise selling itself on the qaulity of the game or the fact that it is free?
#3 If A-net knows they could achieve a subscription model,why wouldn't they?IMO not one single developer would be appreciated by it's parent company/board/stock members if it did not try to achieve as much profit as possible.So imo A-net has decided it is the free to play that makes this franchise work,correct assumption or not?
#4 If i feel my game is easily as good as other games out there that charge $15,i would assume i can easily get $10 for my game no?
This all adds up to an easy two part answer,yes a subscripton is always best,but A-net feels they cannot survive on a subscription model.
1) The cash shop in GW1 is on par with most MMO cash shops these days. Unless we're talking about Cryptic which has more content in their cash shop than their retail game itself. As far as making more real players I know in GW1 you had a finite amount of character slots and you would need to pay real money to buy new character slots to make a new player all the time. This is no different than MMO's like WoW.
2) You are making the assumption that because GW2 is not charging a sub fee that it will be an inferior game compared to sub based MMO's. It will probably have as much or more content as sub based MMO's did when they were released, but since a game like WoW has a 6 year head start how can new MMO's hope to compete for the same fee with a fraction of the content because it was just released. The answer is to make a game that does not charge a sub fee and therefore will not be purchased, played through, unsubbed, and never thought of again. There is nothing unprofitable about the B2P business model, if that was the case no one would make non-MMO games.
Look at games like MW2 which sold 20 million copies on the B2P model. They are extremely successful and make a ton of money. MMO's are becoming significantly more mainstream and as such more people are going to be willing to purchase box sales. If GW1 back in 2005 can sell 6 million copies in it's run as a heavily instanced non-MMO then just think about the box sales that could be achieved with GW2. On top of the initial box sales what is it games like the COD series like to do, they release new titles on a very regular basis to capitalize on more box sales, GW2 will do the same thing either through DLC purchases or retail box sales of expansions. A true MMO like GW2 could be even more successful in follow up box sales than a game like COD because MMO's provide extended experience with their expansions whereas COD games generally just rehash the same experience with new features or polish.
I think the B2P MMO model has not yet been explored by a good developer with an established franchise like Anet.
3) Anet wouldn't use the subscription model like so many other MMO's out there that have failed to capture large audiences because they can make a similar amount of money using the B2P model and have a much larger audience that can come and go very easily without affecting their income.
The real question is why would Anet want to limit their audience (to those willing to drop their current sub or run two in conjunction) when they know if they pump out exciting fun content they can make a similar amount of money on the B2P model as they would on a sub with far less room for failure. That's what you need to ask yourself.
4) If a new MMO assumes it's as good as WoW is and tries to charge $15/mo they quickly realize that they are 6 years behind on content and not many people want to commit to two subs at the same time. Add in the fact that people are reluctant to give up the characters they spent years developing and well you see what usually happens. On the other hand if you create a B2P game that will not attempt to force you to unsub your existing game to choose it instead, all of a sudden your audience is much larger.
TLDR: This all adds up to an easy two part answer that's very different from your own. A subscription is an easier way to make profit than a B2P model if you consider no other factors. However in a market where your audience is likely already paying a sub and the vast majority are unwilling to pay for two at a time, then a B2P model could be more profitable and almost certainly guarantees a larger audience.
This is basically an entire thread feeding a single insane troll. People, people, stop. He does not like Guild Wars, he thinks he knows everything, leave him to his rage, but do not continue to argue with a stone wall. Please.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Well, I am kind of worried they will not pull enough money in order to make the game content rich and such. I would pay 15 dollars a month if they make a great game and if I feel my money is well, spent.
Nope. No monthly fee is argueably the games biggest draw. To remove that would be suicide.
I am with AFGMAN on this,heck i would pay 50 bucks a month for a great game,as a matter of fact when i was playing FFXI i was paying 50 bucks a month,so that proves i mean what i say.
When even the smallest games out there are charging 15 bucks and one game is not,it surely sends some kind of signal,an i think it is rather obvious.I played GW1 it was no way worth a p2p model and this is why i suspect GW2 will not be much better.
