Oh you forgot one thing..Guild Wars is not an MMO.
I agree. It's like comparing mario brothers 1 to mario brothers 3. You can play them on the same system, they look like they have a lot in common, but they aren't even close.
"I'm not cheap I'm incredibly subconsciously financially optimized" "The worst part of censorship is ------------------"
Awesome post OP. Guess that goes for most P2P MMOs,think gaenprayer originally posted it in one of these threads unless Voken = gaenprayer?
Yes Gaenprayer did post it in the other thread called "They should just bite the bullet and change to a sub model", this thread is in reply to that so that more people can see it.
See what exactly? That its cheaper when you don't have to pay a sub fee? I don't think people are denying that fact, but what I will say is that GW1 didn't have nearly enough content to keep a player playing for 5 years, and wouldn't hold a subscription that long at all.
I stayed with the original prophecies for a couple months at best before I got bored. Each expansion only kept me roughly a month. In subscription games, like CoX, FE, or things of that nature, I came back for large patches, and stayed subbed for longer because there was much more to do.
It isn't a question of whats cheaper, its a question of "you get what you pay for". If someone wants to spend 5 years worth of subs on WoW, but they continue playing for 5 years and are happy with it, then they've already gotten more enjoyment for their money then anything GW1 could have provided.
Alternatively think of it this way, if GW1 doesn't hold someones attention, then instead of paying a 15 dollar monthly fee, they end up spending 50 - 60 dollars on a new game the next month. Most non-MMOs have a game life of a month, maybe two if its a good FPS (or RTS or RPG or whatever you're into). 50 dollars every couple months (which is somewhat similar to what I used to spend for my console or single player titles) over 5 years = 1800 dollars. Someone who is enamored with one game that can last for 5 years cost wise would be better off then having to buy a new game to keep their interest.
Out of all my friends I played GW1 the longest, and was the only one to buy ALL xpacs even after only giving my attention to them for just over a month.
Given that GW2 will have an open world and be more of an MMO, I expect to see a little more longevity, but I don't feel it will have enough to keep me there over a very long term like SWTOR or even DCUO would.
Even if you and your friends didn't play the game for more than a month, the fact remains that you could have come back to that game without any extra cost to you.
And this thread is for those people who are skeptical about the in-game shop and making misconceptions that adding the cost of the stuff from the in-game store with the cost of the initial game would add up to more than you would pay for a sub game which is not true.
The point is, whats the point of being ABLE to come back to a game for free if you don't want to play the game.
Everytime I came back to GW1 it was because of an expansion. I was pretty much paying to come back to play the game as it was. Ultimately I agree with you that costs are cheaper, I never denied that, but a cost of a single player game with DLC is even cheaper then that -- but thats one of the big things about subscription MMOs, lots of the time they add more content for you to come back and play for only the monthly subscription fee.
So in short, I could play the same game over and over again in GW1 and not pay anything extra, or I could come back to, say, CoX with new archetypes, new powers, new areas, and just overall new content and pay 15 dollars for the month.
Its really a personal preference thing, but its obvious each kind of payment model has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Considering the expansions/campaigns were released every 6 months, I'd say you were coming back to something new every 6 months... new powers, new areas, new enemies and thats more than you could say for even CoX back in the day.
For the first year of CoX I pretty much stayed subbed the entire time, I think CoH when it first came out was when it was doing the best in updating the content, we had new content roughly every 3 months, and their content was much greater then even most of GW1s expansions. They really rocked on the content updates out of the gate with CoX. It also had much more content to begin with.
But thats neither here nor there, I actually like the combat system in GW1 more.
You can't compare 18 months to 20 hours. You compare 18 months with 18 months. I'll compare my GW hours. 5000 hours. Bought GW+Factions+NF+EoTN+extras = $320.
320/5000 = 0.064cents per hour. Through my gameplay, It costed me just over half a cent to play per hour.
