Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Is anyone else concerned about the no sub model?

1246789

Comments

  • someforumguysomeforumguy HomePosts: 3,540Member Uncommon

    Seems to me that some people overestimate the costs for bandwidth and servers and underestimate the revenue from boxsales alone. Boxsales dont only happen when a MMO releases. Expansion packs are boxsales too and a lot of players start playing a lot later then release.

    The video that AKASlaphappy linked on the first page of this thread makes a strong case about this. It also shows how low server bandwith/maintenance costs are compared to other costs.

    Just assuming that paying a sub is necessary because most AAA MMO's ask one is kind of naive. You should never forget that you are dealing with commercial companies. They cant just openly admit to you that their subs are not needed or change back, because thats just destroying revenue and shareholders wont look positively at that. You cant just decide to stop making less profit just like that, unless the CEO is bored with his job.

  • zimboy69zimboy69 chicargo, FLPosts: 378Member Uncommon

    if guild wars  is as good as it looks alll other mmo's will have to  change to b2p or no one will pay the subs

     

    and the more that change to b2p the harder it is  for other games to charge 

    image

  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member

    Originally posted by zimboy69

    if guild wars  is as good as it looks alll other mmo's will have to  change to b2p or no one will pay the subs

     

    and the more that change to b2p the harder it is  for other games to charge 

     

    Would be nice if that were true, but most of us can't just play one game forever, no matter how good it is.  I'm sure I'll get bored of GW2 and and have to go back to paying a sub for something else at some point.  Even an inferior MMO like Tera - I'll just need something new.

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  • UnlightUnlight Ottawa, ONPosts: 2,540Member

    My only concern is if the payment model will work with such a large, ambitious game.  One thing that doesn't worry me is if ANet will follow through on their plan to support it by keeping the content coming.  The longevity of the game depends on it and there's nothing I've seen from ANet that makes me think that they are only in it for a short-term commitment.

  • Cik_AsalinCik_Asalin SoCal, CAPosts: 3,033Member

    Originally posted by Xzen

    It worked for GW. The only way they make money is if they keep giving us content to keep us around.

    Precisely my thoughts.  Why is it a concern today, several years later when a studio has already proven, and will prove again, that rich breadth and depth of mmorpg content can be provided with acceptance to a huge audience that doesnt include "pay-to-win" items, but cosmetics and such, in addition to proving the farse that a subscription is needed for server development, builds and maintenance.

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon

    Not really. It's already working, just as the subscription model has already been working. From what I've seen, the B2P model seems to have more incentive to keep players around than the sub model. Rift is the first sub game in a while that seems to be releasing a lot of free content additions to try and retain players.

  • Dream_ChaserDream_Chaser BGPosts: 1,043Member

    @The OP

    What you consider as something to 'kee you playing' is a con. Psychological addiction does not a great game make, nor will it ever, and I don't consider something that tapdances on the edge of my will by being as addictive as a narcotic due to a developer hiring psychologists to ensure that their game works that way a 'good game.' It may be an addicting game, but it is so for all the wrong reasons.

    There have been MMORPG developers guilty of this. There was one big name that actually required 'some knowledge of psychology' as a requirement for a number of their positions. I won't name names but you can probably guess who they are. No? Alright then, Zynga for one, and Blizzard for another. Both of them did this. And it's been a well known thing that they do this for quite some time. The idea is is that they create a very social, addictive game where people make ties with other people, but they can never have closure on the stories they play their characters through. So they're attached to their characters and the characters of their friends, and they keep playing the game because they can't stop.

    It's not healthy and it's certainly not good game design. Of all those I've talked to when they've finally come down off of their WoW drug, none of them could raelly say that they were enjoying themselves, nor could they say that they had a great quality of life. In fact, a number of them told me that WoW was ruining their life, badly, and that's why they had to go cold turkey and break the addiction. Their job, their social life, and everyone around them was suffering. They forgot about everything from dental hygiene to showers, and all they did was play the damn game.

    So I'm glad that ArenaNet won't have incentives to 'keep you playing.' See, I'm an old fart, and in my day we used to have something called 'value for money.' What this means is that you buy a game with money (not with someone else's money) and you decide whether the content provided was fun enough and/or sizable enough to be considered value for money. If you feel that the game was worth the money you spent on it, that the content matched the cost, then the game was good value and people were happy. This is the standard I still judge games by today.

