1- No auto attack. Since there's no auto attack it would make more sense to move around and not stand in one spot.
2- Armor and weapons can usually be upgraded and used from level 1 to 50 without replacing.
3- Acrobatic animations are dynamic based on current combat hits, misses, crits, weapons colliding, weapons hiting armor.
4- All players have an out-of-combat heal ability
5- Companions can wear player armor and weapons
6- Cover dynamic for smuggler and imperial agent looks fun
7- Tanks absorb a percentage of damage for all ally players in their party
That's about it. Too much variation from what's popular will probably mean alienating the the casual gamer who has a certain expectation. Seems like each MMO will have their own take on the formula that changes a few things.
While those are different from WoW, 2, 4 and 5 aren't really combat things, are they?
I already hate GW2 based on the behavior of their fans on EVERY forum or video post I have seen for any games i've checked out. It's great you're excited, but piss off.
There is no doubt that there is a constant war between GW2 and SWTOR in multiple threads.
Firstly, I wanted to say I'm both SWTOR and GW2 fan, so no hating from me
I just want to say the first thing I love is how much SWTOR and GW2 differ, yet they want to achieve the same goal, to put RPG back into MMORPG.
Personal story definitely is one of the ways to go, yet SWTOR focus on giving the most heroic story they can give to the players, GW2 is more about the idea of dynamic, where every player is your friend, you don't need a long text conversation to become friends.
They both have full voice acting and cinematics, choices and branching storyline.
They both tried to answer the problem of slow combat, notice how SWTOR and GW2 are the only two games out there constantly talking about Visceral combat, the speed and length of combat time. They put lesser emphasis a big health bar, GW2 answer this with the redesign of the class role (trinity) system, where everyone can heal, but focus on group work between players with cross class combos or environmental weapons. SWTOR uses the advance class system and companion to combat the idea of trinity and how they lack the power to progress equally, such as dps can progress faster since they can deal higher output of damage.
You might think so what, but since GW2 is a B2P method, it becomes a much more affordable game to paly along side SWTOR. Lets say you are a huge MMORPG fan, but you are getting a bit burn out on SWTOR, you can always go away and play GW2, which tries to achieve the same goal , but with different methods, so its fresh and still within the boundaries you love.
Or maybe after starwars burn out you can play some diablo or path of exile as well.
I think I'll stick on GW2. All MMO's so far that I've played are the same old same old combat/mechanics. GW2 finally stepped up to the plate to innovate this genre plus it's buy to play and no monthly subscriptions
Yeah cause if you play a mmo you HAVE to dish out $15 a month..because that's what a MMO means. Right. Okay.
This is the mindset that just coddles game developers to put out the string of mediocre titles over the past few years.
Everything I have seen regarding GW2 is that it can be played as a lobby/single player game.
Can it be played as an MMO style? I think so yes, but since it is B2P, I'll get to it when I get to it.
I mean, buying FIFA didn't influence my decision to buy Recetear: Item shop tale. Nor did buying Two Worlds 2 influence my decision to buy Mass Effect.
And no, buying Dragon Age didn't influence my decision to buy another 'elves/dragon' game The Witcher2.
Just logically can't see why we would have any GW2 vs MMO comparison.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Yeah cause if you play a mmo you HAVE to dish out $15 a month..because that's what a MMO means. Right. Okay.
This is the mindset that just coddles game developers to put out the string of mediocre titles over the past few years.
Everything I have seen regarding GW2 is that it can be played as a lobby/single player game.
Can it be played as an MMO style? I think so yes, but since it is B2P, I'll get to it when I get to it.
I mean, buying FIFA didn't influence my decision to buy Recetear: Item shop tale. Nor did buying Two Worlds 2 influence my decision to buy Mass Effect.
And no, buying Dragon Age didn't influence my decision to buy another 'elves/dragon' game The Witcher2.
Just logically can't see why we would have any GW2 vs MMO comparison.
My arch nemesis the ill informed salmon strikes again!! next time I will catch you and the dastardly meddling cod fish!
