F2P is not exactly the best either for the simple fact or the type of people that the game attracts. If B2P was so great then why has Guild Wars sold as many copies as WoW has in subs, but has no where near that many people still playing?
Is it because the game could not adjust to what people were demanding or is it a "our way or the highway" from the devs?
my replies were mostly to how often will GW2 be updated
- which i said was unknown (but then offered GW1 commentary)
I replied to you, but it was more directed towards those people who either say that ArenaNet is slow to put out content, or that frequently buying expansions is a ripoff (not necessarily even from this thread).
Now wait though, you said all that in comparison to WOW, but you left out one major factor. Size and scope of the two games, by default WOW just simply offers a ton more than GW1-EON. GW was simply a game made to play PVP arenas at length, that's where it's integrity was at it's strongest. That just isn't the case with the average MMO.
I think an easy way to compare the two is break down the RPG style of the two offerings. GW is basically akin to diablo. A typcial themepark MMO is more akin to a diablo/TES/BG hybrid of sorts.
Who's to say how GW2 will play out in terms of longevity, as the scope this time is supposed to be broader, which raises more questions than answers at this point. They have a plan as they say, we all know how plans can go in the dog eat dog world of games development. I'm sure Lord British had a plan for Tabula Rasa, as did the makers of Auto Assualt, Ncsoft had a diffferent plan in the end.
To SB fans, please stop making our demographic look bad.Stop invading threads that have nothing to do with sandboxes.
F2P is not exactly the best either for the simple fact or the type of people that the game attracts. If B2P was so great then why has Guild Wars sold as many copies as WoW has in subs, but has no where near that many people still playing?
Is it because the game could not adjust to what people were demanding or is it a "our way or the highway" from the devs?
It's a completely apples to oranges comparison.
WoW is a AAA MMO. It also had the advantage of being released before GW. GW was not a AAA MMO, it isn't even really an MMO. It's a comparatively low budget game with a development team that was like 4 people.
WoW has continued to be developed. GW1 stopped making paid content in 2007 because they couldn't do what they wanted to do (dynamic events) with the engine they had and without totally changing the game, something they didn't want to do.
Look at what GW1 offered. Don't get me wrong, it's a good game, hell, I played it today, but it's not a AAA MMO. It might have survived as a P2P game, it might not have. Instead of being the game that died or the game that is limping along with only diehard fans subbing, it's the game that sold over 7 million boxes, a game that vastly outearned City of Heroes in its prime, a game that continues generate a 2-3 million dollars per quarter, even 4 years after it stopped putting out paid content.
We don't know what GW would have done had they released Utopia instead of EOTN. They probably would have stopped making new standalones because they kept increasing complexity for new players. It was a fledgling company, they might consider the standalones a mistake and would have moved in a different direction. What we do know is that GW1 was an unquestionable financial success, otherwise GW2 would not be being released with the same B2P model, despite its vastly increased development costs. Whatever may have become of GW, it's a game that has given ArenaNet an almost universal reputation as being a company that is treating its customers fairly.
GW2, being a truly AAA MMO and a high quality product, coupled with its B2P price model, is going to sell a ton of copies. No question. A year from now, when we can see how GW2's income is on NCSoft earnings reports compared to the 3 million+ subs of Aion, we'll know for sure and B2P will be vindicated as a perfectly viable business model, one that other AAA MMO developers might also consider using.
"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
Now wait though, you said all that in comparison to WOW, but you left out one major factor. Size and scope of the two games, by default WOW just simply offers a ton more than GW1-EON. GW was simply a game made to play PVP arenas at length, that's where it's integrity was at it's strongest. That just isn't the case with the average MMO.
I think an easy way to compare the two is break down the RPG style of the two offerings. GW is basically akin to diablo. A typcial themepark MMO is more akin to a diablo/TES/BG hybrid of sorts.
Who's to say how GW2 will play out in terms of longevity, as the scope this time is supposed to be broader, which raises more questions than answers at this point. They have a plan as they say, we all know how plans can go in the dog eat dog world of games development. I'm sure Lord British had a plan for Tabula Rasa, as did the makers of Auto Assualt, Ncsoft had a diffferent plan in the end.
I don't know that size and scope are relevant, to be honest. It's obvious that WoW was a deeper game upon release than GW, it was a AAA MMO with a much larger development team. I was comparing all the "free" content updates you got from WoW and its first expansion vs all the GW1 standalones and expansions, because they occurred over approximately the same timeframe. Like I said, it's apples to oranges. WoW's content is smaller, but packed with quests and unique bosses. GW1 generated a lot more content (70 more zones, among others) but the content was probably a lot more straightforward to create. We can debate who created more stuff, or the "value" of the stuff they created, but the whole points were that ArenaNet is not necessarily slow to create content, it's just that the content was deliberately divided into 6+ month standalone chunks, and also that even if you buy everything, B2P still is a value to the consumer.