    I use a factor of fun and length, but length isn't the most important thing, and I realise that a game has to end at some point. This is actually a good thing. In fact, as a casual player I'll take 20 hours of a good game (Fallout: New Vegas) over 60 hours of a dreadfully boring one (Dragon Age: Origins). The problem with 'keeping you playing' is that often the primary tactics used are addiction and padding. There's about 5 per cent actual content in a game like World of Warcraft, then you have 50 per cent repeated content and 45 per cent padding. If I look at this from the angle of my 'value for money' angle, then the price of the box plus expansions, plus the monthly subscription make WoW very poor value for money.

    Conclusion: I don't want ArenaNet to design a psychologically addictive game that will keep people playing for almost a decade, that's not what I want. I want them to design a good game, one with a beginning, an ending, and lots of content in between. I want it to be enjoyable, and I never want to feel that I'm having to grind or repeat content. Now with the first Guild Wars I got exactly that. I got a game which had a clearly defined beginning and end, I even had a lead up to the ending crescendo and it was truly amazing stuff. Now, see, if the original Guild Wars had been WoW then what they would have done is removed the content after Glint, then they would have had you repeating the fight with Glint over and over for months, then they'd release the next bit of content and have you playing that over and over for months.

    But that would lead to a bad and a not very enjoyable game, for me. See, when I buy a book the last thing I want is to be given the last few chapters a huge amount of time away from when I bought the book, and I don't want to have to repeat chapters of the book over and over to feel I've earned the right to read the next chapter of the book. I'm a sane person, I don't want this, I can't understand why anyone would want this. But this is exactly the sort of thing that having a subscription implies - it means that the developer is going to try to keep you playing forever to keep you paying forever.

    Having a game that comes to an end after a reasonable amount of time is a good thing. No padding, no repeated content, no large-scale end game raiding. None of that. Just a game that feels solid from beginning to end, one that's enjoyable, and one that's value for money. I mean, when you bought BioShock did you except the game to 'keep you playing'? Did you expect to be playing it four years down the road? I think that's an unreasonable expectation and to say it again, I think the only way this can be achieved is via: Psychological addiction, Grinding, Repeated Content, and Padding.

    I think that the lack of a subscription is awesome because it means that they need to make a good amount of content without any of hte above in order for people to pay for it. That's how it was with the first Guild Wars as well. In fact, if Guild Wars 2 tells you that you're done once you've defeated the final challenge and that there's simply no reason to keep playing until the next chunk of coontent comes along then I'll be over the moon, that'll make me happier than anything else could.

    Being psychologically addicted to the gaming equivalent of a narcotic isn't healthy and shouldn't be encouraged. We shouldn't be telling peple that it's okay. And we shouldn't be letting developers get away with that sort of thing any more. A good game which is value for money, that's what I want GW2 to be, and hopefully that's what the rest of you want it to be too.

  • Dream_ChaserDream_Chaser BGPosts: 1,043Member

    The above said...

    Champions Online has been doing better than ever since it went Free-to-Play. And Champions Online also has encapsulated storylines. It has stories which have a clear beginning, middle, and end. You can tell once you're done with a bit of content and you can just leave the game alone until the next chunk of content comes along. That's how MMORPGs should be. MMORPGs should not be a second life/job where you spend all your time to the detriment of your actual life/job.

  • timeraidertimeraider BredaPosts: 568Member Uncommon

    you have two kinds of companies:

    1. Companies exploiting people asking way to much money for an update every 3 years and do it totally for the profit

    2. companies who do it for the experience and reknown and yust ask enough money to pay everything they really need and keep a little bit behind to support further development

     

    i say number 2 companies are beginning to rise now

    Main games: Heroes of the Storm, Starcraft 2, Brawlhalla
    Waiting for: Overwatch

  • kaliniskalinis Dexter, MEPosts: 1,428Member

    why would u be. they will hae an item shop not sure what will be in it but new expansions will have to be bought just like most other games. 

    being a buy to play game is one of the few things im not worried about in gw 2 

    the game sounds like will be fun and have alot of new things not really done before. im more worried if they can pull it all off or if it will feel as innovative as most gw 2 fans think it will. 

    but the buy to play part doesnt bother me a bit.l it may even coax me into trying it out 

     

    All companies wanna make money its why gw 2 will have an item shop like all free to play games .

    and wows expansions are usually worth the money even if cata had issues .

  • IncomparableIncomparable KuwaitPosts: 872Member

    It will only be a concern if they do not release expansions quick enough. If they release expansions quick enough not only will that make it a successful business model for them, but also it will make the game more interesting by always offering more content.

    The advantage GW2 has over SWTOR is the possibility of releasing more content quickly since they do not have to go through so many iterations of cinematic cut scenes.

