Curse

Gadd Fan · Sep 04, 2015, 05:30 PM // 17:30

^ I think I understand the real world just fine thank you. I just don't agree with the greed-oriented zingiest we live in since it isn't sustainable and leads to collapse sooner than later is all. They aren't looking for the "approval" of anyone. The "good boy" is just ad agency positive feedback to encourage the tapeworm consumerism version of "winning" games that gives them more money. It's side effect contributes it's mite to the messed-up valueless society we current live in.

As to expecting a 10 years old GW1 to get any significant input at this point, that's absurd. I just want them to leave the freaking game on autopilot and not have it messed with with a free to download version. It probably takes up less than 1% on the GW2 server farm so just and let it be.

It gives Anet a small feeder path to GW2 at this point and GW2 users can buy a cheap game for the HoM stuff to add in some extra and some very small revenue as well. So it doesn't put Anet in the red and helps a tiny bit at least. Most important at this point it gives them good word of mouth PR with not pulling the plug on an older game they have which encourages belief that GW2 won't go away for years as well so that should be good enough for their business to leave GW1 alone.

Smoke Nightvogue · Sep 06, 2015, 12:39 AM // 00:39

I appreciate your ability to throw in real-life analogies, but you seem to be well off the scope of what I've tried to highlight, that is: the project, the business model of which cannot be itself-profitable according to the present conditions around it, where further Guild Wars 1 campaigns are not released.

You'd like it to see relying on the success of Guild Wars 2, that's understandable, but isn't good for the project from commercial standpoint. To say more, I'm about 98% sure that the hardware of Guild Wars 1 has nothing to do with Guild Wars 2 on the technical side at all, probably not even with 1% of its physical resources.

As to cover-up costs, yes, Guild Wars 2 does that to this game, but not to the degree where the latter could proceed with further development off the funding from it. It pretty much feeds server power supplies and generates acceptable salary for supporting staff, but nothing else like further improvement of the game, which isn't so cheap to buy as you mentioned, in fact: the price of 3 campaigns + EotN expansion equals the one they've specified for Heart of Thorns.

I don't know where your interest lies exactly within the game, though your claim that it requires zero changes, taking into the account all of its current PvP flaws and comparing them to how good the original Guild Wars actually was back to the years of its competitive glory makes me assume that most of the time you're busy with collecting all these small treats one could turn in to HoM for identical rewards in the second part of the franchise. Please correct me, if I'm not right.

I guess it's no need to say that my own vision of what still could be done within the original Guild Wars world differs from yours almost entirely, especially in relation to its PvP aspect, some improvements to which I've had the pleasure to bring in.

Gadd Fan · Sep 06, 2015, 03:44 AM // 03:44

^ Well you pretty much guessed wrong about me. I don't own GW2 and never ever ever will. HoM is basically a nice little to do list in game for GW1 giving one some goals to go after, nothing more. And Anet already said that it has GW1 stored on it's GW2 servers and takes up little room thus their reason for stating they would not pull the plug, just run it in auto mode.

I hate PvP and the immature 12 year old rage resign crowd there and have no interest in playing with idiots or playing PvP period even if I could do it solo cause I find the whole concept totally dull anyway. I use GW1 as a RPG using my imagination and my in game friends to have fun.

Yes some changes would be nice but they will never ever happen in a million years now let along new content. The software design is too old for new content at this point anyway. So why even think about it.

Just keep it up is all I ask and let us go play with what we have. It funnels some people over to buy the game from GW2 for the HoM stuff and "checking out" the first game in general. Also staying up gives it a good rep with gamers worried about companies that always pull the plug on them on games they like. There is even a trickle in the GW1 store though very little trickle. That and the fact that it takes almost nothing to store on GW2 servers means the company doesn't bleed any money. gets a small trickle in and serves as good PR. Conversely they gain nothing shutting it down and take a slight hit to their reputation if they do so. So a win for Anet to maintain it on auto-pilot business-wise. I'm a realist about businessmen. I know they would shut it down in a heartbeat if it was bleeding them badly. It isn't bleeding them at all and they get a few minor perks keeping it up. That's their bottom line.