Yeah cause if you play a mmo you HAVE to dish out $15 a month..because that's what a MMO means. Right. Okay.
This is the mindset that just coddles game developers to put out the string of mediocre titles over the past few years.
Everything I have seen regarding GW2 is that it can be played as a lobby/single player game.
Can it be played as an MMO style? I think so yes, but since it is B2P, I'll get to it when I get to it.
I mean, buying FIFA didn't influence my decision to buy Recetear: Item shop tale. Nor did buying Two Worlds 2 influence my decision to buy Mass Effect.
And no, buying Dragon Age didn't influence my decision to buy another 'elves/dragon' game The Witcher2.
Just logically can't see why we would have any GW2 vs MMO comparison.
The entire world is persisent.........how is it a lobby.
*rock hits head
ahhhh I see, you are the one of the under informed ones.
Yeah cause if you play a mmo you HAVE to dish out $15 a month..because that's what a MMO means. Right. Okay.
This is the mindset that just coddles game developers to put out the string of mediocre titles over the past few years.
Everything I have seen regarding GW2 is that it can be played as a lobby/single player game.
Can it be played as an MMO style? I think so yes, but since it is B2P, I'll get to it when I get to it.
I mean, buying FIFA didn't influence my decision to buy Recetear: Item shop tale. Nor did buying Two Worlds 2 influence my decision to buy Mass Effect.
And no, buying Dragon Age didn't influence my decision to buy another 'elves/dragon' game The Witcher2.
Just logically can't see why we would have any GW2 vs MMO comparison.
The entire world is persisent.........how is it a lobby.
*rock hits head
ahhhh I see, you are the one of the under informed ones.
and if MMO means paying a sub.....I quit, the MMO can just go die in hell, B2P is the future xD
I've had 2 sub-based MMOs running at one point but understand not everyone does or can.
The sub-based fee is something that causes players to play that game 'to get their moneys worth' right when the sub is gogin.
While B2P means I can let it rot in my backlog of games (omg why does my backlog get larger?) with my other games.
Pretty sure even if it is persistant that I'll be able to see majority of the content 2 years after the game comes out.
I certainly treated GW1 as this and from everything I have seen just because of the B2P nature, I'll treat it just like a lobby game. I suspect I'm not the only one.
Having said that, it will be a day1 purchase just like GW1. Another for my backlog. Omg, what the heck is wrong with me! ><
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Yeah cause if you play a mmo you HAVE to dish out $15 a month..because that's what a MMO means. Right. Okay.
This is the mindset that just coddles game developers to put out the string of mediocre titles over the past few years.
Everything I have seen regarding GW2 is that it can be played as a lobby/single player game.
Can it be played as an MMO style? I think so yes, but since it is B2P, I'll get to it when I get to it.
I mean, buying FIFA didn't influence my decision to buy Recetear: Item shop tale. Nor did buying Two Worlds 2 influence my decision to buy Mass Effect.
And no, buying Dragon Age didn't influence my decision to buy another 'elves/dragon' game The Witcher2.
Just logically can't see why we would have any GW2 vs MMO comparison.
The entire world is persisent.........how is it a lobby.
*rock hits head
ahhhh I see, you are the one of the under informed ones.
and if MMO means paying a sub.....I quit, the MMO can just go die in hell, B2P is the future xD
I've had 2 sub-based MMOs running at one point but understand not everyone does or can.
The sub-based fee is something that causes players to play that game 'to get their moneys worth' right when the sub is gogin.
While B2P means I can let it rot in my backlog of games (omg why does my backlog get larger?) with my other games.
Pretty sure even if it is persistant that I'll be able to see majority of the content 2 years after the game comes out.
I certainly treated GW1 as this and from everything I have seen just because of the B2P nature, I'll treat it just like a lobby game. I suspect I'm not the only one.
Having said that, it will be a day1 purchase just like GW1. Another for my backlog. Omg, what the heck is wrong with me! ><
This is pretty much why I'm done with subs for good. I want to be able to play when I feel like playing, rather than play because otherwise I'm wasting my 'sub' for the month.
