Theres hardly ever an MMO failure now a days, unless your building up success reaching WoW levels which won't happen (WoW would never hit the levels it hit if it tried today with the over sateration of MMos on the market today).
As far as that goes, yes, GW2 was a success but then you can claim SWTOR is a success as well. It really all depends on how you define success. Are you considering if a game reaches the expectation of the gamers, then virtually every Released MMO out there is a failure due to gamers having unrealistic expectations. If your talking about the publishers expectations, then its all about their 'goal' in terms of sales and in this case I think GuildWars 2 failed here for atleast what NCsoft was expecting (both GW2 and blade and soul failed to reach their desired profit levels, which much like the gamers expectations can be a bit unrealistic).
Its just not possible to call a game a success anymore unless you determine how it succeeeded. As far as I see it, so long as it makes a profit and continues to make a profit for the company, I think you could consider it a success. Guildwars 2 along those lines does make it as a success, even if I personally found the game a bit weak.
SWTOR was a success to a lot of people, for reasons I mentioned yesterday. The common consumer, ie: not die-hard MMORPG fans, who buy games sight unseen and manage to have fun with them, outweigh the few people on these sites who pick out all the little promises a company didn't fulfill, they enjoy the game for months and possibly years, at least long enough to play through their preferred classes and then move on to another game, not instead stop playing after 10 hours claiming "WORST MMO EVER" at least twice a year.
Does anyone really think that all 2 mil + players who bought GW2 or will buy it in the future are going to be the uber picky complainers you find on forums, and yes I include myself somewhat in that group. I don't think so. If a game is fun, and someone just picks it up and enjoys it, they're not going to stop playing over something they read on a website.
Honestly, I believe that if things worked that way, then almost no one would play MMOs. However, populations in the millions of players means that some people don't give a shit about some fantasy feature list that didn't satisfy their every desire and they just log on to have fun. I think some people have forgotten what that means; they'd rather critque than play.
Guild Wars 1 sold over 7.5 million boxes - boxes being any of the following:
-Prophecies
-Factions
- Nightfall
- Eye of the North
- Prophecies+Eye of the North (Platinum Editions)
- Prophecies+Factions+Nightfall (triology)
- Prophecies+Factions+Nightfall+Eye of the North (Complete and Ultimate if not mistaken).
Yes, that's what I said. Maybe I was unclear.
My point is, we don't know if it's 7,4 million of GW1 + 0,1 million everything else, or 3,7 million GW1 + 3,7 expansions, etc, etc.
Get it? With B2P, that's the only way to measure retention - and they kept that information secret!
VERY interested to see what they do with GW2 expac numbers.
Because the numbers before the expansions were much lower than 7 millions?
Unless you are trying to convince me that people seeing Factions out decided to go en mass buying the original. Same when Nightfall is out and Eye of the North.
After each expansion was released the number of boxes went up.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
The game is a success. From any perspective. MOST games are successes. They Make a profit, hence they are a success. End of story. Has swtor made a profit yet? If so, the it TOO is a success. Even if it is a shitty game. It would still be a success.
back to topic: GW2 big success.
Did i say success enough?
Actually just making a profit does not make it a success. If a game makes back $0.01 profit I'm pretty sure the investors will deem that a failure as the venture simply wasn't worth the time investment. A game will be expected to make back a very specific amount of money in profit by the investors before they will consider it a financial success (most likely a percentile value of the total investment).
Also just to point out: The word success alone does not refer to whether a game is financially successful, that is specifically a financial success. Success can also be determined based on whether the game is seen to meet the criteria the devs set out when marketing it. If it successfully meets those criteria then it could be considered a success (and conversely used as a criteria for failure if not met).
Personally I'd say GW2 was doing ok at launch, but the patches since then have gone back on their original ideals for the game. That combined with the insane amount of bugged and broken skills for every profession that have existed since beta and STILL not been touched... Yeah, I'd say GW2 is a failure now; I don't care if it's financially successful, ANet failed to deliver the game they spoke of in their manifesto.
Originally posted by Torgrim Originally posted by eyelolledI play the game. I enjoy the game. I will buy the expansions. I don't find wastelands like some people imply exists.
I'm sure they exist but not in the degree that is made out to be.
This. If GW2 has 'wastelands', other MMO's simply have utter voids where nothing even exists in the first place. Due to the scaling system there's reasons to go back to lower level zones, something you cannot claim with other MMO's where there are simply no reasons whatsoever to do anything outside of the highest level zones.
Success at launch is a marketing success, a gameplay success occurs after the initial box sales IMO. Does it retain the players drawn in by the marketing campaign, does it continue to sell to new players by word of mouth once the marketing has died down.