Smoke Nightvogue · Sep 09, 2015, 06:56 PM // 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadd Fan

Yes some changes would be nice but they will never ever happen in a million years now let along new content. The software design is too old for new content at this point anyway. So why even think about it.

Yes, the game's graphical engine is about 12 years old, however, I'd rather consider it its advantage, such as being able to run even on 10 years old devices while encountering only slight lags, mostly related to local hardware rather than the Guild Wars engine.

It's a good thing, in comparison to Guild Wars 2, for example, where my main, year 2013 mono-block experiences considerable lags if the game gets put on high settings, so I'd say the old software design is actually this game's advantage, plus, we cannot say much about the company's GW1 development tools to the extent where it would allow us to place accurate judgment on whether they're outdated. You never know how it feels, until have personally worked with those...

Anyway, I wasn't talking about major, game-changing content updates, more that of continuous gameplay patches. It's not an impossible thing, even if the remaining Dev Team consists of only a few people. Just look at the game's September 2014 - May 2015 changelog.

Gadd Fan · Sep 16, 2015, 06:33 AM // 06:33

I agree about the advantage of GW running on old computers. It's the game for the rest of us 90% who have older computers.

But game companies and software people are in the 10% who have nice modern computers and they NEVER ever think about the rest of us unwashed masses who would love awesome games we can play too.

I always figured some sharp gaming company would come along and realize how much money they would make by NOT jacking up the graphics et al and keeping the game friendly for people with nearly decade old computers to play. But I have never found that the case. Just cheap little ap like games but not real ones like a Guild Wars.

And yeah GW wasn't developed for low end computer users back in the day. It just has ended up that way over a decade later by default. Most other games from that era have had their plug pulled. That's why I'm fine to keep this game on auto-pilot so I have one decent game I can play.

drok3n · Sep 16, 2015, 10:17 AM // 10:17

free account stipulations (this means just making a free account without having paid a dime.) not prior gw2 core paid people or the expansion

First of all, free accounts start with fewer character slots and bag slots than the paid version of the game. But they still get the full complement of slots as soon as they buy Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns.

Second, free accounts have some chat restrictions and economy restrictions so that they can’t be used to disrupt the game for other players. Free accounts can use local chat and whispers, but not map chat. With whispers, they can both start new conversations and reply to existing conversations but are limited to starting new conversations no more than once every 30 seconds. Free accounts can buy and sell common goods on the trading post. They can’t mail gold or items directly to other players, trade gold for gems, or access guild vaults.

Third, free accounts have some restrictions to prevent them from skipping ahead to places where they could be used to disrupt the game. They must play to level 10 before leaving the starter zones, to level 30 before using LFG, and to level 60 before using World vs. World. They can play PvP immediately but must get to rank 20 before using custom and unranked arenas.

*lemming* · Sep 22, 2015, 04:28 AM // 04:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

I guess it's no need to say that my own vision of what still could be done within the original Guild Wars world differs from yours almost entirely, especially in relation to its PvP aspect, some improvements to which I've had the pleasure to bring in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke Nightvogue

Anyway, I wasn't talking about major, game-changing content updates, more that of continuous gameplay patches. It's not an impossible thing, even if the remaining Dev Team consists of only a few people. Just look at the game's September 2014 - May 2015 changelog.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a bit much of you to be consistently humblebragging about your and your guild's contributions to the game on the PvP anti-syncing front when you and other people in your guild are busy syncing in HA?

Smoke Nightvogue · Sep 22, 2015, 04:17 PM // 16:17

I'm sorry, but this kind of personally-directed accusations is not something I will ever respond to, even if it's a private conversation in-game.