I've had 2 sub-based MMOs running at one point but understand not everyone does or can.
The sub-based fee is something that causes players to play that game 'to get their moneys worth' right when the sub is gogin.
While B2P means I can let it rot in my backlog of games (omg why does my backlog get larger?) with my other games.
Pretty sure even if it is persistant that I'll be able to see majority of the content 2 years after the game comes out.
I certainly treated GW1 as this and from everything I have seen just because of the B2P nature, I'll treat it just like a lobby game. I suspect I'm not the only one.
Having said that, it will be a day1 purchase just like GW1. Another for my backlog. Omg, what the heck is wrong with me! ><
This is pretty much why I'm done with subs for good. I want to be able to play when I feel like playing, rather than play because otherwise I'm wasting my 'sub' for the month.
I treat it like my mobile phone plan.
Do I feel I wasted my money if I don't download the limit of my plan every month?
Not really. So why do you feel differently for a MMO?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I think that GW2 will likely have the edge. I still think SWToR will be great but story may well be cast aside by many MMO players for expedency to get the loot or the PvP or whatever it is that keeps us coming back. We recently learnt the consequences won't be that epic in ToR as players didn't like their companions dying, they wanted do overs if they made a choice they didn't like or picked an AC that you don't like. The same high end content will be available if you killed the captain or spared him and one choice will mean very similar gear as the next. And this is because it is an MMO and you can't have an I win path in them cause everyone will pick it.
This though means story becomes nice but not vital to the game while GW2 has focused on other methods to bring the RPG back. Not to mention ToR has a subscription and if the price for the game is anything to go by it will be on the high end of the market while GW2 will offer a subscription free model which is becoming more and more popular.
I've had 2 sub-based MMOs running at one point but understand not everyone does or can.
The sub-based fee is something that causes players to play that game 'to get their moneys worth' right when the sub is gogin.
While B2P means I can let it rot in my backlog of games (omg why does my backlog get larger?) with my other games.
Pretty sure even if it is persistant that I'll be able to see majority of the content 2 years after the game comes out.
I certainly treated GW1 as this and from everything I have seen just because of the B2P nature, I'll treat it just like a lobby game. I suspect I'm not the only one.
Having said that, it will be a day1 purchase just like GW1. Another for my backlog. Omg, what the heck is wrong with me! ><
This is pretty much why I'm done with subs for good. I want to be able to play when I feel like playing, rather than play because otherwise I'm wasting my 'sub' for the month.
I treat it like my mobile phone plan.
Do I feel I wasted my money if I don't download the limit of my plan every month?
Not really. So why do you feel differently for a MMO?
You don't go months to years without using your phone while still paying for it. I'm currently playing GW again (checking out all the content updates/balances/etc), but the gap between now and the last time I played was over a year. I like being able to hop in and out whenever I feel like it.
Do I feel I wasted my money if I don't download the limit of my plan every month?
Not really. So why do you feel differently for a MMO?
You don't go months to years without using your phone while still paying for it. I'm currently playing GW again (checking out all the content updates/balances/etc), but the gap between now and the last time I played was over a year. I like being able to hop in and out whenever I feel like it.
MMO subs are on a month to month basis. There is nothing stopping anyone from cancelling and re-subbing later.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Do I feel I wasted my money if I don't download the limit of my plan every month?
Not really. So why do you feel differently for a MMO?
... shouldn't you be judging games by the content they bring, rather than how they choose to price it?
The whole reasons MMOs get away with subscriptions is because ostensibly you're getting more out of them, and because you're paying for a service.
If suddenly more B2P MMOs start coming out, and they're just as good (Or better) than their P2P counterparts. delivering the same social experience and same depth of content, is there any particular reason why you'd play the P2P games first, and pay more money to do so?
Just saying. Just because something costs more doesn't automatically mean it's better. Sometimes it just means it costs more.
Do I feel I wasted my money if I don't download the limit of my plan every month?
Not really. So why do you feel differently for a MMO?
... shouldn't you be judging games by the content they bring, rather than how they choose to price it?
