Curse

Miss Puddles · Jan 25, 2008, 08:57 PM // 20:57

anet has stated many many times that gw will never ever charge a monthly fee to play. they have proved pretty well that it is not necessary to to in order to keep players a-playing, and that they can still make a profit.
i hope that they do offer more stuff in the online store, partly because i want a charr plushie

and partly because it will bring them more income without having to charge fees.

Siva arwen · Jan 25, 2008, 09:03 PM // 21:03

OK, OK, OK, everyone pls read what the title said " GW2: No monthly fees - but how to make money?"

How about GW1: no monthly fees, but how Anet survived these many years?
Did Anet every said they had a problem with "GW1: no monthly fees"?
How many times already that Anet said/carved in the stone that GW2 will have no monthly fees?
If Anet know that they are NOT going to make money with GW2 without monthly fees and why the he** they are making GW2 has no monthly fees?

Have you ever ask Blizzard to changed WoW back to "no monthly fees"?

Do you know how many reasons why people playing GW?
-Not everyone has creditcard
-Not everyone has no life
-Not everyone love WoW style
-Not everyone living in a big house like others
-Not everyone playing GW because they are poor
.............etc

Because Anet know that there are these kinds people out there, that is why they know that GW's business will work out.

Not everyone love GW either.

Lagg · Jan 25, 2008, 09:12 PM // 21:12

Oh, oh, oh, can I have a go at making a metaphor?

Comparing Guild Wars' business model to World of Warcraft's is like comparing how Pepsi competes with Coca-Cola.

The only real competition that Coca-Cola faces is drinking water. If they could figure out a way how, they'd even have us cook our vegetables with their multi-trillion dollar brown fluid.

Pepsi competes with other soft drinks to fill a certain niche: the non-Coca-Cola drinker.

Same thing for WoW. It's the most popular and populist MMORPG by far. And I do admit, I would have picked up WoW instead of GW if it weren't for the monthly fees. Not that they're outrageously expensive, but they form a psychological barrier: paying to play.

And this is where ArenaNet came in with their brilliant, albeit less lucrative, business model.

See, they're not such bad guys after all.

This said: please, please, please release the remaining Realms of the Gods through the Online Store. I have my credit card and/or right kidney at the ready.

Martin Firestorm · Jan 25, 2008, 09:12 PM // 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterB

They really can't afford to charge a monthly fee.

Agreed. That plus this being a very good game are the keys to GW's success. Make it just a good game with a monthly subscription, and GW2 gets lost in the sea of (mostly failing) MMOs. The mainly pve players in particular probably end up heading over to WoW en masse.

wetsparks · Jan 25, 2008, 09:47 PM // 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

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).

There is a couple things wrong there. First, they didn't end up doing the 6 months thing, so even if it ends up going 9 or 12 months, you still get to keep playing on your original $50. Secondly, if you do buy those two GW games, you bought two separate games. You are able to connect them together, but they are different. Where in WoW, you are paying to play the same thing.

Sora267 · Jan 25, 2008, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Oh, oh, oh, can I have a go at making a metaphor?

Comparing Guild Wars' business model to World of Warcraft's is like comparing how Pepsi competes with Coca-Cola.

The only real competition that Coca-Cola faces is drinking water. If they could figure out a way how, they'd even have us cook our vegetables with their multi-trillion dollar brown fluid.

Pepsi competes with other soft drinks to fill a certain niche: the non-Coca-Cola drinker.

Same thing for WoW. It's the most popular and populist MMORPG by far. And I do admit, I would have picked up WoW instead of GW if it weren't for the monthly fees. Not that they're outrageously expensive, but they form a psychological barrier: paying to play.

And this is where ArenaNet came in with their brilliant, albeit less lucrative, business model.

Two things: 1)That's a simile (See added emphasis.)
2) UBER QFT!

bhavv · Jan 25, 2008, 10:37 PM // 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

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

Its still much more expensive then 3 campains at $29 + GWEN, and if they make any expansions for LOTRO, that will add to the cost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

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.

