Curse

DarkWasp · Jan 25, 2008, 06:15 PM // 18:15

This is dumb.

You're suggesting that they get selfish and try to get even more money out of the game. I REALLY LIKE playing games under a company that isnt selfish.

Think about EA.... I rest my case.

If you dont know let me list it for you: No game works well on first release because they are spitting out games at a higher rate than they should, sequels mean you are gonna lose cool features like replay systems, THEY RESORTED TO USING SPYWARE TECHNIQUES FOR INGAME ADS!

We do not want a company like EA.

Arena.Net cares about their game, they didn't make it just for the money.

Monthly payments are a ripoff, im VERY glad Arena.Net has chosen to prove that MMOs can go without.

If they say they are doing well, take their freaking word for it and dont even dare try to imagine GW with monthly fees.

Bryant Again · Jan 25, 2008, 06:16 PM // 18:16

It's been pretty hard pinpointing exactly on what I've been wanting to say about this.

"The beauty of Guild Wars' payment system is that you can play whenever you want, quit whenever you want." Quite frankly this is getting a tidbit tiresome. As I've stated before, the Guild Wars payment model is exactly like that of a single-player game with multiple expansions. The only differences being that all but one of GW's expansions are standalone and that you have to play online to enjoy the content. So to call its business model "revolutionary" is quite false. If it was an MMO then this would be different, but its about as MMO as Hellgate: London (which in itself is as much an MMO as Diablo.)

In terms of success, it depends on your perspective. As an RPG it's done solid: 4 million copies sold is pretty good. As an MMO, not so much. The success of an MMO is generally decided by the number of active players. While we don't know Guild Wars' number of active players, we can at least look at these limitations: How many copies per an account? How many accounts per person? The more possibilities you come up with, the smaller that 4mil starts to appear. If I had to throw up a random number in the air I'd say GW had about less than a million active players. (and if you're gonna go by copies sold then GW is totally crushed: If WoW is as bad a game as everyone here says it is, then it has to have had copies sold up the wazoo to still be able to hold onto 10mil players.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWasp

Monthly payments are a ripoff, im VERY glad Arena.Net has chosen to prove that MMOs can go without.

It's only a ripoff if you feel ripped off. For me? I'm glad to support WoW and am happy of all the content they've given me, and I would do the same for GW.

DarkWasp · Jan 25, 2008, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

If WoW is as bad a game as everyone here says it is, then it has to have had copies sold up the wazoo to still be able to hold onto 10mil players.

Popularity and advertising ofcoarse. Its the standard for an MMO right now, and it only makes sense to go to the popular one.

As for supporting GW, buy character slots.

I tried LOTRO and liked it, but there was no way i could stay with the monthly payments there. I had to quit. I really hated feeling like I had to play everyday or quit and never play again. Well I had to just, quit and not look back...

Its the peace of mind that counts. I like to play games at my own pace.

Guild Wars stood strong for a long time, it isnt slowly losing players because of the lack of payments, its because of the type of game it is. Its not built like a standard MMO and surprised me that the game did so well to last till even today.

As for GW2 being more like a regular MMO (but still original as i'd expect from GW) I think it could stand even longer.

As for beating WoW, you cant. You can not beat WoW's sales. It's just way too established.

Epinephrine · Jan 25, 2008, 06:42 PM // 18:42

Diablo 2 certainly didn't hurt for players. A good game with no fees can sell a lot of copies and stay active for a long time.

JONO51 · Jan 25, 2008, 06:47 PM // 18:47

I wouldnt pay to play for anything really. I dont see why I should have to pay addtional fees on top of what i pay in the shop just the use the product. I can understand a game that free to download then you pay monthly, but buying it in the shop and then paying monthly seems stupid. I dont wantr to be thinking 'Have i made the most out of my £7 or whatever subscription?' all the time.

Winstar · Jan 25, 2008, 06:51 PM // 18:51

The argument that adding a monthly fee to GW is bad because it would mean everyone would leave seems misguided to me.

What is more important than a games payment structure is the quality of the product. The only reason to play a game is if its good. A bad game thats free (as in no monthly fee) is still a bad game. GW is fortunate in that its a good game, and that is why people play it. If it sucked it would have probably disappeared ages ago.