The whole reasons MMOs get away with subscriptions is because ostensibly you're getting more out of them, and because you're paying for a service.
If suddenly more B2P MMOs start coming out, and they're just as good (Or better) than their P2P counterparts. delivering the same social experience and same depth of content, is there any particular reason why you'd play the P2P games first, and pay more money to do so?
Just saying. Just because something costs more doesn't automatically mean it's better. Sometimes it just means it costs more.
Trying to convince people to how they should spend their own money is a bit pointless to debate.
How one judge games and how one choose to spend their money is ultimately up to the individual.
If there is a sudden increase in B2P MMO then yeah, we could see some changes in the MMO scene.
Do people judge what MMO to play based on price? When an MMO is 15 bux a month normally? Or there are heaps of F2P MMO out there?
Think we are straying off topic but I have no problem on buying both (and will). And because GW2 is a B2P it doesn't influence my decision to get a sub for SWTOR. Think that'll be true for a lot of people and esp for those who had GW1 and another MMO in the past.
I certainly did while playing WoW.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Do I feel I wasted my money if I don't download the limit of my plan every month?
Not really. So why do you feel differently for a MMO?
... shouldn't you be judging games by the content they bring, rather than how they choose to price it?
The whole reasons MMOs get away with subscriptions is because ostensibly you're getting more out of them, and because you're paying for a service.
If suddenly more B2P MMOs start coming out, and they're just as good (Or better) than their P2P counterparts. delivering the same social experience and same depth of content, is there any particular reason why you'd play the P2P games first, and pay more money to do so?
Just saying. Just because something costs more doesn't automatically mean it's better. Sometimes it just means it costs more.
Trying to convince people to how they should spend their own money is a bit pointless to debate.
How one judge games and how one choose to spend their money is ultimately up to the individual.
If there is a sudden increase in B2P MMO then yeah, we could see some changes in the MMO scene.
Do people judge what MMO to play based on price? When an MMO is 15 bux a month normally? Or there are heaps of F2P MMO out there?
Think we are straying off topic but I have no problem on buying both (and will). And because GW2 is a B2P it doesn't influence my decision to get a sub for SWTOR. Think that'll be true for a lot of people and esp for those who had GW1 and another MMO in the past.
I certainly did while playing WoW.
man you took the words right out my mouth man i agree with you 100 percent
I think that GW2 will likely have the edge. I still think SWToR will be great but story may well be cast aside by many MMO players for expedency to get the loot or the PvP or whatever it is that keeps us coming back. We recently learnt the consequences won't be that epic in ToR as players didn't like their companions dying, they wanted do overs if they made a choice they didn't like or picked an AC that you don't like. The same high end content will be available if you killed the captain or spared him and one choice will mean very similar gear as the next. And this is because it is an MMO and you can't have an I win path in them cause everyone will pick it.
This though means story becomes nice but not vital to the game while GW2 has focused on other methods to bring the RPG back. Not to mention ToR has a subscription and if the price for the game is anything to go by it will be on the high end of the market while GW2 will offer a subscription free model which is becoming more and more popular.
true look at everquest 2 is had a sub fee its still popular guild wars two and free to play your spending money on cash shop any game thats free to play i dont buy it. its lie man cash shop you spend more money on cash shop then 15 bucks a month pay to play games you get the whole game. what does that mean when tor and guild wars 2 comes out it means both will be good and some peopel will play both. so i dont see logic in your words, and some people like making choices in storys look at mass effect 2 and the new one is awsome maybe you dont but it has tons of fans.
Trying to convince people to how they should spend their own money is a bit pointless to debate.
How one judge games and how one choose to spend their money is ultimately up to the individual.
If there is a sudden increase in B2P MMO then yeah, we could see some changes in the MMO scene.
Do people judge what MMO to play based on price? When an MMO is 15 bux a month normally? Or there are heaps of F2P MMO out there?
Think we are straying off topic but I have no problem on buying both (and will). And because GW2 is a B2P it doesn't influence my decision to get a sub for SWTOR. Think that'll be true for a lot of people and esp for those who had GW1 and another MMO in the past.
