If GW2 is really successful, then it opens the door to the idea that an MMORPG with all the features of an MMORPG can be successful without a subscription cost. Even if the sub cost is moved to a cash shop, it's different than what is current defined as the norm.
I don't know about the rest of it. I'd like to see more games with just a box purchase and no subscription though.
See F2P discussions for how MMO makers have already figured this out.
ANET just managed to come up with a way to put out what is esentially a F2P game but with an upfront cost too.
Fair play to them, if B2P replaces the box + Sub + Cash shop model many are going for by removing the subscription that is a step in the right direction. But the worry for me is much like when Turbine hit the jackpot of F2P conversions and then everyone jumped on that bandwagon, we could start seeing Box + F2P model becoming more widely used.
While it is looking like GW2 Will be a safe gamble for the entry cost than most F2P games, I do start to wonder what sort of beast the industry will make of this if it succeeds.
Prediction is 1.5 to 2 M boxes at release.... and many many more over the first year if word spreads around.
On top of that their itemshop will generate more income then most sub games which end up with considerably less people playing nightly
I agree with this, take Lotro for example, it dropped it's sub and made a MT shop. The money they were earning increased by 300%.
Lotro had also already gotten beyond the stage where box sales were a large portion of their revenue. So removing that part of the equasion did not really matter to them.
The Gamble was if the now tiny barrier to entry and the all encompassing cash shop could pull more profit from people than the safe $15 a month way. Turns out for them in the short an medium term it has, but F2P gaming also creates a more migratory culture amongst your players, it also pressures content design to always have a monetisation angle. in the long term F2P conversions have not yet reached that stage, but go look at the older Perfect World games, their games all start off very well balanced between game and Cash shop but eventually the CS is pushed more and more in content updates.
In the early days the box sales will more than make up for the lack of pushing of a cash shop in GW2. However with the amount of people expected to pour into this game, expect to see PVE power (like with the henchmen or what ever they were called packs in GW1) becoming a more and more tempting way to monetise with the excuse of "Players only need to be balanced when pitted against each other". Now right now this might sound a bit far fetched, but this is the next step in the whole "Selling convenience" part.
Personally I dont mind, aslong as the stuff they sell does not negatively impact me if I choose not to buy it, only posatively impact me if I do then that is reasonable enough. But I am looking forward to the day when the B2P fans realise that B2P is esentially Anets way of guaranteeing each player ponies up $60 at launch.
A lot of F2P games would kill for that kind of investment from every player who tries them
Maybe they will prove me wrong, honestly it doesnt matter to me, I paid up my $60 because I enjoyed the game play when I was in a weekend event. What they do with the cash shop determines if I give them any more money or not.
We are already at the point where a AAA FTP MMO is on the way, Neverwinter. Why are people still hung up on the idea of a AAA BTP? That's old news...
Neverwinter has not yet proven its self.
What it has done is come out with enough of a bang that people are willing to look past Cryptics previous launch failings and give them a chance, much like TSW did for funcom.
They have to make good on the initial promise shown in the tightly managed media previews.
We are already at the point where a AAA FTP MMO is on the way, Neverwinter. Why are people still hung up on the idea of a AAA BTP? That's old news...
We've yet to see solid details regarding Neverwinter's inevitable cash shop, nor much about how gameplay itself will actually be. To boot, it's Perfect Worl/Cryptic. After the poor development of STO and Champions, I'm gpnna need to be wowwed before I jump on that game's bandwagon.
I'm actually hopeful it turns out great, just retaining a little skepticism until we start seeing more.
If GW2 is really successful, then it opens the door to the idea that an MMORPG with all the features of an MMORPG can be successful without a subscription cost. Even if the sub cost is moved to a cash shop, it's different than what is current defined as the norm.
I don't know about the rest of it. I'd like to see more games with just a box purchase and no subscription though.
See F2P discussions for how MMO makers have already figured this out.
ANET just managed to come up with a way to put out what is esentially a F2P game but with an upfront cost too.
Fair play to them, if B2P replaces the box + Sub + Cash shop model many are going for by removing the subscription that is a step in the right direction. But the worry for me is much like when Turbine hit the jackpot of F2P conversions and then everyone jumped on that bandwagon, we could start seeing Box + F2P model becoming more widely used.