    Imo, GW2 model will be very successful considering what they have, and how they seem to be investing thier money in the game already.

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • IncomparableIncomparable KuwaitPosts: 872Member

    Originally posted by Dream_Chaser

    @The OP

    What you consider as something to 'kee you playing' is a con. Psychological addiction does not a great game make, nor will it ever, and I don't consider something that tapdances on the edge of my will by being as addictive as a narcotic due to a developer hiring psychologists to ensure that their game works that way a 'good game.' It may be an addicting game, but it is so for all the wrong reasons.

    There have been MMORPG developers guilty of this. There was one big name that actually required 'some knowledge of psychology' as a requirement for a number of their positions. I won't name names but you can probably guess who they are. No? Alright then, Zynga for one, and Blizzard for another. Both of them did this. And it's been a well known thing that they do this for quite some time. The idea is is that they create a very social, addictive game where people make ties with other people, but they can never have closure on the stories they play their characters through. So they're attached to their characters and the characters of their friends, and they keep playing the game because they can't stop.

    It's not healthy and it's certainly not good game design. Of all those I've talked to when they've finally come down off of their WoW drug, none of them could raelly say that they were enjoying themselves, nor could they say that they had a great quality of life. In fact, a number of them told me that WoW was ruining their life, badly, and that's why they had to go cold turkey and break the addiction. Their job, their social life, and everyone around them was suffering. They forgot about everything from dental hygiene to showers, and all they did was play the damn game.

    So I'm glad that ArenaNet won't have incentives to 'keep you playing.' See, I'm an old fart, and in my day we used to have something called 'value for money.' What this means is that you buy a game with money (not with someone else's money) and you decide whether the content provided was fun enough and/or sizable enough to be considered value for money. If you feel that the game was worth the money you spent on it, that the content matched the cost, then the game was good value and people were happy. This is the standard I still judge games by today.

    I use a factor of fun and length, but length isn't the most important thing, and I realise that a game has to end at some point. This is actually a good thing. In fact, as a casual player I'll take 20 hours of a good game (Fallout: New Vegas) over 60 hours of a dreadfully boring one (Dragon Age: Origins). The problem with 'keeping you playing' is that often the primary tactics used are addiction and padding. There's about 5 per cent actual content in a game like World of Warcraft, then you have 50 per cent repeated content and 45 per cent padding. If I look at this from the angle of my 'value for money' angle, then the price of the box plus expansions, plus the monthly subscription make WoW very poor value for money.

    Conclusion: I don't want ArenaNet to design a psychologically addictive game that will keep people playing for almost a decade, that's not what I want. I want them to design a good game, one with a beginning, an ending, and lots of content in between. I want it to be enjoyable, and I never want to feel that I'm having to grind or repeat content. Now with the first Guild Wars I got exactly that. I got a game which had a clearly defined beginning and end, I even had a lead up to the ending crescendo and it was truly amazing stuff. Now, see, if the original Guild Wars had been WoW then what they would have done is removed the content after Glint, then they would have had you repeating the fight with Glint over and over for months, then they'd release the next bit of content and have you playing that over and over for months.

    But that would lead to a bad and a not very enjoyable game, for me. See, when I buy a book the last thing I want is to be given the last few chapters a huge amount of time away from when I bought the book, and I don't want to have to repeat chapters of the book over and over to feel I've earned the right to read the next chapter of the book. I'm a sane person, I don't want this, I can't understand why anyone would want this. But this is exactly the sort of thing that having a subscription implies - it means that the developer is going to try to keep you playing forever to keep you paying forever.

    Having a game that comes to an end after a reasonable amount of time is a good thing. No padding, no repeated content, no large-scale end game raiding. None of that. Just a game that feels solid from beginning to end, one that's enjoyable, and one that's value for money. I mean, when you bought BioShock did you except the game to 'keep you playing'? Did you expect to be playing it four years down the road? I think that's an unreasonable expectation and to say it again, I think the only way this can be achieved is via: Psychological addiction, Grinding, Repeated Content, and Padding.

    I think that the lack of a subscription is awesome because it means that they need to make a good amount of content without any of hte above in order for people to pay for it. That's how it was with the first Guild Wars as well. In fact, if Guild Wars 2 tells you that you're done once you've defeated the final challenge and that there's simply no reason to keep playing until the next chunk of coontent comes along then I'll be over the moon, that'll make me happier than anything else could.

    Being psychologically addicted to the gaming equivalent of a narcotic isn't healthy and shouldn't be encouraged. We shouldn't be telling peple that it's okay. And we shouldn't be letting developers get away with that sort of thing any more. A good game which is value for money, that's what I want GW2 to be, and hopefully that's what the rest of you want it to be too.