The question is whether or not adding monthly fees would be a good idea. If it were the case that GW added a monthly fee and provided the exact same service that they would have provided with no monthly fee, then you have a deterrent to people to purchase the game if they feel that they can get more for their gaming dollar somewhere else. If adding a monthly fee means increasing the quality and depth of the game, better servers, whatever it might be, then its not necessarily going to drive people away and may even go as far as drawing people to the game.

WinterSnowblind · Jan 25, 2008, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWasp

This is dumb.

You're suggesting that they get selfish and try to get even more money out of the game. I REALLY LIKE playing games under a company that isnt selfish.

Think about EA.... I rest my case.

If you dont know let me list it for you: No game works well on first release because they are spitting out games at a higher rate than they should, sequels mean you are gonna lose cool features like replay systems, THEY RESORTED TO USING SPYWARE TECHNIQUES FOR INGAME ADS!

We do not want a company like EA.

Arena.Net cares about their game, they didn't make it just for the money.

Monthly payments are a ripoff, im VERY glad Arena.Net has chosen to prove that MMOs can go without.

If they say they are doing well, take their freaking word for it and dont even dare try to imagine GW with monthly fees.

This may have been true a few years back, but EA have actually made a lot of improvements. Activision is the new EA, go pick on them.

ectos taste nasty · Jan 25, 2008, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drop of Fear

looking at nc.soft papers guild wars franchise is already more then profitable, and would be a commercial suicide to change the business model that brought u to success.
is pretty clear that the majority of guild wars playerbase is unwilling to pay a montly fee but has little to nothing against micropayments as long as it doesnt turn the game in a "hey my credit card is bigger then yours festival".

keep the current model, sell more BMP-Sorrow Furnace like material for little $$ -> increase the earnings of a franchise already cashing a lot.
I truly feel that's the path gw2 is going to take. boxed expansions + mini expansions for 5-10$ from the online store, and i like it

This.

12charsss

bhavv · Jan 25, 2008, 07:22 PM // 19:22

I would also leave GW if it had monthly fees. I starte playing it as my first MMO because it was free and had no fee, thats why I still play it. Anet dont have problems with making money, and I kind of find it immensely worrying that people like the OP would actually rather pay a monthly fee rather then play it for free O.o

How about paying me that monthly fee while you play GW instead, and pretend that its going to Anet? You will be more satisfied right?

If Anet want to charge, theres a simple solution already in place in Maple Story. Please dont be a noobtard and quote this line going 'OMG Maple Story SUX', I'm not talking about the game, but about how they make their money.

They offer a completely free game to play in which you can puchase extra storage slots, equips, pets, double XP and drop cards, haircuts, facial makeover, cool glowy name tags, in game auras......... And guess what? They make money No Wai!

Even if GW2 had a full retail price and this kind of model, no one would have to pay a fee to play the game, but whiners that dont like free games like the OP can pay them as much money as they like and get stuff for it.

/END of thread.

garethporlest18 · Jan 25, 2008, 07:30 PM // 19:30

It wouldn't bother me if GW 2 had monthly fees.

But yeah Anet should implement something where paying customers get higher stats then implement PK so I can PK some of you people for annoying me.

Hahahahaha.

Oh and LOTRO has something where you can pay $200-300 and never have to pay monthly fee again.

bhavv · Jan 25, 2008, 07:32 PM // 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by garethporlest18

Oh and LOTRO has something where you can pay $200-300 and never have to pay monthly fee again.

Wait, WHAT?????

Rip off!

garethporlest18 · Jan 25, 2008, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Wait, WHAT?????

Rip off!

Yeah if you're poor. You pay for the product and that game is worth $250 to me.

Buster · Jan 25, 2008, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Well unless someone has worked in the gaming business before, we as gamers wouldn't exactly know how Arenanet makes money off of a free to play business model. You would have to know such things as, how much tools, server maintenance cost and if they get paid on a salary basis or not.