As far as longevity goes, it's good to be skeptical. We don't know for sure how things will play out. We can go by ArenaNet's vow to not talk about things unless they're in the game, and what they've said about the amount of content and its replayability. We can see in the significant amount of demo footage that what they're saying is being backed up. Even though there are still a lot of unanswered questions, I'm personally just not seeing the kind of warning signs that I've seen in other games. Hopefully we can all get into beta and get a much closer look.
"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
1. Unlike games with a sub, waiting for patches actually costs players nothing. This isn't to say that Anet won't have lots of patches to satisfy its fans.
2. This game is aimed at being playable by most people. It isn't Crysis engine level, but it still looks damn good.
3. No.
1. This is unacceptable to me and the first time some Guild Wars fan tells me "well what did you expect for a game without a sub?" is when I uninstall the game and say fuck ArenaNET.
I am seeing a lot of people preach the death of the P2P model and the BP and F2P stuff is taking over. Well there are certain things we expect. I know very well someone threatening to unsub will not really carry any weight with ArenaNET outside of no purchases from the cash shop. I want to know ArenaNETS take on this.
2. No idea, but I do agree it looks amazing and I can not deny that. It looks like I wish Rift looked, but I know Rift/WoW/SWToR look that way because idiots refuse to upgrade their toasters that they call comps.
3. This game is severely attracting WoW fans and that means people used to the trinity. I see the qq being great and tons of LULZY threads lol
I actually haven't seen it in lowest graphics, but at highest, I heard it eats higher end rigs alive, even though it doesn't look all the great at highest settings either. It's not even the aesthetics, the textures look abyssmal to me.
Edited. Removed PvP Interview and put it in new thread.
Not even going to bother but I would wager a whole years salary ( I make alot) that you're some ToR blabbling fanboy and is looking for any tidbits of negativity to make you feel good about the game that will kick your games ass in everything.
Hell, Casey on MMO.Report says GW2 is the next best thing. So lets end it right there lol.
Anyways I'll bite. Firstly both of those are Blog sites, and one of them, Keen and Graev, hasnt stayed fixed to one MMO for more then 6 months before they fold up shop and move to another game, Those guys on that site and their guild move around to new MMO's faster then my 86 year old grandpa in the evening after a mexican dinner at some two bit unsanitary restaurant. The second site ive never visitided once. But suffice it to say im sure it gets no where near the hits as MMORPG.COM.
Secondly both of those are talking about PvP and onl ythe MAIN PVP TALKING POINTS THAT WAS ANNOUNCED AT GAMESCON. ANet even mentioned they are not talking about their bread and butter for PvP in GW2 which is WvWvW. So please put your girly hands away from the troolboard and go back harping about how much ToR will be exactly WoW in space and its goign to be the next best thing since Aion, err I mean WAR, errr I mean FFXVI, Err I mean AoC, Errr I mean Rift......Anyways you get my point, you cant copy something good and expect to pull any amount of subs away because all you do is make a niche game in the same mold as WoW. mY FEELING IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A NICHE GAME, MAKE IT INNOVATIVE. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY ALL THOSE WOW CLONES FAIL!!!!!!!!!!
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I actually haven't seen it in lowest graphics, but at highest, I heard it eats higher end rigs alive, even though it doesn't look all the great at highest settings either. It's not even the aesthetics, the textures look abyssmal to me.
I just wanted to point out that optimization doesn't usually happen until the game is pretty close to release. Chances are the game will run MUCH smoother at release than it does now. It doesnt make sense to optimize when the game isn't complete because you never know whats gonna change and it also limits the devs ability to edit art and such within the game.
It happens with all games -- They are advertising a BEAUTIFUL game and they are going to lose a lot of people who are waiting a week for game reviews before buying if the reviews come out saying that the game runs choppy or is laggy on lower end comps. I know that Arenanet is smart enough to know this and I don't think we'll be disappointed
GW2 graphics are nowhere near the level of games likes Crysis or Battlefield 3. There isn't much official info yet, but it is a pretty safe bet you'll be able to get 30+ FPS on medium settings if your graphics are cpu were released in the last 3 years. The game looks amazing on higher settings and now is a very good time to upgrade your system if you have been falling behind. Intel 2500K + 570 GTX only come out to about $650 and will last a good 3-4 years for running most new games on maxed settings.
3. Will taking out the trinity ultimately destroy this game? Do people have the patience to learn how to handle boss fights based on mechanics and not being able to stack enough of a particular class to win?