    I agree with a lot of what you said. However, value for money is the problem and it becomes relative since people will argue that MMOs are better value for your money compared to single player games. Its only 15 bucks a month compared to a single player game which is 50 bucks and will last around 40 hours of gameplay.

    However, the addiction can still exist wether the game is built well or not. It is not the addiction that is bad it is the grind, and all the incentives. For people the incentive is to be best, reach end game etc, but all these things are filled with a long grind. This grind can exist in any game that deals with experince to level. Instead of just having things/quests to do which offer specific skills or items as rewards, these quests offer expereince. This becomes the grind.

    Some people are just addicted to video gaming, period. However, MMO's exploit that addiction by making it the greatest challenge of all games. By having a character that is immortal, that last, and a story that progresses continously. This would be the incentive out of the single player games. A person could feel that they want thier character from a single player game ot continue but cannot since it is offline and has no online interaction with others in PVP or social, or does not have a 'never ending story'.

    GW2 will have exp, and a never ending story. So the same elements that make the game a grind or addictive exists. However, it is becuase people are addicted to gaming as it is. MMOs are just large games, and people try to finish them as if they are single player games. They should be treated differently. So maybe game developers should figure out how to make the game enjoyable so people are not focused on just reaching the end game. Or making the grind/story short.

    Of course making the grind/story short is a trade off of making the game easy to finish, but that removes the addictive element from the game, but then makes other people look for other elements in the mmo to continue playing. That imo, is how to make an mmo fun, not so addicitve by making it a huge grind, and offering many side elements to the game.

    For example, GW2 looks like it has a good story. So that should make people more interested in thier story instead of focusing on the end game. I beleive the problem of WoW for some is a huge grind that a lot do not care about. The irony is how they put up with it, to just reach end game, but continue playing with the next expansion and the one after that. Of course there are certain parts which are entertaining like PVP, and the scenery in WoW, but it could be so much more that enjoying the game can be achieved early on, that this need to reach end game is not neccesary.

    So game devs need to make thier games shorter for MMO's and put a lot of side stuff to thier games as end game to keep those interested after reaching end game to continue playing. 

    However, who wants a quickly played mmo? I wouldn't mind, but I could be a minority. 

    Other things they could have on the side is: Player made content for example

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • LashleyLashley NorthumberlandPosts: 587Member

    OP is just a clear example of people who never played guild wars but think they know everything about GW2

  • Dream_ChaserDream_Chaser BGPosts: 1,043Member

    @Incomparable

    I think value for money has an objective component based upon repeated content. For example, Dragon Age: Origins puts claim to 60 hours but there were dwarven tunnels and similar padding that made up about 55 hours of the overall game for most of the people who played it, and many people after they'd come down off the hype had to admit that they'd really padded out and bloated Dragon Age: Origins in order to make the claim that the game does indeed last 60 hours. In truth, if you were to remove all the padding, all the repeated content, and all the junk from Dragon Age: Origins, then the final game is probably about 10 hours long.

    Now by comparison, Fallout: New Vegas had a lot of raw content, as is Obsidian's wont. There was next to no padding and no repeated content. You didn't spend upward of fourty hours in a single location (or in areas which used the same assets) in New Vegas. They were very good at keeping the game fresh for as long as it lasted. They tended to up the ante a number of times and introduced new mechanics and ideas whenever they could. Some of the quests in Fallout: New Vegas are legendary because of this (such as helping a kid escape from a hotel of civilised cannibals, and the Vault 34 question0. There's really a lot of effort put into it. Fallout: New Vegas may only last about 20 hours if you skip some of the sidequests but it's a quality 20 hours. Therefore it substantiates better value for money.

    I firmly subscribe to quality > quantity.

    If a game is using padding to extend its length then I'm not going to be very forgiving and I'm only going to count the hours where I'm actually doing new things and not stuck with padding or repeated content. WoW tends to be filled with padding and repeated content much in the same way that Dragon Age: Origins was. Whilst it may be true that it seems like better value for money on the surface, eventually you're going to get sick of playing the same crap over and over for months on end, and the only thing that'll keep you there is the psychological addiction. There have been many people, many people, who've written about their experiences and spoken of them on documentaries about how they forgot their life thanks to WoW; They became overweight, lost their wife, lost their job, and all because of a damn game.

