Curse

Cacheelma · Dec 31, 2009, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

1) How many other games sell content like sorrows furnace?

Umm.. let me see... Dragon's Age? Mass Effect? *insert a name of korean/chinese mmos here*? Sure, the first two games are offline. But for asian MMOs, many of them offer this kind of things and they rarely are popular in the west.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

2) How many games with fees actually give out free expansions? From what I see with WoW and Lotro, you pay a fee and never get anything extra for free, you still pay for new expansions.

Define: Getting something extra for free.

FACT: WoW and LoTro get new patches/updates every so often. All of which are free and contain both new content AND bug fixes.
FACT: WoW AND LotRO have MORE content than what GW has now on their first day of release.

So in a sense, content updates in Subscription-based games are free. Only major expansions would cost money. In the case of GW, major expansions also COST MONEY but you get miniscule/0 content update whatsoever.

If money isn't your concern, which game would you choose, really?

And that's where this so-called business model FAILED to be what Jeff Strain told the world it would be: "The future of MMOs business model".

WinterSnowblind · Dec 31, 2009, 11:52 AM // 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

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.

You're listening to a very vocal minority. GW2 will support microtransactions to a much wider degree and will not suffer because of it, despite what some people on these forums would lead you to believe.

bhavv · Dec 31, 2009, 12:49 PM // 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

Umm.. let me see... Dragon's Age? Mass Effect? *insert a name of korean/chinese mmos here*? Sure, the first two games are offline. But for asian MMOs, many of them offer this kind of things and they rarely are popular in the west.

Define: Getting something extra for free.

FACT: WoW and LoTro get new patches/updates every so often. All of which are free and contain both new content AND bug fixes.
FACT: WoW AND LotRO have MORE content than what GW has now on their first day of release.

So in a sense, content updates in Subscription-based games are free. Only major expansions would cost money. In the case of GW, major expansions also COST MONEY but you get miniscule/0 content update whatsoever.

If money isn't your concern, which game would you choose, really?

And that's where this so-called business model FAILED to be what Jeff Strain told the world it would be: "The future of MMOs business model".

1) Those games you mentioned are offline and are developed around working on a took kit that makes creating new adventures so easy that even the gamers can make them themselves. MMOs are not single player games with community accessible tool / mod kits, comparing the two is stupid.

2) I played WoW / Lotro / Sub based DDO / AoC for about 3 months each. They didnt have any new content added for free within this time, and new content came around every 6 months. Also, the free content that was added to Subscription MMOs is never a large expansion pack, rather it is content that was intended to have been in the game from the start, but not developed in time.

The reason why those games may be larger to you is because they ALSO sold full price expansion packs like Wrath of The Lich King, Mines of Moria, and AoCs first pay for expansion is coming out next year.

So basically, people defending fees are saying that those fees get you lots of new content like sorrows furnace, when this is entirely untrue because fee based games are still selling just as many expansions as GW has.

People say that paying fees and never buying expansions is preferable to them rather than buying expansions, but every major fee based game is still selling expansions.

With GW you bought expansions and pay no fee. In WoW, Lotro, AoC, you pay fees and you still have to pay for expansions.

Also, I cant really understand how people can be so blind to think that GW is not getting new content or updates for free. Where are all the skill balance and bug fixes coming from? Where did Zchest / Zmissions come from? Where did fow / UW end chests come from? Where did Dhuum come from? Where did HM come from? Where did PVE skills and consumables come from? Where did summons / sweets / DP reducing items come from? How about Hero Battles and Codex Arena? New maps for HA and GVG? What about the festivals for halloween, wintersday, canthan new year? Where did those come from?

I am sure I didnt pay for any of these, they were all extra content added for free. People who can genuinely sit and play this game and say that it doesnt get free content and regular updates must be blind as bats or just plain ignorant.

By the way, for all the people who genuinely think subscription games are better, why are they here? Why not go play your superior WoW / Lotro / AoC / Aion instead?