Nobody in these forums can tell me they wouldn't pay GW2 15 bucks a month if the game was very good,i don'care if they have Wow subs or not.Millions and i mean MILLIONS of single player games are sold all the time to people who have subbed games and those cost 50-80 bucks,that is 5-6 months worth of a sub playing another game,so that is a poor excuse.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I'm not currently subbed to any games because I end up feeling ripped off due to my schedule, some months I just cant squeeze in my 14.99 a month worth (or whatever other amount) the fact that GW2 is going to not have a sub for me to pay for really makes me happy because I can play as much or as little as I want and not have that feeling where I'm paying for something that I'm not getting to use. If they can pull off a good game and not charge a sub for it, I say why not. Thats just my opinion and how it fits my current situation though, for those that can spend the time to get thier money worth and think paying the money will bring better development, I can see where your coming from, I just see it from the other side of the fence.
This is basically an entire thread feeding a single insane troll. People, people, stop. He does not like Guild Wars, he thinks he knows everything, leave him to his rage, but do not continue to argue with a stone wall. Please.
I also wished people would stop feeding this annoying troll or that the mods would lock off this thread, but people continue to revive this pointless forum, like I'm doing right now... DAMMIT! Bloody mods need to move their asses from the Rift and FF XIV forums and start locking off the dead, pointless and WoW related threads in this forum.
This is basically an entire thread feeding a single insane troll. People, people, stop. He does not like Guild Wars, he thinks he knows everything, leave him to his rage, but do not continue to argue with a stone wall. Please.
I also wished people would stop feeding this annoying troll or that the mods would lock off this thread, but people continue to revive this pointless forum, like I'm doing right now... DAMMIT! Bloody mods need to move their asses from the Rift and FF XIV forums and start locking off the dead, pointless and WoW related threads in this forum.
I don't so much think that this thread in particular is being continued simply because feeding a troll is something that doesn't occur to people, but more like it turned into a good conversation.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
This is basically an entire thread feeding a single insane troll. People, people, stop. He does not like Guild Wars, he thinks he knows everything, leave him to his rage, but do not continue to argue with a stone wall. Please.
I also wished people would stop feeding this annoying troll or that the mods would lock off this thread, but people continue to revive this pointless forum, like I'm doing right now... DAMMIT! Bloody mods need to move their asses from the Rift and FF XIV forums and start locking off the dead, pointless and WoW related threads in this forum.
I don't so much think that this thread in particular is being continued simply because feeding a troll is something that doesn't occur to people, but more like it turned into a good conversation.
I feel a saying coming on suddenly: Even the useless have their uses!
As for some of the points of view that think gw2 might be weaker for trying a b2p business model, there's some good points made, but not as well thought out as ArenaNet's.
I am with AFGMAN on this,heck i would pay 50 bucks a month for a great game,as a matter of fact when i was playing FFXI i was paying 50 bucks a month,so that proves i mean what i say.
When even the smallest games out there are charging 15 bucks and one game is not,it surely sends some kind of signal,an i think it is rather obvious.I played GW1 it was no way worth a p2p model and this is why i suspect GW2 will not be much better.
Nobody in these forums can tell me they wouldn't pay GW2 15 bucks a month if the game was very good,i don'care if they have Wow subs or not.Millions and i mean MILLIONS of single player games are sold all the time to people who have subbed games and those cost 50-80 bucks,that is 5-6 months worth of a sub playing another game,so that is a poor excuse.
Personally, I don't think any game is worth the P2P model. GW1 sold 6 million boxes. They've kept up the servers, they've kept up the support with no subscription. At 12 million subscribers, Blizzard is pulling in 2 billion (yes, with a dollars in subscriber fees each year. And yet they still make people pay $40 for each expansion (GW1 expansions went for $50 I think, but again no sub). If ArenaNet can keep the GW servers running and the customer support staff employed with no subscription, where is all that subscriber money going? Probably they're filling some Blizzard executive's swimming pool with $100 bills, just because they can.
People on this forum would pay $15 a month for a great game, sure. But look at the top of the page. 1,278,814 members. That's about 10 percent of the number of WoW subscribers. Those are people who don't read forums, have never heard of mmorpg.com, and probably right now don't even know that other MMOs even exist. Those people aren't going to pay $15 per month for a second game. But they will probably buy a great looking game, especially if they know it's got no subscription. At $60 as a one-time cost, I could buy 3 copies of the game and still be paying less than I would playing WoW for a year, so I can buy one for myself and two as gifts.
Your reasoning for suspecting that GW2 won't be much better than GW1 because both are B2P and GW1 was eclipsed by a P2P game is valid, and you are perfectly within your rights to be cautious. It may very well be that they cut costs or cut corners because they know it's a B2P game. But in another sense, the game they release is independent of the pricing policy. If it's a fantastic game, it's a fantastic game whether it's B2P, $15 sub, $50 sub, or they just give it away for free.
