Curse

instanceskiller · Dec 30, 2009, 07:07 PM // 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Dente

It's great, apart from the fact that a lot of teenagers, like myself, play the game. A teenager, in the U.K., at least, does not have a dependable source of income. Yes we can go and get a job stacking shelves or at the checkout... But then when can we play GW?

^This...i agree with...completely...

Wait, what? · Dec 30, 2009, 07:16 PM // 19:16

The issue with GW is that Anet expanded the game beyond the ability of the player base to consume it.

You can't find a guild anymore that has more than 5 dedicated players. (If you know of one hit me up)

There are very few instances where you can find a full group to run through it with you except for the end-game because everyone is focused on items/equipment/wealth rather than the thrill of pure gaming experience.

I've played this game for 4 years (less Iraq/Afghanistan deployments) and just recently upgraded to the expansions which, in my eyes, have watered down the game so much that I've no reason to play outside of the proficies or core campaign game content.

The challenge of some areas still draws me back to play and I've never played a game like this that had such a rich back story/lore.

Good subscription based games, regardless of playability, will always be doomed to fail to the point that they are F2P except for elite content (Anarchy Online, Ultima Online [Free Servers], Shadow Bane) and will still thrive off of Micro transaction content or in game advertisements.

Guild Wars is an outstanding game, with limitless playability for the casual gamer. I'm surprised to see there are so many perceived problems with the game mechanics / business model of Anet.

Diablo II is still thriving 9-10 years after release.. And that game sucks compared to guild wars.

FyrFytr998 · Dec 30, 2009, 08:22 PM // 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yawgmoth

I think people need to know what Sorrow's Furnace really was, because it was NOT really what most of you think.

First and foremost it was an extremelly clever marketing move that proven to be a huge success - not only because of what it did to the game itself but what it did to the way people thought of the game, it's business model and it's future.

In fact it was just an unfinished part of the game that didn't make it into the release. But from a failure to deliver a complete game on time they made a huge marketing success of providing a free content update!

Please note that they released a movie trailer advertising it mere DAYS after GW release, the areas were already designed and built. Obviously it wasn't finished and required much work and they couldn't afford to push the release date of the whole game because of that, so they did what they did, an epic win.

Starting from the release of the trailer movie the effect on the way players were thinking of GW's business model was tremendous - it felt like a MagicalChristmasLand with no monthly fees to play AND with FREE content updates incoming. For years since then players kept that in their minds and waited for more free updates like that...

Never thought of it that way. Very valid. Throw in the fact they created the "unique greens" and it was like giving a junkie their fix for free to keep them hooked, lol.

But no one has yet answered what would be a fair price for Sorrows Furnace like content in the micro-transaction model. Whether or not it was supposed to be included n the real game is moot now. When people think of content updates they think of something the size Sorrows Furnace. So what is the retail value of "optional" content like that to a player?

Sjeng · Dec 30, 2009, 09:01 PM // 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zehnchu

Feel free to send them 15 bucks a month you can just make a check out and mail it in.

But I'll stuck with their current model.

I quote this to emphasize the truth in these words, because I could not possible agree more.

Daesu · Dec 30, 2009, 11:21 PM // 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

GW has no more new content because a very long time before Regina said anything like what you appear to think she did, Anet themselves announced that they were no longer making anymore content for GW1 as they are now working on GW2. That was the decision by the developers of this game and had nothing to do with NCsoft or anyones share prices.

The fact is every game company would want to keep their gamers happy within reason. ANet didnt start out creating GW with the intention of pissing off all their customers on purpose.

If they have unlimited resources, why wouldn't they want to work on GW2 while providing lots and lots of GW1 content updates very often, at the same time? This would keep their GW1 customers happy and stick around till GW2 releases.

When you guys say they made the decision not to do that, then did you ever think of their MOTIVATION for not providing huge content update for GW1 every six months? Yes, they dont have the resources, but if they are as rich as you say, why not just hire more resources?

Could NCSoft invest all that money to hire more developers to give out free content update for GW1 or even provide new campaigns for GW1? Yes! If they wanted to, they could forget about their original plans to release Aion and just use that money to hire more GW1 developers. But if they do that, how much would GW1 bring in versus the opportunity cost of releasing a subscription based game like Aion? Which is more profitable and more worth while to invest money into?

This is a business reality we are talking about. The GW business model has to provide as much return on investment as the Aion subscription based business model. This means if the GW returns are lower, then their cost should be lower also, thus they would have less resources. If the GW business model is more successful than Aion's then it makes sense that more investment money should be put into GW.