While it is looking like GW2 Will be a safe gamble for the entry cost than most F2P games, I do start to wonder what sort of beast the industry will make of this if it succeeds.
It will turn into the same beast that all other video games are now. Some games will be great some will be awesome. The only difference is the CS. And that one is easily dealt with. Players just need some self control in a CS and use it to their advantage. Spending some in a fair (not Pay2Win) CS is fine. Spending large amounts of money in a CS so you can have everything and then whining that you spent more than you would have with P2P is just plain ridiculous.
The struggle here is all about economic power. Gamers have a choice - Either they have economic power (box+fair CS) or MMO companies have it (box+sub). Choose wisely.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Subscription/players are only a viable measurement of success on a game that is subscription based. However, one that is based on box-sales + in-game store is based on those two things together.
See, Guild Wars 2 could have 3 million people, but if not 1 of those people are using or spending at the Gem store than it would make it unsuccessful. They need around a 15-30% Gem Store usage rate in order to make it a viable process.
Also, if you're measuring subscriber retention, there has to be a measurement of the amount of content that a game has to do so:
1) 6 MAJOR cities (1x per race + 1 multi-racial pirate city)
2) PvE content from 1 through 80 with each race having it's own starting zone.
3) An advanced crafting system with random recipes mixed with specific ones.
4) Well designed AH market system that is cross-server used (great for low-pop servers), that also players can place Buy Orders as well as Sell Orders.
5) Cross-server "guesting" system for everything PvE (not for use with PvP).
7) sPvP set up with multiple maps, latters, ranks, and a balanced system
8) GuildvsGuild PvP system (not yet seen until this BWE#3)
9) Mini-games such as Asura Golum chest, shooting gallery, Norn Keg Brawl, and more.
10) Vista jumping puzzles throughout the game's zones.
11) Achievements on daily, weekly, monthly, and lifetime goals.
12) Wx3 (WvWvW) PvP with siege weapons, keeps, castles, and the like across 4 huge maps.
13)....and more.
There's so much to this game that the list goes on for a long while. With so much to do and have fun participating in within the game, there's hardly a reason to "quit" or to even see a population drop within 4-5 months of the game's launch.
If GW2 is really successful, then it opens the door to the idea that an MMORPG with all the features of an MMORPG can be successful without a subscription cost. Even if the sub cost is moved to a cash shop, it's different than what is current defined as the norm.
I don't know about the rest of it. I'd like to see more games with just a box purchase and no subscription though.
See F2P discussions for how MMO makers have already figured this out.
ANET just managed to come up with a way to put out what is esentially a F2P game but with an upfront cost too.
Fair play to them, if B2P replaces the box + Sub + Cash shop model many are going for by removing the subscription that is a step in the right direction. But the worry for me is much like when Turbine hit the jackpot of F2P conversions and then everyone jumped on that bandwagon, we could start seeing Box + F2P model becoming more widely used.
While it is looking like GW2 Will be a safe gamble for the entry cost than most F2P games, I do start to wonder what sort of beast the industry will make of this if it succeeds.
It will turn into the same beast that all other video games are now. Some games will be great some will be awesome. The only difference is the CS. And that one is easily dealt with. Players just need some self control in a CS and use it to their advantage. Spending some in a fair (not Pay2Win) CS is fine. Spending large amounts of money in a CS so you can have everything and then whining that you spent more than you would have with P2P is just plain ridiculous.
The struggle here is all about economic power. Gamers have a choice - Either they have economic power (box+fair CS) or MMO companies have it (box+sub). Choose wisely.
Relying on the esprit de corp of gamers is not something I personally would want to do. One only has to look at any modern day forum to see where that goes.
The envelopes of what is acceptable are pushed constantly by game developers just in different ways this is a process that is further allowed to continue by the very lack of what you are hoping for.
If they put something in a cash shop, people will buy it, see Tf2 Valentines day gifts an Eve Monacles and the success of a great many Pay to win games for proof.
The only reason P2W is not more prevailant is that it is ultimately a self destructive patch for a games long term revenue, its used for short and mid term cash grabs. The more power is put into a cash shop, the lower retention rates amongst players will be untill eventually none are left except the ones who already bought everything.