You do realize that it's text book psychology that people get used to change, even if they hate it at first, right? This type of psychology was recently applied to the big changes made to the Facebook format a couple years ago. And it was true then, just as it will be true when GW2 is released. People fear change, but that doesn't mean they won't get used to it, and even enjoy it, and even forget what was so amazing about the "old way". No one even remembers what the old Facebook was like, for example.
Also, I think it bears pointing out that bosses will still be based on general mechanics, but ones that aren't as limiting as WoW bosses, since mechanics in GW2 fights change depending on the amount of players involved, giving a much deeper level of satisfaction based on group size. In a 5 man dungeon, mechanics will also still exist, and the best part is, you won't have to stack any particular class to win (what gave you the idea that this was the case, I don't know), since every class is capable of switching roles on the fly. The Trinity is not actually needed, nor does it - nor CAN it exist without dedicated healers or aggro tables for "tanks" (trinity = three), and I think people need to play for a while before they will accept this. It shouldn't be that hard. Over the course of the demo showings at the shows of the past year, people have shown that they are willing to try something new, even if some have been remarkably inept at realizing they have the ability to dodge at their disposal.
Anyway, a game is good based on its depth and fluidity, not static boss mechanics and skill spam. Rift is a good example of this. It purposely mimicked everything that made WoW good, but the results were lackluster. Technology moves forward, always, regardless of what a few stubborn naysayers want. Fans of the old ways will live, and they'll evolve, or they'll just play their way. No big loss. At one time, the Trinity was considered a change from the old ways. Think about it.
3. Will taking out the trinity ultimately destroy this game? Do people have the patience to learn how to handle boss fights based on mechanics and not being able to stack enough of a particular class to win?
You do realize that it's text book psychology that people get used to change, even if they hate it at first, right? This type of psychology was recently applied to the big changes made to the Facebook format a couple years ago. And it was true then, just as it will be true when GW2 is released. People fear change, but that doesn't mean they won't get used to it, and even enjoy it, and even forget what was so amazing about the "old way". No one even remembers what the old Facebook was like, for example.
Also, I think it bears pointing out that bosses will still be based on general mechanics, but ones that aren't as limiting as WoW bosses, since mechanics in GW2 fights change depending on the amount of players involved, giving a much deeper level of satisfaction based on group size. In a 5 man dungeon, mechanics will also still exist, and the best part is, you won't have to stack any particular class to win (what gave you the idea that this was the case, I don't know), since every class is capable of switching roles on the fly. The Trinity is not actually needed, nor does it - nor CAN it exist without dedicated healers or aggro tables for "tanks" (trinity = three), and I think people need to play for a while before they will accept this. It shouldn't be that hard. Over the course of the demo showings at the shows of the past year, people have shown that they are willing to try something new, even if some have been remarkably inept at realizing they have the ability to dodge at their disposal.
Anyway, a game is good based on its depth and fluidity, not static boss mechanics and skill spam. Rift is a good example of this. It purposely mimicked everything that made WoW good, but the results were lackluster. Technology moves forward, always, regardless of what a few stubborn naysayers want. Fans of the old ways will live, and they'll evolve, or they'll just play their way. No big loss. At one time, the Trinity was considered a change from the old ways. Think about it.
People adapt to change if they have to. However most people do not welcome change and many fear it because it takes them out of their comfort zone.
Rift is the second most popular mmo in the North American market at this time.(subscription-based) I'm not saying this makes it a good game. Simply that it highlights how you can be successful, staying with a tested formula and adding/tinkering with a few elements.
3. Will taking out the trinity ultimately destroy this game? Do people have the patience to learn how to handle boss fights based on mechanics and not being able to stack enough of a particular class to win?
You do realize that it's text book psychology that people get used to change, even if they hate it at first, right? This type of psychology was recently applied to the big changes made to the Facebook format a couple years ago. And it was true then, just as it will be true when GW2 is released. People fear change, but that doesn't mean they won't get used to it, and even enjoy it, and even forget what was so amazing about the "old way". No one even remembers what the old Facebook was like, for example.
Also, I think it bears pointing out that bosses will still be based on general mechanics, but ones that aren't as limiting as WoW bosses, since mechanics in GW2 fights change depending on the amount of players involved, giving a much deeper level of satisfaction based on group size. In a 5 man dungeon, mechanics will also still exist, and the best part is, you won't have to stack any particular class to win (what gave you the idea that this was the case, I don't know), since every class is capable of switching roles on the fly. The Trinity is not actually needed, nor does it - nor CAN it exist without dedicated healers or aggro tables for "tanks" (trinity = three), and I think people need to play for a while before they will accept this. It shouldn't be that hard. Over the course of the demo showings at the shows of the past year, people have shown that they are willing to try something new, even if some have been remarkably inept at realizing they have the ability to dodge at their disposal.