    If that's not a psychological addiction then I don't know what is. For this reason I've always considered WoW players to be no different than junkies. I'm sorry if that's offensive but that's just my opinion. I've watched lives become wrecked and ruined by that game, it's ridiculous, and people don't even realise it's happening. You can't play a game for that long unless it has something going on, and it uses many tricks (such as a lack of closure on your character) just to keep you playing, and paying, that little bit longer. The thing of it is is that you may pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for what amounts to 20 hours of original content in WoW, and that's just not good value for money.

    You just don't see the repetition and the padding because you're addicted, but at the end of the day Fallout: New Vegas presents more value for money in its original play through alone (let alone later play throughs) than WoW does in years and years of play. This is due to the fact that the content of WoW is coookie cutter, and simple to the point of being repetitive. You see, I'm a coder, and I've played with server emulators. It would take me under two minutes to write a new quest for something like Utima Online which involves going out and killing some bear cubs and her mother because they're harassing the local peoples. (Does that sound familiar? It's a quest in WoW.) And the vast majority of WoW is just like that.

    I suppose what I'm getting at at the end of the day is that there are likely people out there who think that crack cocaine is good value for money. And they would, wouldn't they?

    One other thing I'll bring up is that your definition of grind is incorrect. If you look it up then grind is a reference to 'The Daily Grind,' it isn't equivalent to doing something for your first time because whenever you do anything for the first time it's interesting and new, potentially even fun. No, grind is when you've done 100 of those cookie cutter quests I mentioned above and you're faced with 100,000 more before you can go up 10 levels to reach a point where you can once again engage in actual content. That is grind. See, 'The Daily Grind' refers to work life, it refers to the repetition of work life and how monotonouusly dull it is. This is why some people call WoW a 'second job,' and that's exactly what it is.

    And why do I want a second job when I can just work hard outside of a game and get paid for it? One job is enough for me. What I want from my games is for them to be relaxing and entertaining, they should be fun, amusing, and interesting. They should last for as long as they last with the least amount of padding and repetition possible. If a game can last a good number of hours with very little padding or reptition (and I uphold Fallout: New Vegas as my example of this) then it's a success and it's value for money. The game doesn't become a second job because it ends at some point and it doesn'f force you to go through it again, and again, and again, doing the same things over, and over, and over.

    Here's some further reading. Read that and you may better understand my position and philosophies.

    The next topic of discussion is that all MMORPGs are guilty of the WoW take on 'The Daily Grind.' This is obviously untrue to the point of being fallacious, this is what the scholar might call an Association Fallacy, but I am unfortunately no scholar so I'll just tell you that your argument is a load of bunk here and try to explain why. I could be a dick and use something like Puzzle Pireates to disprove your argument in a single sentence, but I won't do that, because I like to give people the chance to actually absorb the argument I'm using and the philosophy behind it.

    So whilst you have a game like Puzzle Pirates which completely debunks your view that other MMORPGs share 'The Daily Grind' design ethos, we'll ignore that. We'll ignore the original Guild Wars too since it was just a 'Co-op RPG,' and we'll use another MMORPG as an example: Champions Online. In Champions Online you have stories which are encapsulated, and designed to be that way, you have stories in zones, and you have stories in adventure packs and comic book series. They have a beginning, a middle, and an ending. There is no enforced continuous grinding there at all.

    Do you understand now why your argument is invalid?

    In a game like WoW you're forced to grind to progress, but progression happens so fast throughout various stories in Champions Online that it's ridiculous. Sure, you're 'done' with CO sooner than you would be with WoW, but that's because CO doesn't use psychological trickery to keep you addicted to the game. They just present a game with (very entertaining and amusing) content and they let you play through it as you want. In fact, it's even possible to take people to any zone in the game for them to do any content. The adventure packs? Also doable. Oh, the comic book series? You can do it whenever you want.

    So all the content in the game is an encapsulated storyline. And the funny thing is is that to make a quick comparison to Guild Wars 1 - that's exactly wht the Guild Wars 1 campaigns and mission packs did. Exactly the same. So if Champions Online can have encapsulated experiences with a beginning, middle, and end, and if they can do this without enforced grinding or needless reptition, and this was also the case in the original Guild Wars, then how would it be impossible for this to be the case in Guild Wars 2? In fact, to the contrary, it's likely to be the case in Guild Wars 2 that it'll share a lot of elements with Champions Online.

    And you see, this brings me neatly to my final point: You say that Guild Wars 2 will have a neverending storyline. What's your source? That's actually contrary to what the devs have told us. They've told us that the quality of Guild Wars 2 is mostly to be found not in languishing at the end game, but by creating a new character and taking it through a new personal storyline. Thus a new entirely encapsulated storyline from beginning, middle, and then to an ending. Since Guild Wars 1 campaigns and mission packs also had encapsulated storylines which were clearly not intended for grinding (though you could, optionally, it wasn't designed that way), it's noot unreasonable to believe that Guild Wars 2 will be sans enforced grinding in a similar way. It's also not unreasonable to believe that, given what the devs have told us about personal storylines, there will be an ending.