All that being said, I am still waiting to see where Anet goes with its Cash shop, and how the rest of the industry reacts to buy to play games that hit the big jackpot sales wise (while there have been other buy to play online games in the past, the fact is D3 and GW2 are the biggest two online games that employ this mechanism).
We are already at the point where a AAA FTP MMO is on the way, Neverwinter. Why are people still hung up on the idea of a AAA BTP? That's old news...
NeverWinter MMO is NOT a AAA "FTP" MMO. It's being done by Cryptic, and they've already ruined their own product AND StarTrek. I haven't met a single soul who isn't a FTP fan that has done their due diligance of research on NeverWinter MMO that is excited about it.
Cryptic & AAA do not = true.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
Lotro had also already gotten beyond the stage where box sales were a large portion of their revenue. So removing that part of the equasion did not really matter to them.
The Gamble was if the now tiny barrier to entry and the all encompassing cash shop could pull more profit from people than the safe $15 a month way. Turns out for them in the short an medium term it has, but F2P gaming also creates a more migratory culture amongst your players, it also pressures content design to always have a monetisation angle. in the long term F2P conversions have not yet reached that stage, but go look at the older Perfect World games, their games all start off very well balanced between game and Cash shop but eventually the CS is pushed more and more in content updates.
In the early days the box sales will more than make up for the lack of pushing of a cash shop in GW2. However with the amount of people expected to pour into this game, expect to see PVE power (like with the henchmen or what ever they were called packs in GW1) becoming a more and more tempting way to monetise with the excuse of "Players only need to be balanced when pitted against each other". Now right now this might sound a bit far fetched, but this is the next step in the whole "Selling convenience" part.
Personally I dont mind, aslong as the stuff they sell does not negatively impact me if I choose not to buy it, only posatively impact me if I do then that is reasonable enough. But I am looking forward to the day when the B2P fans realise that B2P is esentially Anets way of guaranteeing each player ponies up $60 at launch.
A lot of F2P games would kill for that kind of investment from every player who tries them
Maybe they will prove me wrong, honestly it doesnt matter to me, I paid up my $60 because I enjoyed the game play when I was in a weekend event. What they do with the cash shop determines if I give them any more money or not.
Couple things. One, Perfect World's cash shops were never as balanced as western games like Lotro, LoL, and such. They started off worse, and they backslid. I'll agree the worry that Anet (and by extension other developers) could "sell out" and go P2W exists. And is worth being careful of. But until it happens just the game for what it currently is, not what it might be one day.
Your comment about Anet's B2P being their way of getting 60 bucks up front...yeah. Probably true. BUT. There is no game that was free to play at its inital release that had at its inital release anywhere near the complexity and depth of content GW2 has. Most games that started f2P are MUCH simpler, and had much lower development standards. So, yeah. i'm paying more than a flat F2P. I'm also getting more. whether that "more" is worth 60 bucks or not is up to the individual buyer. For me, it is.
I'll agree with your last point. They earned my initial 60. Whether I spend a dime more depends on how well they continue to develop the game and the cash shop after release. Worst case scenario, the game goes south, at least I got my 60 worth.
Subscription/players are only a viable measurement of success on a game that is subscription based. However, one that is based on box-sales + in-game store is based on those two things together.
See, Guild Wars 2 could have 3 million people, but if not 1 of those people are using or spending at the Gem store than it would make it unsuccessful. They need around a 15-30% Gem Store usage rate in order to make it a viable process.
Unsure where your numbers come from, Several Gamasutra articles and interviews with many F2P game makers show that the average is an 8-12% ratio of players to buyers so needing a 30% ratio would be business suicide. Now these too were opinion articles presented with an interweaving of quotes from various studios. But 15-30% is a crazy high number of conversions.
I think nobody claims that the game will have an impact on the MMO industry.
I do not think the purpose of the game is to bring revolution. It is more about bringing quality structured pvp for casual players, imo. I see it as an alternative to a FPS in a fantasy setting.
You need to follow hte forums more if you honestly don't think people consider GW2 a major game changer. Then again, you also have this have this:
And you know, all I really have to say about that video is I don't believe Blizzard ever had to make a bunch of videos telling people why their game was going to change the MMO landscape. They just sat back and did it.
