How will GW2 survive over a long period of time?

[Borzo]

GW1 wasn't successful enough to judge form it the no-sub plan.

I can't tell if you're trolling, joking, being sarcastic, or serious? Please clarify.

GW1 sold 7 million boxes. Sure, it's not as much as Call of Duty, but it's still pretty significant. GW1 sales are in part paying for GW2 development.

[Vulryth]

guild wars 1 is still up and running, so I'm going to say guild wars 2 will last until a few years after guild wars 3 has launched.

---------- Post added 2011-12-18 at 04:00 PM ----------

Do realize Warcraft and SW:TOR are two of most highly successful MMOs ever created. Hardly suffering in any regard.

SW:Tor could be a failure for all you know it hasnt even released yet.

[Luko]

It's one the most successful PC games ever made. And the most successful B2P game in existence currently. So much so Anet are able to double (triple?) their staff and fund an entire sequel without an Activision on their shoulder.

How is Guild Wars 1 not successful and proven as a business model?

Sorry for the confusion. What he meant to say was "I've not played much of it if at all so it wasn't a very important landmark in my personal gaming time-line and because of this I'm going to make a wildly inaccurate assuming statement based on my extremely limited experience with said product without actually gathering information on the topic."

That should clear it up a bit.

[Lucky_]

To simplify financial incentives for companies:

1. Subscription fees present, free content patches:
a. You get paid as long as people are playing, regardless of content being played
b. You lose money creating new content
- conclusion: You want to stretch content patches as far as possible, and make as few of them as possible to maximize profit. Example: most WoW's content patches not containing nearly enough to be possible to sell them as stand alone products for the cost of amount of monthly payments that patches last. For example, ICC lasted almost a year, meaning even at cheapest rate of 12 euro/month that patch would cost you over 120 euro to purchase as stand alone. In more recent times, Firelands lasted about half a year, making it cost around 60 euros at the cheapest possible rate.

2. No subscription fees, paid content patches.
a. You earn money selling content patches
b. You lose money the longer people stay playing each patch
- Conclusion: You want to make content patches as big and attractive as possible, while maintaining a reasonable price tag and good pace of releases. You do not want people to keep on playing in periods between content patches to reduce server costs as much as possible. Example: GW1 with it's very beautiful and large content patches, and extreme lack of community building and communication from lack of central official forums to purposeful buildup of barrier of entry from "casual" to "hardcore" in PvP content and complete lack of "hardcore" PvE content until later expansions.

[Tokas]

Go read a book, guy. You're clearly making wild assumptions about GW2 based on very old and winded points rather than actually asking a question. It's almost like a GW2 hate thread cloaked in sheep's cloathing. Your sorely undereducated post was one of the few I've EVER read and made me respond with "wut?".
I award you with the obligatory /facepalm for this year.

I now pray to the gods of this forum board; the power of closing compels you!

Please don't insult others on the forums if they have different views than you or you think they are ignorant, there is no need for it. If you don't want to contribute, reconsider posting. Infracted. -Edge

am i the only one that thinks this is undeserved ban?

[Luko]

am i the only one that thinks this is undeserved ban?

You don't get banned for an infraction. Was probably not his only one.

[Durzlla]

am i the only one that thinks this is undeserved ban?

idk if he was actually banned, i keep see him posting even though it says BANNED on his avatar and such...

PS your sig made me think there was a bug on my screen xD

[Mif]

FYI: It's taboo to discuss bans

GW1 wasn't successful enough to judge form it the no-sub plan.

You do realise that GW1 never had a sub fee?
They didn't start with one then drop it like subscription MMOs tend to do when numbers go bad.

[Borzo]

To simplify financial incentives for companies:

1. Subscription fees present, free content patches:
a. You get paid as long as people are playing, regardless of content being played
b. You lose money creating new content
- conclusion: You want to stretch content patches as far as possible, and make as few of them as possible to maximize profit. Example: most WoW's content patches not containing nearly enough to be possible to sell them as stand alone products for the cost of amount of monthly payments that patches last. For example, ICC lasted almost a year, meaning even at cheapest rate of 12 euro/month that patch would cost you over 120 euro to purchase as stand alone. In more recent times, Firelands lasted about half a year, making it cost around 60 euros at the cheapest possible rate.

2. No subscription fees, paid content patches.
a. You earn money selling content patches
b. You lose money the longer people stay playing each patch
- Conclusion: You want to make content patches as big and attractive as possible, while maintaining a reasonable price tag and good pace of releases. You do not want people to keep on playing in periods between content patches to reduce server costs as much as possible. Example: GW1 with it's very beautiful and large content patches, and extreme lack of community building and communication from lack of central official forums to purposeful buildup of barrier of entry from "casual" to "hardcore" in PvP content and complete lack of "hardcore" PvE content until later expansions.

This really distills it down very well. I mean it's obvious, but many people don't even think about it!

Sub-fees: Shittier, poorer quality content, released with huge delays.
Paid patches: Better, higher quality content, very frequently.

It makes business sense for a company to attempt at sub-fees if possible, but that's the worst possible outcome for a consumer/gamer. Paid content patches might not be as profitable for companies, but is the very best model for consumers.

I just don't understand how people cannot see this... and in fact many people think the exact opposite - which is mind-boggling.


