View Poll Results: Are you enjoying the "Endgame"?

Voters
1006. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    474 47.12%
  • No

    532 52.88%
Page 11 of 43 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
21
... LastLast
  1. #201
    Weelllllllll. The first Guild Wars games were quite financially successful.

    The problem is your concept of :success: is pretty vague and something that exists mostly in your imagination. How deep down this rabbit hole of qualifiers do you want to go?

    What arbitrary amount of money is the tipping point for this "threshold"?

    From what we know factually, this model of design is both successful and sustainable for years. So much so as to develop a sequel over 5 years with exponential costs and development over the initial series.

    Perhaps Arena.net will make billions and Colin will buy a swimming pool of diamonds. Izzy might show up to work in a sabertooth tiger fur coat.

    Or they might be successful enough to continue development over several years and expansions at a pace on par with what was seen in GW1.

    One of those scenarios is high fantasy.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2012-09-18 at 04:35 AM.

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadylol View Post
    Yes, but like I said, that success is limited. I'm sure the first Guild Wars was a fine game, but it wasn't exactly the best source of revenue around. Guild Wars 2 can make XYZ amount of money, and be a "success", but once you've crossed the threshold into being financially viable, there's degrees of success, which determine just how profitable the game will be. With the current state of the game, Guild Wars 2 has a lower limit of potential success. More content, and better content would result in more box sales, more microtransactions, and more people sticking around for paid expansions, which means NCSoft and Arenanet make more money
    7 million total sales is pretty solid. And considering how limited the nature of that game was, that's even more impressive. And apparently it was a good enough source of revenue to find a sequel of MUCH broader size and scope.

    And considering they've already provided a pretty big chunk of content, not to mention they've openly stated their intention of releasing a number of free content updates, I don't think it's going to be too much of an issue. I think they're well aware that in order to generate more revenue they need to keep people playing, that's kinda like, a super obvious fact for MMO's at this point.

  3. #203
    Bloodsail Admiral Riavan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,031
    I hope for them it does better than guild wars 1. I'd say this launch would be bigger. I know RL friends who refuse to pay subscriptions for video games who have txt'd me asking me if I'm playing. People I didn't think would stop playing call of duty etc.

    So that's a good sign, I guess.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Weelllllllll. The first Guild Wars games were quite financially successful.

    The problem is your concept of :success: is pretty vague and something that exists mostly in your imagination. How deep down this rabbit hole of qualifiers do you want to go?

    What arbitrary amount of money is the tipping point for this "threshold"?

    From what we know factually, this model of design is both successful and sustainable for years. So much so as to develop a sequel over 5 years with exponential costs and development over the initial series.

    Perhaps Arena.net will make billions and Colin will buy a swimming pool of diamonds. Izzy might show up to work in a sabertooth tiger fur coat.

    Or they might be successful enough to continue development over several years and expansions at a pace on par with what was seen in GW1.

    One of those scenarios is high fantasy.
    As far as I can tell, the first Guild Wars, and it's expansions sold a collective 6.5 million copies. That's not bad, but for a 60 dollar game with no subscription, it's not really all that great either. We see lots of non subscription games out selling this, regularly. Call of Duty games come out once a year, and beat that figure consistently, for example. A recent PC only game that has surpassed this figure (over 8 million), and in a much shorter time frame, is Diablo 3

    Since Guild Wars 2 is also an MMO, I'd say it has to match WoW to truly be considered successful, but one could argue that as a buy-to-play title, it's not comparable. So I say that if it can get close to WoW, or Call of Duty's financial success, then Guild Wars 2 would be a truly successful game

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-18 at 12:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusherO0 View Post
    7 million total sales is pretty solid. And considering how limited the nature of that game was, that's even more impressive. And apparently it was a good enough source of revenue to find a sequel of MUCH broader size and scope.