I play wow for this exact reason, and feel the same way. Except im on my second week

enter_the_zone · Jan 25, 2008, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Personally, I think a swing to the Pay For Items model is their best way forward. Make it so that the items are nice but not necessary. Like the tormented shield or chaos gloves in GW.

Sure, many people won't pay for them, but some people would. In fact, many people already do, buying gold online to finance these types of in-game purchases. Anet needs to close the market on this so that money is going to them and not some chinese sweatshop. Frankly, they missed a trick by not selling gold in the in-game store.

holababe · Jan 25, 2008, 10:43 PM // 22:43

They could have two levels of registration.
One: Free, full access etc (as GW1 is now)
Two: Small monthly fee for minor non-gameplay bonuses, such as an extra character slot, an ingame dance (like the CE) etc.

Dronte · Jan 25, 2008, 10:45 PM // 22:45

how to make money? just think about BMP marketing

Bryant Again · Jan 25, 2008, 10:54 PM // 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

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

So far so good. It'll take more than and endless level cap and persistent areas to truly make it such, however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

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.

It's more of a wake-up call to people who say that GW is WoW's biggest competitor. Lineage 1 and 2 are doing much more better than GW right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

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.

What? What I was saying wasn't an argument in the least. I'm saying that I loved the game so much that I'm willing to support it, and that if GW1 was P2P I'd pay 15 bucks a month to support ANet. All me, not an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

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.

Costs start to rise up pretty quickly. They have a shitload of realms, and it's really hard to keep every single one, each unique in its own way, running perfectly 24/7. Couple that with GM payment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Comparing Guild Wars' business model to World of Warcraft's is like comparing how Pepsi competes with Coca-Cola.

Almost. You buy and enjoy Coke the same way you buy Pepsi.

Lagg · Jan 25, 2008, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sora of the Divine

Two things: 1)That's a simile (See added emphasis.)

Balthazar smite me, simile! I swear, it was on the tip of my tongue. Fingers. Keyboard.

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Almost. You buy and enjoy Coke the same way you buy Pepsi.

Well, the simile isn't perfect, but consider it with taste.

Most people don't like or simply can't afford cola and don't drink it.

A lot of people like cola and drink the most obvious brand on the market, Coca-Cola.

A niche market of people like cola but don't like Coca-Cola and drink an alternative brand, such as Pepsi.

Pepsi will always be the underdog compared to Coca-Cola, but they actually thrive on Coca-Cola's popularity, simply because they are able to say: "Hey look, we make cola that isn't Coca-Cola."

Back on-topic.

I'm still convinced that Guild Wars (or at least its business model) exists because of World of Warcraft.

As a direct reaction to it. "Hey look, we have an MMORPG that hasn't got monthly fees."

The other truly competing MMORPGs that require you to pay are a lot less successful than Guild Wars, because they step on World of Warcraft's turf. And that is craziness, since World of Warcraft has the bigger brand name and an astronomical budget to boot.

Guild Wars nicely coexists with World of Warcraft since it profiles itself as Not-Quite-World-of-Warcraft, whereas the other MMORPGS all try their best to be Better-Than-World-of-Warcraft, and, thus far, fail miserably.

Bryant Again · Jan 26, 2008, 12:31 AM // 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

The other truly competing MMORPGs that require you to pay are a lot less successful than Guild Wars, because they step on World of Warcraft's turf. And that is craziness, since World of Warcraft has the bigger brand name and an astronomical budget to boot.

Lineage 1 and 2, both alone not together, have been more successful than GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Guild Wars nicely coexists with World of Warcraft since it profiles itself as Not-Quite-World-of-Warcraft, whereas the other MMORPGS all try their best to be Better-Than-World-of-Warcraft, and, thus far, fail miserably.