I certainly did while playing WoW.
I'm not trying to convince people how to spend their own money, I'm just saying that everybody, in their head, basically goes 'Is this worth the money I'm giving it'
Just because somebody CAN pay 15 dollars a month, doesn't mean you should, unless you feel the value is there. I could afford to pay 100 dollars for a game of Tetris. I like Tetris. This doesn't mean that if somebody charges 100 dollars for a game of Tetris, I'm going to support it.
All I'm saying is that you're doing it backwards. You're saying 'This is charging a certain price, so it is automatically inferior to those things that are charging more'.
It should be you judging each product individually by what it gives you, and then deciding 'Is this worth the price it's charging, given my options?'
Yeah. 15 dollars a month isn't the world's biggest deal, but if one has two relatively equal options, and one is simply charging more, I'm not sure I see the point.
All I'm saying is your argument 'GW2 doesn't compete with MMOs because FIFA doesn't' is inherently flawed. You're acting as if by determining the price point, they've determined what the game can bring. If GW2 comes out and is an inferior MMO to the P2P options, you have a point... but if it's as good or superior of an experience, and the same type of MMO, why wouldn't it be competing with the P2P games?
Ideally, wouldn't everybody benefit if GW2 can provide an AAA MMO experience, and end up doing it cheaper? That means people will either make MMOs cost less, or be forced to provide a better service. That's win-win for everybody, yes?
(edit: The basic point I'm trying to make is that you keep conflating GW2 with FIFA because of the price. That would be like saying that if somebody created a bicycle that costs 5 dollars, it's basically a hamburger, not a bike. Price doesn't inherently change the value or type of a product, except in the eyes of a rare few who think paying more assures quality. If GW2 is an MMORPG, it's an MMORPG, not a football game, no matter what price it's charging)
I might try SWTOR but ultimately i will spare my time with GW2. I won't have enough time to play 2 games and i'm sure it is important factor for a lot of people.
I am for whichever or any games that float gamers boats i am somewhat more of a GW fan because i trust arenanet to always deliver their best effort and their B2P model assures quality expansions, these folks like to work for a living and will deliver satisfaction, do they ever sleep?
Im a SW fan as well not a hardcore fan mind you but when the game is made by bioware my dislike of LA and EA has to take a back seat because before anet existed and became my favorite dev there was bioware for all things rpg and even though this is biowares first mmo i trust that TOR will not disappoint..
We need to keep in mind that blizzard/anet were both first time mmo successes and even with EA in the way like a swollen thumb should we expect any less from the legendary bioware?
I'm not trying to convince people how to spend their own money, I'm just saying that everybody, in their head, basically goes 'Is this worth the money I'm giving it'
Just because somebody CAN pay 15 dollars a month, doesn't mean you should, unless you feel the value is there. I could afford to pay 100 dollars for a game of Tetris. I like Tetris. This doesn't mean that if somebody charges 100 dollars for a game of Tetris, I'm going to support it.
All I'm saying is that you're doing it backwards. You're saying 'This is charging a certain price, so it is automatically inferior to those things that are charging more'.
It should be you judging each product individually by what it gives you, and then deciding 'Is this worth the price it's charging, given my options?'
Yeah. 15 dollars a month isn't the world's biggest deal, but if one has two relatively equal options, and one is simply charging more, I'm not sure I see the point.
All I'm saying is your argument 'GW2 doesn't compete with MMOs because FIFA doesn't' is inherently flawed. You're acting as if by determining the price point, they've determined what the game can bring. If GW2 comes out and is an inferior MMO to the P2P options, you have a point... but if it's as good or superior of an experience, and the same type of MMO, why wouldn't it be competing with the P2P games?
Ideally, wouldn't everybody benefit if GW2 can provide an AAA MMO experience, and end up doing it cheaper? That means people will either make MMOs cost less, or be forced to provide a better service. That's win-win for everybody, yes?