I used to work in the computer business for 15 years. I worked for a company that was a subsidiary of another company. We would get paid a salary, most things that we needed was within the lines of the budget, anything extra we needed the department had to pay extra out of their pocket so to speak. My guess it could be similar to this perhaps.

So far the GW business model works. They sold over 4 mill boxes in 2 years, it's speculated that 3.5 mill play GW according to one of the latest articles. They still are a young company compared to other companies and have a huge opportunity to grow a much larger fan base. Seems the train in on the right track for greater success. Just waiting on GW2 now.

DivineEnvoy · Jan 25, 2008, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

Do you not see a trend? The store gets more products, slowly but steadily. See the BMP as a test. People pay 9 bucks (I think it is 8,99 EUR) for this rather limited piece of content. Sounds like a very good deal for ANet to me! Even better, they waited till we (or some of us... I did not! :>) begged for it. So they did us even a favor. This smells a bit and I hope they do not overdo with things like that.

Is this just another BMP to be on sale rant?

Anet is just a business company, not a charity organization like Red Cross. Since many people were unable to get the promotion due to different reasons such as they do not own a credit card, they are granted another chance to purchase it. What's wrong with it?

I guess you may suggest how they were not being honest, since the wordings can be rather misleading. Well, welcome to the business world of the real world. Yes, it's all about the money, but hey, at least Anet listens to the community and tries to satify everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

EDIT: Think of mini expansions for 5$ every month. You can bet on people buying that, those who bought the BMP will for sure!

If they are able to produce one expansion each month, I don't see what's wrong with that. After all, there is a choice that can be made to whether I want to purchase this or not. Perhaps you can say other players will find me to be incapable, since I do not own certain expansions, but like I care what they think. If they don't take me into their parties, I'll just play by myself or with friends, guildies, or even strangers I find on the street walking like they are drunk. Otherwise, it would just be more contents to be enjoyed.

Consequently, just a reminder, Guild Wars 2 is even not released yet, and with all these talks about how additional expansions can be expensive and what not, I really don't see the point in the use of this hyperbole.

HawkofStorms · Jan 25, 2008, 08:03 PM // 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

The problem with that statement - Wow has shown that players have no problem in paying a monthly fee... for Wow. There have been many pay-to-play MMO's that have sunk; and I mean big time. The reason is because of Wow's immense popularity. Most people who want to pay to play are already doing that with Wow; they aren't going to go to another game when they're all settled in where they're at.

GW doesn't have a big enough playerbase to get away with something like that. They make it pay to play, and most people who don't have a problem with it will likely just go to, or stay with, Wow. Those who do have a problem with it will just find a different game.

QFT.
For all the WoWs and Everquests and Lord of the Ring's Onlines that are successes, there a thousand Auto Assaults that are utter failures. The P2P fee is a big gamble. You'll either make millions or stop selling the game after a few month (no one keeps playing a game with no players/community, nobody buys a game without a community, therefore the community shrinks rapidly).

Perkunas · Jan 25, 2008, 08:07 PM // 20:07

When I started playing GW, I basically had 3 choices; WoW with a monthly fee, GW with no monthly fee, or give up online gaming. I chose GW, but just as easily could have chosen not to play. I have said in the past that I wasn't buying GW2, but always a possibilty I will a year or so after release, but if it has a fee, forget it. I don't buy anything else in life, then pay rent to use it. Why start that with a game?

Mordakai · Jan 25, 2008, 08:20 PM // 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's been pretty hard pinpointing exactly on what I've been wanting to say about this.

"The beauty of Guild Wars' payment system is that you can play whenever you want, quit whenever you want." Quite frankly this is getting a tidbit tiresome. As I've stated before, the Guild Wars payment model is exactly like that of a single-player game with multiple expansions. The only differences being that all but one of GW's expansions are standalone and that you have to play online to enjoy the content. So to call its business model "revolutionary" is quite false. If it was an MMO then this would be different, but its about as MMO as Hellgate: London (which in itself is as much an MMO as Diablo.)

