Because a B2Pgame can not be server regulated the same way as a P2P, people that doesn't log on for a while will exspect to be able to play on their original server, when new content is availeble and that server might be full!
I don't understand what you mean here. It would be the same thing as subbing to a game and then quitting, and then resubbing when new content comes out. It's the same thing as not logging in for a while on B2P games.
Because a B2Pgame can not be server regulated the same way as a P2P, people that doesn't log on for a while will exspect to be able to play on their original server, when new content is availeble and that server might be full!
I don't understand what you mean here. It would be the same thing as subbing to a game and then quitting, and then resubbing when new content comes out. It's the same thing as not logging in for a while on B2P games.
Its actual not the same thing ! when you sub, you pay for your space on a server, when you unsub , you can't be sure of anything, your server could be gone , merged , split ! And you aswell could theoretical have a new home! When you are B2P then you will expect to be able to come back to the same thing as you left.
The Point is that with a B2P structure you risk having some really empty servers for a long time that suddenly all are full because of new content are added. That difference is going to be much bigger than in a P2P game. Way much bigger, because alot more players will come back, to play.
so if dealt with as a normal P2P game people with scream for server merges(after the first months rush), until new content is added and then they might scream for server splits.
I just hope ArenaNet have thought out something genious to solve this.
Because a B2Pgame can not be server regulated the same way as a P2P, people that doesn't log on for a while will exspect to be able to play on their original server, when new content is availeble and that server might be full!
I don't understand what you mean here. It would be the same thing as subbing to a game and then quitting, and then resubbing when new content comes out. It's the same thing as not logging in for a while on B2P games.
Its actual not the same thing ! when you sub, you pay for your space on a server, when you unsub , you can't be sure of anything, your server could be gone , merged , split ! And you aswell could theoretical have a new home! When you are B2P then you will expect to be able to come back to the same thing as you left.
The Point is that with a B2P structure you risk having some really empty servers for a long time that suddenly all are full because of new content are added. That difference is going to be much bigger than in a P2P game. Way much bigger, because alot more players will come back, to play.
so if dealt with as a normal P2P game people with scream for server merges(after the first months rush), until new content is added and then they might scream for server splits.
I just hope ArenaNet have thought out something genious to solve this.
The GW1 didn't have a huge issue on population variation throughout its life (and even now) so don't think it'll be an issue.
Although, I've heard GW2 will be different in that it won't be instanced as heavily as GW1 so who knows? /shrug.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by romanator0 Don't all MMOs need a large playerbase?
They need a large enough playerbase to continue to add content but that is about it. Guild Wars needs a big player base to make the PvP work considering how it works.
The size of the playerbase won't make any difference to the actual day to day gameplay unless it's way too small. They're going to expand to more servers depending on the number of overall players, so whether there's 3 or 30 or 300 servers, your individual experience won't be affected.
The more people playing, the more the game will be supported. So the bigger the playerbase, the more expansions, DLC or vanity items we'll see. Even if the average user only intends to buy like one thing, at least they'll have more options.
Another long term reason to hope for a large playerbase is that maybe other developers will learn from ArenaNet's example. If GW2 can claim millions of buyers, then maybe other developers will go a B2P route instead of a P2P game getting 500k-1M and then a big dropoff. I know I'm going to buy 1-2 extra copies for my friends in the hopes they play with me. Why not? I would be spending that $180 in a year if this were P2P anyway.
"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
We all know, that in the world of MMO's games like World Of Warcraft are the kings. World of Warcraft is one of the biggest mmo's out there, and has set a standard of the game genra. A huge playerbase, means more choices for the player. Or does it?
Will Guild Wars 2 be a better or worse game with a huge playerbase? What is your concerns about GW2 becoming to popular?
Because of GW2 payer model, yes they need a large player base. With out it, they will not make enough money to maintain the game or add content. So, in some cases, GW2 will need more players then a p2p game simply because they are selling it as a so-called f2p game. They will be dependent on box sells and store items sells for making money (odd...calling it f2p but you must lay down money for the game to play). Therefore, they need many people buying boxes and then a good percentage of those spending in the game store (did we really say this was f2p?). My point is, a so-called f2p game requires a lot more players in order to make money.
It needs to sell twice as many copies as the first game, and have twice the current sub number of GW long terms because it cost a lot more to make than the first game (who made loads of cash compared to what it costed to make, or it would be 3-5 times).
But it is B2P so you can't really compared it to Wow or LOTRO, different payment method means you need to compare it with GW instead.
