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!

[General Article] WildStar: Revenue Model Revealed

11415161820

Comments

  • DeathJesterUKDeathJesterUK BurnleyPosts: 15Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    @DeathJester,

     

    I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.

    They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at launch.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.

    Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.

     

    Edit: It's really no more "idiotic" then why someone would shell out $40 for a Purple Pony in a F2P game.....paying for a few bits of digital data that you don't even own on a server somewhere who's sole use it for people to look at and go "Ooooh!", which might happen one time and give you all of 10 minutes of enjoyment. I don't really understand that....but people do it and the F2P model kinda depends on that behavior.

    Its incredibly idiotic when you think that in a F2P game there is more than one item in a shop, ranging from say 10-40 dollars, with 10 million players who have unrestricted access to the game. It adds up to a lot more than a subscription if even half of them buy something. As I have said repeatedly, there is a reason that the free to play model is no standard, economics. The only reason to support a subscription model is elitism.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    @DeathJester,

    I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.

    They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at that point.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.

    Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.

    Offering a free trial doesn't mean you have to give the client away for free.  The reason box-fee games never offer trials at the start is because people are given the chance to make a decision before spending money.  This is why they would lose money.  The industry knows gamers are impulsive and spendhappy and that they will spend the money first and bitch later.  Grabbing the money first is more important.

    In short, if a game is really good, enough to justify a subscription, then they would offer that free trial.  It shows they have confidence in their product.  Notice the Squeenix offered the open beta for FFXIVARR for free.  They obviously have a confidence in their product and are willing to showcase it at the risk of alienating those who don't like it or would spread bad publicity.

    Whether Carbine offers a free trial of Wildstar at launch will show you how much confidence they really have that their game is worth a sub, or if they're just going for a money grab while biding their time until a cash shop and/or F2P is implemented.  I'm guessing it's more likely the latter.

    Open (unpaid) Beta's are a seperate issue from Free Trials.  I agree that most companies who have confidence in thier Products will offer unpaid Open Beta's.....unless they are facing serious infrastructure constraints but that's irregardless of the payment model chosen. It doesn't neccesarrly mean they'll offer a Free Trial at launch though. Doing so will almost certainly result in some portion of those who are waiting to play the game holding off on making a purchase until after they get done with the trial....which if a meaningfull can result in a 1 or 2 week delay in getting that revenue even if the player ultimately ends up making the purchase.

    You'll note that there have been plenty of MMO's that have done Free Open Beta's but NOT Free Open Trials at launch.

     

     

     

  • DeathJesterUKDeathJesterUK BurnleyPosts: 15Member
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    @DeathJester,

    I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.

    They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at that point.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.

    Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.

    Offering a free trial doesn't mean you have to give the client away for free.  The reason box-fee games never offer trials at the start is because people are given the chance to make a decision before spending money.  This is why they would lose money.  The industry knows gamers are impulsive and spendhappy and that they will spend the money first and bitch later.  Grabbing the money first is more important.

    In short, if a game is really good, enough to justify a subscription, then they would offer that free trial.  It shows they have confidence in their product.  Notice the Squeenix offered the open beta for FFXIVARR for free.  They obviously have a confidence in their product and are willing to showcase it at the risk of alienating those who don't like it or would spread bad publicity.

    Whether Carbine offers a free trial of Wildstar at launch will show you how much confidence they really have that their game is worth a sub, or if they're just going for a money grab while biding their time until a cash shop and/or F2P is implemented.  I'm guessing it's more likely the latter.

    The only reason not to offer a free trail at launch of a box game is when you have no confidence in your product and want to rip off as many people as possible before word gets out that your game is garbage. Lets see Carbine put its money where its mouth is and offer a 14 day trial from the start.

  • furbansfurbans Tinbucktwo, IAPosts: 965Member

    So.... Rift didn't push out quality content even though that was something their fans said was a strong point in Rift?  I call BS on monthly quality content, gamers just chew threw it like shotgunning beers way too quickly for any company to keep up.