Your point is moot, b/c we are discussing Guild Wars 2, which will be an MMORPG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In terms of success, it depends on your perspective. As an RPG it's done solid: 4 million copies sold is pretty good. As an MMO, not so much. The success of an MMO is generally decided by the number of active players. While we don't know Guild Wars' number of active players, we can at least look at these limitations: How many copies per an account? How many accounts per person? The more possibilities you come up with, the smaller that 4mil starts to appear. If I had to throw up a random number in the air I'd say GW had about less than a million active players. (and if you're gonna go by copies sold then GW is totally crushed: If WoW is as bad a game as everyone here says it is, then it has to have had copies sold up the wazoo to still be able to hold onto 10mil players.)

WoW is the hundred pound gorilla. You can compare any MMORPG (or any other game, for that matter), and say it sucks in sales compared to WoW.

Guild Wars is selling well enough to make Anet (and NCSoft!) successful, which is all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's only a ripoff if you feel ripped off. For me? I'm glad to support WoW and am happy of all the content they've given me, and I would do the same for GW.

And here is the argument I hate: WoW is awesome and it has monthly fees, therefore GW2 would be better if it had monthly fees.

I don't play WoW because it has monthly fees, I play it because it's a fun game. If GW2 can make it (the Persistant areas, a Auction House, different races, no or high level cap, etc) better than WoW with no monthly, you'll can bet I'll switch.

For all WoW charges, I'm surprised by the amount of server crashes and downtime (twice already in the 3 weeks I've been playing). I feel if I'm paying, then it should run better than Guild Wars. IMO, that's just not the case.

WoW is just lucky that I've grown totally bored with Guild Wars at this point, and that they've managed to create a very fun and addictive game to fill my time. But the monthly fee? Meh, I could do without that.

Mineria · Jan 25, 2008, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Why do you guys worry how Anet makes their money?
Some of you don't even seem to calculate everything together when your doing this f2p vs p2p comparison.
And who cares about how Blizzard does it, it's not WoW that we want to play when we talk about GW2.

But first of all, Anet has already stated how they are going to do it, so no point in arguing about it at all.

Red Sonya · Jan 25, 2008, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by garethporlest18
Oh and LOTRO has something where you can pay $200-300 and never have to pay monthly fee again.

Wait, WHAT?????

Rip off!

Actually bhavv it's not. You pay $199 up front and you never have to pay a monthly fee ever again for the lifetime of the game world. Of course you'll still have to pay for new expansions, but, you'll still get WOWlike content for no added cost. Face it look how much you've spent on GW over 3 years so far?? If you paid premium price you've spent that much for the 3 chapters and expansion. LotRo is just asking for you to support their game upfront and you can decide that in the free trial period. Most people when they join one of these are in it for the long haul anyways (like all those WOW subscirbers), but, this way you spend $200 upfront and then no more for the lifetime of the world.

tmr819 · Jan 25, 2008, 08:53 PM // 20:53

The original idea for GW was to offer full stand-alone expansions every 6 months or so, wasn't it?

So, assuming a $50 retail price for each game when it is first released, or $100 per year per account, that amounts to roughly the equivalent of $8 per month to play per account (less, of course, if you wait till prices drop or do not buy all of the expansions). It basically comes down to a more-modest monthly fee than, say, the $15/month you'd pay for WoW (over and above the cost of the base WoW game plus the Burning Crusade expansion pack).

--If you are a more dedicated player, the WoW/subscription model is a good and fair deal: Blizzard offers good support, good updates, and lots of content.

--If you are a more casual player, play less often and for less time, and thus progress much more slowly through a game/campaign, or if you want to have multiple accounts for various family members, etc., the GW free-to-play model makes much more financial sense.

If GW2 follows a "large base game + additional expansion packs" model, I think they will do very well.

Hopefully, there will be a level cap (or something) so that "GW2 Expansion 2: Attack of the Grawl" will be accessible to players who did not buy "GW2 Expansion 1: Kilroy's Big Adventure". This is where I think an MMO like WoW may start to see some serious subscription dropoff, since their expansion packs require players to slog through the previous game/expansion pack content in order to get to the new material. GW2 could skirt right around that problem with a level cap.

In fact, GW might be well advised to include the original GW2 base game with each subsequent expansion pack. I think with such a business model they would be successful.