    And considering they've already provided a pretty big chunk of content, not to mention they've openly stated their intention of releasing a number of free content updates, I don't think it's going to be too much of an issue. I think they're well aware that in order to generate more revenue they need to keep people playing, that's kinda like, a super obvious fact for MMO's at this point.
    Saying is not the same as doing, though. Every developer "plans" to release a huge amount of content, but thus far, none of them really have. We'll have to wait and see how it does in the next 6-12 months, to get a better picture of where it's going. But judging on the current state of the game, I'm worried about it's odds
    Rest In Peace, World of Warcraft. Subscriber count doesn't matter, WoW has been dead in spirit for a while
    Rest In Peace, Star Wars the Old Republic. SWTOR is a fun RPG, but a bad MMO

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadylol View Post
    My wording wasn't the best, I should have said "limit" (A lack of content will limit this model), rather than "hurt". I'm sure Guild Wars 2 has already proven financially viable, but I think they're not looking at very much chance for upward mobility right now. While this won't damage Guild Wars 2, or NCSoft/Anet in the form of direct impact, it will likely result in a slower pace of development, as well as less funding, than if the game reached a higher point of success, with more, and/or better content
    See, here's the beauty part of GW2 design. We never outlevel/outgear the content.

    So on top of all the 25 zones full of 1500 dynamic events, 39 jump puzzles, 25 dungeons, minigames, etc. crapton of content, everytime they add content we will have more. Content that is never trivialized, never out of date, never not worth running.

    Compare that to MMOs that use a model of one raid only at level cap. Content so thin they have to stretch it out with a gear check/gear grind.

    It really is quite brilliant.
    Did you think we had forgotten? Did you think we had forgiven?

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Galaddriel View Post
    See, here's the beauty part of GW2 design. We never outlevel/outgear the content.

    So on top of all the 25 zones full of 1500 dynamic events, 39 jump puzzles, 25 dungeons, minigames, etc. crapton of content, everytime they add content we will have more. Content that is never trivialized, never out of date, never not worth running.

    Compare that to MMOs that use a model of one raid only at level cap. Content so thin they have to stretch it out with a gear check/gear grind.

    It really is quite brilliant.
    How long will grinding events keep people entertained, though? I think they're a decent idea that was way overused
    Rest In Peace, World of Warcraft. Subscriber count doesn't matter, WoW has been dead in spirit for a while
    Rest In Peace, Star Wars the Old Republic. SWTOR is a fun RPG, but a bad MMO

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadylol View Post
    As far as I can tell, the first Guild Wars, and it's expansions sold a collective 6.5 million copies. That's not bad, but for a 60 dollar game with no subscription, it's not really all that great either. We see lots of non subscription games out selling this, regularly. Call of Duty games come out once a year, and beat that figure consistently, for example. A recent PC only game that has surpassed this figure (over 8 million), and in a much shorter time frame, is Diablo 3
    Those are not sensible comparisons simply because Guild Wars 2, Call of Duty and Diablo 3 cost $60 each.

    The first Guild Wars series was aimed at considerably different audience, on differing platforms [w/r/t CoD] in a different market entirely. Between 2005-2007 roughly. It was about a year and a half before they were at 3 million sales Dec. 2006. The sequel is estimated to already be at 2 million sales even with the temporary suspension of direct sales.

    A good portion of games regardless of genre or quality will never match Call of Duty sales. It's not really a useful yardstick in the context of MMOs- a comparatively niche genre.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadylol View Post
    As far as I can tell, the first Guild Wars, and it's expansions sold a collective 6.5 million copies. That's not bad, but for a 60 dollar game with no subscription, it's not really all that great either. We see lots of non subscription games out selling this, regularly. Call of Duty games come out once a year, and beat that figure consistently, for example. A recent PC only game that has surpassed this figure (over 8 million), and in a much shorter time frame, is Diablo 3

    Since Guild Wars 2 is also an MMO, I'd say it has to match WoW to truly be considered successful, but one could argue that as a buy-to-play title, it's not comparable. So I say that if it can get close to WoW, or Call of Duty's financial success, then Guild Wars 2 would be a truly successful game

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-18 at 12:49 AM ----------



    Saying is not the same as doing, though. Every developer "plans" to release a huge amount of content, but thus far, none of them really have. We'll have to wait and see how it does in the next 6-12 months, to get a better picture of where it's going. But judging on the current state of the game, I'm worried about it's odds
    Assuming ArenaNet got $60 each for the 6.5 million copies it sold of GW 1, that's about $400 million. Not bad except that WOW makes at least $1 billion per year (see their annual statements) from monthly fees alone which doesn't count the boxes sold. GW 1 was not anywhere near as successful as WOW and it seems highly doubtful that GW 2 will be either.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Those are not sensible comparisons simply because Guild Wars 2, Call of Duty and Diablo 3 cost $60 each.

