Curse

Miral · Jul 31, 2007, 07:53 PM // 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tijger

EoN IS chapter 4 but without the newbie area and new classes.

what I understood is GW2 is what was once going to be chapter4 and GWEN is an attempt at giving reason for the shift in-lore...

hallomik · Aug 01, 2007, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Cheers to the OP for posting this. I found it a very good read. Some thoughts:

1) His discussion about duo gaming cemented the notion that single-player, full-hero parties will NEVER be part of Guild Wars. You can solo if you like, but the Duo gameplay (e.g., husband and wife) is really encouraged. I think this is also a hint of the design direction of GW 2, i.e., sidekicks.

2) While WOW is the 800 lb gorilla, GW is the 250 lb Gorilla. It's really the number 2 online RPG out there. Living in the shadow of WOW as Guild Wars players all do can make you forget how long a shadow Guild Wars actually casts. You see this if you visit forums of other MMO's where there is fairly equal bashing of both WOW and GW.

3) GW and GW2 will never have a lot of in-game mods. Heavy moderation, Jeff suggests, is an ongoing expense a non-fee-based game can't afford. This means GW will continue to have more of an anything-goes, wild west atmosphere compared to the fee-based MMO's. If that's really troublesome to you, don't expect it to change in GW2.

4) Jeff think's the evolution of MMO's lead to worlds where changes a player makes in a game don't always reset. I find that very interesting, and I have no idea how that could work. Perhaps things will reset, but just on a much longer time-scale with a series of branching choices depending upon player actions. Perhaps he means something else, but it's interesting to contemplate.

wetsparks · Aug 01, 2007, 02:38 AM // 02:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Angel

If Guild Wars total sales are at 3.5 million, I'm guessing, between repeat buyers, both for multiple accounts, and for upgrading their own accounts, the actual amount of players who purchased games is somewhere between 0.9 million, and 1.2 million.
Assuming those numbers are about accurate, I'd guess 0.4 million 'currently active' players, with another 0.1 million to 0.2 million people who log in infrequently, but still do. (Not including gold farm bot and distribution accounts here.)

I think the ~1 million mark is about right for number of accounts with all three campaigns. Lets, for the sake of argument, say the the .4 million active players is correct, that would make GW the one of the most populous MMOs. WoW advertises 9 million active acounts (down at the bottom it states what counts towards that number) and, even though I don't have a link, Final Fantasy 11 has 700,000 subscribers I believe. Other than that I don't know about numbers but I'm pretty sure none have more than those two and with the other people that Mercy Angel mentioned, the 100,000-200,000 who might log on once a month, GW is very strong right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

4) Jeff think's the evolution of MMO's lead to worlds where changes a player makes in a game don't always reset. I find that very interesting, and I have no idea how that could work. Perhaps things will reset, but just on a much longer time-scale with a series of branching choices depending upon player actions. Perhaps he means something else, but it's interesting to contemplate.

I think it said in the PC Gamer issue for GW that is things would reset once a week. That every week we would try to figure out what would make a dragon come down and destroy a bridge and to defend the builders of the bridge from bandits etc.

strcpy · Aug 01, 2007, 04:31 AM // 04:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Angel

A lot of the article, I'm not sure why there's so much stress on. Guild Wars is by no means the first major online RPG that supports many players, especially not in instances, for free. It's not the first no-subscription MMORPG, of which there is probably a glut of, at this point. The standalone-and-expansion-in-one is probably the only unique twist I've seen on the business model.

As is typical the absolute first person to do any one thing gets no real credit, the first to do it *successfully* does. Not only that but the first to do all of them together also means something. I mean, people had been running, hitting balls with sticks, and catching/throwing balls for thousands upon thousands of years - they still weren't playing baseball

As far as I know there is no real competition to GW, nothing that puts all of those things into one package, let alone do so with a successful business model. I do agree that the statement was a little over the top, but it is more accurate than not and not too bad for what is essentially and advertisement (ass all such interviews are).

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberNigma

heh, bullshit. They don't like you doing very much outside of the way they intended it. In order to do this they created stuff like locked gates that you can't go through unless you follow their story and quests. If people found another way to do something and it was popular they tried their best to nerf it. He's just bs'ing the public there.

That was the number one feature/fix request for the year that Prophecies was the only game. There were quite a few of us that said it would actually suck to have that happen but, alas, we were drowned out. I will blame Anet for not realizing how much the idea sucked, but it was actually doing one of the most heavily requested "features" by the fan base and was an example of them listening. Can't really blame them for not listening to the fan base on this one, heck even today you still occasionally see someone rant about people getting runs (and more often than not also complain about Anet blocking runs in the same post). You either allow them or you do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

1) His discussion about duo gaming cemented the notion that single-player, full-hero parties will NEVER be part of Guild Wars. You can solo if you like, but the Duo gameplay (e.g., husband and wife) is really encouraged. I think this is also a hint of the design direction of GW 2, i.e., sidekicks.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but they have pretty much said this straight out several times before on this and other boards. Three heroes per person is a compromise - good enough for the single player but encourages at least some grouping. It means a decent/dedicated hench player can complete bonus on any mission but less skilled players will still need/want to group. Being an almost total single person player I would *love* to see 7 heroes and the diversity of team builds I could experiment with, but as long as their idea is the above it isn't going to happen. In fact, pointing out how we would use the heroes pretty much re-enforces their decision as it shows they hit that fine line (kinda like the vast majority of loot-scale complaints only re-enforce their implementation).

Bazompora · Aug 01, 2007, 04:33 AM // 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinterSnowblind

You're paying for the Xbox Live service though, not Guild Wars itself. Games like Phantasy Star Online, for example have a completely seperate fee for playing online. And $50 a year isn't exactly much to ask, considering it's a pretty neat service. I don't mean to turn this into a console war argument, but it does vastly out do either Nintendo or Sony's free online service, and it's even better than playing most PC games online, as everything you play is all tied into one account. Options, friends list, achievements, etc.