    And they cite TERA with the purchaseable game time yet that game went F2P still in the end?  EVE has a mechanic where one is always needs to generate more ISK to sustain their ship arsenal.  What does Wild Star have to create an ongoing demand for in-game currency?  WoW I had tens of thousands of gold that I really had no use for which is typical of all themepark games.  What does WS have that REQUIRES the use of an ingame currency?

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    @DeathJester,

     

    I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.

    They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at launch.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.

    Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.

     

    Edit: It's really no more "idiotic" then why someone would shell out $40 for a Purple Pony in a F2P game.....paying for a few bits of digital data that you don't even own on a server somewhere who's sole use it for people to look at and go "Ooooh!", which might happen one time and give you all of 10 minutes of enjoyment. I don't really understand that....but people do it and the F2P model kinda depends on that behavior.

    Its incredibly idiotic when you think that in a F2P game there is more than one item in a shop, ranging from say 10-40 dollars, with 10 million players who have unrestricted access to the game. It adds up to a lot more than a subscription if even half of them buy something. As I have said repeatedly, there is a reason that the free to play model is no standard, economics. The only reason to support a subscription model is elitism.

    Bunk. The payment model decision is based upon the type of product you have produced and the type of audience you are going after....and what you think will garner the most revenue. There are plenty of F2P games that are doing well and plenty that are doing poorly....same holds true for P2P, B2P, Hybrids, etc. Ultimately what's really determinative is the quality of the product/service you've produced and how effeciently you produced/delivered it.

    For a F2P model to be proffitable you have to push "purchasing behavior" which either means the continual prod for users to purchase "consumables", newly produced items (this months purple pony) or purchase gated content. None of that is neccesarly bad if done well...but it dictates a certain type of game/product design.  By contrast, with the P2P model you dispense with the need for building that "purchasing behavior" into your game design and simply focus on making sure you have enough fresh and interesting for the player to want to return next month. You don't  half to worry about pushing the player to purchase "widgets" next month...just that there is something entertaining waiting for him.

    Both models can be proffitable or dismal failures depending upon how well you execute. There have been plenty of "free" services that have filled bankruptcy even while they had huge user bases.....precisely because they couldn't figure out how to convert enough of those users into regularly paying customers.

    If a game has 750K users who are spending, on average $5 per month. It ends up being less proffitable then the 250K sub based service where everyone is paying $15 per month...because every user costs something to support. That's economics of it. 

     

     

     

  • NixeskaNixeska Menan, NYPosts: 15Member
    TERA had the exact same model right?
  • DeathJesterUKDeathJesterUK BurnleyPosts: 15Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    @DeathJester,

     

    I already explained why sub-based MMO's don't offer a "trial at launch". It would lose them money. Nobody would pay them $60 if they can get the client for free. They almost all offer a "trial" a few months down the road, along with a free digital download of the client.

    They don't NEED to get thier product in front of folks that are unsure about it at launch.....because they've already got folks lined up willing to pay extra money to buy that product sight unseen.....they would lose all that money by giving the client away for free at that point. Once that surge of buying is over, there is plenty of time to offer free clients and free trials to folks who are more cautious about making a purchase.

    Now, why folks choose to buy on day one sight unseen.....you might as well ask why folks are willing to spend $500 on a peice of plastic, "Yoda" doll.....I don't really get that one, but if they do, they do....it's thier money after-all.

     

    Edit: It's really no more "idiotic" then why someone would shell out $40 for a Purple Pony in a F2P game.....paying for a few bits of digital data that you don't even own on a server somewhere who's sole use it for people to look at and go "Ooooh!", which might happen one time and give you all of 10 minutes of enjoyment. I don't really understand that....but people do it and the F2P model kinda depends on that behavior.