Played for 5 years. = 1825 days, played every month. I don't want to do the calculations for WoW on this one. Did you take into account for the expansion which you may/may not have bought for WoW?
oh wow I can't wrap my head around how people can believe that paying a sub is a better deal..........
F2P will win hands down every time with most subs taking the sub fee of 100-150 a month................
Who the heck even pays for the costumes and stuff..............
B2P For the SOLID 100% WIN every time, but i guess thats why i think that WoW has ruined mainstream mmo's because it is clearly brainwashing you course of thought when it comes to simple math.
Hmm, watching an episode of Lost on TV cost me about perhaps 10c, considering cable cost. Buying the whole Start Trek Voyager 7 seasons on DVD cost like $300....
B2P For the SOLID 100% WIN every time, but i guess thats why i think that WoW has ruined mainstream mmo's because it is clearly brainwashing you course of thought when it comes to simple math.
Nope, wow is not brainwashing us. I will accept f2p when I'll see a great f2p game. Till now nothing.
Is not that I love to pay money anyway. The problem is that till now the only mmos I enjoyed were p2p.
To me the cost is not a question of whether I play a game. F2P has always gotten really poor for me I haven't come across any I could stand aside from Guildwars and DnD and now LotRO. All the rest were awful so I cannot really condemn sub games based on costs because ultimately I always choose those games. The reasons for this have already been enumerated and discussed to death.
Choosing something I view as entertainment purely on costs has not been a good method in the past you always end up short changing yourself and most F2P are truly gawdawful.
Where there is a choice to sub I will always sub as I did while playing DnD because I am not going to waste my time on a hobby trying to nickel and dime my way through the content.
Guild Wars is not an MMO and thus cannot be played as one.
Secondly, WoW is the most expensive MMO on the market with all the expansions the sub and the vanity stuff, no point comparing to make a point on money IMO.
Thirdly, WoW is an MMO and can be played as one, meaning that many people play WoW as their only game and believe me I know such people. Yes, WoW can offer that much time waste and in the end it's all about that. Either be it hunting achievements in a huge world of content, doing repetitive raids every night or doing 100 2v2s to climb one position or rp-ing. You'll get bored in Guild Wars eventually, is it after 20 hours, 1 month, 6 months? Don't know really. Has anyone been playing Guild Wars since it has been released? Most probably but I don't think you can just play that alone.
Guildwars = $50 for 20 hours of play = $2.50/ hour
World of Warcraft = $50 + 18 months at $15 = $320 / 800 hours = $0.42 an hour.
For me WoW was a 6 times better deal than Guildwars.
But, you're using money to explain a game being a better deal when what made it a better deal for you is that WoW was more entertaining for you than Guild Wars. The two measurements cannot correlate.
If you swap the games... look what happens:
If you played Guild Wars for 800 hours, as you did WoW... you would've paid $0.0625 an hour.
Conversely... If you played WoW for only 20 hours... you would've paid $3.25 an hour.
Guild Wars is now a 52 times better deal than WoW.
I'm not arguing that you enjoyed WoW more than GW... it's obvious you did based on the time spent playing. I also spent far more time playing WoW than I did GW. But the money argument just isn't logical.
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.
Guildwars = $50 for 20 hours of play = $2.50/ hour
World of Warcraft = $50 + 18 months at $15 = $320 / 800 hours = $0.42 an hour.
For me WoW was a 6 times better deal than Guildwars.
But, you're using money to explain a game being a better deal when what made it a better deal for you is that WoW was more entertaining for you than Guild Wars. The two measurements cannot correlate.
If you swap the games... look what happens:
If you played Guild Wars for 800 hours, as you did WoW... you would've paid $0.0625 an hour.
Conversely... If you played WoW for only 20 hours... you would've paid $3.25 an hour.
Guild Wars is now a 52 times better deal than WoW.
I'm not arguing that you enjoyed WoW more than GW... it's obvious you did based on the time spent playing. I also spent far more time playing WoW than I did GW. But the money argument just isn't logical.
