Bloodstealer.5978 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"Tiviana.2650" said: > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > @"Ultramex.1506" said: > > > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > > I never played WoW, always thought it looked fun but I never played it for one simple reason. > > > > > > > Mandatory sub fee. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes the sub fee, i alway hate it for few reason: > > > > > > * I feel the need to play it everyday so i don't waste muh 15$ > > > > > > * Now i know what i'm about to say probably just paranoid but i think some mmo slow down your progress on purpose to make you keep subbing > > > > > > * It's just like taxes/bills > > > > > > * I don't like paying for a game every month > > > > > > > > > > I mean but if you never played WoW because of the 15$ per month sub fee, then you likely never played a quality MMO back then. > > > > > > > > > > Guild Wars 1 wasnt a MMO but more of a 3D Diablo made by Diablo 2 people.... > > > > > > > > Sub fee does not mean quality... If it did then why has wow got some of the worst graphics in any game I've ever played... then again after 30 minutes I just got tired of playing Tom and Jerry pictures and never got tempted back... though I did have a moment of temptation when they launched panda play.. but then I heard pikachoo didn't make the final QA pass so that killed that moment of madness > > > > > > Depends on what constitutes as quality game play. Me i prefer good content over visuals. If there isnt anything interesting content wise to keep me playing, barbie dress up wont cut it. Yes gw2 has more pretty graphics in the sense of the style, wow is made to be more cartoon thats its style, its actually very pretty when played on high and ultra. You are talking style of graphics vs gameplay two dif things. I cant fault wow for gameplay, it has a few areas where i was not into the game, but overall it has so much to do that you could start playing it as a level one and never run out of content even at cap. BfA was hard for me to stick with though too much reputation grind upgrade gear grind i didnt have the time, but the zones were fantastic to play through. And the stories of the quest lines were amazing if you are a lore hound. GW2 is dif its a pretty game and it has good zones to play in but for depth nothing beats wow. If i could still play like that i would but i cant justify paying for a game i dont have that kind of time to immerse into. With gw2 i never get left behind and have to worry about starting the gear grind again. I mean they have grinds here dont think they dont, but its different > > > > That's is the point I originally made ... what constitutes the statement the gw2 has never been successful cos someone thinks wow is superior in quality cos it's a sub based game... quality can be measured with a wide range of criteria ... graphics, gameplay, story,VA to name but a few. Just cos wow has millions more accounts doesn't mean it's quality, wow was pushed out into the gaming space when there were very few options available... I wonder if that same level would be reached these day, even with there much larger budgets, headcounts and marketing... I doubt it personally... but it comes back to the same thing, players perceptions of what constitute good, bad, great or dead turkey are at best very subjective based on so many aspects. > > You still deflecting from what I said and what I was responding to No im not deflecting anything.. merely stated you actually made my own point valid is all.. there is nothing to deflect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 > @"Zeike.7469" said: > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > @"Zeike.7469" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > @"Dante.1763" said: > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ultramex.1506" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > I never played WoW, always thought it looked fun but I never played it for one simple reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mandatory sub fee. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes the sub fee, i alway hate it for few reason: > > > > > > > > > > > * I feel the need to play it everyday so i don't waste muh 15$ > > > > > > > > > > > * Now i know what i'm about to say probably just paranoid but i think some mmo slow down your progress on purpose to make you keep subbing > > > > > > > > > > > * It's just like taxes/bills > > > > > > > > > > > * I don't like paying for a game every month > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean but if you never played WoW because of the 15$ per month sub fee, then you likely never played a quality MMO back then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guild Wars 1 wasnt a MMO but more of a 3D Diablo made by Diablo 2 people.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sub fee does not mean quality... If it did then why has wow got some of the worst graphics in any game I've ever played... then again after 30 minutes I just got tired of playing Tom and Jerry pictures and never got tempted back... though I did have a moment of temptation when they launched panda play.. but then I heard pikachoo didn't make the final QA pass so that killed that moment of madness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > art graphics doesnt equate to poor quality. If that was the case Xmen the Animated Series wouldn't be considered as prestige as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neither does a sub fee equate to quality cos if it did then are we to think every sub based game is "quality".... nah just another baseless claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you never played a MMO