Lotro had also already gotten beyond the stage where box sales were a large portion of their revenue. So removing that part of the equasion did not really matter to them.
The Gamble was if the now tiny barrier to entry and the all encompassing cash shop could pull more profit from people than the safe $15 a month way. Turns out for them in the short an medium term it has, but F2P gaming also creates a more migratory culture amongst your players, it also pressures content design to always have a monetisation angle. in the long term F2P conversions have not yet reached that stage, but go look at the older Perfect World games, their games all start off very well balanced between game and Cash shop but eventually the CS is pushed more and more in content updates.
In the early days the box sales will more than make up for the lack of pushing of a cash shop in GW2. However with the amount of people expected to pour into this game, expect to see PVE power (like with the henchmen or what ever they were called packs in GW1) becoming a more and more tempting way to monetise with the excuse of "Players only need to be balanced when pitted against each other". Now right now this might sound a bit far fetched, but this is the next step in the whole "Selling convenience" part.
Personally I dont mind, aslong as the stuff they sell does not negatively impact me if I choose not to buy it, only posatively impact me if I do then that is reasonable enough. But I am looking forward to the day when the B2P fans realise that B2P is esentially Anets way of guaranteeing each player ponies up $60 at launch.
A lot of F2P games would kill for that kind of investment from every player who tries them
Maybe they will prove me wrong, honestly it doesnt matter to me, I paid up my $60 because I enjoyed the game play when I was in a weekend event. What they do with the cash shop determines if I give them any more money or not.
Couple things. One, Perfect World's cash shops were never as balanced as western games like Lotro, LoL, and such. They started off worse, and they backslid. I'll agree the worry that Anet (and by extension other developers) could "sell out" and go P2W exists. And is worth being careful of. But until it happens just the game for what it currently is, not what it might be one day.
Your comment about Anet's B2P being their way of getting 60 bucks up front...yeah. Probably true. BUT. There is no game that was free to play at its inital release that had at its inital release anywhere near the complexity and depth of content GW2 has. Most games that started f2P are MUCH simpler, and had much lower development standards. So, yeah. i'm paying more than a flat F2P. I'm also getting more. whether that "more" is worth 60 bucks or not is up to the individual buyer. For me, it is.
I'll agree with your last point. They earned my initial 60. Whether I spend a dime more depends on how well they continue to develop the game and the cash shop after release. Worst case scenario, the game goes south, at least I got my 60 worth.
I would counter your points my good sir/madame with the following.
1 PW's Cash shops untill recently were balanced around an asian market where it is generally accepted that time = money in games and that either method to acquire progress is acceptable in many cases. Once they started making western inroads they started re-working their cash shops and their model.
2, I would argue that very few MMO's of any kind released have launched with the depth of play that the last 3 launches have had (love or hate SWTOR you can not deny the depth of content in the 1-50 game) (Love or hate Tera it has a lot of interwoven systems in place) ( love or hate TSW you cant deny the depth of the games setting or execution) I would say all three of those games launched in a better state than any other major MMO launch in terms of content and playability. The current darlings of the themepark world wow and rift were very spartan at launch (I played both quite heavily but the games they are now are a 1000 miles away from where they were at launch).
Given that the above is true it could be fair to say that the standard for MMO launches is getting higher as time progresses, perhaps fairer comparisons could be made to games that launch after GW2 in this sense.
You are 100% correct it is always down to the buyer if something is worth it, for me when I played a weekend event there was little doubt in my mind that it was worth the cash upfront. SWTOR and TSW did the same thing with their weekends and both are still games I enjoy, then again I regularly dip into about 9 different mmos currently.
Basically though, we are discussing the two sides of the same coin.
My point, overly wordy as it is, was simply that while I dont think GW2 is an industry changer, there are ways it could negatively impact future releases as well as the many good things it could do.
I think nobody claims that the game will have an impact on the MMO industry.
I do not think the purpose of the game is to bring revolution. It is more about bringing quality structured pvp for casual players, imo. I see it as an alternative to a FPS in a fantasy setting.
You need to follow hte forums more if you honestly don't think people consider GW2 a major game changer. Then again, you also have this have this:
And you know, all I really have to say about that video is I don't believe Blizzard ever had to make a bunch of videos telling people why their game was going to change the MMO landscape. They just sat back and did it.