Since GW customers are also against online store purchases, and ANet has not released any new expansion for the past 2 years, compared to Aion's $15/month/customer, it is quite obvious who brings in the greater return.

reaper with no name · Dec 30, 2009, 11:32 PM // 23:32

Most subscription-based MMOs are doomed from the beginning, no matter how great their content is, because WoW has a stranglehold on the market. It's like a Mom and Pop pizza place opening up next door to a Pizza Hut. Even if they have the better pizza, they're still not going to be able to keep up, simply because Pizza Hut has the advantage of being able to operate at a loss (it's a well-known fact that big businesses win wars of attrition).

The reason GW has been able to succeed in the face of WoW is specifically because they did NOT try to compete with it. They went for a completely different audience. If GW was pay-to-play, there would never have been a second campaign, let alone a third and an expansion. It would have died like so many other MMOs before it.

Making the game pay-to-play now would not bring in any new players (assuming there are a significant amount coming in now), and would drive out a huge portion of the remaining playerbase. Furthermore, it would completely sabotage any hope GW2 has of succeeding (as it is, there are significant hurdles for it to overcome to be successful).

Daesu · Dec 30, 2009, 11:38 PM // 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaper with no name

Most subscription-based MMOs are doomed from the beginning, no matter how great their content is, because WoW has a stranglehold on the market. It's like a Mom and Pop pizza place opening up next door to a Pizza Hut. Even if they have the better pizza, they're still not going to be able to keep up, simply because Pizza Hut has the advantage of being able to operate at a loss (it's a well-known fact that big businesses win wars of attrition).

If that is so, then Aion should fail based on your reasoning. Why is Aion doing well then?

Do you know that Aion now accounts for HALF of NCSoft's sales? Imagine if NCSoft had used the original Aion's investment on GW1 instead, would they get the same AMOUNT of return on investment?

http://www.incgamers.com/News/19534/...ar-one-million

This shows that there are still A LOT of gamers out there that support the subscription based model and they have voted with their money, not just words.

Sunyavadin · Dec 30, 2009, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Funcom took the exact OPPOSITE route to save their game. Anarchy Online's still doing reasonably well at 8 years old, because they switched from being subscription exclusive to offering the game for free, subsidised by ingame advertising (Which can bbe disabled if you pay the subscription fee).
When you want to compete, you don't offer the same for a greater cost, you offer it for LESS. GW started out offering it for nothing, charging would simply drive away the remaining player base and kill it off entirely.

Daesu · Dec 30, 2009, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunyavadin

GW started out offering it for nothing, charging would simply drive away the remaining player base and kill it off entirely.

That statement is just very sad because when you offer it near nothing, yet your customers keep complaing of micro transactions, setup a campaign against you asking others to also not buy from your online store, and complaining about a lack of free content updates. If GW2 fails I think the GW franchise would certainly be over.

WinterSnowblind · Dec 31, 2009, 12:24 AM // 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

The fact is every game company would want to keep their gamers happy within reason. ANet didnt start out creating GW with the intention of pissing off all their customers on purpose.

If they have unlimited resources, why wouldn't they want to work on GW2 while providing lots and lots of GW1 content updates very often, at the same time? This would keep their GW1 customers happy and stick around till GW2 releases.

When you guys say they made the decision not to do that, then did you ever think of their MOTIVATION for not providing huge content update for GW1 every six months? Yes, they dont have the resources, but if they are as rich as you say, why not just hire more resources?

Could NCSoft invest all that money to hire more developers to give out free content update for GW1 or even provide new campaigns for GW1? Yes! If they wanted to, they could forget about their original plans to release Aion and just use that money to hire more GW1 developers. But if they do that, how much would GW1 bring in versus the opportunity cost of releasing a subscription based game like Aion? Which is more profitable and more worth while to invest money into?

This is a business reality we are talking about. The GW business model has to provide as much return on investment as the Aion subscription based business model. This means if the GW returns are lower, then their cost should be lower also, thus they would have less resources. If the GW business model is more successful than Aion's then it makes sense that more investment money should be put into GW.

Since GW customers are also against online store purchases, and ANet has not released any new expansion for the past 2 years, compared to Aion's $15/month/customer, it is quite obvious who brings in the greater return.

Aion is a fairly new game, released only a few months ago in most countries. I don't think it's had enough time for us to be able to accurately percieve how well it's been done/has done. MMO's tend to start off pretty well, and slowly sink. Look at games like Age of Conan, Anarchy Online or D&D Online, the latter two even had to revert to a F2P model in order to sustain themselves, and since then has seen a massive boost in popularity. I'm quite sure they're making far more money from the F2P crowd who are constantly buying bits and bobs from the online store, rather than the "premium" members who get most of it for free.

But of course NCSoft are currently expending much of their resources on Aion. Not only has it just recently been released, but the fact it has a subscription means those players are expecting new content added for the money they're spending. Guild Wars on the other hand is nearly five years old, and the only reason we're not seeing any new content released is because the GW engine began to show its age, hampering certain gameplay features that were supposed the be included in the third campaign, so these resources you speak of, were all shifted onto developing Guild Wars 2 - something that would have happened with or without a subscription.