The point being, you're paying for the Live service. Guild Wars itself would still be free to play.

No kidding ...
So you pay a fee, not to Arenanet, but to Microsoft, which in the end is still a fee. Do you really think most players care who they pay to?
Also, this would move the in a business model that Arenanet tries to avoid, i.e. pay to play (stop paying for Xbox Live = no more playing GW2 on Xbox).

strcpy · Aug 01, 2007, 05:31 AM // 05:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazompora

No kidding ...
So you pay a fee, not to Arenanet, but to Microsoft, which in the end is still a fee. Do you really think most players care who they pay to?
Also, this would move the in a business model that Arenanet tries to avoid, i.e. pay to play (stop paying for Xbox Live = no more playing GW2 on Xbox).

To a large extent this is no different than having to pay for an internet connection - from that sense you *are* paying a monthly fee to play GW. However, being a general access fee most do not see it so.

But then, the XBOX live fee isn't exactly like an internet connection as it is not general purpose - partially it would depend on how many online games you play. If GW was/is the only one then it is almost exactly a monthly fee for GW, if you would have it anyway then it is not.

Basically do you see XBOX live as a general purpose connection (such as the monthly fee for your internet connection) or do you see it as your fee to play GW. That will mostly depend on the user - from GW's point of view they aren't charging anything and your stuff isn't deleted if you quit playing. Personally I would side with the "infrastructure" argument as Anet isn't charging you anything to play - it is up to Microsoft to decide if they want you to pay to use their service. However I also rather suspect that the monthly fee for XBOX live turns them off on the idea too (it would were I one of the developers even though I do not think it is the same as a monthly pay to play fee). I would also suppose that if they made a working console version the decision would more hinge on demand than anything.

Voltar · Aug 01, 2007, 05:38 AM // 05:38

wow, look at you people quoting stuff way out of context. check your agendas at the door.

i really hope this mention of a sony / anet partnership has nothing to do with soe. what a huge lump of chodes that is. anyone who used to play swg knows what i'm saying. i played that game from beta to the cu and know how soe can turn a great game to crap. the only other things they've put out that i've played were planetside (really fun game but too fps'y to require a monthly fee) and everquest (why do people actually play those games? they left me nothing positive to say about them...maybe fun for mud-players who like to watch their fish swim at the same time?)

soe is the mark of death...avoid them at all costs!

at least they're not blizzard.

Lonesamurai · Aug 01, 2007, 09:04 AM // 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voltar

soe is the mark of death...avoid them at all costs!

at least they're not blizzard.

Again, people are getting this wrong

NCSoft's deal was made with Sony Entertainment (that makes the PS3 and PSP) and not Sony Online entertainment (the ones that ballsed up matrix Online and Star Wars Galaxies), they are both Subsidiories of Sony Enterprises, just as ANet is a subsidiory of NCSoft

Fossa · Aug 01, 2007, 09:47 AM // 09:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Nugget

GSUK: What are your figures for how many people are currently playing?

JS: That's not a number we announce publicly, but like I said, we've sold three and a half million copies as of April.

:O?
*cough* lol.

3½ million of all chapters. Me, I own 2 Prophecies, 2 Factions and 1 Nightfall and would count as 5 copies. Or actually 5 players as the GW staff would have us believe (there was a post at GWO where Andrew Patrick told us there was 3½ million players).

As of how many plays, I never seen it before but found a figure.

Quote:

Garriott estimates 100,000 people play Guild Wars across the US and EU at any given time, and 1.5-2 million total every month—and still, connection costs remain manageable.

http://gigaom.com/2006/10/26/guild-wars/

Ninna · Aug 01, 2007, 10:01 AM // 10:01

nice find on GW numbers - thanks for link

shirosae · Aug 01, 2007, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazompora

No kidding ...
So you pay a fee, not to Arenanet, but to Microsoft, which in the end is still a fee. Do you really think most players care who they pay to?
Also, this would move the in a business model that Arenanet tries to avoid, i.e. pay to play (stop paying for Xbox Live = no more playing GW2 on Xbox).

Silver account = Free, as i understand. I think access to the online store.

Gold account = Paid for, lets you pay to play games with other xbox users by hosting it on your own machines (i don't understand this either).

So, you pay nothing for a silver account to connect to Xbox Live and pay whatever Anet wants you to pay to play Guild Wars. Of course there's no reason they couldn't demand a gold account to play GW given that they demand it to let you host your own games anyway, but they could easily allow silver access all the same.

Not that GW should ever appear on a console, mind you. Oblivion should have set an example for all.

Omniclasm · Aug 01, 2007, 10:58 AM // 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

4) Jeff think's the evolution of MMO's lead to worlds where changes a player makes in a game don't always reset. I find that very interesting, and I have no idea how that could work. Perhaps things will reset, but just on a much longer time-scale with a series of branching choices depending upon player actions. Perhaps he means something else, but it's interesting to contemplate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetsparks

I think it said in the PC Gamer issue for GW that is things would reset once a week. That every week we would try to figure out what would make a dragon come down and destroy a bridge and to defend the builders of the bridge from bandits etc.

I think this might be related to the World Vs World PvP in GW2. The idea I get of it, is being like a fairly large sized place in the mists. Maybe around UW or FoW size. Obviously, one "world" vs another "world". There could be bridges, World A could destroy a bridge. This bridge wouldn't be fixed unless either A) World B repairs it, or B) The weekly reset of changing worlds. Might make sense, might not. Posted at 7AM so I don't have much faith in it.