I'd argue that Blizz didn't change much. They made it more accessible. But really everything they did was extrapolated from EQ1, which in turn took and refined functions from games like Meridian59 and UO.
Game changer is relative. The airplane was a game changer. The moment it became commercially avaialble, transportation, industry, everything changed overnight. but look at something like the modern methods used to make paper or textiles. They weren't one massive change, so much as thousands of tiny changes made over (quite literally) centuries.GW2 is one of those little changes for the MMO market. i firmly believe that games like TSW, Tera, Rift, and even Tor were others. those little changes are shifting the way developersw think. Over time, that IS going to change the game. it may just be a lo harder to nail down the game that made the biggest difference like WoW did in its day.
The only sense that you brought into these forums is that haters are still out there to confront fanboys that the game is not going to be the best of all MMORPGs. You fail to understand that it is a very subjective opinion, which can't be won by either side. You can't make an objective opinions on these forums, so please don't act like so.
The only sense that you brought into these forums is that haters are still out there to confront fanboys that the game is not going to be the best of all MMORPGs. You fail to understand that it is a very subjective opinion, which can't be won by either side. You can't make an objective opinions on these forums, so please don't act like so.
The best MMO for me is which ever one I currently play. I am sure it is the same for you and everyone else
When games are pushed to the limit both graphic-wise and gameplay, content and edge. It must be unique.
It'll have to be something no one has thought of before while pulling in different ideas. And the only way that'll happen if developers would quit following what WoW did in it's era and do something different.
And the only way that'll happen.
And it'll have to be a mmo that'll last longer than 2-3 years. It'll have to be a mmo that continously gets added upon year after year and it expands with more and more content.
It'll pratically be an avatar almost "living" inside of the mmo. Right now there is no industry changer and even within the following year there still will be none, only hype.
Korea and Japan have so many ideas that get disregarded over here so easily. If they would just combine themselves together with West working with them I can see a whole lot of players and opportunities opening that weren't there before. Just dont'...dumb down the gameplay or content hahaha.
But here we are instead, divided agmonst each other like cubby-holes instead.
The only sense that you brought into these forums is that haters are still out there to confront fanboys that the game is not going to be the best of all MMORPGs. You fail to understand that it is a very subjective opinion, which can't be won by either side. You can't make an objective opinions on these forums, so please don't act like so.
The best MMO for me is which ever one I currently play. I am sure it is the same for you and everyone else
Exactly. Some people don't understand that objectively, best MMOs don't exist at all, because if they did, no one would play the other 1000s of fail mmorpgs. Subjectively, the best MMO is the one that excites you the most, the one you can't wait to play etc etc... Then there are a small number of people(who are very active on the forums since they can't play any of the new games) who are stuck in the past and act as elderly to teach the pupils about good ol' days in Ultima and Everquest, which in their eyes are the best MMOs.. see the trend here?
I think nobody claims that the game will have an impact on the MMO industry.
I do not think the purpose of the game is to bring revolution. It is more about bringing quality structured pvp for casual players, imo. I see it as an alternative to a FPS in a fantasy setting.
You need to follow hte forums more if you honestly don't think people consider GW2 a major game changer. Then again, you also have this have this:
And you know, all I really have to say about that video is I don't believe Blizzard ever had to make a bunch of videos telling people why their game was going to change the MMO landscape. They just sat back and did it.
It was also because no one really though that the MMO landscape needed a huge change back then .
I think nobody claims that the game will have an impact on the MMO industry.
I do not think the purpose of the game is to bring revolution. It is more about bringing quality structured pvp for casual players, imo. I see it as an alternative to a FPS in a fantasy setting.
You need to follow hte forums more if you honestly don't think people consider GW2 a major game changer. Then again, you also have this have this:
And you know, all I really have to say about that video is I don't believe Blizzard ever had to make a bunch of videos telling people why their game was going to change the MMO landscape. They just sat back and did it.
It was also because no one really though that the MMO landscape needed a huge change back then .
WoW never made any major changes to the genre in the first place, all they ever did was make the genre more accesible to the public
no matter what hype swtor apparently had.. i knew it was going to fail..
atm i love gw2 and think itll be great so im not worried in the slightest
and how having 1mil stable subs is failing?