Perhaps a more fair way to judge will be to wait until GW2 is released, and see how well it stacks up against Aion? I'd be willing to bet that the free to play system proves infinitly more popular, and I also wouldn't be surprised to see sales and support for Aion already drying up by that point.

reaper with no name · Dec 31, 2009, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Aion is working now. But that says nothing for a game like that which relies on long-term play in order to turn a lot of profit. Wait a year and then we'll see if it is truly succeeding.

Also, Aion is technically using a business model similar to GW in that it is not competing directly with WoW. It has angels and flying and crap like that. I recall there being a subscription-based superhero MMO that suceeded in the face of WoW for that reason.

If GW had been subscription-based, if would have died immediately, because players would have looked at it and said, "well, why not just play WoW?"

shoyon456 · Dec 31, 2009, 12:53 AM // 00:53

I don't see why you should even have to buy GW now. Seeing as how they're using an in game store.

See PWI for reference. Free to download, free to play. They make their money from their in-game store. Yeah they have more stuff that completely screws up game balance and economy as anyone with money can instantly have leet stuff, but now since these damn glitchy costumes have made a cash cow, Anet looks like they're the bad guy who's milking it. And playing PWI, you get free, constant expansions if you don't buy anything.

Just saying...

Daesu · Dec 31, 2009, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaper with no name

Also, Aion is technically using a business model similar to GW in that it is not competing directly with WoW. It has angels and flying and crap like that. I recall there being a subscription-based superhero MMO that suceeded in the face of WoW for that reason.

If GW had been subscription-based, if would have died immediately, because players would have looked at it and said, "well, why not just play WoW?"

Aion is directly competing with WoW. Aion and GW has very different business model, Aion is subscription based, GW is not.

I dont think GW would fail immediately, I would pay for subscription for GW provided they use the money to pay for the resources for more frequent content update than what I am getting now. I can understand the current lack of update, since it is not subscription based. Besides WoW doesn't appeal to every gamer, my friends and I just dont like the cartoon appearance of WoW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoyon456

See PWI for reference. Free to download, free to play. They make their money from their in-game store. Yeah they have more stuff that completely screws up game balance and economy as anyone with money can instantly have leet stuff, but now since these damn glitchy costumes have made a cash cow, Anet looks like they're the bad guy who's milking it. And playing PWI, you get free, constant expansions if you don't buy anything.

That is why some people have said that they prefer to pay a subscription than to support micro transactions.

I think ANet has been dumb as to not know how to exploit subscriptions, like Aion did. In the end, not only do they not bring in as much revenue as Aion, but they get blamed for micro transactions by their users as well so they are now between a rock and a hard place.

Pistachio · Dec 31, 2009, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaper with no name

...
Making the game pay-to-play now would not bring in any new players (assuming there are a significant amount coming in now), and would drive out a huge portion of the remaining playerbase. Furthermore, it would completely sabotage any hope GW2 has of succeeding (as it is, there are significant hurdles for it to overcome to be successful).

Exactly.

If ever GW1 becomes pay to play, I will no longer play. The main reason I've stuck with the game for so long is because I can leave and come back freely. Subscription based games give me too much pressure to play in order to get my money's worth, and ultimately I just leave them.

reaper with no name · Dec 31, 2009, 04:05 AM // 04:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Aion is directly competing with WoW. Aion and GW has very different business model, Aion is subscription based, GW is not.

I dont think GW would fail immediately, I would pay for subscription for GW provided they use the money to pay for the resources for more frequent content update than what I am getting now. I can understand the current lack of update, since it is not subscription based. Besides WoW doesn't appeal to every gamer, my friends and I just dont like the cartoon appearance of WoW.

That is why some people have said that they prefer to pay a subscription than to support micro transactions.

I think ANet has been dumb as to not know how to exploit subscriptions, like Aion did. In the end, not only do they not bring in as much revenue as Aion, but they get blamed for micro transactions by their users as well so they are now between a rock and a hard place.

Is WoW a game about angels flying around killing one another? No? Thank you.

They appeal to slightly different audiences. WoW appeals to the standard MMO crowd. Aion appeals to people who want something different. GW appeals to the people who would be in the standard MMO crowd if they didn't hate pay-to-play.

Now, let's say you know nothing specific about GW or WoW (like a consumer would), and both were pay-to-play. All you would know is that WoW is tried and true, and has the lion's share of the market. Which are you going to play?

Nearly anyone in this situation would choose WoW. This is why WoW dominates the market. It feeds off of it's own success to create more success. This is true of any monopoly.