I'd say it's much, much more safer to label it "Completely-Opposite-of-World-of-Warcraft," because it caters to an entirely different crowd (in terms of interests, not concerns) than those affiliated with MMO's.

Personette · Jan 26, 2008, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Oh, oh, oh, can I have a go at making a metaphor?

Comparing Guild Wars' business model to World of Warcraft's is like comparing how Pepsi competes with Coca-Cola.

The only real competition that Coca-Cola faces is drinking water. If they could figure out a way how, they'd even have us cook our vegetables with their multi-trillion dollar brown fluid.

Actually, what they did instead was start selling drinking water. Now they have a win-win situation. Coca-Cola owns Dasani here, and in every other country where I've spent much time, they own one of the major brands of water...in Morocco, it's Ciel, in Tanzania it's called Kilimanjaro.

Pepsi is in the same game, by the way. They own Aquafina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Pepsi competes with other soft drinks to fill a certain niche: the non-Coca-Cola drinker.

Actually, this is wrong too. The Coke-Pepsi competition is clearer on a global scale, where each brand has tried to gain regional dominance...Pepsi used to be bigger than Coke in Russia and India, though no longer. Pepsi tries to take the first place medal where and when it can. And it came close to overthrowing Coke here in the US back in the 80s.

Since Coke and Pepsi between them own most other soft drinks, this argument is pretty much moot anyhow (i.e., Coke owns A&W - Pepsi owns Mug; Pepsi owns Mountain Dew, Coke owns Dr Pepper).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

Same thing for WoW. It's the most popular and populist MMORPG by far. And I do admit, I would have picked up WoW instead of GW if it weren't for the monthly fees. Not that they're outrageously expensive, but they form a psychological barrier: paying to play.

I think this is the wrong conclusion to draw. Pepsi isn't content to squabble over second place - nor are they competing with other non-Coke beverages; they're competing with other Coke and Pepsico beverages. What Pepsi has done is

(a) try to find a market they can keep to themselves
(b) put other dogs in the fight.

I imagine Guild Wars has tried the same tactics - expanding globally (are there areas where WoW hasn't penetrated/triumphed?) and now making a new game, getting ready to put a new dog in the race.

warcrap · Jan 26, 2008, 03:30 AM // 03:30

i'd pay if it was like 5 dollars a month.

Steps_Descending · Jan 26, 2008, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagg

The other truly competing MMORPGs that require you to pay are a lot less successful than Guild Wars, because they step on World of Warcraft's turf. And that is craziness, since World of Warcraft has the bigger brand name and an astronomical budget to boot.

Guild Wars nicely coexists with World of Warcraft since it profiles itself as Not-Quite-World-of-Warcraft, whereas the other MMORPGS all try their best to be Better-Than-World-of-Warcraft, and, thus far, fail miserably.

Quoted for truth

Accept i'd maybe correct it by sayign GW should be the Best-Amonsgt-non-classical-MMO.
Other PtP classical MMO winding up being killed by WoW or at best greatly suffering from him (kinda like sailing in a huricane i guess). And the other Non-classic-MMO just aren't really MMORPG, so people who are looking for a real free MMORPG just bass by.

About GW2's money
I think they stated in PCGamer (someone with the magazine in question correct me if I am wrong), in the GW2 preview file, what the new system would be :
Instead of buying RL-stand-alone expention 40$ each,
we will buy the game (probably elona or cantha in size, pure speculation) then pay (probably online, a barrier for some player) something like 10$ to get a real expention of say... the size of ascalon (with a dungeon-like zone) bearing its own green, weapon skin and maybe MAYBE armor.

If memory serves, all expension will be cheaper and smaller than today's game, will have little to no storyline progression. Each telling part of the story, to take in-game exemple : the Flight from Ascalon, Path to Ascenssion, Gang War in Kaineng (jade vs Am fa), or Joko's Return.