Fail's a rough term. But it's obvious from the amount of spending EA and BW did that they were hoping for the kind of population explosion WoW had, and thus far it's not happening. They're not doing as well as they'd hoped. I think we can agree on that.
The only sense that you brought into these forums is that haters are still out there to confront fanboys that the game is not going to be the best of all MMORPGs. You fail to understand that it is a very subjective opinion, which can't be won by either side. You can't make an objective opinions on these forums, so please don't act like so.
The best MMO for me is which ever one I currently play. I am sure it is the same for you and everyone else
Some people just prefer to play the forums than the game - even those who never played the game yet but still post their opinions about how good or bad it is ;-)
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Comments
See F2P discussions for how MMO makers have already figured this out.
ANET just managed to come up with a way to put out what is esentially a F2P game but with an upfront cost too.
Fair play to them, if B2P replaces the box + Sub + Cash shop model many are going for by removing the subscription that is a step in the right direction. But the worry for me is much like when Turbine hit the jackpot of F2P conversions and then everyone jumped on that bandwagon, we could start seeing Box + F2P model becoming more widely used.
While it is looking like GW2 Will be a safe gamble for the entry cost than most F2P games, I do start to wonder what sort of beast the industry will make of this if it succeeds.
We are already at the point where a AAA FTP MMO is on the way, Neverwinter. Why are people still hung up on the idea of a AAA BTP? That's old news...
Lotro had also already gotten beyond the stage where box sales were a large portion of their revenue. So removing that part of the equasion did not really matter to them.
The Gamble was if the now tiny barrier to entry and the all encompassing cash shop could pull more profit from people than the safe $15 a month way. Turns out for them in the short an medium term it has, but F2P gaming also creates a more migratory culture amongst your players, it also pressures content design to always have a monetisation angle. in the long term F2P conversions have not yet reached that stage, but go look at the older Perfect World games, their games all start off very well balanced between game and Cash shop but eventually the CS is pushed more and more in content updates.
In the early days the box sales will more than make up for the lack of pushing of a cash shop in GW2. However with the amount of people expected to pour into this game, expect to see PVE power (like with the henchmen or what ever they were called packs in GW1) becoming a more and more tempting way to monetise with the excuse of "Players only need to be balanced when pitted against each other". Now right now this might sound a bit far fetched, but this is the next step in the whole "Selling convenience" part.
Personally I dont mind, aslong as the stuff they sell does not negatively impact me if I choose not to buy it, only posatively impact me if I do then that is reasonable enough. But I am looking forward to the day when the B2P fans realise that B2P is esentially Anets way of guaranteeing each player ponies up $60 at launch.
A lot of F2P games would kill for that kind of investment from every player who tries them
Maybe they will prove me wrong, honestly it doesnt matter to me, I paid up my $60 because I enjoyed the game play when I was in a weekend event. What they do with the cash shop determines if I give them any more money or not.
Neverwinter has not yet proven its self.
What it has done is come out with enough of a bang that people are willing to look past Cryptics previous launch failings and give them a chance, much like TSW did for funcom.
They have to make good on the initial promise shown in the tightly managed media previews.
We've yet to see solid details regarding Neverwinter's inevitable cash shop, nor much about how gameplay itself will actually be. To boot, it's Perfect Worl/Cryptic. After the poor development of STO and Champions, I'm gpnna need to be wowwed before I jump on that game's bandwagon.
I'm actually hopeful it turns out great, just retaining a little skepticism until we start seeing more.
It will turn into the same beast that all other video games are now. Some games will be great some will be awesome. The only difference is the CS. And that one is easily dealt with. Players just need some self control in a CS and use it to their advantage. Spending some in a fair (not Pay2Win) CS is fine. Spending large amounts of money in a CS so you can have everything and then whining that you spent more than you would have with P2P is just plain ridiculous.
The struggle here is all about economic power. Gamers have a choice - Either they have economic power (box+fair CS) or MMO companies have it (box+sub). Choose wisely.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Subscription/players are only a viable measurement of success on a game that is subscription based. However, one that is based on box-sales + in-game store is based on those two things together.