I think ArenaNet has a good track record. They're keeping the servers running and the customer support is there. It makes me happy to pay less to enjoy their product than I would have to pay elsewhere. I won't enjoy their products more if I have to pay more for them.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
This is basically an entire thread feeding a single insane troll. People, people, stop. He does not like Guild Wars, he thinks he knows everything, leave him to his rage, but do not continue to argue with a stone wall. Please.
Assuming he isn't intentionally trolling, I think we can safely file his responses under the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a congnitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacongnitive ability to realize their mistakes.The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence. Competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."
Subscription doesn't quarantee quality or quantity. GW1 can compete, and does well against anything out there. It is not a moneymaker but it sure is a very good game. Anyone who thinks subscription would make GW2 better is wrong. Anti-grind mentality doesn't fit with subscription model.
and
Originally posted by Elox1
2) You are making the assumption that because GW2 is not charging a sub fee that it will be an inferior game compared to sub based MMO's. It will probably have as much or more content as sub based MMO's did when they were released, but since a game like WoW has a 6 year head start how can new MMO's hope to compete for the same fee with a fraction of the content because it was just released. The answer is to make a game that does not charge a sub fee and therefore will not be purchased, played through, unsubbed, and never thought of again. There is nothing unprofitable about the B2P business model, if that was the case no one would make non-MMO games.
Look at games like MW2 which sold 20 million copies on the B2P model. They are extremely successful and make a ton of money. MMO's are becoming significantly more mainstream and as such more people are going to be willing to purchase box sales. If GW1 back in 2005 can sell 6 million copies in it's run as a heavily instanced non-MMO then just think about the box sales that could be achieved with GW2. On top of the initial box sales what is it games like the COD series like to do, they release new titles on a very regular basis to capitalize on more box sales, GW2 will do the same thing either through DLC purchases or retail box sales of expansions. A true MMO like GW2 could be even more successful in follow up box sales than a game like COD because MMO's provide extended experience with their expansions whereas COD games generally just rehash the same experience with new features or polish.
I think the B2P MMO model has not yet been explored by a good developer with an established franchise like Anet.
3) Anet wouldn't use the subscription model like so many other MMO's out there that have failed to capture large audiences because they can make a similar amount of money using the B2P model and have a much larger audience that can come and go very easily without affecting their income.
The real question is why would Anet want to limit their audience (to those willing to drop their current sub or run two in conjunction) when they know if they pump out exciting fun content they can make a similar amount of money on the B2P model as they would on a sub with far less room for failure. That's what you need to ask yourself.
Absolutely immaculate and impeccable posts and I completely agree and could not have said it better myself (my english sucks a little bit)
Originally posted by Dubhlaith
This is basically an entire thread feeding a single insane troll. People, people, stop. He does not like Guild Wars, he thinks he knows everything, leave him to his rage, but do not continue to argue with a stone wall. Please.
Why did this post take 12 pages to appear... +1
The only problem I have is the lack of a release date or beta date
i have a love/hate feeling for the "when its ready" moto of theirs; I love that they are taking their time to make it good, but ah waiting for it is a pain....
Comments
I can see DLC or some type of Cash Shop playing a huge roll in the final money making process of this game. If they do not then I'm afraid the content will be a little bare. I'm sure they realize that they have to compete with a couple of strong mmo's (WoW,Lotro,Aion,DDO,EvE) that all have either sub or cash shops set up to finance the continuation of there game. I just personally find it hard to believe a company can use the money they make from sales of the game to: cover the cost of development, hire employees such as gms and tech support to handle the game after release, cover the cost of the servers upkeep, and still actually pull in a substantial profit. I could be wrong though... I often am.
Playing:
Lotro
Have Played:
EQII,DAOC,SWG,COH,EQ,DDO, Lotro,AoC, EvE,Guild Wars,
Silkroad Online,Aion,and WoW
Favorite of all time: WoW
Waiting on:Swtor,Gw2, and Tera
Well, the money from the cashshop will be a welcome addition to the sales of boxes and expansions. And Guildwars 2 will not make ANET rich in the same way Wow is getting rich on it's western subs. But as long as they sell many copies and release an expansion every year I think they can do fine together with selling fluff.
