Curse

Amy Awien · Oct 04, 2008, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

GW is free to play in that I pay once and I can play forever. Perfect for a PvP game!

You pay, thus it is not free to play. You pay once, rather then once plus a periodic fee, but that doesn't make it free to play.

Neither form of payment is specifically more suited to PvP.

Quote:

Or maybe the fact that Blizzard gets away with it and Anet wouldn't be able to tells you a lot about the two companies?

More about their customers. I for one prefer ANet's model.

Zahr Dalsk · Oct 04, 2008, 07:17 PM // 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

You pay, thus it is not free to play. You pay once, rather then once plus a periodic fee, but that doesn't make it free to play.

You apparently aren't aware of this, but in the MMO industry free to play means there is no monthly (or other interval) fee.

DreamWind · Oct 04, 2008, 08:18 PM // 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Many people I know left because GW PvE is at it's end. There is no new content coming out - so there is no point in sticking around.
There was also the issue of people not moving onto PvP after completing PvE - so they needed to add more options to cater that population.

Many people I know left because PvE got too big and PvP got too small. Experiences may differ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awein

You pay, thus it is not free to play. You pay once, rather then once plus a periodic fee, but that doesn't make it free to play.

More about their customers. I for one prefer ANet's model.

Free from monthly fees. Not free of course. Doesn't it strike you as odd that WoW players are willing to pay a monthly fee and GW players generally aren't?

Ok I think this thread has run its course...

upier · Oct 04, 2008, 09:24 PM // 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Many people I know left because PvE got too big and PvP got too small. Experiences may differ.

Players that care about PvE left because there were too many enjoyable things to do in PvE?

Amy Awien · Oct 04, 2008, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

You apparently aren't aware of this, but in the MMO industry free to play means there is no monthly (or other interval) fee.

You apparently aren't aware of this, but free-to-play means players have the option to play without paying. No charge, neither once up front, nor a periodically charged fee. That is what it means in MMO land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Doesn't it strike you as odd that WoW players are willing to pay a monthly fee and GW players generally aren't?

No. I don't want to pay monthly fees for a game, and I will thus not pay a monthly fee for WoW. Why would that be odd?

DreamWind · Oct 05, 2008, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Players that care about PvE left because there were too many enjoyable things to do in PvE?

Uh thats not what I said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awein

No. I don't want to pay monthly fees for a game, and I will thus not pay a monthly fee for WoW. Why would that be odd?

Yea but the question is, would you pay a monthly fee for GW?

No to heroes lock thread I winz!! omgzz!

Bryant Again · Oct 05, 2008, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

If the game stuck with its original vision we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We wouldn't be having this conversation not because there's no problem with pugging, heroes, soloers, henchies, etc. but because ANet stuck fully with a PvP-focused game. ANet decided to add more PvE, which was good. The only "bad" that game out of it was that the world became bigger, but when you look at the alternative (nothing) who's to complain?

DreamWind · Oct 05, 2008, 03:54 AM // 03:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

We wouldn't be having this conversation not because there's no problem with pugging, heroes, soloers, henchies, etc. but because ANet stuck fully with a PvP-focused game. ANet decided to add more PvE, which was good. The only "bad" that game out of it was that the world became bigger, but when you look at the alternative (nothing) who's to complain?

Arguably. 12 chars.

Bryant Again · Oct 05, 2008, 04:07 AM // 04:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Arguably. 12 chars.

To which I say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant again

We wouldn't be having this conversation not because there's no problem with pugging, heroes, soloers, henchies, etc. but because ANet stuck fully with a PvP-focused game. ANet decided to add more PvE, which was good. The only "bad" that game out of it was that the world became bigger, but when you look at the alternative (nothing) who's to complain?

Definitely not some of the best, but I've had some pretty fun times in Guild Wars.

Demon Drone · Oct 05, 2008, 04:14 AM // 04:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yea but the question is, would you pay a monthly fee for GW?

No to heroes lock thread I winz!! omgzz!

Isn't the reason a lot of us chose GW was because there was no fee? I refuse to pay a fee to play any game no matter how "awesome" it is. I want to pay for the initial game and be done with it.

pumpkin pie · Oct 05, 2008, 05:43 AM // 05:43

If the game were at its original version, one year ago this forum will be filled with complaint about lack of new contents and the server would have shut down right about now or earlier.