See, Guild Wars 2 could have 3 million people, but if not 1 of those people are using or spending at the Gem store than it would make it unsuccessful. They need around a 15-30% Gem Store usage rate in order to make it a viable process.
Also, if you're measuring subscriber retention, there has to be a measurement of the amount of content that a game has to do so:
1) 6 MAJOR cities (1x per race + 1 multi-racial pirate city)
2) PvE content from 1 through 80 with each race having it's own starting zone.
3) An advanced crafting system with random recipes mixed with specific ones.
4) Well designed AH market system that is cross-server used (great for low-pop servers), that also players can place Buy Orders as well as Sell Orders.
5) Cross-server "guesting" system for everything PvE (not for use with PvP).
6) Server-transfer options on Day #1
7) sPvP set up with multiple maps, latters, ranks, and a balanced system
8) GuildvsGuild PvP system (not yet seen until this BWE#3)
9) Mini-games such as Asura Golum chest, shooting gallery, Norn Keg Brawl, and more.
10) Vista jumping puzzles throughout the game's zones.
11) Achievements on daily, weekly, monthly, and lifetime goals.
12) Wx3 (WvWvW) PvP with siege weapons, keeps, castles, and the like across 4 huge maps.
13)....and more.
There's so much to this game that the list goes on for a long while. With so much to do and have fun participating in within the game, there's hardly a reason to "quit" or to even see a population drop within 4-5 months of the game's launch.
Relying on the esprit de corp of gamers is not something I personally would want to do. One only has to look at any modern day forum to see where that goes.
The envelopes of what is acceptable are pushed constantly by game developers just in different ways this is a process that is further allowed to continue by the very lack of what you are hoping for.
If they put something in a cash shop, people will buy it, see Tf2 Valentines day gifts an Eve Monacles and the success of a great many Pay to win games for proof.
The only reason P2W is not more prevailant is that it is ultimately a self destructive patch for a games long term revenue, its used for short and mid term cash grabs. The more power is put into a cash shop, the lower retention rates amongst players will be untill eventually none are left except the ones who already bought everything.
All that being said, I am still waiting to see where Anet goes with its Cash shop, and how the rest of the industry reacts to buy to play games that hit the big jackpot sales wise (while there have been other buy to play online games in the past, the fact is D3 and GW2 are the biggest two online games that employ this mechanism).
NeverWinter MMO is NOT a AAA "FTP" MMO. It's being done by Cryptic, and they've already ruined their own product AND StarTrek. I haven't met a single soul who isn't a FTP fan that has done their due diligance of research on NeverWinter MMO that is excited about it.
Cryptic & AAA do not = true.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
Successful troll is successful.
Why can't people just enjoy games anymore.
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
Couple things. One, Perfect World's cash shops were never as balanced as western games like Lotro, LoL, and such. They started off worse, and they backslid. I'll agree the worry that Anet (and by extension other developers) could "sell out" and go P2W exists. And is worth being careful of. But until it happens just the game for what it currently is, not what it might be one day.
Your comment about Anet's B2P being their way of getting 60 bucks up front...yeah. Probably true. BUT. There is no game that was free to play at its inital release that had at its inital release anywhere near the complexity and depth of content GW2 has. Most games that started f2P are MUCH simpler, and had much lower development standards. So, yeah. i'm paying more than a flat F2P. I'm also getting more. whether that "more" is worth 60 bucks or not is up to the individual buyer. For me, it is.
I'll agree with your last point. They earned my initial 60. Whether I spend a dime more depends on how well they continue to develop the game and the cash shop after release. Worst case scenario, the game goes south, at least I got my 60 worth.
Unsure where your numbers come from, Several Gamasutra articles and interviews with many F2P game makers show that the average is an 8-12% ratio of players to buyers so needing a 30% ratio would be business suicide. Now these too were opinion articles presented with an interweaving of quotes from various studios. But 15-30% is a crazy high number of conversions.
You need to follow hte forums more if you honestly don't think people consider GW2 a major game changer. Then again, you also have this have this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPROkIV-Ssc
And you know, all I really have to say about that video is I don't believe Blizzard ever had to make a bunch of videos telling people why their game was going to change the MMO landscape. They just sat back and did it.
you will personally know if its successful if you see enough people running around in zones
I would counter your points my good sir/madame with the following.