GW does not have this advantage. Literally the only thing GW had going for it in the start was it's lack of subscription fees. Regardless of where that leaves the game now, it has gotten this far only because it has not charged anything to play. Almost everyone who plays this game was either drawn to it because of this, or heard about it from someone who was. Without this, it would never have gotten off the ground. Look at the dozens of other MMOs that have failed over time, and you'll see what I mean. The only thing that separates GW from them when it comes to business strategy is that GW was free to play. Yet they failed and GW succeeded. The only logical conclusion is that GW's success is due to it's free-to-play nature. Taking that away would remove the only thing preventing it from being eaten by the WoW-beast.

Darth The Xx · Dec 31, 2009, 04:12 AM // 04:12

This argument is stupid, Its not like Blizzard was a hugely successful gaming company raking in the cash before they released WoW, oh wait they were! All of their previous games were massive success D1,D2 WC2/3 and SC, you can still play SC online even though its like 14 years old and tons of people still play Wc3. When you look at WoW as an MMO its nothing revolutionary, grindfest, do dungeons for gear etc etc, the reason it has done so well is because of those previous games built up a reputation.

Another thing to realise is that all the lessons learned from GW1 will be taken to heart when making GW2 ie. not making a stupid number skills that are impossible to balance, making PvP and PvE totally separate etc etc.

You people are making it seem that games can't make money with no subscription fee, news flash, that's how it has worked for a long, long time.

And consider this, I'm sure this has been mentioned many times before, but I havn't read through all the posts. Would YOU have bought the game if it had a fee? Its easy to say a fee would help it now since you've already bought and played the game. I for one would most definately not have bought the game, I got this game just over 2 yrs ago after quitting WoW, at first I only bought factions to try out the PvP as I heard it was superior to WoW, now I've bought all the campaigns and the BMP Would I have done this if when I walked into the game store the box said Guild Wars Faction: $15 a month, first month is free or w/e, hell no therefore business model works on me at least, and I doubt I am an isolated case.

If it helps just think of GW2 as another massive expansion to GW1.

Also, does GW have a chance of competing with WoW, probably nothing does as most "new" mmos are labeled as WoW clones whether or not this is true or not is irrelevant the point is the mentality exists. With no subscription GW is not a direct competitor to WoW, Aion Warhammer etc etc, I know many people who play both WoW / Lotro / Aion AND GW theres no way in hell they would pay 2 subscription fees.

Daesu · Dec 31, 2009, 05:58 AM // 05:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaper with no name

Is WoW a game about angels flying around killing one another? No? Thank you.

Whether there are angels flying around or not has absolutely nothing to do with the business model that the game is based upon. It is still a subscription based MMO.

Quote:

Now, let's say you know nothing specific about GW or WoW (like a consumer would), and both were pay-to-play. All you would know is that WoW is tried and true, and has the lion's share of the market. Which are you going to play?

Nearly anyone in this situation would choose WoW. This is why WoW dominates the market. It feeds off of it's own success to create more success. This is true of any monopoly.

Certainly not WoW because my friend and I simply hate their graphics.

Quote:

Regardless of where that leaves the game now, it has gotten this far only because it has not charged anything to play.

Almost everyone who plays this game was either drawn to it because of this, or heard about it from someone who was. Without this, it would never have gotten off the ground.

And because of GW free to play business model, it is now forced into micro transactions to bring in much needed revenue. Therefore, its micro transactions hating customers would kill it, just look at the flames thrown in the micro transaction thread. The anti-micro transaction customers are already forming a campaign against ANet by asking everyone to stop supporting them and their online store!

Just watch, GW1 would not last long if GW2 fails. Its own customers would kill it, if NCSoft doesn't already.

reaper with no name · Dec 31, 2009, 06:22 AM // 06:22

And how would turning the game into pay-to-play change any of this?

All it does is show that if GW became pay-to-play, the community would abandon it. And if it had started as a pay-to-play game, it would have never had a community to begin with.

Basically, you're shooting yourself in the foot by bringing this up.

Mad King Corn · Dec 31, 2009, 07:54 AM // 07:54

I would never pay a monthly fee to play a game....ever!

Gun Pierson · Dec 31, 2009, 08:37 AM // 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Dente

It's great, apart from the fact that a lot of teenagers, like myself, play the game. A teenager, in the U.K., at least, does not have a dependable source of income. Yes we can go and get a job stacking shelves or at the checkout... But then when can we play GW?

A couple of hours a week of work won't kill you and you'll have enough time left to play. When I was a teen, I washed a couple of cars in the neighbourhood to fuel my needs, not to mention a summer vacation job for 4 weeks from the moment I was 15-16 yo. That's enough income to pay 4-5 times a yearly subscription and you're safe for the rest of the year.

Just saying, if you want it, you can do it. 'Yes you can!'