    The first Guild Wars series was aimed at considerably different audience, on differing platforms [w/r/t CoD] in a different market entirely. Between 2005-2007 roughly. It was about a year and a half before they were at 3 million sales Dec. 2006. The sequel is estimated to already be at 2 million sales even with the temporary suspension of direct sales.

    A good portion of games regardless of genre or quality will never match Call of Duty sales. It's not really a useful yardstick in the context of MMOs- a comparatively niche genre.
    Yes but after that, I said that it could also be compared to WoW, since it's an MMO. So we can also measure it against WoW, and if it matches WoW's financial success, then Guild Wars 2 will be a truly successful game

    If you say that it can't be compared to any popular game ever, then I'm afraid that's just putting Guild Wars 2 in a situation where it can neither win nor lose, but rather exist is a permanent state of "decent", and "adequate". Maybe that's what NCSoft/Arenanet was going for, but if you ask me, I'd rather never win, and only lose, than not even have a chance to win
    Rest In Peace, World of Warcraft. Subscriber count doesn't matter, WoW has been dead in spirit for a while
    Rest In Peace, Star Wars the Old Republic. SWTOR is a fun RPG, but a bad MMO

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadylol View Post
    Yes but after that, I said that it could also be compared to WoW, since it's an MMO. So we can also measure it against WoW, and if it matches WoW's financial success, then Guild Wars 2 will be a truly successful game

    If you say that it can't be compared to any popular game ever, then I'm afraid that's just putting Guild Wars 2 in a situation where it can neither win nor lose, but rather exist is a permanent state of "decent", and "adequate". Maybe that's what NCSoft/Arenanet was going for, but if you ask me, I'd rather never win, and only lose, than not even have a chance to win
    Sorry but what you are saying is laughable and unrealistic. It can be applied to anything as you are making a thinly veiled "rich" and "super rich" argument. Most games would fall short of World of Warcraft or Call of Duty financial successes. By that measure only a handful of game series are "truly successful".

    At which point, why are we even talking about Guild Wars 2 anymore?

    Wouldn't Torchlight 2 need to measure up to hand over fist money making that is other ARPGs? Would not Deus Ex need to be comparable to the sales records set by Call of Duty to be successful? Surely, Sleeping Dogs need be on par with the smashing success of the Grand Theft Auto series to be a truly successful game.

    It's just not useful or sensible comparison. Esp. w/r/t huge cultural milestones such as World of Warcraft or Call of Duty- which happen like once in a generation at best.

    Guild Wars 2 will likely be successful enough to produce content for another 4-5 years. Anything beyond that is lofty fantasy as to whether Jon Peters takes the blue or red jet to work on Tuesday.

  11. #211
    Torchlight is basically just one of many indie Diablo clones, so I wouldn't say it needs to measure up to a major developer's ARPG, Deus Ex is a single player only series, so I don't compare it to primarily multiplayer focused series like Call of Duty, and I don't know what Sleeping Dogs is, except that it's a video game

    Guild Wars 2 is a "AAA" MMO, funded and published by a major player in the market (NC Soft), so I don't think it's unreasonable to compare it to another "AAA" MMO such as WoW. You can argue that WoW is a once in a lifetime phenomenon, and remove it from the list of valid comparisons, but then we're just going back to what I said earlier, about limiting Guild Wars 2's potential
    Rest In Peace, World of Warcraft. Subscriber count doesn't matter, WoW has been dead in spirit for a while
    Rest In Peace, Star Wars the Old Republic. SWTOR is a fun RPG, but a bad MMO

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Galaddriel View Post
    See, here's the beauty part of GW2 design. We never outlevel/outgear the content.

    So on top of all the 25 zones full of 1500 dynamic events, 39 jump puzzles, 25 dungeons, minigames, etc. crapton of content, everytime they add content we will have more. Content that is never trivialized, never out of date, never not worth running.

    Compare that to MMOs that use a model of one raid only at level cap. Content so thin they have to stretch it out with a gear check/gear grind.

    It really is quite brilliant.
    It's rather silly to say that the content will never be "trivialized" or "out of date". Can you say that after you've done it 5 times? 10 times? 20 times? GW 2, like any other MMO, has a finite amount of content. On top of that it has little sense of getting new and better 'stuff'' which is the whole point of MMO's like WOW. People like to get new things. After all you get new things all the time unless you are living in a cave wearing animal skins and are accessing the Internet with an IBM XT. People like stuff. It's that simple. That the folks at ArenaNet don't get that simple fact tells me that they will never be serious rivals to WOW.