1 PW's Cash shops untill recently were balanced around an asian market where it is generally accepted that time = money in games and that either method to acquire progress is acceptable in many cases. Once they started making western inroads they started re-working their cash shops and their model.
2, I would argue that very few MMO's of any kind released have launched with the depth of play that the last 3 launches have had (love or hate SWTOR you can not deny the depth of content in the 1-50 game) (Love or hate Tera it has a lot of interwoven systems in place) ( love or hate TSW you cant deny the depth of the games setting or execution) I would say all three of those games launched in a better state than any other major MMO launch in terms of content and playability. The current darlings of the themepark world wow and rift were very spartan at launch (I played both quite heavily but the games they are now are a 1000 miles away from where they were at launch).
Given that the above is true it could be fair to say that the standard for MMO launches is getting higher as time progresses, perhaps fairer comparisons could be made to games that launch after GW2 in this sense.
You are 100% correct it is always down to the buyer if something is worth it, for me when I played a weekend event there was little doubt in my mind that it was worth the cash upfront. SWTOR and TSW did the same thing with their weekends and both are still games I enjoy, then again I regularly dip into about 9 different mmos currently.
Basically though, we are discussing the two sides of the same coin.
My point, overly wordy as it is, was simply that while I dont think GW2 is an industry changer, there are ways it could negatively impact future releases as well as the many good things it could do.
I'd argue that Blizz didn't change much. They made it more accessible. But really everything they did was extrapolated from EQ1, which in turn took and refined functions from games like Meridian59 and UO.
Game changer is relative. The airplane was a game changer. The moment it became commercially avaialble, transportation, industry, everything changed overnight. but look at something like the modern methods used to make paper or textiles. They weren't one massive change, so much as thousands of tiny changes made over (quite literally) centuries.GW2 is one of those little changes for the MMO market. i firmly believe that games like TSW, Tera, Rift, and even Tor were others. those little changes are shifting the way developersw think. Over time, that IS going to change the game. it may just be a lo harder to nail down the game that made the biggest difference like WoW did in its day.
The only sense that you brought into these forums is that haters are still out there to confront fanboys that the game is not going to be the best of all MMORPGs. You fail to understand that it is a very subjective opinion, which can't be won by either side. You can't make an objective opinions on these forums, so please don't act like so.
The best MMO for me is which ever one I currently play. I am sure it is the same for you and everyone else
You know what will be an industry changer?
When games are pushed to the limit both graphic-wise and gameplay, content and edge. It must be unique.
It'll have to be something no one has thought of before while pulling in different ideas. And the only way that'll happen if developers would quit following what WoW did in it's era and do something different.
And the only way that'll happen.
And it'll have to be a mmo that'll last longer than 2-3 years. It'll have to be a mmo that continously gets added upon year after year and it expands with more and more content.
It'll pratically be an avatar almost "living" inside of the mmo. Right now there is no industry changer and even within the following year there still will be none, only hype.
Korea and Japan have so many ideas that get disregarded over here so easily. If they would just combine themselves together with West working with them I can see a whole lot of players and opportunities opening that weren't there before. Just dont'...dumb down the gameplay or content hahaha.
But here we are instead, divided agmonst each other like cubby-holes instead.
Exactly. Some people don't understand that objectively, best MMOs don't exist at all, because if they did, no one would play the other 1000s of fail mmorpgs. Subjectively, the best MMO is the one that excites you the most, the one you can't wait to play etc etc... Then there are a small number of people(who are very active on the forums since they can't play any of the new games) who are stuck in the past and act as elderly to teach the pupils about good ol' days in Ultima and Everquest, which in their eyes are the best MMOs.. see the trend here?
It was also because no one really though that the MMO landscape needed a huge change back then
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
WoW never made any major changes to the genre in the first place, all they ever did was make the genre more accesible to the public
and how having 1mil stable subs is failing?
Fail's a rough term. But it's obvious from the amount of spending EA and BW did that they were hoping for the kind of population explosion WoW had, and thus far it's not happening. They're not doing as well as they'd hoped. I think we can agree on that.
Some people just prefer to play the forums than the game - even those who never played the game yet but still post their opinions about how good or bad it is ;-)
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023