    In fact, I'd say it's unreasonable to insinuate that there won't be an ending considering that they've told us that we can 'play a new personal storyline.' But what you need to think about is if the story never ended then why would we want to start a new storyline? Just like in Guild Wars the storylines will have an ending. That's why ArenaNet are inviting us to, at that point, create a new character and enjoy a new story. So no, it won't keep you playing continuously, because that's not the point. The forced grinding/raiding demographic is a tiny one and within most of the bouts of research I've seen it makes up about 5~% or less of all the people who play MMORPGs. Market research is finding this. Why do you think that more and more games lately are without end game raiding? Think about it. The raiders are going to remain with WoW regardless, and they'll soon realise that either Guild Wars 2 is not the game for them, or they'll adapt.

    There were some other things in there but they're so silly that they're not worth tackling. (Such as difficulty being the same as grinding, which it obviously isn't. If I go to fetch coffee for someone in my workplace a few times a week, is that difficult? No, it's just 'The Daily Grind' at work. To even compare that with difficulty is so ludicrous as to the point where it doesn't warrant more than a paragraph in an aside.)

    So there you have it. A game can be difficult without grinding and all grinding amounts to is a form of lite narcotics. It's what weak-willed people do to piss their lives away, it's not value for money, nor is it good game design. It's taking advantage of human nature to force people to spend a large portion of their lives doing the same reptitive tasks that they'd be doing if they were employed. So in other words, you're working and you're paying Blizzard for the privilege of working. That's not how my world works. If I work I'm going to be damn well paid for it. If I play a game then I don't want my game to be psychologically addictive work. I want my game to be fun, and I want it to last for as long as there is original content.

    My position? Quality > Quantity. I'm not so easily fooled.

    @Lashley

    Firstly, I think you mean Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars is an old game that's been out for a good few years, now. Amost a decade soon, in fact, and one that I've enjoyed thoroughly. You need to understand that we're talking about the sequel here. Okay? Good.

    Secondly? That's a bit silly, don't you think?

    No, I base ArenaNet's pedigree off of their existing game, Guild Wars, and that they've promised many times to uphold the design ethos of that game. If you've ever read the FAQ on the Guild Wars 2 site (and I'm not certain that you ever have), then you'll see that they're intent on keeping the design ethos of their first game. Not only this but they've repeated this a number of times and shot down anyone who's been after trreadmill-based end game. No large raids, no ridiculous amounts of repeated content, just a game that exists from start to finish.

    I'm sorry to say that if you think it's anything else then you're fooling yourself. This isn't a WoW-killer because it's not made for WoW fans. It won't pull the tiny raiding demographic from WoW, because they'll remain there forevermore, so instead they have to target other demographics since they need their game to become this desirable little thing called a success. They need that. They've put so much development time and resources into it that they have to. And in the MMORPG industry there are only two ways you can go. You can emulate WoW and hope people want more of the same, or you can be batshit and take an insane amount of risks. Everything about Guild Wars 2 is different to the traditional MMORPG.

    ArenaNet will tell you this, those who've played the demo will tell you this, and even the facts released about the game thus far will tell you this. Examples: Homogenised PvP (numbers don't matter), no end game raiding, no energy bar (only a dodge bar), no quests, and so on. It's not  your typical MMORPG and you can't blame your lack of knowledge on anyone but yourself. Everything I've talked about has been covered by ArenaNet, I'm not going to mention anything that they haven't, and I tend to not even metion things that haven't been proved by the demos.

    The knowledge is out there but you're acting like Guild Wars 2 is some massive mystery that no one can know anything about. This is not the case. It's foolish to think that considering the public demos. Of course you can know about Guild Wars 2 based on a variety of factors. So at the end of the day your comment looks foolish. ArenaNet has been moe open with their game and the demo at many conventions than any other developer ever has, and the sad part is is that you're probably not even aware that they're demoing their game.

    The moral of the story: That you don't know anything doesn't mean that no one does, you aren't the centre of the Universe, the world doesn't revolve around you. The information is out there, go read it, it won't come to you.