    Its incredibly idiotic when you think that in a F2P game there is more than one item in a shop, ranging from say 10-40 dollars, with 10 million players who have unrestricted access to the game. It adds up to a lot more than a subscription if even half of them buy something. As I have said repeatedly, there is a reason that the free to play model is no standard, economics. The only reason to support a subscription model is elitism.

    Bunk. The payment model decision is based upon the type of product you have produced and the type of audience you are going after....and what you think will garner the most revenue. There are plenty of F2P games that are doing well and plenty that are doing poorly....same holds true for P2P, B2P, Hybrids, etc. Ultimately what's really determinative is the quality of the product/service you've produced and how effeciently you produced/delivered it.

    For a F2P model to be proffitable you have to push "purchasing behavior" which either means the continual prod for users to purchase "consumables", newly produced items (this months purple pony) or purchase gated content. None of that is neccesarly bad if done well...but it dictates a certain type of game/product design.  By contrast, with the P2P model you dispense with the need for building that "purchasing behavior" into your game design and simply focus on making sure you have enough fresh and interesting for the player to want to return next month. You don't  half to worry about pushing the player to purchase "widgets" next month...just that there is something entertaining waiting for him.

    Both models can be proffitable or dismal failures depending upon how well you execute. There have been plenty of "free" services that have filled bankruptcy even while they had huge user bases.....precisely because they couldn't figure out how to convert enough of those users into regularly paying customers.

    If a game has 750K users who are spending, on average $5 per month. It ends up being less proffitable then the 250K sub based service where everyone is paying $15 per month...because every user costs something to support. That's economics of it. 

     

     

     

    Simply stating that it is bunk does not make it so. You dont have to push a purchasing behavior at all, look at games like DDO, LOTRO and more. Have you even played a F2P game? The ones that have to push a purchasing behavior are the ones selling a box, because if they dont push those sales, they get NO MONEY GUARANTEED! In a F2P game, you dont have to push anywhere near as hard to get people to pay. Now, if you are so smart, why is the subscription model all but dead? Only elitists like you are clinging to a dying model of payment.

     

    Oh, and the payment model is not decided by what type of audience you are going after...its decided by how much money the company wants to make, dont try and fool yourself or anyone else into thinking that there is any other motivation. So far, you subscription nazis have done nothing but make flat assertions with no proof while us 'freeloaders' as you nasty pieces of work like to call us have provided example after example after example of how free to play makes more money, saves games from failing and is a better payment model...you just come back at us with rhetoric and hyperbole. Now say something new or dont say anything at all.

  • KuviskiKuviski KajaaniPosts: 214Member
    Great news, and I'll for sure be buying the game what ever happens simply to support the business model. Too many "free" to play titles out there today, and free-to-play is a model I don't want to touch with a stick.
  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon

    I'm done paying a subscription for content I never use. When will developers get this through their head. It's like Cable. I don't want to spend $70 a month paying for stupid A&E channel, or ESPN, or CNN. I hate that my money subsidizes these programs on Cable when all I really want is SyFy, Discovery, HBO, and a few others.

    The same goes for sub games. I don't want my $15 a month subsidizing Raid play, or PvP play...content I never use. F2P is superior in most cases because I can buy content  A la carte. I can purchase the content I will use, and if the Company doesn't provide me with content I want, then I spend no money.

     

    It's that simple.

  • lafaiellafaiel harrisburg, PAPosts: 93Member
    I love seeing all the MMO freeloaders cry like this though, its fun.
  • ArthasmArthasm LoznicaPosts: 754Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lafaiel
    I love seeing all the MMO freeloaders cry like this though, its fun.

    It isn't fun, really. It's sad. Sometimes I have feelling that they want just 1 little crack in-game, just 1 defect, which gonna make game failure as P2P. Screw quality, let it sucks just to be F2P. But, let's hope devs finally learnt something in last 10 years about fail P2P titles, so we can't see "going F2P in 1 year".

  • acidbloodacidblood melbournePosts: 265Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by BillMurphy
    I'm surprised there's so little talk about the 2014 release date delay... :)

    Actually kinda happy about that... partly because I wouldn't be able to play it this year anyway.

    As to the revenue model, I'm very happy with it, mainly the 'no cash shop' bit, but I guess only time will tell if it's actually worth $15 a month.

  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lafaiel
    I love seeing all the MMO freeloaders cry like this though, its fun.

    Who's the true freeloader? When I play a f2p game like DDO, I might spend $6-$8 for a new module to play for a weekend, then not play again for a month. Is that freeloading?

    Or this: A hardcore raider plays 40-60 hours a week raiding paying $15 a month, whilst a casual player who might play 10 hrs a week also pays $15 a month. This is the equivalent of MMO welfare, where the MMO casuals (vast majority of MMO population) subsidizes the 40-60 hr a week raider. The freeloader here is clearly the hardcore player.

  • doodphacedoodphace Vancouver, BCPosts: 1,815Member
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by doodphace

    This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.

     False argument.

    Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.

    Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.

    Im talking about endgame content....raids from Burning Crusade do not constitute endgame content, so please stop using the "10 year old game" argument......im referring specifically to content developed for level 90 max level charecters, you know, endgame content...MoP, where all of the current endgame content im referring to was released, came out a month apart from GW2...so ya...

    And why are you comparing GW2 to WoW from 10 years ago (forgetting the fact that your example is highly debatable)? If you are going to compare something, compare game x with game y in 2013, not game x from 2013 vs game y from 2005 (and you said I used a false argument? lol)....my entire point is comparing current content available to corrent content availabe, not theoretical differences from 10 years ago...if the endgame content is there to keep you coming back, people will clearly pay a subscription

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,586Member Uncommon
     
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,586Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Drakephire
    Originally posted by lafaiel
    I love seeing all the MMO freeloaders cry like this though, its fun.

    Who's the true freeloader? When I play a f2p game like DDO, I might spend $6-$8 for a new module to play for a weekend, then not play again for a month. Is that freeloading?

    Or this: A hardcore raider plays 40-60 hours a week raiding paying $15 a month, whilst a casual player who might play 10 hrs a week also pays $15 a month. This is the equivalent of MMO welfare, where the MMO casuals (vast majority of MMO population) subsidizes the 40-60 hr a week raider. The freeloader here is clearly the hardcore player.

    Wait

    What?

    How do you.........Oh wow, I don't even know where to begin on this one.

  • DeathJesterUKDeathJesterUK BurnleyPosts: 15Member
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by doodphace

    This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.

     False argument.

    Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.

    Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.

    Im talking about endgame content....raids from Burning Crusade do not constitute endgame content, so please stop using the "10 year old game" argument......im referring specifically to content developed for level 90 max level charecters, you know, endgame content...MoP, where all of the current endgame content im referring to was released, came out a month apart from GW2...so ya...

    And why are you comparing GW2 to WoW from 10 years ago (forgetting the fact that your example is highly debatable)? If you are going to compare something, compare game x with game y in 2013, not game x from 2013 vs game y from 2005 (and you said I used a false argument? lol)....my entire point is comparing current content available to corrent content availabe, not theoretical differences from 10 years ago...if the endgame content is there to keep you coming back, people will clearly pay a subscription

    Im sorry, but that is a perfectly valid argument that WoW is ten years old, and your attempt to invalidate it is fallacious at best. With every expansion for World of Warcraft, the end level cap was increased by 10 levels. Now, see if you can follow that logic and realize why your argument is a fallacy. World of Warcraft has had 10 years to develop content for its game and we are not just talking expansions, what about the numerous updates that occur between expansions that add more stuff to their game, you are ignoring them as well. Now, if you are going to continue to use logical fallacies in support of your case, at least use the BIG logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman or something.

  • DeathJesterUKDeathJesterUK BurnleyPosts: 15Member
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by Drakephire
    Originally posted by lafaiel
    I love seeing all the MMO freeloaders cry like this though, its fun.

    Who's the true freeloader? When I play a f2p game like DDO, I might spend $6-$8 for a new module to play for a weekend, then not play again for a month. Is that freeloading?

    Or this: A hardcore raider plays 40-60 hours a week raiding paying $15 a month, whilst a casual player who might play 10 hrs a week also pays $15 a month. This is the equivalent of MMO welfare, where the MMO casuals (vast majority of MMO population) subsidizes the 40-60 hr a week raider. The freeloader here is clearly the hardcore player.

    Wait

    What?

    How do you.........Oh wow, I don't even know where to begin on this one.

    Yes, we are pointing out the irony, stupidity and childishness of calling us 'freeloaders', or are those concepts too subtle for you?

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,586Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by doodphace

    This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.

     False argument.

    Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.

    Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.

    Im talking about endgame content....raids from Burning Crusade do not constitute endgame content, so please stop using the "10 year old game" argument......im referring specifically to content developed for level 90 max level charecters, you know, endgame content...MoP, where all of the current endgame content im referring to was released, came out a month apart from GW2...so ya...

    And why are you comparing GW2 to WoW from 10 years ago (forgetting the fact that your example is highly debatable)? If you are going to compare something, compare game x with game y in 2013, not game x from 2013 vs game y from 2005 (and you said I used a false argument? lol)....my entire point is comparing current content available to corrent content availabe, not theoretical differences from 10 years ago...if the endgame content is there to keep you coming back, people will clearly pay a subscription

    Im sorry, but that is a perfectly valid argument that WoW is ten years old, and your attempt to invalidate it is fallacious at best. With every expansion for World of Warcraft, the end level cap was increased by 10 levels. Now, see if you can follow that logic and realize why your argument is a fallacy. World of Warcraft has had 10 years to develop content for its game and we are not just talking expansions, what about the numerous updates that occur between expansions that add more stuff to their game, you are ignoring them as well. Now, if you are going to continue to use logical fallacies in support of your case, at least use the BIG logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman or something.

    One thing that Wrath of the Lich King proved was that the only content that was relevant was the current expansion. Deathknights were not given the option, but rather forced to bypass everything in Vanilla WoW. They leveled to 68 in Outland and headed right into the new content. So Vanilla was 100% obsolete  and BC was used as a leveling stepping stone to get to Northrend. Also, all that 10 year old content was removed and replaced by Cata a few years back anyway. So, saying WoW has 10 years head start is kinda ridiculous. 

     

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,586Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by Drakephire
    Originally posted by lafaiel
    I love seeing all the MMO freeloaders cry like this though, its fun.

    Who's the true freeloader? When I play a f2p game like DDO, I might spend $6-$8 for a new module to play for a weekend, then not play again for a month. Is that freeloading?

    Or this: A hardcore raider plays 40-60 hours a week raiding paying $15 a month, whilst a casual player who might play 10 hrs a week also pays $15 a month. This is the equivalent of MMO welfare, where the MMO casuals (vast majority of MMO population) subsidizes the 40-60 hr a week raider. The freeloader here is clearly the hardcore player.

    Wait

    What?

    How do you.........Oh wow, I don't even know where to begin on this one.

    Yes, we are pointing out the irony, stupidity and childishness of calling us 'freeloaders', or are those concepts too subtle for you?

    If we used this logic, we can look at a lazy college student looking at barely passing his courses wandering aimlessly while openly denying himself the opportunities afforded him by his tuition all the while looking at the Med students who are busting their asses off, pointing at them and calling them freeloaders.

    Talk about denial and entitlement issues.

     

  • DeathJesterUKDeathJesterUK BurnleyPosts: 15Member
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by doodphace

    This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.

     False argument.

    Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.

    Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.

    Im talking about endgame content....raids from Burning Crusade do not constitute endgame content, so please stop using the "10 year old game" argument......im referring specifically to content developed for level 90 max level charecters, you know, endgame content...MoP, where all of the current endgame content im referring to was released, came out a month apart from GW2...so ya...

    And why are you comparing GW2 to WoW from 10 years ago (forgetting the fact that your example is highly debatable)? If you are going to compare something, compare game x with game y in 2013, not game x from 2013 vs game y from 2005 (and you said I used a false argument? lol)....my entire point is comparing current content available to corrent content availabe, not theoretical differences from 10 years ago...if the endgame content is there to keep you coming back, people will clearly pay a subscription

    Im sorry, but that is a perfectly valid argument that WoW is ten years old, and your attempt to invalidate it is fallacious at best. With every expansion for World of Warcraft, the end level cap was increased by 10 levels. Now, see if you can follow that logic and realize why your argument is a fallacy. World of Warcraft has had 10 years to develop content for its game and we are not just talking expansions, what about the numerous updates that occur between expansions that add more stuff to their game, you are ignoring them as well. Now, if you are going to continue to use logical fallacies in support of your case, at least use the BIG logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman or something.

    One thing that Wrath of the Lich King proved was that the only content that was relevant was the current expansion. Deathknights were not given the option, but rather forced to bypass everything in Vanilla WoW. They leveled to 68 in Outland and headed right into the new content. So Vanilla was 100% obsolete  and BC was used as a leveling stepping stone to get to Northrend. Also, all that 10 year old content was removed and replaced by Cata a few years back anyway. So, saying WoW has 10 years head start is kinda ridiculous. 

     

    How long has WoW been up and running? Answer: 10 years.

    How long of a head starts does that give WoW content wise? Answer: 10 years.

     

    Logic, do you comprehend it?

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,586Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by doodphace

    This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.

     False argument.

    Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.

    Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.

    Im talking about endgame content....raids from Burning Crusade do not constitute endgame content, so please stop using the "10 year old game" argument......im referring specifically to content developed for level 90 max level charecters, you know, endgame content...MoP, where all of the current endgame content im referring to was released, came out a month apart from GW2...so ya...

    And why are you comparing GW2 to WoW from 10 years ago (forgetting the fact that your example is highly debatable)? If you are going to compare something, compare game x with game y in 2013, not game x from 2013 vs game y from 2005 (and you said I used a false argument? lol)....my entire point is comparing current content available to corrent content availabe, not theoretical differences from 10 years ago...if the endgame content is there to keep you coming back, people will clearly pay a subscription

    Im sorry, but that is a perfectly valid argument that WoW is ten years old, and your attempt to invalidate it is fallacious at best. With every expansion for World of Warcraft, the end level cap was increased by 10 levels. Now, see if you can follow that logic and realize why your argument is a fallacy. World of Warcraft has had 10 years to develop content for its game and we are not just talking expansions, what about the numerous updates that occur between expansions that add more stuff to their game, you are ignoring them as well. Now, if you are going to continue to use logical fallacies in support of your case, at least use the BIG logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman or something.

    One thing that Wrath of the Lich King proved was that the only content that was relevant was the current expansion. Deathknights were not given the option, but rather forced to bypass everything in Vanilla WoW. They leveled to 68 in Outland and headed right into the new content. So Vanilla was 100% obsolete  and BC was used as a leveling stepping stone to get to Northrend. Also, all that 10 year old content was removed and replaced by Cata a few years back anyway. So, saying WoW has 10 years head start is kinda ridiculous. 

     

    How long has WoW been up and running? Answer: 10 years.

    How long of a head starts does that give WoW content wise? Answer: 10 years.

     

    Logic, do you comprehend it?

    CATA

    12/7/2010

    So, in December that "10 year old content" will turn 3.

    LOL

  • doodphacedoodphace Vancouver, BCPosts: 1,815Member
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by doodphace

    This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.

     False argument.

    Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.

    Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.

    Im talking about endgame content....raids from Burning Crusade do not constitute endgame content, so please stop using the "10 year old game" argument......im referring specifically to content developed for level 90 max level charecters, you know, endgame content...MoP, where all of the current endgame content im referring to was released, came out a month apart from GW2...so ya...

    And why are you comparing GW2 to WoW from 10 years ago (forgetting the fact that your example is highly debatable)? If you are going to compare something, compare game x with game y in 2013, not game x from 2013 vs game y from 2005 (and you said I used a false argument? lol)....my entire point is comparing current content available to corrent content availabe, not theoretical differences from 10 years ago...if the endgame content is there to keep you coming back, people will clearly pay a subscription

    Im sorry, but that is a perfectly valid argument that WoW is ten years old, and your attempt to invalidate it is fallacious at best. With every expansion for World of Warcraft, the end level cap was increased by 10 levels. Now, see if you can follow that logic and realize why your argument is a fallacy. World of Warcraft has had 10 years to develop content for its game and we are not just talking expansions, what about the numerous updates that occur between expansions that add more stuff to their game, you are ignoring them as well. Now, if you are going to continue to use logical fallacies in support of your case, at least use the BIG logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman or something.

    What part of ENDGAME CONTENT is not clear here? All of the raids, dungons, heroic dungons, challenge dungons, scenerios, heroic scenerios, map, daily quests etc were all developed for Mists of Pandaria....what the hell does "increase level by 10" have to do with anything? If you are implying that GW2 has less endgame content because they had to spend more time developing the content for lvls 1-80, then that would be legit if not for the fact that GW2 was in development for at least 3 years longer than Mists of Pandaria......and even so...lets pretend that WoW being 10 years old (even though all of the endgame content is brand new) was the cause of the discrepancy, who cares why GW2 is lacking endgame content compared to WoW...the fact remains that it is (whuch was my initial point, not sure why u are hell bent on turing this into a back and fourth with reasons why).....which basically proves my point, in that if the game has endgame content keeping players coming back at max level, then it can survive as a P2P game...

    And by the way....if you attempting to throw "facts" at me, you might as well get them correct...WoW has had 4 expansions thus far, only 2 of which increased the level cap by 10...

  • DeathJesterUKDeathJesterUK BurnleyPosts: 15Member
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by doodphace

    This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.

     False argument.

    Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.

    Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.

    Im talking about endgame content....raids from Burning Crusade do not constitute endgame content, so please stop using the "10 year old game" argument......im referring specifically to content developed for level 90 max level charecters, you know, endgame content...MoP, where all of the current endgame content im referring to was released, came out a month apart from GW2...so ya...

    And why are you comparing GW2 to WoW from 10 years ago (forgetting the fact that your example is highly debatable)? If you are going to compare something, compare game x with game y in 2013, not game x from 2013 vs game y from 2005 (and you said I used a false argument? lol)....my entire point is comparing current content available to corrent content availabe, not theoretical differences from 10 years ago...if the endgame content is there to keep you coming back, people will clearly pay a subscription

    Im sorry, but that is a perfectly valid argument that WoW is ten years old, and your attempt to invalidate it is fallacious at best. With every expansion for World of Warcraft, the end level cap was increased by 10 levels. Now, see if you can follow that logic and realize why your argument is a fallacy. World of Warcraft has had 10 years to develop content for its game and we are not just talking expansions, what about the numerous updates that occur between expansions that add more stuff to their game, you are ignoring them as well. Now, if you are going to continue to use logical fallacies in support of your case, at least use the BIG logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman or something.