This I cannot understand. You waste your time trolling GW forums asking for fees in this game to make it better, but you actually only came here either because it is free to play, or because it is actually better than every other subscription based game out there, as you arent playing those game instead.

However, lets consider what you are saying for a moment. Lets imagine GW implementing optional fees similar to the DDO model, but rather that both F2P and P2P players get exactly the same content and game to play. How many of you would actually pay to play the game as opposed to playing it for free? I can imagine that the vast majority of you would actually not pay to play this game, rather the same as how you choose not to pay for or support micro transactions.

Ok, how about this - completely remove micro transactions and instead place a 'Donate to this game' store, where you can simply send Anet money whenever you like but without actually buying anything. How many of you people who support fees would actually support this? Because the only difference between the two is that fees force everyone to pay to play, whereas microtransactions / donations still allow you to play without paying.

Here is clearly why the micro transaction model works better. Yes it has been poorly implemented in other games where you have to pay to enjoy the game (eg double exp and drop purchases otherwise you have to grind forever), but this is the case with games that are completely free to download. With Guildwars you pay for the game, and the store simply sells things that are convenient - more storage, more character slots, makeovers for people who dont want to restart their character, bonus weapons and mission packs that hand out free weapons, and now for the first time, seasonal wintersday amputmes, which many many people actually like and have bought.

bhavv · Dec 31, 2009, 01:03 PM // 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

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.

This is absolutely no different to people who do not and will never support fees. Guess what? These people play GW.

The people who dislike micro transactions as much as this as to try and boycott the game are people who feel the exact same way about fees, not hypocrites like yourself who support fees, but oh noes! Paying for extra storage, character slots and other conveniences is just bad.

Adding fees to GW will completely destroy the game, as maybe a hundred times as many people will then start boycotting the game and leave.

People who support fees but not microtransactions are hypocritical clowns. People who do not support either model and dislike both are not in the same category as you, they actually have a point and are not in any kind of agreeance with you over the opinion that this game should have fees.

Also, people can whine about fees and microtransactions all they like. The last time I checked, LA, kamadan, RA and HA are completely jam packed with players who are not bothered in the slightest about what is sold through the ingame store as long as they can play for free, just like every other successful F2P MMO.

There is nothing wrong with this games model at all, it is actually far superior to fees, and it is never changing, so get over it.

J I L T · Dec 31, 2009, 01:48 PM // 13:48

Debating the business model of GW is stupid because most of the arguments are based off of assuming about what would or wouldn't happen in some alternate reality. Some arguments like "Many people wouldn't have even bought GW in the first place if it had a subscription" are pretty likely scenarios but it doesn't change the fact that you can't prove it and it's still just some guess on an alternate reality. This is a battle of opinions which makes it is completely futile because neither side will ever be able to provide any hard evidence. Even if someone got some good evidence anything could be countered with "You don't/can't know that for sure".

The fact is GW is successful enough to warrant a sequel so you can't say it has a bad business model when it turned a good profit. The point of a company isn't to keep us happy at all times it's to make money which GW clearly did. And there are more than enough pay to play mmos for people who like that better. Don't complain and try to change GW when you can easily solve the problem by buying a different game.

Benderama · Dec 31, 2009, 02:16 PM // 14:16

$10-15 is a rip off IMO £5 is the most i'd pay for a P2P MMO. also remember that the internet fees and electricity bills add up too ^^. you don't have to grind in movies either

ooh and don't forget the rate at which GW expanded, within 2 years and a bit they had already released 3 expansion-ish products and announced a sequel whereas WoW had only burning crusade EP (dunno about other MMOs)

Quaker · Dec 31, 2009, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benderama

ooh and don't forget the rate at which GW expanded, within 2 years and a bit they had already released 3 expansion-ish products and announced a sequel whereas WoW had only burning crusade EP (dunno about other MMOs)

But, to be fair, WoW already had as much "content" in it's first iteration as GW did after 3 campaigns.