I have no idea in the case of GW2 as I don't play or follow it.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Actually just making a profit does not make it a success. If a game makes back $0.01 profit I'm pretty sure the investors will deem that a failure as the venture simply wasn't worth the time investment. A game will be expected to make back a very specific amount of money in profit by the investors before they will consider it a financial success (most likely a percentile value of the total investment).
Also just to point out: The word success alone does not refer to whether a game is financially successful, that is specifically a financial success. Success can also be determined based on whether the game is seen to meet the criteria the devs set out when marketing it. If it successfully meets those criteria then it could be considered a success (and conversely used as a criteria for failure if not met).
+1
The bad part for GW2 and it's players is the game's future won't only be decided by how well the box is selling. I shutter to think the road GW2 will follow if cash shop purchases and purchases/person numbers are too low for publishers to accept as a success.
Originally posted by Skooma2 the middle zones are wastelands
That's odd, I've been on several servers in both WoW and GW2, and I've seen more people running around in "middle zones" in GW2 than I ever saw in WoW. I always have people to do events with.
Anyway, yes, the game is a success. I don't love everything about it, but its a little silly to claim it's a failure. I don't like Rift, but I consider it a success too.
It is a per server basis however there has been a drop in the number of full all the time servers, and in those other servers even on high you won't see as many people unless of course its one of the RP designated servers (community chosen as RP).
I haven't seen anyone on my server in the mid level zones and I'm on Tarnished Coast the major RP server. There is definitely something wrong with the current design. People rarely go and free the temples in Orr anymore. And the few people i do find are all standing around doing RP stuff not the events.
I'm not saying this games a failure but their new direction certainly is.
This same debate occurred over TOR (and probably many other games). Although GW2 and TOR are not the same, I can see that similar arguments are being used by both sides in this thread. This is not a bad thing, but I never thought the hype train would end for GW2 (yes, I am biased against, sorry).
Is financial success enough? In my opinion, no.
Why? A variety of reasons. For one, even if a company makes a profit, it does not mean that the consumers in general are satisfied with the product. Consumer satisfaction, of course, can come down to whether expectations were met. Failed expectations for an MMO are most often a product of hype in my opinion.
GW2 was/is hyped to be a next generation MMO and revolutionary. The consensus that I see, however, is that the game is decent and with some nice features, but not revolutionary.
Whether or not Anet made statements that GW2 was a WoW Killer or revolutionary is irrelevant to an extent, especially since such lines were spread verbatim on forums by fans. Due to such fan furor, expectations were clearly set high, higher than what Anet could achieve.
This is not necessarily Anet's fault, but at the same time I do no remember the company doing much to dissuade such hype.
While I can understand the side that wants to call GW2 a success based on sales alone, an issue arrises.
If GW2 can be named a success due to sales, can we, therefore, call TOR a sucess? And what of WAR? Both games also enjoyed massive sales during their repsective launches. I would argue that most users would say no.
Like D3, GW2's long term sucess will probably be determined by the direction of its first expansion will take it.
Honestly, we won't know how successful it is until we see sales data on the first EXPANSION.
Mind you, Arenanet *never* released sales info on their expansions - only cumulative sales (gw1 + expansions together). In reality, we never knew if GW1 was successful either.
Something to think about.
Actually that's incorrect. As of now, GW1 is over 7 million accounts. They haven't really released actual account data each quarter like they use to back in 2008. Back in 2008 it was at about 6 million accounts. You can look at the NCSoft quarterly reports from back in 2008, as that is the last time they released this data.
So it is a myth that the "7 million" is 7 million cumulative boxes. It's 7 million accounts.
Financially, GW2 is a success. How do you define success? Did it turn a profit. And I'm guessing it did turn a profit, as last quarter was a very good quarter for NCSoft.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Guild Wars 1 had trial accouns so accounts created means nothing (really weird you'd bring that up).
The pure facts are they never released expansion sales data so we never really knew how many bought into the expansions. In fact, the tracked numbers (by SKU counter firms out there) were under 10k for each expansion. Which could be wrong, but it sure doesn't look good.
The point was, if GW2 expansions tank they'll likely keep it quiet - AS THEY DID WITH GW1 (if that's the reason, but honestly, can there be another valid reason?)
Honestly, I've never understood why they didn't release those numbers. GW1 cummulatively sold very well, it would be VERY strange if the expansions only accounted for a small part of that.
If they keep releasing expansions and supporting the game, the expansions obviously didnt tank, herp derp.
Comments
SWTOR was a success to a lot of people, for reasons I mentioned yesterday. The common consumer, ie: not die-hard MMORPG fans, who buy games sight unseen and manage to have fun with them, outweigh the few people on these sites who pick out all the little promises a company didn't fulfill, they enjoy the game for months and possibly years, at least long enough to play through their preferred classes and then move on to another game, not instead stop playing after 10 hours claiming "WORST MMO EVER" at least twice a year.
Does anyone really think that all 2 mil + players who bought GW2 or will buy it in the future are going to be the uber picky complainers you find on forums, and yes I include myself somewhat in that group. I don't think so. If a game is fun, and someone just picks it up and enjoys it, they're not going to stop playing over something they read on a website.
Honestly, I believe that if things worked that way, then almost no one would play MMOs. However, populations in the millions of players means that some people don't give a shit about some fantasy feature list that didn't satisfy their every desire and they just log on to have fun. I think some people have forgotten what that means; they'd rather critque than play.
Because the numbers before the expansions were much lower than 7 millions?
Unless you are trying to convince me that people seeing Factions out decided to go en mass buying the original. Same when Nightfall is out and Eye of the North.
After each expansion was released the number of boxes went up.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Actually just making a profit does not make it a success. If a game makes back $0.01 profit I'm pretty sure the investors will deem that a failure as the venture simply wasn't worth the time investment. A game will be expected to make back a very specific amount of money in profit by the investors before they will consider it a financial success (most likely a percentile value of the total investment).
Also just to point out: The word success alone does not refer to whether a game is financially successful, that is specifically a financial success. Success can also be determined based on whether the game is seen to meet the criteria the devs set out when marketing it. If it successfully meets those criteria then it could be considered a success (and conversely used as a criteria for failure if not met).
Personally I'd say GW2 was doing ok at launch, but the patches since then have gone back on their original ideals for the game. That combined with the insane amount of bugged and broken skills for every profession that have existed since beta and STILL not been touched... Yeah, I'd say GW2 is a failure now; I don't care if it's financially successful, ANet failed to deliver the game they spoke of in their manifesto.
I'm sure they exist but not in the degree that is made out to be.
This. If GW2 has 'wastelands', other MMO's simply have utter voids where nothing even exists in the first place. Due to the scaling system there's reasons to go back to lower level zones, something you cannot claim with other MMO's where there are simply no reasons whatsoever to do anything outside of the highest level zones.
Playing: WF
Played: WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL (2005), GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH (RIP), STO, TSW, TERA, EVE, ESO, BDO
Tried: EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus, AA
Success at launch is a marketing success, a gameplay success occurs after the initial box sales IMO. Does it retain the players drawn in by the marketing campaign, does it continue to sell to new players by word of mouth once the marketing has died down.
I have no idea in the case of GW2 as I don't play or follow it.
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
+1
The bad part for GW2 and it's players is the game's future won't only be decided by how well the box is selling. I shutter to think the road GW2 will follow if cash shop purchases and purchases/person numbers are too low for publishers to accept as a success.
It is a per server basis however there has been a drop in the number of full all the time servers, and in those other servers even on high you won't see as many people unless of course its one of the RP designated servers (community chosen as RP).
I haven't seen anyone on my server in the mid level zones and I'm on Tarnished Coast the major RP server. There is definitely something wrong with the current design. People rarely go and free the temples in Orr anymore. And the few people i do find are all standing around doing RP stuff not the events.
I'm not saying this games a failure but their new direction certainly is.
This same debate occurred over TOR (and probably many other games). Although GW2 and TOR are not the same, I can see that similar arguments are being used by both sides in this thread. This is not a bad thing, but I never thought the hype train would end for GW2 (yes, I am biased against, sorry).
Is financial success enough? In my opinion, no.
Why? A variety of reasons. For one, even if a company makes a profit, it does not mean that the consumers in general are satisfied with the product. Consumer satisfaction, of course, can come down to whether expectations were met. Failed expectations for an MMO are most often a product of hype in my opinion.
GW2 was/is hyped to be a next generation MMO and revolutionary. The consensus that I see, however, is that the game is decent and with some nice features, but not revolutionary.
Whether or not Anet made statements that GW2 was a WoW Killer or revolutionary is irrelevant to an extent, especially since such lines were spread verbatim on forums by fans. Due to such fan furor, expectations were clearly set high, higher than what Anet could achieve.
This is not necessarily Anet's fault, but at the same time I do no remember the company doing much to dissuade such hype.
While I can understand the side that wants to call GW2 a success based on sales alone, an issue arrises.
If GW2 can be named a success due to sales, can we, therefore, call TOR a sucess? And what of WAR? Both games also enjoyed massive sales during their repsective launches. I would argue that most users would say no.
Like D3, GW2's long term sucess will probably be determined by the direction of its first expansion will take it.
If they keep releasing expansions and supporting the game, the expansions obviously didnt tank, herp derp.