GW earned loads of money because it sold so well. GW2 will need to sell even more but I think it will if the game is solid enough. I don't think GW2 will compete as much with Wow, Aion, Eve or other P2P games since buying a copy does not require you to pay any additional fees and you can play it every now and then like a single player game. But if they start to rely to haevily on the cash shop and forces people to actually buy a lot of stuff that would change and it would compete in another way so I think they will be careful about that.
an you guys who said you can tank but it costs a lot of mana: You have not played GW (or forgotten how it works). There is no CC in GW and no tanking skills. None whatsoever and I really doubt GW2 will have either.
There are tanking and defensive skills in GW1. For instance, Save Yourselves gives party members additional armor, Defensive Stance increases your chance to block, Defy Pain gives additional HPs/Block/Damage Reduction. There might not be crowd control, but there are some serious interrupts, like Distracting Shot that interrupts a skill and disables it for 20 seconds. Also, I think GW1 was kind of a precursor to GW2 in that there isn't such a clear divisions of roles. For instance, elementalists can cast a Ward Against Melee to give all allies in it a 50% chance to block melee.
As far as GW2 is concerned, here is a Shield Stance video that shows a defensive move that not only blocks attacks on the warrior, but also protects people behind the warrior. This article also talks about how maces can be used to stun.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
The original GW has a trial, after playing almost every MMO since EQ release (I missed UO and AC), and a good variety of the F2P market over the years, I finally decided to try it.
That decision helped me to buy the game, well worth it. The world is immense, and you can play solo or with a guild. pve or pvp
blah blah blah, I like the game, and I extremely like the fact it is B2P. The devs really tried to impress with this, and they did a great job. I hope they keep to the format, it's a definite winner.
Subscription doesn't quarantee quality or quantity. GW1 can compete, and does well against anything out there. It is not a moneymaker but it sure is a very good game. Anyone who thinks subscription would make GW2 better is wrong. Anti-grind mentality doesn't fit with subscription model.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Damn man. I never Knew Asura were real in the form of RobertDinh. "I know more cos I have played more" "I'm smarter than you blah blah blah"
Anyway. Grinding doesn't = depth :P
GW2 doesn't need P2P, P2P is a legal scamming of people. Simple as that. B2P is the way forward
hehehe,hahahahaHAHAHAHA
laughing Hyena, get used to it -_-
As I've stated before, box sales will not be their only source of income, but it will comprise the majority of their income. If they release an incomplete game...relying on box sales for the majority of the income, then the next expansion will not sell. If they do not make money on the next expansion, things will not go well. So this buy to play model really does make sure the developer is honest. If the game is lacking in features, and content, no one is going to pay for another expansion.
I actually have to agree with RobertDinh 100%.
Except his way of saying things and talking to people in his usual piss poor manner makes him extremely abrasive and a general nuisance.
GW2 is going to be EXTREEEEEEEEMELY CASUAL as far as DEs are concerned. They have mentioned the possibility of harder DEs at the end game but I doubt they will really amount to much in the way of challenge.
Before I go any farther let me reiterate... Anet is making the process casual because casual is more fun than tedius grind. DEs are intended to be fun and casual, with anyone able to jump in and pick it apart. Denying this is indeed delusional, not that I am calling any of you that.
To say the game won't be rich in content however... there are far too many intangibles at this point to be able to say anything solid in this regard. If you are ONLY playing for DEs and the Story, you will probably be done with the game in a month. If you however view these things as roadstops on the way to end game content such as PvP and the alleged high end PvE content they are going to offer, you probably won't be.
I nor anyone else here knows enough about what they have planned for hardcore gamers at the end game, but what we do know is that even with "hard" content present, everyone will be able to attempt it. So with that been said, unless they make it where a wipe locks you out of a place, and forces you to grind tier after tier of the same dungeon for hours (which is preferred... but doubtful) the game is going to gain the title of "Too Easy".
Another option for you all is to view the game as what it advertises itself as, pure fun for however long it lasts. PvPers will find the most bang for their buck considering the amount of "E-sport" throwarounds we are getting from Izzy. Again though, there are a lot of intangibles present for us to grasp before we can even begin to draw any final conclusions.
One thing is for sure though, box sales will indeed be enough funds for them to keep their current team plus a few more and work on future content. Just hope that some of that content is end game, unlike the first game. A subscription model (which they will NEVER adapt) just wouldn't change the facts mentioned above. So it wouldn't be better, no matter how you slice it.