And yes, I think it should be able to do twice as good as the first game at least, no problem.
Because of GW2 payer model, yes they need a large player base. With out it, they will not make enough money to maintain the game or add content. So, in some cases, GW2 will need more players then a p2p game simply because they are selling it as a so-called f2p game. They will be dependent on box sells and store items sells for making money (odd...calling it f2p but you must lay down money for the game to play). Therefore, they need many people buying boxes and then a good percentage of those spending in the game store (did we really say this was f2p?). My point is, a so-called f2p game requires a lot more players in order to make money.
GW1 and GW2 are B2P (Buy to Play) games not F2P.
"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
Because of GW2 payer model, yes they need a large player base. With out it, they will not make enough money to maintain the game or add content. So, in some cases, GW2 will need more players then a p2p game simply because they are selling it as a so-called f2p game. They will be dependent on box sells and store items sells for making money (odd...calling it f2p but you must lay down money for the game to play). Therefore, they need many people buying boxes and then a good percentage of those spending in the game store (did we really say this was f2p?). My point is, a so-called f2p game requires a lot more players in order to make money.
GW2 is B2P, not F2P. Specifically because you have to buy the original box to play. 'Buy to Play'. Basically the price model most computer games use, if you're a little confused how that works.
I doubt the World vs World pvp would be fun without at least high double digits of players participating soooo yes, a large player base would be a very good thing.
Some people are not aware of the large following GW and ArenaNet has. GW sold six miilion plus copies including expansions.
They also have a vast following in Europe,it's their biggest player base hence why ArenaNet had the firsts showing of GW2 at GamesCom colne Germany. It was to reward their european followers who supported GW while most MMO gamers in the US were kness deep in WOW when GW1 was released.
Some people are not aware of the large following GW and ArenaNet has. GW sold six miilion plus copies including expansions.
They also have a vast following in Europe,it's their biggest player base hence why ArenaNet had the firsts showing of GW2 at GamesCom colne Germany. It was to reward their european followers who supported GW while most MMO gamers in the US were kness deep in WOW when GW1 was released.
ArenaNet really have nothing to worry about.
Odd thing though is that European servers are very empty, even at prime time. Main hubs rarely have more then 1 district. While the American servers always have multiple districts. Even presear Ascalon! I guess most European PVE players hide in American districts
There probably is a sweet spot for each game, I would assume. Too few and the world seems empty. Too many and the quality of your community gets diluted (i.e. too much anonymity). Personally, I don't see why GW2 would need a large player-base. If they have enough to fill up 3 servers for high-density WvW, that would be good enough for me.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Odd thing though is that European servers are very empty, even at prime time. Main hubs rarely have more then 1 district. While the American servers always have multiple districts. Even presear Ascalon! I guess most European PVE players hide in American districts
So do the Filipinos and lots of other people. It's weird. O.o
Yeah, lots of Europeans int he American districts. Some of which dont' even appear to speak English. Crazy.
There probably is a sweet spot for each game, I would assume. Too few and the world seems empty. Too many and the quality of your community gets diluted (i.e. too much anonymity). Personally, I don't see why GW2 would need a large player-base. If they have enough to fill up 3 servers for high-density WvW, that would be good enough for me.
I would like to see enough players to comfortably fill out 12 servers. More than that is fine but I want enough servers to have some variety week to week in their WvW battles.
There probably is a sweet spot for each game, I would assume. Too few and the world seems empty. Too many and the quality of your community gets diluted (i.e. too much anonymity). Personally, I don't see why GW2 would need a large player-base. If they have enough to fill up 3 servers for high-density WvW, that would be good enough for me.
I would like to see enough players to comfortably fill out 12 servers. More than that is fine but I want enough servers to have some variety week to week in their WvW battles.
I agree with you, but just as an example of why that would be unnecessary, DAoC had only 3 sides that never changed. Also, with the ability for players to more easily swtich servers in GW2, there should be plenty of variety from week to week with just 3 servers, I would assume. If there is too much variety in your opponents, you won't get any good rivalries since you won't see those players as often.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Better or worse with a huge playerbase? Good question but then I guess you'd have to determine what 'huge' means. I know GW1 had (or has) sold 6 million units (or whatever the measurement is). That's a little misleading because I know many people had multiple accounts. Still, I found it to be a pretty good game. I played it solid for 4 years and then got a little burned out on it (that's my issue, not the games). On the other end of the MMO spectrum, you have WoW with it's legion of members (12 mil give or take...I think?). WoW has a definite following and so it's logical to say that yes....it's a good game. I've tried it and I could see myself getting hooked. However, I digress.
