Is GW business model really unique?

Anet's support for existing Chapters is pretty good. There are tons of examples of updates that fixed errors / bad design and added beneficial content.

The Chapter concept for Guild Wars was unique: you were buying a New Chapter every 6-12 months, and it was basically a new game that kept your old characters stuff. So, I don't think it's fair to compare a whole Chapter to paying monthly.

The Key Difference being once I buy an GW product, I never have to buy another one again to keep playing.

That said, I don't expect GW2 to be funded by selling Chapters. It could exist by selling "mini-packs" (new armor, weapons, some new content) that will hopefully come more frequently than Chapters at less cost.

In the end, as long as Anet keeps new content a choice, it has a winning strategy for success.

Somehow GW is quite unique for an MMORPG or CORPG or whatever they call it. I like the way it is. You are not forced to play it because you are paying for a monthly subscription and you wanted the most out of your money. It's a more casual approach especially for people like me

And I agree with this, but it's unethical because the companies and therefore their game designers are.

Those games are designed in order to make any little advancement cost a huge time, the basic idea is actually force customers to spend XXX hours to level, force customers to spend other YYY hours to get gears, and all just to be able to enjoy the game, because hours mean monthly fees and incomes for the supplier.
Everything is designed around this simple (and unethical) old-school idea.

On the other hand, A.net adopted a totally opposite game design.
But is this game design coupled with an innovative business model?
In my opinion no, it's a mixture between "pay for special moves and new maps" and "pay on a regular basis".
It's a "pay on a regular basis for special moves and new maps"


A real challenge in my opinion would be offering a game which:
- doesn't require addiction to be enjoyed (low level cap, no item-based, like the current GW)
- it's so good that players would be motivated to pay for a monthly fee because the game is really freaking amazing good and worth to be played.

This would be a real challenge to the market, a courageous choice that would define a new standard in the stagnant (and unethical) MMO's market.

This would mean accept the challenge to keep customers loyal because of offered content and not with artificial barriers.
And the challenge to continue to keep their customers satisfied over time both under the technical and marketing aspects, taking the risk of losing their money if the content or the marketing are not worth it.

Strangely, I think that A.net team is one of the few which has all the possibilities to create such innovation.

Not really, challenge is in this field, but its a bit different:

- Undo years and years of CRPG influence thanks to which for vast majority of gamers rpg is about power gain and packrating leet stuff., without which people dismiss game in seconds ( 'cause there is nothing to achieve, (like there ever was...) )
- Undo "its online so it must fill my whole life" syndrom.

Basically, getting customers that wont whine about not raising level cap or that power growth is so easy and mild.

Feels more like bumper cars to me. It hurts!

Anyways, I really don't like to talk about their "business" model because it's not unique. Sure, it would be something unique to the MMO world if I considered it such a game, but the fact that so many people do see it as such is one of the core problems right now with the players - this thread is a damned good example.

Nonetheless, if you don't like their product, boycott. But if you think you deserve something for a "faulty" product, well you get what you pay for. It's the American way.

[QUOTE]ok Einstein answer this little simple question if that bs is accurate.

*did they make GW and the worldwide server with IOUs for 5 years before selling their first copy?*

and the answer is ................

Can you please calm down on the personal attacks? He's not spreading heresy, just what he knows or understands.

Bottom line: If GW cost a monthly fee, it would make less money, b/c less people would be playing.

To Jeff Strain's credit, he left Blizzard because he wanted to make a better game, not to try and create WoW 2. This is why I'm (overly?) optimistic about GW2 - b/c I believe Jeff has the vision to make GW2 better than GW.


And, for those who don't think of GW as a MMORPG, is it just because of the instances?

If not, then what makes GW so different?

well GW is better than wow...

jeff knows what hes doing...

its izzy im scared about >.>

I really like the way GW works. I like being able to take a break and do something else without having to hassle with subscriptions.

And I don't think I'd ever play a p2p game. I paid 50 bucks for the game already!

I finally read the (old) Gamers Global article that this thread was moved from, and found this interesting:

http://www.gamersglobal.com/special/...ers?page=0%2C4

So, I'm still wondering how GW2 will work: Are they going to do Chapters again? With new Professions / Races? Or just new content every 6 months?

A large part of creating a successful game is to succeed at appealing to the casual gamer which are the majority. Once you've accomplished this, then that's half the battle. Cherries on top include a fun game, a competitive game, etc. Guild Wars was released right in the middle of the WoW era and so they had to be unique to succeed and make their game easily accessible. They accomplished this. They won customers (like me) who will never pay a subscription for a game and they also opened their game up to WoW players who would also like to play another game, but aren't going to play a side game that costs them another subscription fee. As far as I know, GW is also the only MMO I've seen succeed after the release of WoW.