Edit: Also, 40 man raids are a broken process. The amount of fine tuning required to make a 40 man work, was hair splitting both on the player and developers state of mind. There are plenty of unexplored options with 5 man content, but none of which will ever be as "hard" as 40 man content simply because you cut out the retard factor. There is much more room for error with 40 people than with 5 people. Unfortunately, that is really all the difference. tuning an encounter for 40 people is just "more" of everything. More Health, More potential for human error, more headache.
I'd like to see if anyone could potentially carry the same difficulty without the hassle in 5 mans.
Example: Give one player mutliple jobs. If you think you are a badass, here is a test: http://www.kongregate.com/games/IcyLime/multitask
You can add an infinite number of variables regardless of raid size, not all of them have to be binary either.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
A few simple[well not so simple really] questions related to the topic.....
#1 Does a subbed game keep RMT away from ruining your game more than a F2P game?I know the answer i am sure others do as well.Easier to remember an asshat player on your server if he can't go out and make new players all the time?
#2 If A-net knows they have a great following from GW1 and they have everyone believing GW2 is a much superior product,why would they not ask for even 10 bucks?This leads to the second part of this question....Is the GW's franchise selling itself on the qaulity of the game or the fact that it is free?
#3 If A-net knows they could achieve a subscription model,why wouldn't they?IMO not one single developer would be appreciated by it's parent company/board/stock members if it did not try to achieve as much profit as possible.So imo A-net has decided it is the free to play that makes this franchise work,correct assumption or not?
#4 If i feel my game is easily as good as other games out there that charge $15,i would assume i can easily get $10 for my game no?
This all adds up to an easy two part answer,yes a subscripton is always best,but A-net feels they cannot survive on a subscription model.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You bring up excellent points.
1) I think both P2P and B2P (like GW2 will be) games have less asshats than F2P just because there's plenty of places to be an asshat for free, so why pay for the priviledge? Both WoW and GW1 have paid name change, so I think a certain amount of asshattery is to be expected because people know they can always fall back on that.
GW2 is designed from the ground up to prevent griefing though. There's no kill stealing, no node stealing, no ninja looting, and if they find a way that people are ruining an event for other people and they can't fix it, they scrap the event. Events also scale back down if people suddenly decide they want to stop contributing. About the only way off the top of my head I think people will be able to be asshats is verbally, and I'm sure the game will have an ignore feature.
2,3,4) I think the answer is multifaceted. GW1 is a deeper game than I gave it credit for the first time around, but it's not a WoW-Killer. I know the only reason I even tried it is because it's free. Maybe they feel like the Guild Wars brand is too valuable and that people would feel betrayed by switching to a P2P model. It could be that they feel like name recognition+B2P is more profitable than unknown name+P2P.
Also, if there were a dozen games out there, all with 1 million subs for $15 a month, then I think maybe they could say that they think their game is straight up better than other games and they could lure people away. But right now there is that WoW juggernaut still. So maybe they feel like again they're not in a position where they can topple them, no matter how good their game is. People are way more willing to try a B2P game than they would a P2P. If they can get millions of more purchases, and then some of them sticking around for expansions, that's real money.
Finally, I think there's been a big rise in F2P games lately. I know I've tried EQ2X, LOTRO, and Vindictus myself. I haven't even explored even the tip of the what looks to me like hundreds of other games listed on this site. Maybe they feel like the P2P model is dying, and they feel like Blizzard is the last company that is ever going to get serious returns from it. Casual gamers aren't going to pay two subscriptions.
Anyway, I feel like they're selling their game both on the quality of the game AND the fact that it's got no subscription.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
if they change it to p2p, it will take a couple more years of development to get a game good enough that worth a sub. So far the game is very good as f2p(buy to play). I think i would sub for other games rather than gw2 if they go p2p. it is just perfect as f2p.
my opinion
Concerning Dungeons:
1. With a few assumptions on the info, we have about 20 dungeons. Each dungeon has a repeat mode after the story so you can virtually double that number also. Each dungeon is 5-man and apart from perhaps an extra 2-3 at lvl 80 each dungeon per 10 lvls with 3 per race before lvl 30 might be the case that reaches this total number more or less.
