Are you enjoying the endgame?

[Shadylol]

Your definition of content and the actual definition of content are two different things, as I'm assuming you're considering content only raiding content based on your prior statements.

redit: To put it in context, WoW maintains the highest subscription rate in the world with releasing minimal content at once, and having FAR less overall relevant content for players.

WoW is an unusual comparison, because Blizzard is in a weird place where they can give nothing, and get everything. Fans of that game will praise it like some sort of god, no matter what Blizzard does, but this is the result of being king of the hill for many years (which was earned at first). Other companies like NCSoft/Arenanet, BioWare, Trion Worlds, etc., don't have this luxury. And to be fair to WoW, it is still the only MMO with competitive PvP

It's not fair, or even logical, but even if Guild Wars 2 keeps up in terms of content release quality, and quantity, it'll still be judged more harshly, while WoW players keep playing WoW, regardless of what Blizzard does to that game. I don't think Guild Wars 2 released with enough content to really satisfy people, nor compete in the market. It's not a hopeless battle though, being buy-to-play, rather than requiring a subscription gives GW2 a lot of space, and gives NCSoft/Anet a lot of time to work with it, and make it better

All I'm saying is that "it worked for Guild Wars (1)", or "it has a different target audience", it's an "MMO revolution!", etc., aren't things that give GW2 a magic barrier. It has a good chance (again, "good chance" as I've used in both instances is only a probability, not a certainty") of reaching a crash and burn point, with the current state of the game

---------- Post added 2012-09-17 at 11:13 PM ----------

Guild Wars 2 follows almost the exact same "endgame" as Guild Wars 1. Considering Guild Wars 1 was successful enough that we wouldn't even be talking about yet alone playing Guild Wars 2 chances are good Anet will be cranking out campaigns for a few more years still.

This model of operation has been proven to work for Anet and the franchise. 4 games and xpac that came before the 5th game titled Guild Wars 2.

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

[Edge-]

It has a good chance (again, "good chance" as I've used in both instances is only a probability, not a certainty") of reaching a crash and burn point, with the current state of the game

I haven't seen you provide any evidence to prove such an assertion beyond "it doesn't have content" (an assertion which is demonstrably false) that supports such a claim. If anything, it has far more going for it in that it has a very low barrier for entry (no subscription, only box price), and provides an alternative playstyle to most typical MMO's (including a focus on PvP).

I'm by no means claiming it's going to revolutionize anything or that it's going to be the best thing since sliced bread. Based off of initial sales alone (over 2 million in the first month, including a period where the game was unavailable for digital purchase, which held up sales), I don't see how you can credibly make that claim. I mean, we'll see how the game is doing 3-6-9 months in, but initial results have thus far contradicted your assertion.

[Fencers]

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

Well, again. GW1 content development disproves this as well. And it's continued sales over all the games.

There is no mincing words here; this model of game design is proven to be successful for the franchise.

[Shadylol]

Well, again. GW1 content development disproves this as well. And it's continued sales over all the games.

There is no mincing words here; this model of game design is proven to be successful for the franchise.

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

---------- Post added 2012-09-18 at 12:31 AM ----------

I haven't seen you provide any evidence to prove such an assertion beyond "it doesn't have content" (an assertion which is demonstrably false) that supports such a claim. If anything, it has far more going for it in that it has a very low barrier for entry (no subscription, only box price), and provides an alternative playstyle to most typical MMO's (including a focus on PvP).

I'm by no means claiming it's going to revolutionize anything or that it's going to be the best thing since sliced bread. Based off of initial sales alone (over 2 million in the first month, including a period where the game was unavailable for digital purchase, which held up sales), I don't see how you can credibly make that claim. I mean, we'll see how the game is doing 3-6-9 months in, but initial results have thus far contradicted your assertion.

Well Guild Wars 2's content is questionable. If you're satisfied with it, then I'm happy for you, but let's ignore your personal opinion, as well as that of myself for a moment, and admit that there's also people who are not satisfied with GW2's content. Weather or not it has an "alternative playstyle", or just a lack of quality is also a point of debate, but let's just say that Guild Wars 2 is a good, marketable product. There's no guarantee that it will keep people entertained in the long term

As for GW2's initial sales, 2 million is a good figure, but it's nothing ground breaking, and don't forget that it's pretty standard for new MMOs to sell a lot at first, but then have trouble later on (Rift, SWTOR, etc). Like Fencers said, what they're doing so far with GW2 has worked out well for NCSoft/Arenanet so far, so I have no doubt that GW2 will be an adequate revenue source, but without a long-term viable plan for the game, it will make less money than it potentially could otherwise, with more content

[Fencers]

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.

[Edge-]

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.

[Riavan]

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.

[Shadylol]

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 ----------

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

[Galaddriel]

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.

[Shadylol]

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

[Fencers]

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.

[Stellan]

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.

[Shadylol]

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

[Fencers]

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.

[Shadylol]

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

[Stellan]

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.

[Deleted]

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?

[Shadylol]

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

[Deleted]

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.

[MonsieuRoberts]

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.