RE: what J I L T said - this is sort of true. All these people who say they will stop playing, or would never have played are ignoring one very simple fact. It all comes down to which way ANet can make more money.
If, for example, ANet started charging monthly fees and half the (resource draining) players left, would they make more money than they do now on the half that remain?

Gun Pierson · Dec 31, 2009, 06:55 PM // 18:55

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...

I didn't know that, thanks for the info. It makes sense now, that's why Gaile announced soon after that there won't be more free updates like that.

Still I think the current business model doesn't leave much room for extras, like working on 2 titles at once.

Anyway, I just hope they don't put GW2 on life support after 2-3 years and move onto another project.

Captain Scrat · Dec 31, 2009, 07:03 PM // 19:03

The fees wont work in GW... id rather have it free with microtransactions for little things like costumes and all the superficial stuff that DOES NOT impair the gameplay of others. Because if u can buy a sword for 5$ and a player that doesnt have that money cant buy it, the game would suck and it would be worst than having fees. It would be unfair to everyone...

Or if ppl want fees, it should be by minutes and not pay-to-play by months. Id rather buy 500mins of game play than to pay for month, because i dont always play GW.

Anyways they said and its confirmed that GW2 wont have fees. Its their model and they wont change it.

- Captain Scrat

AexIndex · Dec 31, 2009, 09:52 PM // 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by here to troll

I know, I know, the point of guild wars is to have a subscription fee-less(<--is that correct, lol) based model. But think about it, the average price for a subscription fee is about $12-$15. Now, how many people go to the movies. At least where I live it is about 10 bucks for a ticket and i might buy popcorn. Thats around 1 and a half hours to 2 hours of entertainment. Maybe longer if you see 2012 which is around 2 and a half hours (i think).

The fact is, it is easy to "get your monies worth" and i would rather support anet through a subscription fee than micro transactions. Just my $0.02.

Go play WoW or some other lame P2P game.

Cacheelma · Dec 31, 2009, 10:58 PM // 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by AexIndex

Go play WoW or some other lame P2P game.

I'm curious as to what you call GW.

A cheap game for the poors?

It's cheap indeed, though, on so many levels.

bhavv · Jan 01, 2010, 11:15 PM // 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

I'm curious as to what you call GW.

A cheap game for the poors?

It's cheap indeed, though, on so many levels.

I didnt think it was cheaper than any single player game that you would buy once and never pay towards again. And since when did the ridiculously overpriced subscription model system suddenly determine that any game that costs less than $100-$150 per year to play is cheap?

Cacheelma · Jan 02, 2010, 12:17 AM // 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

I didnt think it was cheaper than any single player game that you would buy once and never pay towards again. And since when did the ridiculously overpriced subscription model system suddenly determine that any game that costs less than $100-$150 per year to play is cheap?

You missed some other meanings of "cheap" I tired to imply there, lol.

But nevermind, it was a response to the guy calling P2P games "lame". So if those (most of which actually have MORE content than GW's 4 games COMBINED) games are lame, I wonder if he would call GW "CHEAP" too.

Because I do feel that it's just that, CHEAP.

Daesu · Jan 02, 2010, 01:12 AM // 01:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

People who do not support either model and dislike both are not in the same category as you, they actually have a point and are not in any kind of agreeance with you over the opinion that this game should have fees.
.

Then they are not being realistic. I want to my house, my cars and everything in life to be free too but is that going to happen?

In the same way, I dont want to pay for anything and maybe through some magical means ANet employees would get paid well and their servers run on air.