(edit: The basic point I'm trying to make is that you keep conflating GW2 with FIFA because of the price. That would be like saying that if somebody created a bicycle that costs 5 dollars, it's basically a hamburger, not a bike. Price doesn't inherently change the value or type of a product, except in the eyes of a rare few who think paying more assures quality. If GW2 is an MMORPG, it's an MMORPG, not a football game, no matter what price it's charging)
I don't recall saying anything about the quality of GW2. I was certainly up-front that I know little about it.
I did really like GW1 so I am getting GW2 but not that 'omg I need to know previews!' extent.
I am equating GW2 to B2P games (not just FIFA) because it is the same payment model.
Like I said previously, not many people have more than 1 MMO subs but because GW2 is B2P, it'll be like GW1 where people played an MMO and GW1 and neither affected the other.
I can't be the only one and I certainly know heaps of people on GW1 (back in the day) also played WoW.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I don't recall saying anything about the quality of GW2. I was certainly up-front that I know little about it.
I did really like GW1 so I am getting GW2 but not that 'omg I need to know previews!' extent.
I am equating GW2 to B2P games (not just FIFA) because it is the same payment model.
Like I said previously, not many people have more than 1 MMO subs but because GW2 is B2P, it'll be like GW1 where people played an MMO and GW1 and neither affected the other.
I can't be the only one and I certainly know heaps of people on GW1 (back in the day) also played WoW.
The thing is, GW1 wasn't an MMO. If you wanted the MMO experience, you had to pay a sub. (Or play an F2P game, which is usually an experience akin to jamming red hot pokers into your eyes until you learn to enjoy it)
So there was plenty of reason to have GW1 =and= an MMO. GW1 was some other type of game, and you'd pay the sub to get your MMO fix.
Since GW2 is an MMO, it is directly competing with MMOs, especially since most people don't have limitless amounts of time.
If somebody is going to pick an MMO, and the experience is roughly equal, why pick the one where you pay 15 dollars a month more? Why get both, when you can just get one, and play it twice as much?
Subs only make sense in that case if 1. It's a higher quality product, or 2. It's offering a significantly different enough experience.
I could see somebody paying for SW:ToR and having GW2, because even though they're both MMOs, SW:ToR will have more story and voice acting than any MMO ever... and it's Star Wars, which is a different experience as well.
You would buy FIFA (Or the B2P game of your choice) and an MMO because they're offering different experiences.
If you could buy FIFA, or a version of FIFA that costs you 15 dollars a month extra, why would you buy both?
Comments
While those are different from WoW, 2, 4 and 5 aren't really combat things, are they?
I already hate GW2 based on the behavior of their fans on EVERY forum or video post I have seen for any games i've checked out. It's great you're excited, but piss off.
Or maybe after starwars burn out you can play some diablo or path of exile as well.
Gw looks a little pussy cat game.
I think I'll stick on GW2. All MMO's so far that I've played are the same old same old combat/mechanics. GW2 finally stepped up to the plate to innovate this genre plus it's buy to play and no monthly subscriptions
The GW2 vs any-MMO is something that I just can't logically process.
GW2 is a B2P right? So why are we comparing it to an MMO?
Should we compare FIFA/CODBLOPS/DA:O to MMOs as well?
I think it is fair to say not many people will have 2 MMO accounts but heaps of people have multiple single player games nowadays.
Heck, I just bought 15 on the last Steam sale.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Yeah cause if you play a mmo you HAVE to dish out $15 a month..because that's what a MMO means. Right. Okay.
This is the mindset that just coddles game developers to put out the string of mediocre titles over the past few years.
Everything I have seen regarding GW2 is that it can be played as a lobby/single player game.
Can it be played as an MMO style? I think so yes, but since it is B2P, I'll get to it when I get to it.
I mean, buying FIFA didn't influence my decision to buy Recetear: Item shop tale. Nor did buying Two Worlds 2 influence my decision to buy Mass Effect.
And no, buying Dragon Age didn't influence my decision to buy another 'elves/dragon' game The Witcher2.
Just logically can't see why we would have any GW2 vs MMO comparison.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
My arch nemesis the ill informed salmon strikes again!! next time I will catch you and the dastardly meddling cod fish!
The entire world is persisent.........how is it a lobby.