It's still a good point though.
If you feel like one game is better than the other and play it way more, it brings the price way down. If you feel like a game is worse and don't play it as much, it raises the price of the game.
In the end, they need to bring a good game to the table no matter what the price.
I LOVED Guildwars and I also love WoW (once I was able to get over the fact that there would never be abother game like UO).
But seriously, you get what you pay for. I bought and beat all the Guildwars campaigns, I spent a lot of time PvPing and getting cosmetic gear upgrades and I feel I got my moneys worth. But if you look at the hours I put into guildwars vs the hours into WoW, WoW is still cheaper. WoW has substantially more content and Is always being updated. Guildwars is not.
Guildwars 2 is another story and we shall see how it goes. I'm sure I will feel I got my $50 out of it but will I go back to WoW when Im through its content and waiting for its next expansion? Probably.
GW was initally going to be updated every 6 months which they did, the only reason they stopped is because of GW2. If they weren't working on GW2 we would have gotten GW: Utopia which was what they were working on before GW2.
On a side note, they've started updating the game with more content now which is to bridge the gap between GW1 and GW2 called Guild wars beyond. War in Kryta is part of the GWB series and this new content and its free, the next free content is coming soon which is currently named "Conflict in Cantha" or something like that and the game is getting an update that allows you to have a full hero party including the player char. So you can't say the game is not being updated with new content. Even before the new expansions were put out (and even when they were put out) they updated the game with elite dungeons that were free. E.g The underworld, Sorrow's Furnace, Fissure of Woe, Tomb of Primeval Kings, the deep..etc. All that stuff was updated into the game for free.
So yeah, the game has been updated but it slowed to a halt when they announced GW2.
Thats great GW is getting content. And again, I think its a great game. But I don't think anyone can say it gets as much content as regularly as WoW. No game does really.
That may be so (I genuinely wouldn't know, as I could not get into WoW for multiple reasons), but you're not getting that content for free. You're getting it for $15/mo, and the second you stop paying for it, you stop getting all of it.
Awesome post OP. Guess that goes for most P2P MMOs,think gaenprayer originally posted it in one of these threads unless Voken = gaenprayer?
Yes Gaenprayer did post it in the other thread called "They should just bite the bullet and change to a sub model", this thread is in reply to that so that more people can see it.
See what exactly? That its cheaper when you don't have to pay a sub fee? I don't think people are denying that fact, but what I will say is that GW1 didn't have nearly enough content to keep a player playing for 5 years, and wouldn't hold a subscription that long at all.
I stayed with the original prophecies for a couple months at best before I got bored. Each expansion only kept me roughly a month. In subscription games, like CoX, FE, or things of that nature, I came back for large patches, and stayed subbed for longer because there was much more to do.
It isn't a question of whats cheaper, its a question of "you get what you pay for". If someone wants to spend 5 years worth of subs on WoW, but they continue playing for 5 years and are happy with it, then they've already gotten more enjoyment for their money then anything GW1 could have provided.
Alternatively think of it this way, if GW1 doesn't hold someones attention, then instead of paying a 15 dollar monthly fee, they end up spending 50 - 60 dollars on a new game the next month. Most non-MMOs have a game life of a month, maybe two if its a good FPS (or RTS or RPG or whatever you're into). 50 dollars every couple months (which is somewhat similar to what I used to spend for my console or single player titles) over 5 years = 1800 dollars. Someone who is enamored with one game that can last for 5 years cost wise would be better off then having to buy a new game to keep their interest.
Out of all my friends I played GW1 the longest, and was the only one to buy ALL xpacs even after only giving my attention to them for just over a month.
Given that GW2 will have an open world and be more of an MMO, I expect to see a little more longevity, but I don't feel it will have enough to keep me there over a very long term like SWTOR or even DCUO would.