So, does it need a huge one? Negative. Would that be nice? Yes...yes it would be. What GW2 needs is a dedicated playerbase. That dedication requires content. Content, in this instance, means updates, skill balances, new content, etc... I think ANet can deliver that. Say what you want about GW1 but it's still being supported with the aforementioned items by ANet. I'm really excited about this game and while I'm sure there will be parts that I don't like...I'm equally sure that I will enjoy my time in-game.
It doesn't need a fanbase like WoW. Guild Wars already has a pretty large fanbase itself and if that's the amount of players that keep playing then that's fine. It'll need to sell a little more but I don't think that's going to be a problem considering all the hype around it.
As for the quality of gamers that end up playing Guild Wars 2, I think it's quite exaggerrated. The WoW only fanboys are the ones that are usually trolls. They won't even touch Guild Wars 2 because they think they have to be loyal to their game. The quality gamers that do end up playing the game in the long run shouldn't be a problem. There's probably going to be an influx of annoying gamers in the beginning but they usually quit after a little bit. That's how it was with Guild Wars. Nowadays, GW has one of the best communities.
It doesn't need a massive playerbase and playing on smaller servers will be perfectly acceptable because you aren't forced to play with large groups of people using specific roles. Making a group is as easy as 1, 2, 3! And four, if you count your final party member. Removing specific roles will help smaller servers make groups without ever having a shortage of willing players.
Of course, I'll likely be playing on a more populated server because it's always fun to see lots of people running around the world with you! (But not required for gameplay, as Dynamic Events scale!)
Comments
I don't understand what you mean here. It would be the same thing as subbing to a game and then quitting, and then resubbing when new content comes out. It's the same thing as not logging in for a while on B2P games.
Its actual not the same thing ! when you sub, you pay for your space on a server, when you unsub , you can't be sure of anything, your server could be gone , merged , split ! And you aswell could theoretical have a new home! When you are B2P then you will expect to be able to come back to the same thing as you left.
The Point is that with a B2P structure you risk having some really empty servers for a long time that suddenly all are full because of new content are added. That difference is going to be much bigger than in a P2P game. Way much bigger, because alot more players will come back, to play.
so if dealt with as a normal P2P game people with scream for server merges(after the first months rush), until new content is added and then they might scream for server splits.
I just hope ArenaNet have thought out something genious to solve this.
The GW1 didn't have a huge issue on population variation throughout its life (and even now) so don't think it'll be an issue.
Although, I've heard GW2 will be different in that it won't be instanced as heavily as GW1 so who knows? /shrug.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I am ready for a huge player base... but honestly i would like it to be average sized, 1 million to 3 million players would be ok for me.
Too many players would attract too many pricks. Pricks move to where the masses are... it's like they don't have free will
.
So i would rather have less but better players.
The more the merrier I say.
Bigger playerbase = more money = more content made.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
They need a large enough playerbase to continue to add content but that is about it. Guild Wars needs a big player base to make the PvP work considering how it works.
The size of the playerbase won't make any difference to the actual day to day gameplay unless it's way too small. They're going to expand to more servers depending on the number of overall players, so whether there's 3 or 30 or 300 servers, your individual experience won't be affected.
The more people playing, the more the game will be supported. So the bigger the playerbase, the more expansions, DLC or vanity items we'll see. Even if the average user only intends to buy like one thing, at least they'll have more options.
Another long term reason to hope for a large playerbase is that maybe other developers will learn from ArenaNet's example. If GW2 can claim millions of buyers, then maybe other developers will go a B2P route instead of a P2P game getting 500k-1M and then a big dropoff. I know I'm going to buy 1-2 extra copies for my friends in the hopes they play with me. Why not? I would be spending that $180 in a year if this were P2P anyway.
"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
Because of GW2 payer model, yes they need a large player base. With out it, they will not make enough money to maintain the game or add content. So, in some cases, GW2 will need more players then a p2p game simply because they are selling it as a so-called f2p game. They will be dependent on box sells and store items sells for making money (odd...calling it f2p but you must lay down money for the game to play). Therefore, they need many people buying boxes and then a good percentage of those spending in the game store (did we really say this was f2p?). My point is, a so-called f2p game requires a lot more players in order to make money.
Let's party like it is 1863!
I know they are gonna get a big playerbase anyway xD
Every mmo needs a solid playerbase. If you value the MM part of MMO
Gw2 need a pretty large playerbase, yes.