*rock hits head
ahhhh I see, you are the one of the under informed ones.
*nods head and provide link
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/game-faq/#five (the first line)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35BPhT-KI1E&hd=1
and if MMO means paying a sub.....I quit, the MMO can just go die in hell, B2P is the future xD
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
I've had 2 sub-based MMOs running at one point but understand not everyone does or can.
The sub-based fee is something that causes players to play that game 'to get their moneys worth' right when the sub is gogin.
While B2P means I can let it rot in my backlog of games (omg why does my backlog get larger?) with my other games.
Pretty sure even if it is persistant that I'll be able to see majority of the content 2 years after the game comes out.
I certainly treated GW1 as this and from everything I have seen just because of the B2P nature, I'll treat it just like a lobby game. I suspect I'm not the only one.
Having said that, it will be a day1 purchase just like GW1. Another for my backlog. Omg, what the heck is wrong with me! ><
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
This is pretty much why I'm done with subs for good. I want to be able to play when I feel like playing, rather than play because otherwise I'm wasting my 'sub' for the month.
I treat it like my mobile phone plan.
Do I feel I wasted my money if I don't download the limit of my plan every month?
Not really. So why do you feel differently for a MMO?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I think that GW2 will likely have the edge. I still think SWToR will be great but story may well be cast aside by many MMO players for expedency to get the loot or the PvP or whatever it is that keeps us coming back. We recently learnt the consequences won't be that epic in ToR as players didn't like their companions dying, they wanted do overs if they made a choice they didn't like or picked an AC that you don't like. The same high end content will be available if you killed the captain or spared him and one choice will mean very similar gear as the next. And this is because it is an MMO and you can't have an I win path in them cause everyone will pick it.
This though means story becomes nice but not vital to the game while GW2 has focused on other methods to bring the RPG back. Not to mention ToR has a subscription and if the price for the game is anything to go by it will be on the high end of the market while GW2 will offer a subscription free model which is becoming more and more popular.
You don't go months to years without using your phone while still paying for it. I'm currently playing GW again (checking out all the content updates/balances/etc), but the gap between now and the last time I played was over a year. I like being able to hop in and out whenever I feel like it.
MMO subs are on a month to month basis. There is nothing stopping anyone from cancelling and re-subbing later.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
... shouldn't you be judging games by the content they bring, rather than how they choose to price it?
The whole reasons MMOs get away with subscriptions is because ostensibly you're getting more out of them, and because you're paying for a service.
If suddenly more B2P MMOs start coming out, and they're just as good (Or better) than their P2P counterparts. delivering the same social experience and same depth of content, is there any particular reason why you'd play the P2P games first, and pay more money to do so?
Just saying. Just because something costs more doesn't automatically mean it's better. Sometimes it just means it costs more.
Trying to convince people to how they should spend their own money is a bit pointless to debate.
How one judge games and how one choose to spend their money is ultimately up to the individual.
If there is a sudden increase in B2P MMO then yeah, we could see some changes in the MMO scene.
Do people judge what MMO to play based on price? When an MMO is 15 bux a month normally? Or there are heaps of F2P MMO out there?
Think we are straying off topic but I have no problem on buying both (and will). And because GW2 is a B2P it doesn't influence my decision to get a sub for SWTOR. Think that'll be true for a lot of people and esp for those who had GW1 and another MMO in the past.
I certainly did while playing WoW.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
man you took the words right out my mouth man i agree with you 100 percent
.....
true look at everquest 2 is had a sub fee its still popular guild wars two and free to play your spending money on cash shop any game thats free to play i dont buy it. its lie man cash shop you spend more money on cash shop then 15 bucks a month pay to play games you get the whole game. what does that mean when tor and guild wars 2 comes out it means both will be good and some peopel will play both. so i dont see logic in your words, and some people like making choices in storys look at mass effect 2 and the new one is awsome maybe you dont but it has tons of fans.
.....