Alternatively alternatively , you've made a good point that ANet possibly needs GW2 to be *better* than a subscription game rather than merely addictive or operating on a treadmill (thus keeping someone subscribed over a long period of time) because they *need* people to want to return for new content. You look at it as a game lacking the ability to retain players because you felt free to come and go, but I look at it as the game having to be enthralling enough to keep someone who played for a month and went away to come BACK and BUY that expansion - not just poke back to say hello, but actually spend money and GET something for that money that they can have forever (the life of the game, at least).
An average game is not going to get that kind of fan base, and a game that bores someone after a month isn't going to get that second (third, fourth) purchase. Guild Wars 1 failed your friends: GW2 can't afford to. It's a gamble on ANet's part to be sure - they said they were betting their company on it - but as I have three games right now that I can technically play for free (two because I have lifetime/long-term subscriptions) the only one I still play and am still enjoying is GW, so I will take that bet.
You are absolutely right that one's mileage may vary.
Guildwars = $50 for 20 hours of play = $2.50/ hour
World of Warcraft = $50 + 18 months at $15 = $320 / 800 hours = $0.42 an hour.
For me WoW was a 6 times better deal than Guildwars.
But, you're using money to explain a game being a better deal when what made it a better deal for you is that WoW was more entertaining for you than Guild Wars. The two measurements cannot correlate.
If you swap the games... look what happens:
If you played Guild Wars for 800 hours, as you did WoW... you would've paid $0.0625 an hour.
Conversely... If you played WoW for only 20 hours... you would've paid $3.25 an hour.
Guild Wars is now a 52 times better deal than WoW.
I'm not arguing that you enjoyed WoW more than GW... it's obvious you did based on the time spent playing. I also spent far more time playing WoW than I did GW. But the money argument just isn't logical.
It's still a good point though.
If you feel like one game is better than the other and play it way more, it brings the price way down. If you feel like a game is worse and don't play it as much, it raises the price of the game.
In the end, they need to bring a good game to the table no matter what the price.
No argument there, but I guess my point is that objective data are not logical to use in a subjective argument.
Grim enjoyed WoW more than Guild Wars because the gameplay was more enticing to him, not because of the amount of money spent.
I also enjoyed WoW more than GW, but I still consider GW to be a great deal, especially since there's no subscription so I can always just jump on and play whenever I get the itch, even if it's been months since my last log in.
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.
Originally posted by Ontblod Duh? Why keep people bring GW1 into this? GW2 is supposed to be a "real MMO" unlike GW1.....yes...no?
I hope so. Because when I visited a place in "Eye of the North" today, I mostly seen Assassines there. "Because of an Event" they say. Not an MMO, classes not balanced for PvE.
Guildwars = $50 for 20 hours of play = $2.50/ hour
World of Warcraft = $50 + 18 months at $15 = $320 / 800 hours = $0.42 an hour.
For me WoW was a 6 times better deal than Guildwars.
But, you're using money to explain a game being a better deal when what made it a better deal for you is that WoW was more entertaining for you than Guild Wars. The two measurements cannot correlate.
If you swap the games... look what happens:
If you played Guild Wars for 800 hours, as you did WoW... you would've paid $0.0625 an hour.
Conversely... If you played WoW for only 20 hours... you would've paid $3.25 an hour.
Guild Wars is now a 52 times better deal than WoW.
I'm not arguing that you enjoyed WoW more than GW... it's obvious you did based on the time spent playing. I also spent far more time playing WoW than I did GW. But the money argument just isn't logical.
It's still a good point though.
If you feel like one game is better than the other and play it way more, it brings the price way down. If you feel like a game is worse and don't play it as much, it raises the price of the game.
In the end, they need to bring a good game to the table no matter what the price.
The other point was that the OP was using the assumption that one person played both those games an equal amount. Since no person on the planet actually did ( and I suspect very few who put significant time into one came very close), the OP original argument is flawed and basically worthless.
Were there really people who played GW1 40 hours a week? If so, I suspect it's because they couldn't afford the $12+ monthly cost for a subscription based MMO.