Anyway, a game is good based on its depth and fluidity, not static boss mechanics and skill spam. Rift is a good example of this. It purposely mimicked everything that made WoW good, but the results were lackluster. Technology moves forward, always, regardless of what a few stubborn naysayers want. Fans of the old ways will live, and they'll evolve, or they'll just play their way. No big loss. At one time, the Trinity was considered a change from the old ways. Think about it.
People adapt to change if they have to. However most people do not welcome change and many fear it because it takes them out of their comfort zone.
Rift is the second most popular mmo in the North American market at this time.(subscription-based) I'm not saying this makes it a good game. Simply that it highlights how you can be successful, staying with a tested formula and adding/tinkering with a few elements.
So you are saying that you rather have another WoW Clone?
Crap, Rift even copies spell rotations from wow, Tested and Proved working surely
3. Will taking out the trinity ultimately destroy this game? Do people have the patience to learn how to handle boss fights based on mechanics and not being able to stack enough of a particular class to win?
You do realize that it's text book psychology that people get used to change, even if they hate it at first, right? This type of psychology was recently applied to the big changes made to the Facebook format a couple years ago. And it was true then, just as it will be true when GW2 is released. People fear change, but that doesn't mean they won't get used to it, and even enjoy it, and even forget what was so amazing about the "old way". No one even remembers what the old Facebook was like, for example.
Also, I think it bears pointing out that bosses will still be based on general mechanics, but ones that aren't as limiting as WoW bosses, since mechanics in GW2 fights change depending on the amount of players involved, giving a much deeper level of satisfaction based on group size. In a 5 man dungeon, mechanics will also still exist, and the best part is, you won't have to stack any particular class to win (what gave you the idea that this was the case, I don't know), since every class is capable of switching roles on the fly. The Trinity is not actually needed, nor does it - nor CAN it exist without dedicated healers or aggro tables for "tanks" (trinity = three), and I think people need to play for a while before they will accept this. It shouldn't be that hard. Over the course of the demo showings at the shows of the past year, people have shown that they are willing to try something new, even if some have been remarkably inept at realizing they have the ability to dodge at their disposal.
Anyway, a game is good based on its depth and fluidity, not static boss mechanics and skill spam. Rift is a good example of this. It purposely mimicked everything that made WoW good, but the results were lackluster. Technology moves forward, always, regardless of what a few stubborn naysayers want. Fans of the old ways will live, and they'll evolve, or they'll just play their way. No big loss. At one time, the Trinity was considered a change from the old ways. Think about it.
People adapt to change if they have to. However most people do not welcome change and many fear it because it takes them out of their comfort zone.
Rift is the second most popular mmo in the North American market at this time.(subscription-based) I'm not saying this makes it a good game. Simply that it highlights how you can be successful, staying with a tested formula and adding/tinkering with a few elements.
So you are saying that you rather have another WoW Clone?
Crap, Rift even copies spell rotations from wow, Tested and Proved working surely
I didn't personally. I played Rift for a bit but got bored eventually.
I didn't personally. I played Rift for a bit but got bored eventually.
Still there is no denying Rift's popularity.
Rift has 1 million customers, not subscribers. Probably they're somewhere in the 500-600k range. WoW still has over 11 million subscribers.
I'm not denying that Rift isn't a success and raking in all kinds of cash due to the P2P model, but really, being excited you're the #2 MMO in the west is like being excited you're the #2 PC operating system.
"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
I didn't personally. I played Rift for a bit but got bored eventually.
Still there is no denying Rift's popularity.
Rift has 1 million customers, not subscribers. Probably they're somewhere in the 500-600k range. WoW still has over 11 million subscribers.
I'm not denying that Rift isn't a success and raking in all kinds of cash due to the P2P model, but really, being excited you're the #2 MMO in the west is like being excited you're the #2 PC operating system.
I didn't personally. I played Rift for a bit but got bored eventually.
Still there is no denying Rift's popularity.
Rift has 1 million customers, not subscribers. Probably they're somewhere in the 500-600k range. WoW still has over 11 million subscribers.
I'm not denying that Rift isn't a success and raking in all kinds of cash due to the P2P model, but really, being excited you're the #2 MMO in the west is like being excited you're the #2 PC operating system.
Heh, double negatives.
oops
Originally posted by BadSpock
Originally posted by cali59
but really, being excited you're the #2 MMO in the west is like being excited you're the #2 PC operating system.
What terrible, terrible logic.
The #2 PC operating system is the Mac OS. You think they are not happy with how they are doing?
It's this "a game has to be #1 or nothing" mentality that creates all the hype and dissapointment and broken expectations in the MMO industry.
In the PC software/gaming industry, success is not defined by being the only one left standing.
Shrug. I did a google search, came up with a statistic that said 90% of computers run Windows, realized that Rift was looking at probably around 5% of WoW's total market, thought it was an appropriate metaphor.
I'm not saying it has to be all or nothing. For instance, I'm sure NCSoft is very pleased with Aion's 3 million subs in Asia. As it turns out, it seems half of WoW's market is in Asia, so probably 5.5 million between North America and Europe. Rift fired a salvo with its "we're not in Azeroth anymore" campaign, so to me, doing that but still only ending up with 10% of its competitor's western subs isn't exactly a huge win. It's still a win and they're a success and they're making money. I'm just saying that the disparity between what saying you're #2 implies and what it actually means is pretty substantial.
"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
So just extrapolating using your logical construct, you're saying GW2 won't be successful if it sells 1 million boxes and has 500k-600k playing it buying dlc/expansions?
So just extrapolating using your logical construct, you're saying GW2 won't be successful if it sells 1 million boxes and has 500k-600k playing it buying dlc/expansions?
GW1 sold one million copies during its first 5 months - and it wasnt even a mmo
So just extrapolating using your logical construct, you're saying GW2 won't be successful if it sells 1 million boxes and has 500k-600k playing it buying dlc/expansions?
GW1 sold one million copies during its first 5 months - and it wasnt even a mmo
I hope GW2 does even better but i dont care how successful the game is - I just know ill be playing it
I was responding to Cali59 who said that Rift wasn't a success because it only had 500-600k subs, by that logic GW1 was a horrible flop.
p.s. Since my irony was lost on you the first time, I just wanted to be sure and point out that I'm being ironic again. 1 million in box sales and 500-600k subs (or dlc/expansion buyers) is not a failure but a success for an mmo or a non mmo.
Both authors express that they don't care for battleground style PvP, so, they were disappointed that there was no reveal at Gamescom for World vs. World vs. World.
My reaction?
First, there is no doom and gloom to be seen here. ANet said ahead of time they weren't ready to do the reveal on W-W-W and it wouldn't be part of the Gamescom demo. They have leaked, or at least commented on a leak, of a partial W-W-W map. That's all we've seen so far and though there have been some comments on the system, there isn't much known for sure yet as far as details.
Second, although I understand the concern that competitive PvP might in some way detract from W-W-W, the concern also ignores the fact that many players do enjoy PvP battlegrounds and we all should be careful about dismissing content just because we personally aren't interested in said content.
Many GW1 players that still play the game do almost nothing except instanced PvP, so it's difficult to fault ANet for wanting to give those players a reason to buy and play GW2.
W-W-W will succeed or fail on it's own merits. If it's fun and rewarding, people will play it. I believe ANet has said that players will be able to level up entirely via W-W-W if they wanted to, so there is added appeal for some players. For those most interested in PvP, Competitive PvP would seem a great adjunct to W-W-W, rather than something that is in competition with it. If some players do chose to do nothing but Competitive PvP? Why should anyone else care if they are off in their own sub section of the game, doing what they bought the game to do?
So just extrapolating using your logical construct, you're saying GW2 won't be successful if it sells 1 million boxes and has 500k-600k playing it buying dlc/expansions?
GW1 sold one million copies during its first 5 months - and it wasnt even a mmo
I hope GW2 does even better but i dont care how successful the game is - I just know ill be playing it
I was responding to Cali59 who said that Rift wasn't a success because it only had 500-600k subs, by that logic GW1 was a horrible flop.
p.s. Since my irony was lost on you the first time, I just wanted to be sure and point out that I'm being ironic again. 1 million in box sales and 500-600k subs (or dlc/expansion buyers) is not a failure but a success for an mmo or a non mmo.
Due to an accidental double negative in my first post, I inadvertantly said Rift wasn't a success. I corrected myself and then specifically said it was a success in my second post.
GW1 was a non-MMO made by a company with a content team of about 4 people going up against WoW in its prime. It is by all measures a big success, both by the fact that it significantly outearned the P2P City of Heroes during its run, but also that we're still discussing it and playing it 5-6 years later. It's still bringing in 2-3 million per quarter despite having not put out paid content since 2007.
Rift is also a success financially. The P2P model and any respectable amount of subs ensures that. Hell, this website had a columnist argue that WAR is a success just due to its holding on to 200k subs. I'm not sure we know what Rift's actual goals were, whether it just wanted to achieve a consistent 500k subs and earn a profit, or whether it wanted to take down WoW. We don't know whether "we're not in Azeroth anymore" was a challenge or just an attempt at hype. My whole point was that lauding the fact that you're the #2 MMO in the west, when by all accounts you have 10% of the subscribers of #1 (5% globally) maybe isn't something that means a whole lot.
"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
Comments
F2P is not exactly the best either for the simple fact or the type of people that the game attracts. If B2P was so great then why has Guild Wars sold as many copies as WoW has in subs, but has no where near that many people still playing?
Is it because the game could not adjust to what people were demanding or is it a "our way or the highway" from the devs?
Now wait though, you said all that in comparison to WOW, but you left out one major factor. Size and scope of the two games, by default WOW just simply offers a ton more than GW1-EON. GW was simply a game made to play PVP arenas at length, that's where it's integrity was at it's strongest. That just isn't the case with the average MMO.
I think an easy way to compare the two is break down the RPG style of the two offerings. GW is basically akin to diablo. A typcial themepark MMO is more akin to a diablo/TES/BG hybrid of sorts.
Who's to say how GW2 will play out in terms of longevity, as the scope this time is supposed to be broader, which raises more questions than answers at this point. They have a plan as they say, we all know how plans can go in the dog eat dog world of games development. I'm sure Lord British had a plan for Tabula Rasa, as did the makers of Auto Assualt, Ncsoft had a diffferent plan in the end.
To SB fans, please stop making our demographic look bad.Stop invading threads that have nothing to do with sandboxes.
SW:TOR Graphics Evolution and Comparison
SW:TOR Compare MMO Quests, Combat and More...
It's a completely apples to oranges comparison.
WoW is a AAA MMO. It also had the advantage of being released before GW. GW was not a AAA MMO, it isn't even really an MMO. It's a comparatively low budget game with a development team that was like 4 people.
WoW has continued to be developed. GW1 stopped making paid content in 2007 because they couldn't do what they wanted to do (dynamic events) with the engine they had and without totally changing the game, something they didn't want to do.
Look at what GW1 offered. Don't get me wrong, it's a good game, hell, I played it today, but it's not a AAA MMO. It might have survived as a P2P game, it might not have. Instead of being the game that died or the game that is limping along with only diehard fans subbing, it's the game that sold over 7 million boxes, a game that vastly outearned City of Heroes in its prime, a game that continues generate a 2-3 million dollars per quarter, even 4 years after it stopped putting out paid content.
We don't know what GW would have done had they released Utopia instead of EOTN. They probably would have stopped making new standalones because they kept increasing complexity for new players. It was a fledgling company, they might consider the standalones a mistake and would have moved in a different direction. What we do know is that GW1 was an unquestionable financial success, otherwise GW2 would not be being released with the same B2P model, despite its vastly increased development costs. Whatever may have become of GW, it's a game that has given ArenaNet an almost universal reputation as being a company that is treating its customers fairly.
GW2, being a truly AAA MMO and a high quality product, coupled with its B2P price model, is going to sell a ton of copies. No question. A year from now, when we can see how GW2's income is on NCSoft earnings reports compared to the 3 million+ subs of Aion, we'll know for sure and B2P will be vindicated as a perfectly viable business model, one that other AAA MMO developers might also consider using.
"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
I don't know that size and scope are relevant, to be honest. It's obvious that WoW was a deeper game upon release than GW, it was a AAA MMO with a much larger development team. I was comparing all the "free" content updates you got from WoW and its first expansion vs all the GW1 standalones and expansions, because they occurred over approximately the same timeframe. Like I said, it's apples to oranges. WoW's content is smaller, but packed with quests and unique bosses. GW1 generated a lot more content (70 more zones, among others) but the content was probably a lot more straightforward to create. We can debate who created more stuff, or the "value" of the stuff they created, but the whole points were that ArenaNet is not necessarily slow to create content, it's just that the content was deliberately divided into 6+ month standalone chunks, and also that even if you buy everything, B2P still is a value to the consumer.
As far as longevity goes, it's good to be skeptical. We don't know for sure how things will play out. We can go by ArenaNet's vow to not talk about things unless they're in the game, and what they've said about the amount of content and its replayability. We can see in the significant amount of demo footage that what they're saying is being backed up. Even though there are still a lot of unanswered questions, I'm personally just not seeing the kind of warning signs that I've seen in other games. Hopefully we can all get into beta and get a much closer look.
"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
I agree - GW2 will be a different game than GW1
GW1 was never intended to be a mmo (even tho I personally felt it played like one)
I did not do much pvp in GW1 -- since April 2005 launch, I did mostly PVE with all the missions
and made a dozen alts (originally I had to buy 2nd acct because extra char slots were not available)
GW1 had enough content to do PVE -- if PVP was not your style
EQ2 fan sites
I actually haven't seen it in lowest graphics, but at highest, I heard it eats higher end rigs alive, even though it doesn't look all the great at highest settings either. It's not even the aesthetics, the textures look abyssmal to me.
Not even going to bother but I would wager a whole years salary ( I make alot) that you're some ToR blabbling fanboy and is looking for any tidbits of negativity to make you feel good about the game that will kick your games ass in everything.
Hell, Casey on MMO.Report says GW2 is the next best thing. So lets end it right there lol.
Anyways I'll bite. Firstly both of those are Blog sites, and one of them, Keen and Graev, hasnt stayed fixed to one MMO for more then 6 months before they fold up shop and move to another game, Those guys on that site and their guild move around to new MMO's faster then my 86 year old grandpa in the evening after a mexican dinner at some two bit unsanitary restaurant. The second site ive never visitided once. But suffice it to say im sure it gets no where near the hits as MMORPG.COM.
Secondly both of those are talking about PvP and onl ythe MAIN PVP TALKING POINTS THAT WAS ANNOUNCED AT GAMESCON. ANet even mentioned they are not talking about their bread and butter for PvP in GW2 which is WvWvW. So please put your girly hands away from the troolboard and go back harping about how much ToR will be exactly WoW in space and its goign to be the next best thing since Aion, err I mean WAR, errr I mean FFXVI, Err I mean AoC, Errr I mean Rift......Anyways you get my point, you cant copy something good and expect to pull any amount of subs away because all you do is make a niche game in the same mold as WoW. mY FEELING IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A NICHE GAME, MAKE IT INNOVATIVE. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY ALL THOSE WOW CLONES FAIL!!!!!!!!!!
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
What a misleading thread title. All the article said was how disappointing the lack of information was.
That's some spinning if I ever saw it.
Here's DIRECTLY from the first link's article
" They say outright that it’s like DAoC."
Oh shit. Haven't we been wanting that since.. ya know.. DAoC? Thanks for the plus, OP.
EDIT: Of course, this guy. Guy hates GW2 and a massive SWTOR baller. Both are good games but he just can't accept this. Move along.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
I just wanted to point out that optimization doesn't usually happen until the game is pretty close to release. Chances are the game will run MUCH smoother at release than it does now. It doesnt make sense to optimize when the game isn't complete because you never know whats gonna change and it also limits the devs ability to edit art and such within the game.
It happens with all games -- They are advertising a BEAUTIFUL game and they are going to lose a lot of people who are waiting a week for game reviews before buying if the reviews come out saying that the game runs choppy or is laggy on lower end comps. I know that Arenanet is smart enough to know this and I don't think we'll be disappointed
GW2 graphics are nowhere near the level of games likes Crysis or Battlefield 3. There isn't much official info yet, but it is a pretty safe bet you'll be able to get 30+ FPS on medium settings if your graphics are cpu were released in the last 3 years. The game looks amazing on higher settings and now is a very good time to upgrade your system if you have been falling behind. Intel 2500K + 570 GTX only come out to about $650 and will last a good 3-4 years for running most new games on maxed settings.
You do realize that it's text book psychology that people get used to change, even if they hate it at first, right? This type of psychology was recently applied to the big changes made to the Facebook format a couple years ago. And it was true then, just as it will be true when GW2 is released. People fear change, but that doesn't mean they won't get used to it, and even enjoy it, and even forget what was so amazing about the "old way". No one even remembers what the old Facebook was like, for example.
Also, I think it bears pointing out that bosses will still be based on general mechanics, but ones that aren't as limiting as WoW bosses, since mechanics in GW2 fights change depending on the amount of players involved, giving a much deeper level of satisfaction based on group size. In a 5 man dungeon, mechanics will also still exist, and the best part is, you won't have to stack any particular class to win (what gave you the idea that this was the case, I don't know), since every class is capable of switching roles on the fly. The Trinity is not actually needed, nor does it - nor CAN it exist without dedicated healers or aggro tables for "tanks" (trinity = three), and I think people need to play for a while before they will accept this. It shouldn't be that hard. Over the course of the demo showings at the shows of the past year, people have shown that they are willing to try something new, even if some have been remarkably inept at realizing they have the ability to dodge at their disposal.
Anyway, a game is good based on its depth and fluidity, not static boss mechanics and skill spam. Rift is a good example of this. It purposely mimicked everything that made WoW good, but the results were lackluster. Technology moves forward, always, regardless of what a few stubborn naysayers want. Fans of the old ways will live, and they'll evolve, or they'll just play their way. No big loss. At one time, the Trinity was considered a change from the old ways. Think about it.
People adapt to change if they have to. However most people do not welcome change and many fear it because it takes them out of their comfort zone.
Rift is the second most popular mmo in the North American market at this time.(subscription-based) I'm not saying this makes it a good game. Simply that it highlights how you can be successful, staying with a tested formula and adding/tinkering with a few elements.
So you are saying that you rather have another WoW Clone?
Crap, Rift even copies spell rotations from wow, Tested and Proved working surely
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."
I didn't personally. I played Rift for a bit but got bored eventually.
Still there is no denying Rift's popularity.
It's true that it's often easier to sell your product to people if it has a certain level of familiarity.
Doesn't mean that something new can't do well, it just means that something new has to prove itself.
Sometimes new stuff overtakes the old though. It just has to be good enough.
Rift has 1 million customers, not subscribers. Probably they're somewhere in the 500-600k range. WoW still has over 11 million subscribers.
I'm not denying that Rift isn't a success and raking in all kinds of cash due to the P2P model, but really, being excited you're the #2 MMO in the west is like being excited you're the #2 PC operating system.
"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
Heh, double negatives.
What terrible, terrible logic.
The #2 PC operating system is the Mac OS. You think they are not happy with how they are doing?
It's this "a game has to be #1 or nothing" mentality that creates all the hype and dissapointment and broken expectations in the MMO industry.
In the PC software/gaming industry, success is not defined by being the only one left standing.
we obey the mighty spock
.....
oops
Shrug. I did a google search, came up with a statistic that said 90% of computers run Windows, realized that Rift was looking at probably around 5% of WoW's total market, thought it was an appropriate metaphor.
I'm not saying it has to be all or nothing. For instance, I'm sure NCSoft is very pleased with Aion's 3 million subs in Asia. As it turns out, it seems half of WoW's market is in Asia, so probably 5.5 million between North America and Europe. Rift fired a salvo with its "we're not in Azeroth anymore" campaign, so to me, doing that but still only ending up with 10% of its competitor's western subs isn't exactly a huge win. It's still a win and they're a success and they're making money. I'm just saying that the disparity between what saying you're #2 implies and what it actually means is pretty substantial.
"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
So just extrapolating using your logical construct, you're saying GW2 won't be successful if it sells 1 million boxes and has 500k-600k playing it buying dlc/expansions?
GW1 sold one million copies during its first 5 months - and it wasnt even a mmo
http://www.guildwars.com/events/press/releases/pressrelease-2005-09-22.php
I hope GW2 does even better but i dont care how successful the game is - I just know ill be playing it
EQ2 fan sites
I was responding to Cali59 who said that Rift wasn't a success because it only had 500-600k subs, by that logic GW1 was a horrible flop.
p.s. Since my irony was lost on you the first time, I just wanted to be sure and point out that I'm being ironic again. 1 million in box sales and 500-600k subs (or dlc/expansion buyers) is not a failure but a success for an mmo or a non mmo.
O.k., I read both links.
Both authors express that they don't care for battleground style PvP, so, they were disappointed that there was no reveal at Gamescom for World vs. World vs. World.
My reaction?
First, there is no doom and gloom to be seen here. ANet said ahead of time they weren't ready to do the reveal on W-W-W and it wouldn't be part of the Gamescom demo. They have leaked, or at least commented on a leak, of a partial W-W-W map. That's all we've seen so far and though there have been some comments on the system, there isn't much known for sure yet as far as details.
Second, although I understand the concern that competitive PvP might in some way detract from W-W-W, the concern also ignores the fact that many players do enjoy PvP battlegrounds and we all should be careful about dismissing content just because we personally aren't interested in said content.
Many GW1 players that still play the game do almost nothing except instanced PvP, so it's difficult to fault ANet for wanting to give those players a reason to buy and play GW2.
W-W-W will succeed or fail on it's own merits. If it's fun and rewarding, people will play it. I believe ANet has said that players will be able to level up entirely via W-W-W if they wanted to, so there is added appeal for some players. For those most interested in PvP, Competitive PvP would seem a great adjunct to W-W-W, rather than something that is in competition with it. If some players do chose to do nothing but Competitive PvP? Why should anyone else care if they are off in their own sub section of the game, doing what they bought the game to do?
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
Due to an accidental double negative in my first post, I inadvertantly said Rift wasn't a success. I corrected myself and then specifically said it was a success in my second post.
GW1 was a non-MMO made by a company with a content team of about 4 people going up against WoW in its prime. It is by all measures a big success, both by the fact that it significantly outearned the P2P City of Heroes during its run, but also that we're still discussing it and playing it 5-6 years later. It's still bringing in 2-3 million per quarter despite having not put out paid content since 2007.
Rift is also a success financially. The P2P model and any respectable amount of subs ensures that. Hell, this website had a columnist argue that WAR is a success just due to its holding on to 200k subs. I'm not sure we know what Rift's actual goals were, whether it just wanted to achieve a consistent 500k subs and earn a profit, or whether it wanted to take down WoW. We don't know whether "we're not in Azeroth anymore" was a challenge or just an attempt at hype. My whole point was that lauding the fact that you're the #2 MMO in the west, when by all accounts you have 10% of the subscribers of #1 (5% globally) maybe isn't something that means a whole lot.
"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