I'm not trying to convince people how to spend their own money, I'm just saying that everybody, in their head, basically goes 'Is this worth the money I'm giving it'
Just because somebody CAN pay 15 dollars a month, doesn't mean you should, unless you feel the value is there. I could afford to pay 100 dollars for a game of Tetris. I like Tetris. This doesn't mean that if somebody charges 100 dollars for a game of Tetris, I'm going to support it.
All I'm saying is that you're doing it backwards. You're saying 'This is charging a certain price, so it is automatically inferior to those things that are charging more'.
It should be you judging each product individually by what it gives you, and then deciding 'Is this worth the price it's charging, given my options?'
Yeah. 15 dollars a month isn't the world's biggest deal, but if one has two relatively equal options, and one is simply charging more, I'm not sure I see the point.
All I'm saying is your argument 'GW2 doesn't compete with MMOs because FIFA doesn't' is inherently flawed. You're acting as if by determining the price point, they've determined what the game can bring. If GW2 comes out and is an inferior MMO to the P2P options, you have a point... but if it's as good or superior of an experience, and the same type of MMO, why wouldn't it be competing with the P2P games?
Ideally, wouldn't everybody benefit if GW2 can provide an AAA MMO experience, and end up doing it cheaper? That means people will either make MMOs cost less, or be forced to provide a better service. That's win-win for everybody, yes?
(edit: The basic point I'm trying to make is that you keep conflating GW2 with FIFA because of the price. That would be like saying that if somebody created a bicycle that costs 5 dollars, it's basically a hamburger, not a bike. Price doesn't inherently change the value or type of a product, except in the eyes of a rare few who think paying more assures quality. If GW2 is an MMORPG, it's an MMORPG, not a football game, no matter what price it's charging)
I might try SWTOR but ultimately i will spare my time with GW2. I won't have enough time to play 2 games and i'm sure it is important factor for a lot of people.
I am for whichever or any games that float gamers boats i am somewhat more of a GW fan because i trust arenanet to always deliver their best effort and their B2P model assures quality expansions, these folks like to work for a living and will deliver satisfaction, do they ever sleep?
Im a SW fan as well not a hardcore fan mind you but when the game is made by bioware my dislike of LA and EA has to take a back seat because before anet existed and became my favorite dev there was bioware for all things rpg and even though this is biowares first mmo i trust that TOR will not disappoint..
We need to keep in mind that blizzard/anet were both first time mmo successes and even with EA in the way like a swollen thumb should we expect any less from the legendary bioware?
Playing GW2..
I don't recall saying anything about the quality of GW2. I was certainly up-front that I know little about it.
I did really like GW1 so I am getting GW2 but not that 'omg I need to know previews!' extent.
I am equating GW2 to B2P games (not just FIFA) because it is the same payment model.
Like I said previously, not many people have more than 1 MMO subs but because GW2 is B2P, it'll be like GW1 where people played an MMO and GW1 and neither affected the other.
I can't be the only one and I certainly know heaps of people on GW1 (back in the day) also played WoW.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
The thing is, GW1 wasn't an MMO. If you wanted the MMO experience, you had to pay a sub. (Or play an F2P game, which is usually an experience akin to jamming red hot pokers into your eyes until you learn to enjoy it)
So there was plenty of reason to have GW1 =and= an MMO. GW1 was some other type of game, and you'd pay the sub to get your MMO fix.
Since GW2 is an MMO, it is directly competing with MMOs, especially since most people don't have limitless amounts of time.
If somebody is going to pick an MMO, and the experience is roughly equal, why pick the one where you pay 15 dollars a month more? Why get both, when you can just get one, and play it twice as much?
Subs only make sense in that case if 1. It's a higher quality product, or 2. It's offering a significantly different enough experience.
I could see somebody paying for SW:ToR and having GW2, because even though they're both MMOs, SW:ToR will have more story and voice acting than any MMO ever... and it's Star Wars, which is a different experience as well.
You would buy FIFA (Or the B2P game of your choice) and an MMO because they're offering different experiences.
If you could buy FIFA, or a version of FIFA that costs you 15 dollars a month extra, why would you buy both?
If they get good reviews im gonna buy both, I dont understand why some people say "is one or the other".