Guildwars = $50 for 20 hours of play = $2.50/ hour
World of Warcraft = $50 + 18 months at $15 = $320 / 800 hours = $0.42 an hour.
For me WoW was a 6 times better deal than Guildwars.
But, you're using money to explain a game being a better deal when what made it a better deal for you is that WoW was more entertaining for you than Guild Wars. The two measurements cannot correlate.
If you swap the games... look what happens:
If you played Guild Wars for 800 hours, as you did WoW... you would've paid $0.0625 an hour.
Conversely... If you played WoW for only 20 hours... you would've paid $3.25 an hour.
Guild Wars is now a 52 times better deal than WoW.
I'm not arguing that you enjoyed WoW more than GW... it's obvious you did based on the time spent playing. I also spent far more time playing WoW than I did GW. But the money argument just isn't logical.
It's still a good point though.
If you feel like one game is better than the other and play it way more, it brings the price way down. If you feel like a game is worse and don't play it as much, it raises the price of the game.
In the end, they need to bring a good game to the table no matter what the price.
The other point was that the OP was using the assumption that one person played both those games an equal amount. Since no person on the planet actually did ( and I suspect very few who put significant time into one came very close), the OP original argument is flawed and basically worthless.
Were there really people who played GW1 40 hours a week? If so, I suspect it's because they couldn't afford the $12+ monthly cost for a subscription based MMO.
no but what about all the players who do not play wow 40 hours a week....(most of them)
the arguement is based on facts..IF someone played the games at the same time..
it is not flawed it is simply showing what one would have paid...
Thanks for putting that into perspective, I was considering crunching the numbers myself but now I don't have to
Fitgured it would be something along these lines tho, Guild Wars 2 even after extra (unneccesary) item mall purchases = way cheaper than WoW still! GW2 just keeps getting better!
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
Agree with the OP but he is forgetting one thing that in Guild Wars 2 there will never be a monthly fee hanging over your head making you feel obligated or forced to get your money's worth of game time.
Agree with the OP but he is forgetting one thing that in Guild Wars 2 there will never be a monthly fee hanging over your head making you feel obligated or forced to get your money's worth of game time.
I think I've read that a lot of times lately but I won't stop saying it. If you feel forced to play a game due to paying a monthly fee then maybe that game is not good enough for you.
Agree with the OP but he is forgetting one thing that in Guild Wars 2 there will never be a monthly fee hanging over your head making you feel obligated or forced to get your money's worth of game time.
I think I've read that a lot of times lately but I won't stop saying it. If you feel forced to play a game due to paying a monthly fee then maybe that game is not good enough for you.
Couldn't agree more and that is why I do not pay a subsciption fee for mmos anymore.
Agree with the OP but he is forgetting one thing that in Guild Wars 2 there will never be a monthly fee hanging over your head making you feel obligated or forced to get your money's worth of game time.
I think I've read that a lot of times lately but I won't stop saying it. If you feel forced to play a game due to paying a monthly fee then maybe that game is not good enough for you.
This logic applies to Guild Wars 2 just the same. Unlike the original, which your previous argument claims is not an MMO (which is wrong, btw), GW2 is accepted as an MMO. Furthermore, if you feel you are forced to pay for the additional content, then maybe the game is not for you. However, the difference between GW2 and WoW? If you don't pay, you still get to play the game you originally PAID FOR. WoW? You may have bought all the boxes, but the moment you stop paying that monthly fee, you are shit out of luck.
Who's the sucker, now?
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
that post is not originated by Volken, it is originated by ME. And it was made to show Guild Wars for 5 years versus WoW for 5 years. How people have skewed it to somehow make GW look more expensive is laughable, but it goes to show how far up the ass most people have their heads these days.
Comments
I agree. It's like comparing mario brothers 1 to mario brothers 3. You can play them on the same system, they look like they have a lot in common, but they aren't even close.
"I'm not cheap I'm incredibly subconsciously financially optimized"
"The worst part of censorship is ------------------"
Guildwars was not massively multiplayer so how many were with you at any given time max ? Just an estimate if anyone can give one will do.
You cannot compare WoW and Guildwars because WoW is an MMO.
For the first year of CoX I pretty much stayed subbed the entire time, I think CoH when it first came out was when it was doing the best in updating the content, we had new content roughly every 3 months, and their content was much greater then even most of GW1s expansions. They really rocked on the content updates out of the gate with CoX. It also had much more content to begin with.
But thats neither here nor there, I actually like the combat system in GW1 more.
You can't compare 18 months to 20 hours. You compare 18 months with 18 months. I'll compare my GW hours. 5000 hours. Bought GW+Factions+NF+EoTN+extras = $320.
320/5000 = 0.064cents per hour. Through my gameplay, It costed me just over half a cent to play per hour.
Played for 5 years. = 1825 days, played every month. I don't want to do the calculations for WoW on this one. Did you take into account for the expansion which you may/may not have bought for WoW?
See how both or posts are too biased?
[Mod edit]
oh wow I can't wrap my head around how people can believe that paying a sub is a better deal..........
F2P will win hands down every time with most subs taking the sub fee of 100-150 a month................
Who the heck even pays for the costumes and stuff..............
B2P For the SOLID 100% WIN every time, but i guess thats why i think that WoW has ruined mainstream mmo's because it is clearly brainwashing you course of thought when it comes to simple math.
Hmm, watching an episode of Lost on TV cost me about perhaps 10c, considering cable cost. Buying the whole Start Trek Voyager 7 seasons on DVD cost like $300....
Oh dear, watching a Lost episode is SO CHEAP!
Nope, wow is not brainwashing us. I will accept f2p when I'll see a great f2p game. Till now nothing.
Is not that I love to pay money anyway. The problem is that till now the only mmos I enjoyed were p2p.
To me the cost is not a question of whether I play a game. F2P has always gotten really poor for me I haven't come across any I could stand aside from Guildwars and DnD and now LotRO. All the rest were awful so I cannot really condemn sub games based on costs because ultimately I always choose those games. The reasons for this have already been enumerated and discussed to death.
Choosing something I view as entertainment purely on costs has not been a good method in the past you always end up short changing yourself and most F2P are truly gawdawful.
Where there is a choice to sub I will always sub as I did while playing DnD because I am not going to waste my time on a hobby trying to nickel and dime my way through the content.
Guild Wars is not an MMO and thus cannot be played as one.
Secondly, WoW is the most expensive MMO on the market with all the expansions the sub and the vanity stuff, no point comparing to make a point on money IMO.
Thirdly, WoW is an MMO and can be played as one, meaning that many people play WoW as their only game and believe me I know such people. Yes, WoW can offer that much time waste and in the end it's all about that. Either be it hunting achievements in a huge world of content, doing repetitive raids every night or doing 100 2v2s to climb one position or rp-ing. You'll get bored in Guild Wars eventually, is it after 20 hours, 1 month, 6 months? Don't know really. Has anyone been playing Guild Wars since it has been released? Most probably but I don't think you can just play that alone.
But, you're using money to explain a game being a better deal when what made it a better deal for you is that WoW was more entertaining for you than Guild Wars. The two measurements cannot correlate.
If you swap the games... look what happens:
If you played Guild Wars for 800 hours, as you did WoW... you would've paid $0.0625 an hour.
Conversely... If you played WoW for only 20 hours... you would've paid $3.25 an hour.
Guild Wars is now a 52 times better deal than WoW.
I'm not arguing that you enjoyed WoW more than GW... it's obvious you did based on the time spent playing. I also spent far more time playing WoW than I did GW. But the money argument just isn't logical.
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.
Just makes WoW look better considering more people play, and it cost more! =P Just saying WoW cost more and is still more popular =]
It's still a good point though.