with a sub prior to GW2, what are the quality MMOs you played? > > > > > > > > > > Can name a few for myself. WoT, WoWSP, Mabinogi, GW1 all quality MMOs that ive played IMO, you may think differently about them, but thats the nice thing about opinions isnt it? > > > > > > > > > > I will say though if i cant stand to look at a game, i wont play it very much, WOWs graphics are dated, and despite trying it, the graphics where a large part(aside from the sub fee) that i stopped. > > > > > > > > I really wish people would stop saying GW 1 was an MMO. It wasn't. It was a coop game. > > > > > > It is an MMO? It also won awards such as Best Value, Best Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, and Best Game. > > > > It's more a MORPG than a MMO technically.. > > > > I often just call it or attribute it with the MMO label though just because it's in the same market space and shares many tropes. > > I believe that's the same or similar reasoning to why others also call it a MMO even though we know it's technically not one. > > Curiously though, I might sound stupid here, but what didn't they have that pushed them from the MMORPG title? genuinely have always just called it an MMO, never thought twice on the matter. Is it because of the single player instances outside main cities? The reason why it wasn't considered an MMO back then was because back then what defined an MMO was having a persistent world. You had a world and many players entered it. Guild Wars 2 was more of a lobby game. That is you got your group together in an outpost where you couldn't even use your skills. Once you left that outpost you saw no one except the players you brought with you. No open world. Even Guild Wars 2, by the original definition would no longer be an MMO but the definition has changed. The real test is this. I can you play with 40 or 50 people side by side that you don't know? That might run by you and help you out and/or kill you.If you can, that's an MMO. Actually even by the original definition Guild Wars 2 is still an MMO but only because of WvW. The new maps spawn on demand so they're not persistent. Definitions change as technologies change, but Guild Wars 1 wasn't an MMO by any definition. It was multiplayer true...but it wasn't MASSIVELY multiplayer, the first M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Zeike.7469" said: > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > @"Zeike.7469" said: > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > @"Dante.1763" said: > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ultramex.1506" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never played WoW, always thought it looked fun but I never played it for one simple reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mandatory sub fee. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes the sub fee, i alway hate it for few reason: > > > > > > > > > > > > * I feel the need to play it everyday so i don't waste muh 15$ > > > > > > > > > > > > * Now i know what i'm about to say probably just paranoid but i think some mmo slow down your progress on purpose to make you keep subbing > > > > > > > > > > > > * It's just like taxes/bills > > > > > > > > > > > > * I don't like paying for a game every month > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean but if you never played WoW because of the 15$ per month sub fee, then you likely never played a quality MMO back then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guild Wars 1 wasnt a MMO but more of a 3D Diablo made by Diablo 2 people.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sub fee does not mean quality... If it did then why has wow got some of the worst graphics in any game I've ever played... then again after 30 minutes I just got tired of playing Tom and Jerry pictures and never got tempted back... though I did have a moment of temptation when they launched panda play.. but then I heard pikachoo didn't make the final QA pass so that killed that moment of madness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > art graphics doesnt equate to poor quality. If that was the case Xmen the Animated Series wouldn't be considered as prestige as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neither does a sub fee equate to quality cos if it did then are we to think every sub based game is "quality".... nah just another baseless claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you never played a MMO with a sub prior to GW2, what are the quality MMOs you played? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can name a few for myself. WoT, WoWSP, Mabinogi, GW1 all quality MMOs that ive played IMO, you may think differently about them, but thats the nice thing about opinions isnt it? > > > > > > > > > > > > I will say though if i cant stand to look at a game, i wont play it very much, WOWs graphics are dated, and despite trying it, the graphics where a large part(aside from the sub fee) that i stopped. > > > > > > > > > > I really wish people would stop saying GW 1 was an MMO. It wasn't. It was a coop game. > > > > > > > > It is an MMO? It also won awards such as Best Value, Best Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, and Best Game. > > > > > > It's more a MORPG than a MMO technically.. > > > > > > I often just call it or attribute it with the MMO label though just because it's in the same market space and shares many tropes. > > > I believe that's the same or similar reasoning to why others also call it a MMO even though we know it's technically not one. > > > > Curiously though, I might sound stupid here, but what didn't they have that pushed them from the MMORPG title? genuinely have always just called it an MMO, never thought twice on the matter. Is it because of the