Guild Wars is and always have been meant to be played with pixel companions and human operated pixel companions. Don't try to deny that.

The only thing Arena Net cannot possibly keep up, but try very hard to, is most probably the "grind" bit, I know that word has been overused, but, what, to a human would not become a grind after that human have done the same thing for 3 years?

A person that started playing 3 years ago most probably already completed everything that need done, (except me :P) the extremely Hard Core Guild Wars Fans most probably already are GWAMM and still log on to socialize and will stick around. The not so hard cord guild wars fan comes on once in a while to see if anything is new mostly for a day or two announcing on guild chat: hey guys I am back, then you probably never hear of them ever again... etc

Meanwhile, new players keep buying and joining the game as we type away, I see new players in Guild Wars everyday. Not in person, but you know they are new from the question they ask and things they say.

If someone has so little faith in a game, complaining that every little thing the company does is bad, instead of trying to prevent other players from getting what they want, I am guessing it is time to move one to other games.

This thread is about adding:
MORE HERO MORE HERO MORE HERO SLOTS

freakdaddy · Oct 05, 2008, 05:55 AM // 05:55

this would be absolutely fantastic. henchmen suck and heroes you could micro manage ahhh the possibilities.

DreamWind · Oct 05, 2008, 06:16 AM // 06:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

We wouldn't be having this conversation not because there's no problem with pugging, heroes, soloers, henchies, etc. but because ANet stuck fully with a PvP-focused game. ANet decided to add more PvE, which was good. The only "bad" that game out of it was that the world became bigger, but when you look at the alternative (nothing) who's to complain?

The alternative wouldn't be nothing...the alternative would be sticking with the original focus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon Drone

Isn't the reason a lot of us chose GW was because there was no fee? I refuse to pay a fee to play any game no matter how "awesome" it is. I want to pay for the initial game and be done with it.

What does it say about Guild Wars that its playerbase would mostly refuse to pay monthly for it yet many other games have playerbases that pay monthly? Now personally I find Guild Wars (or at least found Guild Wars) to be among the best games, but doesn't it say alot that the majority of the playerbase has so little faith in it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

If the game were at its original version, one year ago this forum will be filled with complaint about lack of new contents and the server would have shut down right about now or earlier.

Yea...just like Battle.net server shut down even though every game played on it was made before Guild Wars and every game played on it hasn't had massive expansions since before Guild Wars (or WoW). Oh wait it didn't shut down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

If someone has so little faith in a game, complaining that every little thing the company does is bad, instead of trying to prevent other players from getting what they want, I am guessing it is time to move one to other games.

To me it is people like you who have little faith in the game saying the servers would be shut down by now.

Single player game in a multiplayer game. Who'd a thunkit!?

pumpkin pie · Oct 05, 2008, 06:30 AM // 06:30

Single player game in a multiplayer game environment was not thought up by me, it was thought up someone and brought to the next level by Arena Net, if I had thought of that, I'd be rich rich rich.

Quote:

Single player game in a multiplayer game. Who'd a thunkit!?

It is called instancing, to make the server not lag as much

excerpt:
"Guild Wars takes instancing to the next level by instancing everything. There are obvious benefits to this. With a relatively small number of players in each zone, you don't get the huge lag spikes so common in most massively multiplayer games, especially when you enter a densely populated area. It alleviates line-ups for the opportunity to vanquish a certain monster requisite to a certain quest because someone got there before you. It also makes it to possible to have arena-like matches between consenting groups without interruption from the uninvited masses. The greatest appeal of instancing, however, is that it allows for the linear and epic style of adventures common in single-player RPGs, while still within a large online community of persistent characters."

exerpt:
"In terms of the actual player-versus-environment experience, it's a solo game which you can invite your friends (new or old, at any time) to join at any times."

Arena Net also already stated they are going to add new contents since the beginning of the game, so saying they did not stay true the their original plan is quit WRONG. WRONG WRONG

excerpt: (from above excerpt source)
"For the economists in the house, ArenaNet are planning regular (six to nine months) expansions pack for the game which add new content, continue the story, etc. Their stated aim is to make these entirely optional. This is in addition to a live team expanding the currently available game."