If you feel like one game is better than the other and play it way more, it brings the price way down. If you feel like a game is worse and don't play it as much, it raises the price of the game.
In the end, they need to bring a good game to the table no matter what the price.
That may be so (I genuinely wouldn't know, as I could not get into WoW for multiple reasons), but you're not getting that content for free. You're getting it for $15/mo, and the second you stop paying for it, you stop getting all of it.
Alternatively alternatively
, you've made a good point that ANet possibly needs GW2 to be *better* than a subscription game rather than merely addictive or operating on a treadmill (thus keeping someone subscribed over a long period of time) because they *need* people to want to return for new content. You look at it as a game lacking the ability to retain players because you felt free to come and go, but I look at it as the game having to be enthralling enough to keep someone who played for a month and went away to come BACK and BUY that expansion - not just poke back to say hello, but actually spend money and GET something for that money that they can have forever (the life of the game, at least).
An average game is not going to get that kind of fan base, and a game that bores someone after a month isn't going to get that second (third, fourth) purchase. Guild Wars 1 failed your friends: GW2 can't afford to. It's a gamble on ANet's part to be sure - they said they were betting their company on it - but as I have three games right now that I can technically play for free (two because I have lifetime/long-term subscriptions) the only one I still play and am still enjoying is GW, so I will take that bet.
You are absolutely right that one's mileage may vary.
No argument there, but I guess my point is that objective data are not logical to use in a subjective argument.
Grim enjoyed WoW more than Guild Wars because the gameplay was more enticing to him, not because of the amount of money spent.
I also enjoyed WoW more than GW, but I still consider GW to be a great deal, especially since there's no subscription so I can always just jump on and play whenever I get the itch, even if it's been months since my last log in.
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.
Duh?
Why keep people bring GW1 into this?
GW2 is supposed to be a "real MMO" unlike GW1.....yes...no?
Because when I visited a place in "Eye of the North" today, I mostly seen Assassines there. "Because of an Event" they say.
Not an MMO, classes not balanced for PvE.
GW2 will be better for sure.
The other point was that the OP was using the assumption that one person played both those games an equal amount. Since no person on the planet actually did ( and I suspect very few who put significant time into one came very close), the OP original argument is flawed and basically worthless.
Were there really people who played GW1 40 hours a week? If so, I suspect it's because they couldn't afford the $12+ monthly cost for a subscription based MMO.
no but what about all the players who do not play wow 40 hours a week....(most of them)
the arguement is based on facts..IF someone played the games at the same time..
it is not flawed it is simply showing what one would have paid...
Thanks for putting that into perspective, I was considering crunching the numbers myself but now I don't have to
Fitgured it would be something along these lines tho, Guild Wars 2 even after extra (unneccesary) item mall purchases = way cheaper than WoW still! GW2 just keeps getting better!
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
Agree with the OP but he is forgetting one thing that in Guild Wars 2 there will never be a monthly fee hanging over your head making you feel obligated or forced to get your money's worth of game time.
I think I've read that a lot of times lately but I won't stop saying it. If you feel forced to play a game due to paying a monthly fee then maybe that game is not good enough for you.
Couldn't agree more and that is why I do not pay a subsciption fee for mmos anymore.
This logic applies to Guild Wars 2 just the same. Unlike the original, which your previous argument claims is not an MMO (which is wrong, btw), GW2 is accepted as an MMO. Furthermore, if you feel you are forced to pay for the additional content, then maybe the game is not for you. However, the difference between GW2 and WoW? If you don't pay, you still get to play the game you originally PAID FOR. WoW? You may have bought all the boxes, but the moment you stop paying that monthly fee, you are shit out of luck.
Who's the sucker, now?
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
TO THE OP:
that post is not originated by Volken, it is originated by ME. And it was made to show Guild Wars for 5 years versus WoW for 5 years. How people have skewed it to somehow make GW look more expensive is laughable, but it goes to show how far up the ass most people have their heads these days.
Link to original post: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3871942#3871942
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."