single player instances outside main cities? > > The reason why it wasn't considered an MMO back then was because back then what defined an MMO was having a persistent world. You had a world and many players entered it. Guild Wars 2 was more of a lobby game. That is you got your group together in an outpost where you couldn't even use your skills. Once you left that outpost you saw no one except the players you brought with you. No open world. Even Guild Wars 2, by the original definition would no longer be an MMO but the definition has changed. The real test is this. I can you play with 40 or 50 people side by side that you don't know? That might run by you and help you out and/or kill you.If you can, that's an MMO. Actually even by the original definition Guild Wars 2 is still an MMO but only because of WvW. The new maps spawn on demand so they're not persistent. Definitions change as technologies change, but Guild Wars 1 wasn't an MMO by any definition. It was multiplayer true...but it wasn't MASSIVELY multiplayer, the first M. Actually that isn't specifically true you could still see others in some areas which could be considered small open world areas killing trash, colleting sticks etc..when you then went into portalled combat specific zones it became instanced like. However yeah I would more like to consider GW1 an cooprpg not that it really matters persey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultramex.1506 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > The reason why it wasn't considered an MMO back then was because back then what defined an MMO was having a persistent world. You had a world and many players entered it. Guild Wars 2 was more of a lobby game. That is you got your group together in an outpost where you couldn't even use your skills. Once you left that outpost you saw no one except the players you brought with you. No open world. Even Guild Wars 2, by the original definition would no longer be an MMO but the definition has changed. The real test is this. I can you play with 40 or 50 people side by side that you don't know? That might run by you and help you out and/or kill you.If you can, that's an MMO. Actually even by the original definition Guild Wars 2 is still an MMO but only because of WvW. The new maps spawn on demand so they're not persistent. Definitions change as technologies change, but Guild Wars 1 wasn't an MMO by any definition. It was multiplayer true...but it wasn't MASSIVELY multiplayer, the first M. > > Actually that isn't specifically true you could still see others in some areas which could be considered small open world areas killing trash, colleting sticks etc..when you then went into portalled combat specific zones it became instanced like. > However yeah I would more like to consider GW1 an cooprpg not that it really matters persey Hey uh can you 2 delete other's quotes? keep getting notification but, to my disappointment, it wasn't for me :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"Zeike.7469" said: > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > @"Zeike.7469" said: > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > > @"Dante.1763" said: > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ultramex.1506" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never played WoW, always thought it looked fun but I never played it for one simple reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mandatory sub fee. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes the sub fee, i alway hate it for few reason: > > > > > > > > > > > > > * I feel the need to play it everyday so i don't waste muh 15$ > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Now i know what i'm about to say probably just paranoid but i think some mmo slow down your progress on purpose to make you keep subbing > > > > > > > > > > > > > * It's just like taxes/bills > > > > > > > > > > > > > * I don't like paying for a game every month > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean but if you never played WoW because of the 15$ per month sub fee, then you likely never played a quality MMO back then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guild Wars 1 wasnt a MMO but more of a 3D Diablo made by Diablo 2 people.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sub fee does not mean quality... If it did then why has wow got some of the worst graphics in any game I've ever played... then again after 30 minutes I just got tired of playing Tom and Jerry pictures and never got tempted back... though I did have a moment of temptation when they launched panda play.. but then I heard pikachoo didn't make the final QA pass so that killed that moment of madness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > art graphics doesnt equate to poor quality. If that was the case Xmen the Animated Series wouldn't be considered as prestige as it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neither does a sub fee equate to quality cos if it did then are we to think every sub based game is "quality".... nah just another baseless claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you never played a MMO with a sub prior to GW2, what are the quality MMOs you played? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can name a few for myself. WoT, WoWSP, Mabinogi, GW1 all quality MMOs that ive played IMO, you may think differently about them, but thats the nice thing about opinions isnt it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will say though if i cant stand to look at a game, i wont play it very much, WOWs graphics are dated, and despite trying it, the graphics where a large part(aside from the sub fee) that i stopped. > > > > > > > > > > > > I really wish people would stop saying GW 1 was an MMO. It wasn't. It was a coop game. > > > > > > > > > > It is an MMO? It also won awards such as Best Value, Best Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game, and Best Game. > > > > > > > > It's more a MORPG than a MMO technically.. > > > > > > > > I often just call it or attribute it with the MMO label though just because it's in the same market space and shares many tropes. > > > > I believe that's the same or similar reasoning to why others also call it a MMO even though we know it's technically not one. > > > > > > Curiously though, I might sound stupid here, but what didn't they have that pushed them from the MMORPG title? genuinely have always just called it an MMO, never thought twice on the matter. Is it because of the single player instances outside main cities? > > > > The reason why it wasn't considered an MMO back then was because back then what defined an MMO was having a persistent world. You had a world and many players entered it. Guild Wars 2 was more of a lobby game. That is you got your group together in an outpost where you couldn't even use your skills. Once you left that outpost you saw no one except the players you brought with you. No open world. Even Guild Wars 2, by the original definition would no longer be an MMO but the definition has changed. The real test is this. I can you play with 40 or 50 people side by side that you don't know? That might run by you and help you out and/or kill you.If you can, that's an MMO. Actually even by the original definition Guild Wars 2 is still an MMO but only because of WvW. The new maps spawn on demand so they're not persistent. Definitions change as technologies change, but Guild Wars 1 wasn't an MMO by any definition. It was multiplayer true...but it wasn't MASSIVELY multiplayer, the first M. > > Actually that isn't specifically true you could still see others in some areas which could be considered small open world areas killing trash, colleting sticks etc..when you then went into portalled combat specific zones it became instanced like. > However yeah I would more like to consider GW1 an cooprpg not that it really matters persey Actually there are zero areas you could play except in outposts during festivals with strangers. There were zero areas you could go and quest besides that. Once you left an outpost you were an instance of the zone specifically for you and your party. There is stuff like mad king says and some of the stuff in the Canthan New Year which breaks that pattern, but for the normal game, there were no areas. If you wanted a gate monkey in Pre event, you had to party with them, and they were the only people in that area. That's how the game was designed. Outposts showed everyone. "Open world maps" showed only those you brought with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSaurus.6740 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 Wow classic lmao... Worried ahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hashberry.4510 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 If classic had no sub it might be a distraction for a month or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battledrone.8315 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 it says a lot about the current state of mmos, that this 15 year old game can garner so much attention. i think it will do as swtor did..3 mio at launch, down to 500k in the first year and 500k subs is VERY impressive for such an old game, more than most of the competitors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teratus.2859 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Ultramex.1506" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > The reason why it wasn't considered an MMO back then was because back then what defined an MMO was having a persistent world. You had a world and many players entered it. Guild Wars 2 was more of a lobby game. That is you got your group together in an outpost where you couldn't even use your skills. Once you left that outpost you saw no one except the players you brought with you. No open world. Even Guild Wars 2, by the original definition would no longer be an MMO but the definition has changed. The real test is this. I can you play with 40 or 50 people side by side that you don't know? That might run by you and help you out and/or kill you.If you can, that's an MMO. Actually even by the original definition Guild Wars 2 is still an MMO but only because of WvW. The new maps spawn on demand so they're not persistent. Definitions change as technologies change, but Guild Wars 1 wasn't an MMO by any definition. It was multiplayer true...but it wasn't MASSIVELY multiplayer, the first M. > > > > Actually that isn't specifically true you could still see others in some areas which could be considered small open world areas killing trash, colleting sticks etc..when you then went into portalled combat specific zones it became instanced like. > > However yeah I would more like to consider GW1 an cooprpg not that it really matters persey > > Hey uh can you 2 delete other's quotes? keep getting notification but, to my disappointment, it wasn't for me :'( Getting them too cause one of my posts is way back in the reply XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"battledrone.8315" said: > it says a lot about the current state of mmos, that this 15 year old game can garner so much attention. > i think it will do as swtor did..3 mio at launch, down to 500k in the first year > and 500k subs is VERY impressive for such an old game, more than most of the competitors Except SWTOR didn't drop like that. It was plagued by performance issues throughout that first 12 months and did loose a lot of those original dizzy heights account numbers during that period, prompting the messy