2. Main thing is dungeons are predominantly spread across the levels & repeatable by (only) 5-unit groups.
This enables greater accessibility and gradual learning of dungeons and more frequent dungeon runs by smaller groups with less inhibitions on forming a group. This content is more efficient than a big raid at the end of the game. Also a big reward at the end of a grind curve makes no sense as people should level up on flat curve and better to addict them to dungeons along the way than expect them to adapt to new content at the end (each dungeon run: 0-1Hr?). Also the instances allow additional vip story structure and special loot completion sub-game modes optionally per 10 levels.
The other thing I like about this design (apart from what has been mentioned already concerning 5-man being less complicated than larger groups raid content) is that the 5-person structure is the same number for Structured PvP. I think that's a neat little equivalence there for people to try their hand at pvp if they think they rock at the pve structured group content and don't normally consider pvp? In fact the overall game design of GW2 is suited to allowing lots of opportunity for players to go on tangents from the main game only leads to suit the game design more.
@ Wizardry: The game design and business model are one and the same and serve each other's purpose I think. Eg Progression, Combat, Dungeons... it's all there.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
the reason why people talk about guild wars 2 not having enough content for a sub is because it doesnt stretch its content out in a minotinous way the same way most quest based MMOs do; basically they give you thousands of kill x of y creatures quests stretching out the time it takes for you to get to the endgame content (which is mostly considered the most desired content of those MMOs) they do this as a marketing technique to keep players addicted (people will keep paying you to do simular tasks over and over as long as you reward them at the end). Guild Wars 2 would not work as a P2P game because its content is meant to be more condensed (so like 30 min of progress in guild wars 2 would be the same as like 1-2 hours in a game like WoW, what with the differences of level progession and the fact that Guild Wars 2's storyline is fairly seperate from the content available in the world) its not that Guild Wars 2 has a lack of content to keep you busy, its just that they dont spread it out in a way that would force you to play hours to feel like you made any progress, so its not fit to be P2P as P2P models are meant to keep someone playing several hours before the're satified (not to say peopel wont want to play gw2 for hours, but they wont have to in order to make significant progress)
1) The cash shop in GW1 is on par with most MMO cash shops these days. Unless we're talking about Cryptic which has more content in their cash shop than their retail game itself. As far as making more real players I know in GW1 you had a finite amount of character slots and you would need to pay real money to buy new character slots to make a new player all the time. This is no different than MMO's like WoW.
2) You are making the assumption that because GW2 is not charging a sub fee that it will be an inferior game compared to sub based MMO's. It will probably have as much or more content as sub based MMO's did when they were released, but since a game like WoW has a 6 year head start how can new MMO's hope to compete for the same fee with a fraction of the content because it was just released. The answer is to make a game that does not charge a sub fee and therefore will not be purchased, played through, unsubbed, and never thought of again. There is nothing unprofitable about the B2P business model, if that was the case no one would make non-MMO games.
Look at games like MW2 which sold 20 million copies on the B2P model. They are extremely successful and make a ton of money. MMO's are becoming significantly more mainstream and as such more people are going to be willing to purchase box sales. If GW1 back in 2005 can sell 6 million copies in it's run as a heavily instanced non-MMO then just think about the box sales that could be achieved with GW2. On top of the initial box sales what is it games like the COD series like to do, they release new titles on a very regular basis to capitalize on more box sales, GW2 will do the same thing either through DLC purchases or retail box sales of expansions. A true MMO like GW2 could be even more successful in follow up box sales than a game like COD because MMO's provide extended experience with their expansions whereas COD games generally just rehash the same experience with new features or polish.
I think the B2P MMO model has not yet been explored by a good developer with an established franchise like Anet.
3) Anet wouldn't use the subscription model like so many other MMO's out there that have failed to capture large audiences because they can make a similar amount of money using the B2P model and have a much larger audience that can come and go very easily without affecting their income.
The real question is why would Anet want to limit their audience (to those willing to drop their current sub or run two in conjunction) when they know if they pump out exciting fun content they can make a similar amount of money on the B2P model as they would on a sub with far less room for failure. That's what you need to ask yourself.
4) If a new MMO assumes it's as good as WoW is and tries to charge $15/mo they quickly realize that they are 6 years behind on content and not many people want to commit to two subs at the same time. Add in the fact that people are reluctant to give up the characters they spent years developing and well you see what usually happens. On the other hand if you create a B2P game that will not attempt to force you to unsub your existing game to choose it instead, all of a sudden your audience is much larger.