  13. #213
    Bloodsail Admiral rashen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadylol View Post
    Guild Wars 2 is a "AAA" MMO, funded and published by a major player in the market (NC Soft), so I don't think it's unreasonable to compare it to another "AAA" MMO such as WoW. You can argue that WoW is a once in a lifetime phenomenon, and remove it from the list of valid comparisons, but then we're just going back to what I said earlier, about limiting Guild Wars 2's potential
    Why are you comparing this game to WoW when even the developers themselves have said their aim is not to "compete" with it?

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by evokanu View Post
    Why are you comparing this game to WoW when even the developers themselves have said their aim is not to "compete" with it?
    Because whether NCSoft/Arenanet "wants" to compete with WoW or not, they've released a product in the same market, with a finite amount of customers. I don't want to compete with my neighbor for food, but if there's only one food source left on the planet, it's us or them
    Rest In Peace, World of Warcraft. Subscriber count doesn't matter, WoW has been dead in spirit for a while
    Rest In Peace, Star Wars the Old Republic. SWTOR is a fun RPG, but a bad MMO

  15. #215
    Bloodsail Admiral rashen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadylol View Post
    Because whether NCSoft/Arenanet "wants" to compete with WoW or not, they've released a product in the same market, with a finite amount of customers. I don't want to compete with my neighbor for food, but if there's only one food source left on the planet, it's us or them
    Being in the same market does not equal having the same target base, there is cheap low quality food and there is more expensive higher quality food, they are not aimed at the same people only because its food.

  16. #216
    The Lightbringer MonsieuRoberts's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    CANADALANDLOL
    Posts
    3,557
    I got to 76, realized that my endgame would end up being a dozen explorables every day, and never logged in again.

    That said, I've NEVER had so much fun in an MMO. Leveling was out of this world, but knowing that those 100 hours are "worthless" since there is a shit ton of straight-up grind in the PvE endgame really hit me the wrong way.
    "In short, people are idiots who don't really understand anything." - Seramore

    ~On hiatus 'till WoD~
    Paladin - Warlock - Shaman - Hunter - Warrior
    My Gaming Setup

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by Galaddriel View Post
    See, here's the beauty part of GW2 design. We never outlevel/outgear the content.

    So on top of all the 25 zones full of 1500 dynamic events, 39 jump puzzles, 25 dungeons, minigames, etc. crapton of content, everytime they add content we will have more. Content that is never trivialized, never out of date, never not worth running.

    Compare that to MMOs that use a model of one raid only at level cap. Content so thin they have to stretch it out with a gear check/gear grind.

    It really is quite brilliant.
    Most of the content isn't neccesary, because they dont give you lvl appropriated loot after you dinged 80. Thus only events with chest loot are relevant. Moreover you need the skill points after lvl 80. Thus every every DE that dont give enough silver for the port there and back (because you will not want to pay more than you get every DE) + a decent amount of exp can get dropped. After these regularities only lvl ~70++ are relevant endgame. Mostly even higher DE, exceptional great chest awarding DE like the dragons each hour, there is no really relevant end-game content.

    Gear checks / gear grinds (no aestethical) and content blocking huge enemies are the most encouraging things for players, look at Diablo II, III, Rift, WoW, SWTOR and even more rpgs where your hero get stronger! (A thing that is in GW 2 not possbile, because you get downscaled.) Coming from this, after you get your max stats, which isn't near a challenge, rather than a grind - there is nothing todo.


    You can't compare GW2 with other known mmo games, and thats a problem most of the new playerbase struggle with. I've never palyed gw1, and thought I'll get a next gene 'AAA' mmo with new mechanics, but I got a hyped something else with new mechanics. The only thing which could me get playing is wvwvw, which is more like PvPvE. Raid this city, catch the donkeys, invade the enemy to steal the "flag". When you went with the zerg, you does something dumb.
    Last edited by Keren; 2012-09-18 at 06:33 AM.

    Wildstar Black Ops - loved by strangers

  18. #218
    Herald of the Titans Jigain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,718
    The following is something I typed as a response to this thread, which got locked as I was typing. I still felt like it needed to be said somewhere, so here it is.

    ---

    There is no endgame, there is all the endgame, there is some endgame. Any of these can fit depending on what you think "endgame" is.