server merging exercise, but the technical issues with the game were the culprit not the game itself... too many band aids and not enough fixes is what cost SWTOR, added with the slideshow Illum, there large scale 100V100 debacle that they simply just couldn't be bothered to fix and instead just killed the content mode entirely. IIRC after going F2P 12months it began to gain a half decent foothold once more, and imo GW2 could of done a lot worse than look at how some of the redeeming features of SWTOR could of helped them implement better features here.. cough guild halls, cough decorations. The number of subs/accounts etc is kinda neither here nor there... an MMO could have 10k, 100k and still be profitable enough to keep developing the game and keep the people gainfully employed as it all comes down to balancing the resources. You can have 10mill accounts and still not be overly profit savy if your costs to keep it going are larger or maybe inefficient or the product suffers a spate of bad quality features... it's all a balancing act no matter what company we put into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judgebeo.3976 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"mikhail.3506" said: > I honestly Hooope nothing will happen to this game, it's a good game. But if we don't get a HUGE update like a new expansion/content come August there won't be anyone left playing this game. No players= no money = no content. It's gonna be a vicious cycle. > > So What new content are we getting in August, and will it be enough to stop people from going to WOW CLassic? > >  > Thats sarcasm? a Joke? Gw2 and Anet have things to worry about but... WoW Classic? really? What will you think if Anet closes Gw1 servers and 5 years later opens them again? WOW!!!! GW1!!!!! or... WTF! thats wow classic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > it says a lot about the current state of mmos, that this 15 year old game can garner so much attention. > > i think it will do as swtor did..3 mio at launch, down to 500k in the first year > > and 500k subs is VERY impressive for such an old game, more than most of the competitors > > Except SWTOR didn't drop like that. It was plagued by performance issues throughout that first 12 months and did loose a lot of those original dizzy heights account numbers during that period, prompting the messy server merging exercise, but the technical issues with the game were the culprit not the game itself... too many band aids and not enough fixes is what cost SWTOR, added with the slideshow Illum, there large scale 100V100 debacle that they simply just couldn't be bothered to fix and instead just killed the content mode entirely. > IIRC after going F2P 12months it began to gain a half decent foothold once more, and imo GW2 could of done a lot worse than look at how some of the redeeming features of SWTOR could of helped them implement better features here.. cough guild halls, cough decorations. > The number of subs/accounts etc is kinda neither here nor there... an MMO could have 10k, 100k and still be profitable enough to keep developing the game and keep the people gainfully employed as it all comes down to balancing the resources. You can have 10mill accounts and still not be overly profit savy if your costs to keep it going are larger or maybe inefficient or the product suffers a spate of bad quality features... it's all a balancing act no matter what company we put into the equation. But you know, this game has it's problems too. It lost a ton of players just months after launch when it announced ascended gear. The HoT launch was pretty badly flubbed. Let's not forget culling in WvW. This game has has it's share of problems too and lost a lot of its initial player base and is still doing much better than SWTOR, which is not only a big IP, but it's also a game with a much higher budget, from a much bigger company. All in all Guild Wars 2 has stacked up amazingly well, considering the constraints. The IP isn't nearly as popular as Star Wars, or Warcraft, or Final Fantasy or even Elder Scrolls. Those games have not only been around longer, but there are more of them, and they were more popular and available on more platforms. And yet this game has hung with them, or in that ball park for a long long time. I'm not sure how else you'd measure success, but most reasonable people would expect hugely popular IPs from bigger companies to have done much better sooner. Seems to me, this game has done remarkably well considering it's not available on Steam, or console. This is a huge vindication of not only Anet's original vision but their ability to stay in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battledrone.8315 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > it says a lot about the current state of mmos, that this 15 year old game can garner so much attention. > > i think it will do as swtor did..3 mio at launch, down to 500k in the first year > > and 500k subs is VERY impressive for such an old game, more than most of the competitors > > Except SWTOR didn't drop like that. It was plagued by performance issues throughout that first 12 months and did loose a lot of those original dizzy heights account numbers during that period, prompting the messy server merging exercise, but the technical issues with the game were the culprit not the game itself... too many band aids and not enough fixes is what cost SWTOR, added with the slideshow Illum, there large scale 100V100 debacle that they simply just couldn't be bothered to fix and instead just killed the content mode entirely. > IIRC after going F2P 12months it began to gain a half decent foothold once more, and imo GW2 could of done a lot worse than look at how some of the redeeming features of