There is no perfect game or business model unless it is created for you and you alone. The moment you are opened up to 2+ players then it isn't going to be perfect for everyone. Nonetheless, I think Anet was quite smart with analyzing how they could make a profit. They have no subscription fee, they have both PvE and PvP, etc. A lot of players these days have allowed WoW and a lot of other games to make "subscriptions" become the norm which I think is a bad thing. Business models like Anet's helps keep those subscription fees low and keeps other companies in check knowing that there is another high quality MMO out there that doesn't have a subscription fee at all. I say kudos to them!

It's a large part of it. It feels much more like Diablo than any MMO I've ever played. Each outpost just feels like the lobby in Battle.net.

Huge lack of endgame, easy to attain level cap, gear cap - many of the things that MMO players (and a few RPG players) enjoy, Guild Wars lacks. Bear in mind that these things aren't bad, but that ANet didn't include in GW.

How do you feel about Television? People spend hours and hours sitting on a couch watching tv. Not a flame, just a question.

I think television as a medium is fine.
It's a good question, because people do get addicted to television. But, I think it's the type of serial programming that rewards us for watching by giving us plot surprises and answers to cliffhangers, yet punishes us for missing an episode because it's designed that if we miss out it's hard to keep up with what's going on, that are questionable.

I can and have gotten addicted to watching shows like the Sopranos and Angel, but have yet to get addicted to the news or Saturday Night Live.

IMO, ANet's model is better than P2P MMOs because you do not feel the same pressure to play, since the clock is ticking until the next month rolls around and they bang you for another subscription fee.

Simply put, you should play a game because you enjoy it, not because you have some financial investment into a sub fee.

The problem I have w/ the P2P games is that you feel llike you're losing out when or if you can't play. With a project like GW, the company needs to bank on their game being entertaining enough that it will sell a lot of copies, and then it's only a matter of budgeting that income over the course of the game's life expectancy or until the next campaign comes out. Also, keep in mind that most MMOs require you buy their expansions as well, even though you still pay to play every month.

If I had some input on GW2's development, I'd like to have them sell more campaigns closer together; instead of 1 campaign every year, maybe 1 every 6 months. The only problem w/ that, though, would be one of keeping the storyline cohesive and enjoyable, and also having people tear through the content too quickly...

TV is different because it is a passive medium; you do not participate, and thus have less of a personal stake in its outcome.

Even the shows that are well written and draw you in lack a sense of being a personal achievement.

Hey, that's a good point.

To debunk this, one has to do the math:

WoW (prices taken from wikipedia):
15$ per month
minus 1 month you can problably get free
minus 15% if you pay 6 months in one go
-> so in 2 years it's 280$
PLUS price of game+extension=40$ (cheapest)
WoW total=320$

GW (prices on amazon.com were very high so I guessed best prices):
4 games at 80$
possibly a bit more with the BMP? let's add 20$ to make it
GW total=100$

So how is that "the same" for 2 years of gameplay?

Yes you do: you don't buy the next project! Or you complain on GWG, they quite often listen. (punish is a strong word, even if clearly explained in the "commercial" sense, if you think of our relationship with Anet as more "collaborative")

I understand your reasons, but they're not valid, because you simply want to "map" the model you know to Anet's business, that is very different from the one you know. It does work for most people, but not for you because you want to have a "financial stick" to beat Anet with so that you can feel that you're pushing Anet into "your" direction (no offense). I think that with their community relation and given the small size of their business, they're doing a better job. And it's cheaper for us.

Personally, I've always enjoyed the GW mindset for their business model. Since you're not paying anything, you never have any obligation to stay, and the only incentive to stay is the quality of the game. As the article states, the founders are instead dedicated to creating one high quality, innovative game rather than focusing their attentions on several games which may do moderately well.

I see it as a meeting of the minds, a kind of : "Oh you don't like the way we're going with the game right now? Well... peek your head in every once in a while to see if you like the changes after all. And don't let the door smack your ass on the way out."

Anet has provided quality material, quality customer service(from what I hear, better than other companies) and actually does incorporate player input into certain changes. And if you don't like the changes, you're not having to worry about cancelling a subscription and not getting your money's worth.

Not trying to sound like some kind of fanboy, I guess I just find they're involvement with the community and their attitude toward how to make a game refreshing. The're willing to take risks, and they're willing to 'abandon' their initial creation in favor for a (possibly) more realized version.

Just wait for GW2 to make any real calls on that stuff.

But that's just my two cents

/edit PS I'm glad that there is no obligation on either side of the table, that we can't 'punish' them when they do something we don't like. Not only are they taking chances, but it shows they are willing to stay true to an 'artistic vision' rather than allow themselves to be held hostage by subscibers. The position they hold now means they can simply listen and incorporate ideas which are actually good. After all, if they followed everyone's vision of the game, rather than their own, it would kill the game. Too many chiefs, not enough indians; too many cooks in the kitchen, etc,etc.