Note: I do believe community-building would help arenanet because it would eventually lead to an increase in customers purchasing new boxes. Perhaps it was different back in the day in 2005... but these days server costs are, thankfully, pretty trivial and nearly negligible.

[Fencers]

That doesn't really apply anymore. It's mostly a Warcraft thing- the slow content updates.

[Sunseeker]

Um, you are aware that GW1 released several expansions and is still quite popular yes?

[Keosen]

You do realise that GW1 never had a sub fee?

Do you realize that you have to actually read people's post before random quote one?
Where did i say anything about GW1 being sub based or something?

[Durzlla]

You'd think more companies would drop the subfee's off their games... because looking at it on an economics stand point, MMO's are luxury goods, so if they want to increase profits they'd want to lower their prices...

[Edge-]

You'd think more companies would drop the subfee's off their games... because looking at it on an economics stand point, MMO's are luxury goods, so if they want to increase profits they'd want to lower their prices...

Not at all. WoW wouldn't make as much money if it went F2P because it's big enough that the sub fees are insanely profitable. That's why so many games start out sub based and then transition to F2P, because if they are successful with subs they will make more money. The problem is that very few games have been very successful with subs so they transition to a business model that has been proven to be more profitable.

[Durzlla]

Not at all. WoW wouldn't make as much money if it went F2P because it's big enough that the sub fees are insanely profitable. That's why so many games start out sub based and then transition to F2P, because if they are successful with subs they will make more money. The problem is that very few games have been very successful with subs so they transition to a business model that has been proven to be more profitable.

I know a ton of people that would rejoin wow if it went F2P, and i know even more people who still play but refuse to pay for server transfers and etc because they're paying monthly. If they took out the $15 a month they'd have more players, and they'd sell more of their micro transactions, which are worth a large amount more then the monthly fee.

[SPeedy26]

Yes.. of course it wasn't successful enough... is that why they have enough money to make a second MMO?

not to mention take their sweet time to make the game (its basically killing me :P) and reiterate/change many different features they didn't find fun (removing the energy bar, changing the game play mechanics of the thief, engineer, and ranger,changing traits, ect.)

Honestly just think of GW2 as a singleplayer rpg like Dragon age, Torchlight, Mass Effect , Borderlands, or the Elder Scrolls series. play the game, have fun, then think of the expansion packs more as sequels then expansions (hopefully standalone).

[Mkalafut]

It will survive fine. Look at GW1. I quit WoW a long time ago and still play GW for hours at a time when I play. There's no shortage of content or things to do in GW1 and just because Arena Net dares to be different than WoW and SWTOR doesn't mean it won't survive. It just means that raiding won't be the focus of GW2 which it never woulda been from the start.

---------- Post added 2011-12-21 at 03:05 AM ----------

not to mention take their sweet time to make the game (its basically killing me :P) and reiterate/change many different features they didn't find fun (removing the energy bar, changing the game play mechanics of the thief, engineer, and ranger,changing traits, ect.)

Honestly just think of GW2 as a singleplayer rpg like Dragon age, Torchlight, Mass Effect , Borderlands, or the Elder Scrolls series. play the game, have fun, then think of the expansion packs more as sequels then expansions (hopefully standalone).

Except not? It won't be a single player game at all. Have you not heard of WvWvW? Dynamic scaling content? ANYTHING about gw2? I'm assuming no based on your post, unless I'm misunderstanding. Also the reason it's taking so long is because they want it to be polished and perfect before release. I for one, especially after BF3 release, am all for people taking their time to release a game and making sure it's perfect before they do. Too many studios get away with murder and release halfway finished games because they know people will buy em. If it takes more time I'm down for waiting. I know a bunch are on board with me as well.

[Loaf Lord]

GW1 wasn't successful enough to judge form it the no-sub plan.

Being the ninth best selling computer game begs to differ.

[Aurust]

There are no subscription fees, which means once you buy the game it's yours, most likely meaning they won't add in patched content except to fix bugs unless you buy it because it would be pointless to give things to players who aren't paying for them. (For example in WoW you pay every month, so although patches are free, they keep you playing and paying), while I know some gamers will literally play whatever game, single player or multi-player over a long time that was never even intended for the game, but most gamers will play the game and once they beat it they move to something else. Although in other Pay to Play MMO's like WoW people will keep playing the game because the content keeps coming and it keeps giving them stuff to do.

I get they can do expansions, but wouldn't it have been better for GW2 to make it pay to play and add patched content, because otherwise I do not see how GW2 will survive with a constant player base for over a year. It seems like a great game, but does not look profitable for them (not that I should care besides the fact that making profit is what keeps them making games).

I dunno did you enjoy paying $45 in sub fees for a troll patch for ZA/ZG ?

---------- Post added 2011-12-22 at 01:56 AM ----------

You'd think more companies would drop the subfee's off their games... because looking at it on an economics stand point, MMO's are luxury goods, so if they want to increase profits they'd want to lower their prices...

Your economics is weak. A luxury good is not an elasticity function of price but an elasticity function of income. If people income increase, demand for a luxury good disproportionally rises. Has nothing to do with the price of the good itself.

[Questar]

if u think gw2 as a pvp e-sport that has a pve mmo component attached to it and relies on micro-transactions for income, then it becomes clearer to see how its future will be.

think team fortress 2. which the devs also have referenced to.