SWTOR could of helped them implement better features here.. cough guild halls, cough decorations. > The number of subs/accounts etc is kinda neither here nor there... an MMO could have 10k, 100k and still be profitable enough to keep developing the game and keep the people gainfully employed as it all comes down to balancing the resources. You can have 10mill accounts and still not be overly profit savy if your costs to keep it going are larger or maybe inefficient or the product suffers a spate of bad quality features... it's all a balancing act no matter what company we put into the equation. i was there , and i saw it happen. they launched an mmo without groupfinder, it was grindy and total linear. they NEVER fixed the pvp issues, due to the engine. the game was poorly designed, the tech issues are parts of that poor design. the hero engine just cant support big mmos, chosing that was like building a castle in a swamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > it says a lot about the current state of mmos, that this 15 year old game can garner so much attention. > > > i think it will do as swtor did..3 mio at launch, down to 500k in the first year > > > and 500k subs is VERY impressive for such an old game, more than most of the competitors > > > > Except SWTOR didn't drop like that. It was plagued by performance issues throughout that first 12 months and did loose a lot of those original dizzy heights account numbers during that period, prompting the messy server merging exercise, but the technical issues with the game were the culprit not the game itself... too many band aids and not enough fixes is what cost SWTOR, added with the slideshow Illum, there large scale 100V100 debacle that they simply just couldn't be bothered to fix and instead just killed the content mode entirely. > > IIRC after going F2P 12months it began to gain a half decent foothold once more, and imo GW2 could of done a lot worse than look at how some of the redeeming features of SWTOR could of helped them implement better features here.. cough guild halls, cough decorations. > > The number of subs/accounts etc is kinda neither here nor there... an MMO could have 10k, 100k and still be profitable enough to keep developing the game and keep the people gainfully employed as it all comes down to balancing the resources. You can have 10mill accounts and still not be overly profit savy if your costs to keep it going are larger or maybe inefficient or the product suffers a spate of bad quality features... it's all a balancing act no matter what company we put into the equation. > > i was there , and i saw it happen. they launched an mmo without groupfinder, it was grindy and total linear. they NEVER fixed the pvp issues, due to the engine. > the game was poorly designed, the tech issues are parts of that poor design. > the hero engine just cant support big mmos, chosing that was like building a castle in a swamp. Guild Wars 2 launched without a group finder too...just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > it says a lot about the current state of mmos, that this 15 year old game can garner so much attention. > > > i think it will do as swtor did..3 mio at launch, down to 500k in the first year > > > and 500k subs is VERY impressive for such an old game, more than most of the competitors > > > > Except SWTOR didn't drop like that. It was plagued by performance issues throughout that first 12 months and did loose a lot of those original dizzy heights account numbers during that period, prompting the messy server merging exercise, but the technical issues with the game were the culprit not the game itself... too many band aids and not enough fixes is what cost SWTOR, added with the slideshow Illum, there large scale 100V100 debacle that they simply just couldn't be bothered to fix and instead just killed the content mode entirely. > > IIRC after going F2P 12months it began to gain a half decent foothold once more, and imo GW2 could of done a lot worse than look at how some of the redeeming features of SWTOR could of helped them implement better features here.. cough guild halls, cough decorations. > > The number of subs/accounts etc is kinda neither here nor there... an MMO could have 10k, 100k and still be profitable enough to keep developing the game and keep the people gainfully employed as it all comes down to balancing the resources. You can have 10mill accounts and still not be overly profit savy if your costs to keep it going are larger or maybe inefficient or the product suffers a spate of bad quality features... it's all a balancing act no matter what company we put into the equation. > > But you know, this game has it's problems too. It lost a ton of players just months after launch when it announced ascended gear. The HoT launch was pretty badly flubbed. Let's not forget culling in WvW. This game has has it's share of problems too and lost a lot of its initial player base and is still doing much better than SWTOR, which is not only a big IP, but it's also a game with a much higher budget, from a much bigger company. All in all Guild Wars 2 has stacked up amazingly well, considering the constraints. > > The IP isn't nearly as popular as Star Wars, or Warcraft, or Final Fantasy or even Elder Scrolls. Those games have not only been around longer, but there are more of them, and they were more popular and available on more platforms. And yet this game has hung with them, or in that ball park for a long long time. I'm not sure how else you'd measure success, but most reasonable people would expect hugely popular IPs from bigger companies to have done much better sooner. > > Seems to me, this game has done remarkably well considering it's not available on Steam, or console. This is a huge