Amy Awien · Oct 05, 2008, 06:38 AM // 06:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yea but the question is, would you pay a monthly fee for GW?

Like I said, I wouldn't likely buy any game that had an additional monthly fee, I wouldn't have bought Guild Wars if it had had monthly fees. I still don't know why that would be odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

What does it say about Guild Wars that its playerbase would mostly refuse to pay monthly for it yet many other games have playerbases that pay monthly?

Actually we don't know if most of GW's players wouldn't pay regular fees for it. The Guild Wars playerbase consists of people who obviously choose to spend money on Guild Wars (or they wouldn't be playing it). I know that I wouldn't pay monthly for a game, any game.

DreamWind · Oct 05, 2008, 07:00 AM // 07:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

stuff

You didn't respond to my point about not having any faith in the game because you thought the servers would be shut down by now. You aren't alone in thinking that though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

It doesn't say anything about the game, which you seem to imply. It means that Guild Wars playerbase consists of smarter people then those of games that require montly fees, players who can multiply numbers and who are aware of what they are willing to spend on a game.

Are they really smarter to be expecting so much free stuff from a company that would not lose anything if they didn't implement it?

Amy Awien · Oct 05, 2008, 07:14 AM // 07:14

Mhh, we're on togther it appears, sorry for the edit.

They've payed for the service, so yes. It's normal for a game company to release patches even for off-line games. That company expects them to return for the next campaign, or game.

upier · Oct 05, 2008, 07:16 AM // 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh thats not what I said...

So you are really discussing PvP players in a matter that doesn't concern them in the slightest?
Why?

pumpkin pie · Oct 05, 2008, 01:21 PM // 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You didn't respond to my point about not having any faith in the game because you thought the servers would be shut down by now. You aren't alone in thinking that though.

When I don't answer, its because I think its a waste of my time to try to explain. Besides we weren't talking about faith in the server remain open or shut in the first place (read the last paragraph) But this time I thought it was moot to try to explain, because In my opinion, it is just an excuse to avoid discussing other points that you can't answers.

However, if you like, when I said that, it was in response to your wish that GW be left at prophecies scenario, if it has been left there, then the server would be shut down by now, A possible scenario, A hypothesis, as oppose to the situation now, Guild Wars still selling, making money scenario and running strong as we type.

Now, do you have any data to support your theory that the game server will not be shut down? beside quoting other game server not being shut down? becasue its irrelavent telling people that other servers aren't shut down so Guild Wars' won't The truth is both you and I would not know, But I do have the 2008 Guild Wars sale figures to support my theory that everything added after prophecies are good for the game, there's the faith, and when I say players who lost their faith I mean players who constantly complain that the game is bad having no faith in Arena Net to deliver a good game, which in fact they did, these players just did not have faith, and the best reason is that some players just grew out of it, 3 years to be loyal to one game is quite hard and boring, since now there are so many other games out there competing, but I still think Guild Wars did a damn good job. Do You? Well, you don't obviously, cos you only like porphecies, thats where you don't have faith, and has nothing what so ever to do with servers.

I am very happy the game have new campaigns and expansion and updates. All those things you accuse for being bad since added to the game, (As I understand from what you posted, basically anything after prophecies are bad, correct me if i am wrong), despite that constant wallowing regarding additional contents to be bad for the game, Guild Wars' sale contributed USD4.9million in 2008 to NCSoft, so, if it is making money, it must be doing something right, It would probably not be making money if it had been left at prophecies and players would probably constantly be complaining that Arena Net "did not follow their original motto of wanting to add new contents every 6 months." and thus left.

I have faith in Arena Net that they will deliver what they promise, and did delivered, DO YOU?

Bryant Again · Oct 05, 2008, 04:22 PM // 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The alternative wouldn't be nothing...the alternative would be sticking with the original focus.

...nothing for PvE. And all these problems would persist: players would have a hard time grouping due to how old and unrefreshed the content was, outposts would be empty, PUGs would be strained, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

What does it say about Guild Wars that its playerbase would mostly refuse to pay monthly for it yet many other games have playerbases that pay monthly? Now personally I find Guild Wars (or at least found Guild Wars) to be among the best games, but doesn't it say alot that the majority of the playerbase has so little faith in it?

Being willing to pay a monthly fee doesn't mean they have faith in the game. It means they're willing to pay a monthly fee.