    One thing that Wrath of the Lich King proved was that the only content that was relevant was the current expansion. Deathknights were not given the option, but rather forced to bypass everything in Vanilla WoW. They leveled to 68 in Outland and headed right into the new content. So Vanilla was 100% obsolete  and BC was used as a leveling stepping stone to get to Northrend. Also, all that 10 year old content was removed and replaced by Cata a few years back anyway. So, saying WoW has 10 years head start is kinda ridiculous. 

     

    How long has WoW been up and running? Answer: 10 years.

    How long of a head starts does that give WoW content wise? Answer: 10 years.

     

    Logic, do you comprehend it?

    CATA

    12/7/2010

    So, in December that "10 year old content" will turn 3.

    LOL

    Clearly, you do not comprehend logic. Just because CATA came out and added a separate end game to the vanilla end game, doesnt invalidate the fact that the vanilla end game is still there. So yeah, you clearly have no logical train of thought either. And I think the developers of WoW would disagree with your assessment on the effects of CATA.

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,586Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by DeathJesterUK
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by doodphace

    This is not to say one game is better than the other, but take a game like WoW for instance, at least PVE wise, there is an insane amount more to do at max level than in GW2(GW2 is still very high quality, dont get me wrong)....now, you may not like what WoW offers, but there is no denying that it does offer more endgame content than any other themepark game by a large margin.

     False argument.

    Using an example of a game that has been out for many years against one that hasn't been.

    Take the amount of content from WoW 1 year after release and compare it to GW2...GW2 has had almost as much updated content as a full expansion...for free...and already offers far more PvP content than WoW did at the one year mark along with a never ending dungeon via the fractals.

    Im talking about endgame content....raids from Burning Crusade do not constitute endgame content, so please stop using the "10 year old game" argument......im referring specifically to content developed for level 90 max level charecters, you know, endgame content...MoP, where all of the current endgame content im referring to was released, came out a month apart from GW2...so ya...

    And why are you comparing GW2 to WoW from 10 years ago (forgetting the fact that your example is highly debatable)? If you are going to compare something, compare game x with game y in 2013, not game x from 2013 vs game y from 2005 (and you said I used a false argument? lol)....my entire point is comparing current content available to corrent content availabe, not theoretical differences from 10 years ago...if the endgame content is there to keep you coming back, people will clearly pay a subscription

    Im sorry, but that is a perfectly valid argument that WoW is ten years old, and your attempt to invalidate it is fallacious at best. With every expansion for World of Warcraft, the end level cap was increased by 10 levels. Now, see if you can follow that logic and realize why your argument is a fallacy. World of Warcraft has had 10 years to develop content for its game and we are not just talking expansions, what about the numerous updates that occur between expansions that add more stuff to their game, you are ignoring them as well. Now, if you are going to continue to use logical fallacies in support of your case, at least use the BIG logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman or something.

    One thing that Wrath of the Lich King proved was that the only content that was relevant was the current expansion. Deathknights were not given the option, but rather forced to bypass everything in Vanilla WoW. They leveled to 68 in Outland and headed right into the new content. So Vanilla was 100% obsolete  and BC was used as a leveling stepping stone to get to Northrend. Also, all that 10 year old content was removed and replaced by Cata a few years back anyway. So, saying WoW has 10 years head start is kinda ridiculous. 

     

    How long has WoW been up and running? Answer: 10 years.

    How long of a head starts does that give WoW content wise? Answer: 10 years.

     

    Logic, do you comprehend it?

    CATA

    12/7/2010

    So, in December that "10 year old content" will turn 3.

    LOL

    Clearly, you do not comprehend logic. Just because CATA came out and added a separate end game to the vanilla end game, doesnt invalidate the fact that the vanilla end game is still there. So yeah, you clearly have no logical train of thought either. And I think the developers of WoW would disagree with your assessment on the effects of CATA.

    OMG, do you realize the hole you are digging?

    This is getting funnier and funnier, by all means, please do continue with your "logic"

    Vanilla WoW itself was removed and done over.

Sign In or Register to comment.