It needs to sell twice as many copies as the first game, and have twice the current sub number of GW long terms because it cost a lot more to make than the first game (who made loads of cash compared to what it costed to make, or it would be 3-5 times).
But it is B2P so you can't really compared it to Wow or LOTRO, different payment method means you need to compare it with GW instead.
And yes, I think it should be able to do twice as good as the first game at least, no problem.
GW1 and GW2 are B2P (Buy to Play) games not F2P.
"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
GW2 is B2P, not F2P. Specifically because you have to buy the original box to play. 'Buy to Play'. Basically the price model most computer games use, if you're a little confused how that works.
I doubt the World vs World pvp would be fun without at least high double digits of players participating soooo yes, a large player base would be a very good thing.
gw2 doesnt need a large player base at all. but ANet will get far more people than they expect...gw2 will be huge.
How big is big? For most of the game I don't think it needs a particulary big playerbase. For the WvW pvp it definitely needs an active playerbase.
Some people are not aware of the large following GW and ArenaNet has. GW sold six miilion plus copies including expansions.
They also have a vast following in Europe,it's their biggest player base hence why ArenaNet had the firsts showing of GW2 at GamesCom colne Germany. It was to reward their european followers who supported GW while most MMO gamers in the US were kness deep in WOW when GW1 was released.
ArenaNet really have nothing to worry about.
Odd thing though is that European servers are very empty, even at prime time. Main hubs rarely have more then 1 district. While the American servers always have multiple districts. Even presear Ascalon! I guess most European PVE players hide in American districts
There probably is a sweet spot for each game, I would assume. Too few and the world seems empty. Too many and the quality of your community gets diluted (i.e. too much anonymity). Personally, I don't see why GW2 would need a large player-base. If they have enough to fill up 3 servers for high-density WvW, that would be good enough for me.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
So do the Filipinos and lots of other people. It's weird. O.o
Yeah, lots of Europeans int he American districts. Some of which dont' even appear to speak English. Crazy.
I would like to see enough players to comfortably fill out 12 servers. More than that is fine but I want enough servers to have some variety week to week in their WvW battles.
I agree with you, but just as an example of why that would be unnecessary, DAoC had only 3 sides that never changed. Also, with the ability for players to more easily swtich servers in GW2, there should be plenty of variety from week to week with just 3 servers, I would assume. If there is too much variety in your opponents, you won't get any good rivalries since you won't see those players as often.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Better or worse with a huge playerbase? Good question but then I guess you'd have to determine what 'huge' means. I know GW1 had (or has) sold 6 million units (or whatever the measurement is). That's a little misleading because I know many people had multiple accounts. Still, I found it to be a pretty good game. I played it solid for 4 years and then got a little burned out on it (that's my issue, not the games). On the other end of the MMO spectrum, you have WoW with it's legion of members (12 mil give or take...I think?). WoW has a definite following and so it's logical to say that yes....it's a good game. I've tried it and I could see myself getting hooked. However, I digress.
So, does it need a huge one? Negative. Would that be nice? Yes...yes it would be. What GW2 needs is a dedicated playerbase. That dedication requires content. Content, in this instance, means updates, skill balances, new content, etc... I think ANet can deliver that. Say what you want about GW1 but it's still being supported with the aforementioned items by ANet. I'm really excited about this game and while I'm sure there will be parts that I don't like...I'm equally sure that I will enjoy my time in-game.
It doesn't need a fanbase like WoW. Guild Wars already has a pretty large fanbase itself and if that's the amount of players that keep playing then that's fine. It'll need to sell a little more but I don't think that's going to be a problem considering all the hype around it.
As for the quality of gamers that end up playing Guild Wars 2, I think it's quite exaggerrated. The WoW only fanboys are the ones that are usually trolls. They won't even touch Guild Wars 2 because they think they have to be loyal to their game. The quality gamers that do end up playing the game in the long run shouldn't be a problem. There's probably going to be an influx of annoying gamers in the beginning but they usually quit after a little bit. That's how it was with Guild Wars. Nowadays, GW has one of the best communities.
It doesn't need a massive playerbase and playing on smaller servers will be perfectly acceptable because you aren't forced to play with large groups of people using specific roles. Making a group is as easy as 1, 2, 3! And four, if you count your final party member. Removing specific roles will help smaller servers make groups without ever having a shortage of willing players.
Of course, I'll likely be playing on a more populated server because it's always fun to see lots of people running around the world with you! (But not required for gameplay, as Dynamic Events scale!)