Now that I think of it a good example could be GW:EN's mini-campaigns. 10$ to see how you rescued the Missing Ebon Vanguard, anyone?

MercenaryKnight · Jan 26, 2008, 04:24 AM // 04:24

I hope they don't pull a move like hellgate london. Free online play for basic users, then if you pay a monthly fee you get extra content and stuff. That just seems messed up. Pay full price for a game and then to get the same content as others you have to pay for a monthly fee to get the rest of it.

Juhanah · Jan 26, 2008, 04:32 AM // 04:32

I think Anet is the best to know if they need more money or not. And if they need extra money, they'll know how and when to get it.

Jeff Strain said they still make money out of GW's 1st chapter in a recent interview.. and i don't think it'll completely stop when GW2 will be out.

Quote:

Jeff Strain: Actually, we have been surprised by the longevity of the campaigns! The original Guild Wars of April 2005 is still a very strong selling title, there is a lot of new players coming in on a day-to-day basis.

They have more than 3.5millions copy sold and they didn't even actively advertise or anything and they were basically unknown by the majority of people in 2004. So i doubt they don't know what they do.

Anet know more about their finance than we do so let them take care of it.

Biostem · Jan 26, 2008, 04:48 AM // 04:48

A few things:

1. If it wasn't for WoW's connection to Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, and Blizzard, it would have tanked.

2. The fact that there's no monthly fee means that you don't have to be a hermit and only play to feel like you're getting your money's worth. There's no sense of loss if you can't or don't play for an extended period of time, and there's no strain on the pocket book to worry about, either.

3. I do like the micro-purchase route, but only if you can still get max stuff w/o it; if the only way to get armor, weapons, and items w/ max stats is to buy them w/ real money, and there aren't any included in the base game, then it is a ripoff right at the get-go. If these "micro-transactions" are for actual content, skills, and other assorted things, then they'd be worth while.

4. Comparing GW to WoW is not very useful, as the 2 cater to 2 different types of players; oW is a more traditional RPG for hardcore gamers, while GW is more for the "weekend warrior" type of player. Sure, GW has many die hard players who invest a lot of time, but the pressure or need for elite items and equipment isn't really there, and the reliance upon large organized teams is also not present in GW, (or not present in as large quantities as it is in WoW).

5. In my experiences w/ WoW, City of Heroes, and GW, I've found that the frequency and quality of updates and expansions doesn't follow the pattern of more money meaning more and better stuff. There may be more stuff, or there may be better stuff, but never both.

6. Level caps are an illusion; just because you can hit max level in GW doesn't mean the game stops and you move on. If you stopped gaining attribute points and hp at 20, but your level indicator kept going up as you got skill points, would people react differently? Would it matter if it said you were level 200 instead of 20, yet your character's effectiveness remained the same?

7. Lastly, stop trying to make GW WoW, or any other game, for that matter. Time has already shown that the 2 can exist in the same market and thrive. Someone who is looking for game play like WoW will not be happy unless they are playing WoW, and someone looking for GW-like play will not be happy elsewhere. Each has its pros and cons, but overall you have to acknowledge that both are doing *something* right to still be alive...

bhavv · Jan 26, 2008, 07:17 AM // 07:17

The maple story micro purchases work as such - the items dont have any strategic benefit except for double XP and drops. The items sold are skins which can be applied to your weapons and armor. Also you can buy extra storage, haircuts and face changes, colour changes, safety charms to prevent XP loss when you die, and auras. When I played it for a while I bought a stack of 5 safety charms and some double XP scrolls. But I gave up maple story because of the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing grind. Seriously, one enemy kill over level 35 is like 0.02% XP towards your next level. The game was epic fun, the grind was an epic bore.

I also just found out that I could have gotten LOTRO for £5 a month untill 31st january! But I already bought 3 months of wow

. LOTRO is $9.99 a month for subscriptions taken out by the end of the month. IMO a $7.99 monthly subscription would make me buy the game right away.