Also if NCSoft realizes that Aion is earning a lot more money than GW, then that puts GW in the danger zone. Why continue to throw money on a money losing venture, without micro transactions, or fees? At the same time customers DEMAND that content update should happen very often for free. How are all these things suppose to happen in reality?

reaper with no name · Jan 02, 2010, 02:31 AM // 02:31

You're assuming Aion will earn more money than GW, and that it will succeed. Neither of these is certain. You're also assuming that if Aion succeeds, it will be due to it's business model rather than it's unique gameplay. This, too, is uncertain.

In theory, yes, if GW and Aion ran side by side forever, eventually, the subscriptions of Aion would outweigh the one-off costs of GW (and probably the microtransactions of the latter, as well).

But do you honestly believe that GW will continue running as it is now forever?

This is why they're making GW2; because GW1 is no longer as profitable as it once was.

So, if it makes you feel better, think of GW as being a game that has "subscriptions" in the form of new campaigns and expansions. When the costs begin to outweigh the profits of the last bundle, they release a new one. The cost of that is the "subscription fee" for the next X months until they put out a new one.

bhavv · Jan 02, 2010, 02:52 AM // 02:52

GW has been a success for over 4 years. Aion has been a success for maybe 3 months.

How exactly can you say that Aion is anymore succesful that GW yet?

And why exactly do you assume that NCsoft will abandon such a successful game as GW? Your assumptions are not in any way factual and are more pointless than anything else.

Quote:

Why continue to throw money on a money losing venture, without micro transactions, or fees?

The game has micro transactions. And where did you get this information that GW is losing money?

According to this article, NCSoft are very proud of the success of Guild Wars. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that they would ever drop such a succesful game just because they have had Aion out for a few months:

http://www.totalvideogames.com/Guild...-X5-12320.html

According to NCSoft;

'Guild Wars is a proven success and has set new standards in online RPGs'.

That doesnt sound in any way to me like they would ever drop the game.

Cacheelma · Jan 02, 2010, 04:04 AM // 04:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

According to NCSoft;

'Guild Wars is a proven success and has set new standards in online RPGs'.

That doesnt sound in any way to me like they would ever drop the game.

Because they'd surely say otherwise about a game they've (mistakenly?) invested in and is about to have a sequel coming out, right?

bhavv · Jan 02, 2010, 04:37 AM // 04:37

If it hadnt sold any copies and was a complete flop, I am sure they would have dropped it by now. But there is no way that you can think that 5 million sales is a mistake in anyway for a PC game, or that NCSoft would ever drop such a successful title.

PuppyEater · Jan 02, 2010, 04:42 AM // 04:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

If it hadnt sold any copies and was a complete flop, I am sure they would have dropped it by now. But there is no way that you can think that 5 million sales is a mistake in anyway for a PC game, or that NCSoft would ever drop such a successful title.

5 million copies does sound good on paper but the fact is that if those 5 million copies havn't earned the revenue that NCsoft was looking for the game is going to look like a failure regardless of what 3rd party critics might say. There have been plenty of great TV shows that have gotten rave revues but were canceled after one or two seasons because the exec's didn't find it brought in enough cash to justify holding on to it...

bhavv · Jan 02, 2010, 04:46 AM // 04:46

Then please feel free to prove with any evidence / links that GW has not earned enough revenue for NCSoft before making things up based on zero evidence based purely on your personal opinions.

Also, the last time I checked, GW has not been cancelled yet. Surely if it was not making enough money, it would have been cancelled within 4+ years.

Comparing a television show based on reviews to a PC games sales is a false comparison, the correct comparison would be based on how many people watch the programme, or comparing the tv programmes review to a GW review in a magazine.

5 million copies sold is not a review, in the video game industry that is a solid success, and GW is still NCSofts most successful title in Europe and America.

Also the review I posted was not based on a third party critic, but a spokesperson from NCSoft stating that Guild Wars has been a great success for them. You, nor anyone else have provided any evidence against this, or for the claim that NCSoft are not making enough money from GW and are going to be dropping it. So far, it is far more likely that the world is going to end in 2012 than NCSoft dropping Guild Wars.