TLDR: This all adds up to an easy two part answer that's very different from your own. A subscription is an easier way to make profit than a B2P model if you consider no other factors. However in a market where your audience is likely already paying a sub and the vast majority are unwilling to pay for two at a time, then a B2P model could be more profitable and almost certainly guarantees a larger audience.
This is basically an entire thread feeding a single insane troll. People, people, stop. He does not like Guild Wars, he thinks he knows everything, leave him to his rage, but do not continue to argue with a stone wall. Please.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
I am with AFGMAN on this,heck i would pay 50 bucks a month for a great game,as a matter of fact when i was playing FFXI i was paying 50 bucks a month,so that proves i mean what i say.
When even the smallest games out there are charging 15 bucks and one game is not,it surely sends some kind of signal,an i think it is rather obvious.I played GW1 it was no way worth a p2p model and this is why i suspect GW2 will not be much better.
Nobody in these forums can tell me they wouldn't pay GW2 15 bucks a month if the game was very good,i don'care if they have Wow subs or not.Millions and i mean MILLIONS of single player games are sold all the time to people who have subbed games and those cost 50-80 bucks,that is 5-6 months worth of a sub playing another game,so that is a poor excuse.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I'm not currently subbed to any games because I end up feeling ripped off due to my schedule, some months I just cant squeeze in my 14.99 a month worth (or whatever other amount) the fact that GW2 is going to not have a sub for me to pay for really makes me happy because I can play as much or as little as I want and not have that feeling where I'm paying for something that I'm not getting to use. If they can pull off a good game and not charge a sub for it, I say why not. Thats just my opinion and how it fits my current situation though, for those that can spend the time to get thier money worth and think paying the money will bring better development, I can see where your coming from, I just see it from the other side of the fence.
I also wished people would stop feeding this annoying troll or that the mods would lock off this thread, but people continue to revive this pointless forum, like I'm doing right now... DAMMIT! Bloody mods need to move their asses from the Rift and FF XIV forums and start locking off the dead, pointless and WoW related threads in this forum.
I don't so much think that this thread in particular is being continued simply because feeding a troll is something that doesn't occur to people, but more like it turned into a good conversation.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
I feel a saying coming on suddenly: Even the useless have their uses!
As for some of the points of view that think gw2 might be weaker for trying a b2p business model, there's some good points made, but not as well thought out as ArenaNet's.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Personally, I don't think any game is worth the P2P model. GW1 sold 6 million boxes. They've kept up the servers, they've kept up the support with no subscription. At 12 million subscribers, Blizzard is pulling in 2 billion (yes, with a
dollars in subscriber fees each year. And yet they still make people pay $40 for each expansion (GW1 expansions went for $50 I think, but again no sub). If ArenaNet can keep the GW servers running and the customer support staff employed with no subscription, where is all that subscriber money going? Probably they're filling some Blizzard executive's swimming pool with $100 bills, just because they can.
People on this forum would pay $15 a month for a great game, sure. But look at the top of the page. 1,278,814 members. That's about 10 percent of the number of WoW subscribers. Those are people who don't read forums, have never heard of mmorpg.com, and probably right now don't even know that other MMOs even exist. Those people aren't going to pay $15 per month for a second game. But they will probably buy a great looking game, especially if they know it's got no subscription. At $60 as a one-time cost, I could buy 3 copies of the game and still be paying less than I would playing WoW for a year, so I can buy one for myself and two as gifts.
Your reasoning for suspecting that GW2 won't be much better than GW1 because both are B2P and GW1 was eclipsed by a P2P game is valid, and you are perfectly within your rights to be cautious. It may very well be that they cut costs or cut corners because they know it's a B2P game. But in another sense, the game they release is independent of the pricing policy. If it's a fantastic game, it's a fantastic game whether it's B2P, $15 sub, $50 sub, or they just give it away for free.
I think ArenaNet has a good track record. They're keeping the servers running and the customer support is there. It makes me happy to pay less to enjoy their product than I would have to pay elsewhere. I won't enjoy their products more if I have to pay more for them.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
No.
Assuming he isn't intentionally trolling, I think we can safely file his responses under the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a congnitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacongnitive ability to realize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence. Competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."
and
Absolutely immaculate and impeccable posts and I completely agree and could not have said it better myself (my english sucks a little bit)
Why did this post take 12 pages to appear... +1
The only problem I have is the lack of a release date or beta date
i have a love/hate feeling for the "when its ready" moto of theirs; I love that they are taking their time to make it good, but ah waiting for it is a pain....