  • AmazingAveryAmazingAvery Age of Conan Advocate UK to CanadaPosts: 6,999Member Uncommon

    I remember in GW 1 when the first big update came [sorrows furnance] about 5 months after release, before that they worked a few kinks out here and there and some chest that gave copious amount of gold ;P

    I hope GW has a similar timeline and beyond the half year too. Honestly I am not concerned at all.

    image
    Conan Vids Corsair 800d Case/i7 930 @ 4.4ghz/EVGA x58 760 Classified/Corsair Dominator 12GB 1600/Corsair HX1000 PSU/GTX 580x2/Intel X25-M SSD/2x WD 1TB Blacks/Corsair H90 cooler / 1x 28" 1900x1200 monitor/ G-19 Keyboard/ G500 mouse

  • CorehavenCorehaven Colorado Springs, COPosts: 1,538Member

    Originally posted by vtravi

    I know lots of people love this, it makes me a little concerned. I like the idea of devs having to come out with a constant stream of content to keep people playing. I feel like with this system once they sell you the game they have no incentive to keep you playing. Just a thought.

    Ah but they do have to keep up a steady stream of content to keep you playing.  See although I never played GW I do know they came out with a steady stream of content.  That you have to buy.  Expansions, maps, etc.  And they're very good about it. 

     

    The philosophy here is that they dont make you pay a sub, but they do want you to pay for all the extra developed content they release on a steady basis.  In other words, they prefer you to pay for real content.  Not just for the right to play.  With a sub model its the promise of content.  With this design, you literally pay for the content.  Or you dont.  Its up to you. 

     

    So no sir, I wouldnt worry one bit.  As far as I can tell its an extremely honest and decent way of doing business.  Dont worry.  They'll release content on a regular basis, maybe even more so than sub games.  Why?  Because thats the only way they make additional money.  Good for them.  Good for us.  Its all gravy. 

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,915Member Uncommon

    My concern is more in the area of live support, not really added content, though I could see that being costly in this case if they go the route of adventure packs or something like that. IN GW1's case each expansion was in scope almost on par with the original game. There's no way that would be possible here, seemingly anyway. I expect a much smaller focus in terms of expansions; and more on one off purchases like new areas with new sets of DE's.

    In regard to live support I just don't see them having the capacity for it budget wise, so i expect it to be nil at best, it was basically like that with GW1. Even the recent review on GW1 here points that out.. This is an area often overlooked in regard to this subject, as most don't think about support until they actually need it.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • romanator0romanator0 Glendora, CAPosts: 2,382Member

    Originally posted by Distopia

    My concern is more in the area of live support, not really added content, though I could see that being costly in this case if they go the route of adventure packs or something like that. IN GW1's case each expansion was in scope almost on par with the original game. There's no way that would be possible here, seemingly anyway. I expect a much smaller focus in terms of expansions; and more on one off purchases like new areas with new sets of DE's.

    In regard to live support I just don't see them having the capacity for it budget wise, so i expect it to be nil at best, it was basically like that with GW1. Even the recent review on GW1 here points that out.. This is an area often overlooked in regard to this subject, as most don't think about support until they actually need it.

    The reason GW1 didn't have much live support is not because of budget. It was because the company was so small that nearly everyone there were working on the new campaigns. Eric Flannum says this during the Q&A during their panel at PAX.

    image

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,915Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by romanator0

    Originally posted by Distopia

    My concern is more in the area of live support, not really added content, though I could see that being costly in this case if they go the route of adventure packs or something like that. IN GW1's case each expansion was in scope almost on par with the original game. There's no way that would be possible here, seemingly anyway. I expect a much smaller focus in terms of expansions; and more on one off purchases like new areas with new sets of DE's.

    In regard to live support I just don't see them having the capacity for it budget wise, so i expect it to be nil at best, it was basically like that with GW1. Even the recent review on GW1 here points that out.. This is an area often overlooked in regard to this subject, as most don't think about support until they actually need it.

    The reason GW1 didn't have much live support is not because of budget. It was because the company was so small that nearly everyone there were working on the new campaigns. Eric Flannum says this during the Q&A during their panel at PAX.

    Ahem.. wouldn't it be directly tied to budget then?

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • GolelornGolelorn Hiding From Social Media Peeping Toms, ALPosts: 1,099Member Uncommon

    Only thing I dislike about the no sub fee is the clientele it attracts.

     

    An example: I let my 8 year old son play DDO on the weekends. I feel sorry for the people he groups with.

  • romanator0romanator0 Glendora, CAPosts: 2,382Member

    Originally posted by Distopia

    Originally posted by romanator0


    Originally posted by Distopia

    My concern is more in the area of live support, not really added content, though I could see that being costly in this case if they go the route of adventure packs or something like that. IN GW1's case each expansion was in scope almost on par with the original game. There's no way that would be possible here, seemingly anyway. I expect a much smaller focus in terms of expansions; and more on one off purchases like new areas with new sets of DE's.

    In regard to live support I just don't see them having the capacity for it budget wise, so i expect it to be nil at best, it was basically like that with GW1. Even the recent review on GW1 here points that out.. This is an area often overlooked in regard to this subject, as most don't think about support until they actually need it.

    The reason GW1 didn't have much live support is not because of budget. It was because the company was so small that nearly everyone there were working on the new campaigns. Eric Flannum says this during the Q&A during their panel at PAX.

    Ahem.. wouldn't it be directly tied to budget then?

    No. It was because they were still a small and growing company. It wasn't a budget issue, it was a manpower issue.

    image

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,915Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by romanator0

    Originally posted by Distopia


    Originally posted by romanator0


    Originally posted by Distopia

    My concern is more in the area of live support, not really added content, though I could see that being costly in this case if they go the route of adventure packs or something like that. IN GW1's case each expansion was in scope almost on par with the original game. There's no way that would be possible here, seemingly anyway. I expect a much smaller focus in terms of expansions; and more on one off purchases like new areas with new sets of DE's.

    In regard to live support I just don't see them having the capacity for it budget wise, so i expect it to be nil at best, it was basically like that with GW1. Even the recent review on GW1 here points that out.. This is an area often overlooked in regard to this subject, as most don't think about support until they actually need it.

    The reason GW1 didn't have much live support is not because of budget. It was because the company was so small that nearly everyone there were working on the new campaigns. Eric Flannum says this during the Q&A during their panel at PAX.

    Ahem.. wouldn't it be directly tied to budget then?

    No. It was because they were still a small and growing company. It wasn't a budget issue, it was a manpower issue.

    Yeah, I got that part, I've brought up the manpower issue quite a bit actually. My point is, the reason they were lacking manpower is because they didn't have a budget to expand. Still this is beside the point, as that's GW1, what are their plans for GW2, that's all that is important here?

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • PuremallacePuremallace Phoenix, AZPosts: 1,856Member

    Originally posted by zimboy69

    if guild wars  is as good as it looks alll other mmo's will have to  change to b2p or no one will pay the subs

     

    and the more that change to b2p the harder it is  for other games to charge 

    True and False, Yes if GW2 can provide content like other MMO's that are P2P and not take forever + provide all the features, then yes a tremendous amount of people are going to question it.

     

    I do have one of my theories here. I do not see GW2 putting out monthly content updates like Rift, but I do see them doing it faster then WoW. If this turns out to be true WoW is just going to get slammed in subs because it will be concrete proof Blizzzard is just ripping people off.

     

    Rift already has people questioning the need to charge for transfers in 2011. 

  • Atlan99Atlan99 Calgary, ABPosts: 1,323Member

    Originally posted by romanator0

    Originally posted by Distopia


    Originally posted by romanator0


    Originally posted by Distopia

    My concern is more in the area of live support, not really added content, though I could see that being costly in this case if they go the route of adventure packs or something like that. IN GW1's case each expansion was in scope almost on par with the original game. There's no way that would be possible here, seemingly anyway. I expect a much smaller focus in terms of expansions; and more on one off purchases like new areas with new sets of DE's.

    In regard to live support I just don't see them having the capacity for it budget wise, so i expect it to be nil at best, it was basically like that with GW1. Even the recent review on GW1 here points that out.. This is an area often overlooked in regard to this subject, as most don't think about support until they actually need it.

    The reason GW1 didn't have much live support is not because of budget. It was because the company was so small that nearly everyone there were working on the new campaigns. Eric Flannum says this during the Q&A during their panel at PAX.

    Ahem.. wouldn't it be directly tied to budget then?

    No. It was because they were still a small and growing company. It wasn't a budget issue, it was a manpower issue.

    You often have a manpower issue with smaller companies because they don't have the budget to hire more workers.

    Talk to anybody that has tried to start their own business.

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Corona, CAPosts: 861Member

    Originally posted by Golelorn

    Only thing I dislike about the no sub fee is the clientele it attracts.

     

    An example: I let my 8 year old son play DDO on the weekends. I feel sorry for the people he groups with.

    Having a sub fee hasn't helped WoW's population ferret out the immature, and I can think of several people who let their children play WoW as well (and have heard horror stories from those who play with other peoples' children).

    In other words, it takes all kinds. Fortunately, a poor player isn't going to hamper other peoples' progress in GW2 as much as other games in the open world because of dynamic event scaling and cooperative rewards.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.