    If you're schooled into thinking "endgame" is an activity that you're only able to do at max level, which should be the core of an MMO and differ greatly from what you've already done, GW2 has no endgame.

    If you're of the mindset that "endgame" is something that you can do at max level, that provides somewhat of a challenge and gives you relevant rewards for your character, the entire game is endgame, starting from level 2. I personally belong in this group, and I frequently receive hatred for it.

    If you do research on what the game is and isn't before you buy the game, and go into the game with your mind already made up that "when I get to level 80, I'll be wanting to do this activity", then the game has some endgame. The activity in question is irrelevant. It could be exploring, it could be assembling the coolest looking outfit you can think of, it could be finishing every jumping puzzle, it could be dominating PvP, it could be helping new players. Some of these have a clear and definite goal, others are practically endless.

    Bottom line is, "there is no endgame" is just as wrong as "all the game is endgame" (which is why I love countering the first with the second, because nobody is able to prove or disprove either). Just find out for yourself what you want from the game and go from there.

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadylol View Post
    Torchlight is basically just one of many indie Diablo clones, so I wouldn't say it needs to measure up to a major developer's ARPG, Deus Ex is a single player only series, so I don't compare it to primarily multiplayer focused series like Call of Duty, and I don't know what Sleeping Dogs is, except that it's a video game
    Kinda missing the point and incorrect on a number of things here. Which is odd because you choose to focus on individual game's specifically but ignore the granularity of each. Not good.

    Guild Wars 2 is a "AAA" MMO, funded and published by a major player in the market (NC Soft), so I don't think it's unreasonable to compare it to another "AAA" MMO such as WoW. You can argue that WoW is a once in a lifetime phenomenon, and remove it from the list of valid comparisons, but then we're just going back to what I said earlier, about limiting Guild Wars 2's potential
    Yea, this is fairer. This is what you should have said instead of that other stuff. WoW is totally a valid comparison. It's simply not a realistic one. Plenty of MMOs are alive and successful in the market right now that equal or exceed World of Warcraft's production with fewer sales and subscribers.

    So again, most games won't meet that criteria of success. Regardless of genre. What many games can meet is at the least a minimal level sustainability and [typically] a measure of profitability. Really unlikely GW2 wouldn't meet either of those.

    Once more, your point of comparison w/r/t to "success" is by turns unrealistic and laughable. There isn't a reason why you are relating this fantastical measure of "true success" to GW2 other than this being the GW2 forum. As it could apply to almost any game. Most games, actually.

    I'm sorry, but I don't think there is much to say on this anymore. Your point of comparison of " true success" is simply not sensible.

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by Jigain View Post
    The following is something I typed as a response to this thread, which got locked as I was typing. I still felt like it needed to be said somewhere, so here it is.

    ---

    There is no endgame, there is all the endgame, there is some endgame. Any of these can fit depending on what you think "endgame" is.

    If you're schooled into thinking "endgame" is an activity that you're only able to do at max level, which should be the core of an MMO and differ greatly from what you've already done, GW2 has no endgame.

    If you're of the mindset that "endgame" is something that you can do at max level, that provides somewhat of a challenge and gives you relevant rewards for your character, the entire game is endgame, starting from level 2. I personally belong in this group, and I frequently receive hatred for it.

    If you do research on what the game is and isn't before you buy the game, and go into the game with your mind already made up that "when I get to level 80, I'll be wanting to do this activity", then the game has some endgame. The activity in question is irrelevant. It could be exploring, it could be assembling the coolest looking outfit you can think of, it could be finishing every jumping puzzle, it could be dominating PvP, it could be helping new players. Some of these have a clear and definite goal, others are practically endless.

    Bottom line is, "there is no endgame" is just as wrong as "all the game is endgame" (which is why I love countering the first with the second, because nobody is able to prove or disprove either). Just find out for yourself what you want from the game and go from there.
    Endgame is really just another word for content, it doesn't really matter if you have to level up first. Guild Wars 2 doesn't really have anything that would normally be called "endgame content". If you think that grinding events that have you kill XYZ waves of mobs is comparable to other games' endgame content, then sure, Guild Wars 2 has loads of content. Otherwise, it's severely lacking
    Rest In Peace, World of Warcraft. Subscriber count doesn't matter, WoW has been dead in spirit for a while
    Rest In Peace, Star Wars the Old Republic. SWTOR is a fun RPG, but a bad MMO

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •