Curse

blakk · Aug 18, 2006, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Nope, this is not one of those threads that bashes anyone. I have been playing the game from day one and enjoy it still. What I am saying is that I think that as great as GW is, the pay to play option forces the game to become competitive with the current spat of PTP games like..well you know the ones in talking about.
Anet in my unlearned opinion is in between a rock and a hard place. Sure we got addicted to the pve side of prophecies, but the game wasn’t designed around that. So it seems that anet has to reevaluate and recreate a portion of the game that was never meant to be at the forefront. Again this is my speculation and opinion only

A good company listens to the demands of the people (within reason) and tried to give its customers what they want. The pve folks wants to see anet push the envelope it seems to bring us as close as possible to getting all the goodies of a ptp game without having to ptp.

Sure gw wasn’t designed to be pve, But I wonder what would have happened if it was. Even with that in mind prophecies was a very good pve experience, i just wonder what anet would do if they had the resources of a ptp game at their disposal. I cant control what anyone will say or do in response to this post, I can only say that my thought is clear and not intended to flame or get into the "this is better than that argument" its simply if anet designed gw to be as played equally as pve and pvp, I wonder what would have produced. Personally I think that product would have revolutionized the gaming world as much as anets business model for gw did.

Doomlord_Slayermann · Aug 18, 2006, 02:36 PM // 14:36

This has already been beaten to death, resurrected a few times, and then beaten to death again.

Honestly, Guild Wars will essentially be PtP if they release a new chapter every few months, which is what they're doing now.

majoho · Aug 18, 2006, 02:40 PM // 14:40

LMAO, go read the WoW forums and see how very wrong you are.

1,000,000 pages of people whining about having things changed

http://forums-en.wow-europe.com/
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/

Personally I feel people here whine too much, but WoW forums almost makes me have an aneurysm.

EPO Bot · Aug 18, 2006, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Nonsense. If GW was pay to play, everyone, including myself would defect to WoW because Blizzard is the best game company in existence and no one can possibly argue that fact. I do think Anet isa great contender, but the only trumph card they have to fend of the briliance of blizzard is the no montly fees for a mmorpg, wich is a powerfull argument to pick it over WoW.

blakk · Aug 18, 2006, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomlord_Slayermann

This has already been beaten to death, resurrected a few times, and then beaten to death again.

Honestly, Guild Wars will essentially be PtP if they release a new chapter every few months, which is what they're doing now.

well then close the thread =(
i guess its difficult to post something new and refreshing when your posting in forums with well over 40000 threads. sry for wasting anyones time.

lacasner · Aug 18, 2006, 02:43 PM // 14:43

no monthly fee= woopee!!!

Honestly though, in all fairness many people do stay with Guild Wars because there are no monthly fees.

Kakumei · Aug 18, 2006, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPO Bot

because Blizzard is the best game company in existence and no one can possibly argue that fact.

Blizzard's best (and only enjoyable) product was Starcraft. Blizzard is nowhere near the best game company in existence.

Mordakai · Aug 18, 2006, 02:44 PM // 14:44

From http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=14931 (an old article, but explains very well the niche Anet wanted to fill with Guild Wars)

Quote:

GamesIndustry.biz: You're running an MMO without a subscription fee, and using an episodic content model instead - but it seems that basically, you're accepting less revenue for providing an MMO service than other firms are, since many of them release paid-for expansion packs as well as charging a monthly fee. How do you justify that, economically?

Jeff Strain: First of all, it costs us far less to operate Guild Wars than a traditional MMO. The technology team behind our server technology is the team that built the original Battle.net. At that time, there was no broadband, so the whole thing was built around 28.8 modem assumptions - so we learned a tremendous amount about latency masking and bandwidth optimisation. When we built the core network technology behind Arena.net, of which Guild Wars is one game that uses that technology, it was really designed with those principles in mind. Even though we knew that broadband was growing and that most people would have it, we wanted to make a game that was very bandwidth-light, because we knew from the beginning that we were not going to charge a subscription fee, and that - bandwidth - is one of your primary operating costs. Obviously you pay for the server infrastructure up front, but your ongoing cost is bandwidth, and we use substantially less bandwidth than almost any online game out there. So, right up front, we've cut our support cost that way.

The other big factor, though, and by far the larger factor, is that we just think that if you have a game that requires a subscription fee, you're going to have fewer customers. Obviously, there are examples out there of very big MMOs that have done well and have lots of customers - but they're building on established franchises and large existing customer bases. Guild Wars was a new product, and we wanted to come out of the gate really strongly and capture a very large number of players right off the bat. We just believed that we could be more effective at that without a subscription fee. With a subscription fee, you're going to cut twenty, thirty, forty, maybe even sixty per cent of your total potential customers right off the bat.

So our goal is to create this game, create this business model, have a large and thriving community - and then sell content directly to them. Really, if you think about it, if I make two games a year and I do a good job, make sure that they're really cool and really strong, and that you want to buy them; that's about the same as what I would get if I was paying a subscription fee for one game over that year. You're right, it's a little bit less - but fundamentally, it's in the same ballpark. So, that's our goal - make sure that we make enough content, that it's cool enough, fun enough, and released on a regular schedule, so that we're just as profitable and can support the game to the same degree that a traditional MMO can.

EPO Bot · Aug 18, 2006, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Dissing Blizzard is a way to carve yourself an identity. The fact is that WoW is basically synomimous for mmorpg. And if Blizzard makes a game that has a risk to jump the shark they simply cancel it (SG:Ghost) before it has any chanse to do it's long-term damage, despite the fact it would be a guaranteed million seller. Gotta respect that.

Kakumei · Aug 18, 2006, 02:54 PM // 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPO Bot

Dissing Blizzard is a way to carve yourself an identity. The fact is that WoW is basically synomimous for mmorpg.

Successful != good.

I don't have to "respect" Blizzard, nor am I trying to "carve myself an identity". I mostly certainly already have an identity.

Starcraft was a good game. But nothing else they made has been. I would rather give my respects to the game companies that earn it by consistently releasing amazing games.

Metanoia · Aug 18, 2006, 02:54 PM // 14:54

The lack of P2P is probably their biggest selling point at the moment. They have no competition with the exception of perhaps Diablo II (hah). I doubt that, even if designed as such from day 1, Guildwars could have competed with WoW in the P2P market. Personally, I think it would have been masochistic to try.

It's true that their original dream of a finely tuned tactical skill-based game is all but dead. There are an awful lot of compromises being made just to stay afloat. Personally, I think they were pretty niave to 'compare/contrast' their game so heavily to MMORPGs and act surprised that the only thing keeping their PvP-orientated game afloat are the masses of PvE players.

I'm kind of surprised they haven't introduced randomisation into their PvE content to increase it's longevity... I wonder if they just don't bother as it could just lose them money? What I mean by that is... It might increase their server costs by increasing the average play-time per customer while gaining them relatively few extra sales.

You might want to find a recording of this week's Weapon of Choice. After the innitial emo-drama there were some things worth listening to, especially towards the end.

blakk · Aug 18, 2006, 03:00 PM // 15:00

hey mordakai thats a very very good post, gives me a better perspective, a far better perspective.

Doomlord_Slayermann · Aug 18, 2006, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metanoia

It's true that their original dream of a finely tuned tactical skill-based game is all but dead. There are an awful lot of compromises being made just to stay afloat. Personally, I think they were pretty niave to 'compare/contrast' their game so heavily to MMORPGs and act surprised that the only thing keeping their PvP-orientated game afloat are the masses of PvE players.

Please.

Guild Wars (1) is still skill-based (in PvP at least), (2) is not making "compromises" to stay "afloat", (3) is not held together by PvE players. They do indeed make changes to the game (which will become progressively less necessary as more chapters are added) to keep it balanced, but this doesn't exactly "compromise" much, except of course someones precious farming build or something that was exploiting the game for more money. If you think PvP is dead player base-wise, well, you must not PvP.

Mr_T_bot · Aug 18, 2006, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakk

Anet in my unlearned opinion is in between a rock and a hard place. Sure we got addicted to the pve side of prophecies, but the game wasn’t designed around that.

Yes it was. The original design of the game was to move through PvE and have PvP as the end game. Then people who liked the PvP started whining and Arena Net made an artificial separation in the creation of PvP only chars and unlocking of skills through PvP and that created a major hinderance by trying to cater to both worlds.

Quote:

A good company listens to the demands of the people (within reason) and tried to give its customers what they want.

It has, back in the early days when Arena Net cared and soon meant soon.

Guild Wars does not need to be pay to play, Arena Net needs management that realizes that due to every chapter being unique and a standalone they are capable of selling every chapter indefinately as long as updates are provided for them, however minor. The idiotic idea right now is, release new chapter, bury old ones 10 feet under and cover them in concrete - but keep producing the cds and boxes and such. That will kill Guild Wars.

GloryFox · Aug 18, 2006, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

posted by Kakumei
Blizzard's best (and only enjoyable) product was Starcraft. Blizzard is nowhere near the best game company in existence.

And the developers of StarCraft and Battle.net are the same ones who bring you Guild Wars...

EPO Bot · Aug 18, 2006, 03:03 PM // 15:03

But Diablo2, WC3 and WoW ARE awesome games, you are simply not sensitive to their glory.

Seriousley: Crappy games rareley sell well, unless the expectations were all too inflated before release, but the sales always drop vertically after a couple of bad reviews.Not so for WoW and GW.

GW is a success because it has three things:

-Exellent values, skill based combat and graphics.
-No monthly fees.
-Eve on the box to catch peoples attention in store.

Take one away, and it's a still born baby.

Skyy High · Aug 18, 2006, 03:03 PM // 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPO Bot

Dissing Blizzard is a way to carve yourself an identity. The fact is that WoW is basically synomimous for mmorpg. And if Blizzard makes a game that has a risk to jump the shark they simply cancel it (SG:Ghost) before it has any chanse to do it's long-term damage, despite the fact it would be a guaranteed million seller. Gotta respect that.

The only reason WoW is successful is because it's a near carbon copy of all the other successful MMORPGs that came before it, set in the world of a hugely popular RTS. Combine this with massive advertising (as only Blizzard can fund) and you have an enormous player base, including many people who have never played a RPG before (read: Warcraft III players that got sucked into WoW).

There is nothing innovative about WoW. It's successful because of who Blizzard is and how they marketed the game, not because of any inherent quality of the game that puts it above and beyond competing MMORPGs.

Kakumei · Aug 18, 2006, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryFox

And the developers of StarCraft and Battle.net are the same ones who bring you Guild Wars...

Certainly explains why Starcraft was good, doesn't it?

Honestly, I hated Diablo and its sequel as enormous item-hunting grinding clickfests; the original Warcraft was decent, though generally meh; Warcraft II turned me off due to the fact that the two sides were so finely balanced to the point of being absolutely identical; and I wasn't a fan of the hero-based RTS style of Warcraft III.

I'd much rather praise a company like Konami, which is consistently released several series' worth of amazing products.

blakk · Aug 18, 2006, 03:12 PM // 15:12

friends you wasting your time and energy arguing about blizzard and thier stuff. before you post again ask yourself can a game or anything at all be good without having to be the best. it is possible and it happens all the time. and yep the guys who helped put blizzard on the map are the guys who made gwars.

EPO Bot · Aug 18, 2006, 03:13 PM // 15:13

Now who needs innovation if there is so much polishing to do to a genre?

I agree that Starcraft is Blizzards best, but saying Diablo2, WC3 and WoW are bad games is like saying The Beatles where a terrible band: You won't find to many long time gamers who agree.