vindication of not only Anet's original vision but their ability to stay in the game. I never said GW2 didn't have its fair share of issues, or that its done pretty dang well.. in fact on many occasions including in this very thread, I have said the exact thing. The fact is no MMO is immune to issues whether self inflicted or just through global forces beyond ones control. As for SWTOR.. yep the biggest IP going and a big gaming company that were dreadfully short on MMO experience being an SPRPG specialist... of course the main issues were fundamentally technical in nature that caused much of that glorious launch day going south over the first twelve months.. a heavily modded game engine that they felt they were too good to lower themselves to take on outside support from the engine specialists themselves, but yep just another example of what can and likely will happen to any MMO these days as soon as launch day resides.. and there have been some real notable crash and burns, especially of late. In some ways I guess that's the advantage some of those older MMO's had.. less competition for players to keep hoping over to when things don't quite work out they way they hoped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > > it says a lot about the current state of mmos, that this 15 year old game can garner so much attention. > > > > i think it will do as swtor did..3 mio at launch, down to 500k in the first year > > > > and 500k subs is VERY impressive for such an old game, more than most of the competitors > > > > > > Except SWTOR didn't drop like that. It was plagued by performance issues throughout that first 12 months and did loose a lot of those original dizzy heights account numbers during that period, prompting the messy server merging exercise, but the technical issues with the game were the culprit not the game itself... too many band aids and not enough fixes is what cost SWTOR, added with the slideshow Illum, there large scale 100V100 debacle that they simply just couldn't be bothered to fix and instead just killed the content mode entirely. > > > IIRC after going F2P 12months it began to gain a half decent foothold once more, and imo GW2 could of done a lot worse than look at how some of the redeeming features of SWTOR could of helped them implement better features here.. cough guild halls, cough decorations. > > > The number of subs/accounts etc is kinda neither here nor there... an MMO could have 10k, 100k and still be profitable enough to keep developing the game and keep the people gainfully employed as it all comes down to balancing the resources. You can have 10mill accounts and still not be overly profit savy if your costs to keep it going are larger or maybe inefficient or the product suffers a spate of bad quality features... it's all a balancing act no matter what company we put into the equation. > > > > i was there , and i saw it happen. they launched an mmo without groupfinder, it was grindy and total linear. they NEVER fixed the pvp issues, due to the engine. > > the game was poorly designed, the tech issues are parts of that poor design. > > the hero engine just cant support big mmos, chosing that was like building a castle in a swamp. > > Guild Wars 2 launched without a group finder too...just saying. Nah the hero engine was a pretty solid engine at that time.. but iirc it was Lucas Arts that didn't want others messing with their own modding of it even when it was offered when it was clear things just weren't working out. So Bioware had to grin and bare it for those 12 months.. it was just one band aid after another. As for features.. all games launch with features not realised by others or missing some that for many of us are common and perhaps necessary and I totally agree SWTOR really did need an LFG tool, but as I said, you had a gaming company that were predominantly an SPRPG developer and it kind showed where it lacked most. That said I think when they started to find their feet the game actually did begin to reignite my interest in it... something about light sticks and teddy bears I just cant resist maybe :).. I am still a subber there so maybe I am biased. Then again coming from playing DDO since early beta, I kind of grew up expecting MMO's to shower us with all those nice things.. LFG's, Raids, Guild Bank, Housing.. even a build in voice system that imo was the one of the best features of its time, not so necessary these days with TS and Discord readily available, but DDO VC was free and crisp quality. But ANET have proven over time that they can offer much of all these nice tools and features without the need to charge a sub.. in fact I still think their core GW2 launched with so many inclusive tools and features/mechanics that it might of actually stunted their ability to offer many of these and turn a profit on them later... but who am I to complain :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneguardian.4360 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 Never liked WoW. More importantly never liked how the community of WoW felt. Can't speak for anyone else, but that's more than enough for me not to go anywhere near it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultramex.1506 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Necro this post just to say Welp, time to be worry 'cause Anet 30th August seem to have disappointed lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekneeq.4302 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 its not nostalgia,,, ive never played wow till a month ago..first time ive ever subbed.. ive been playing classic all day everyday since its re release.. ive never played it before now and i cant stop playing.. ive always hated the graphics and toon models.. but guess what the game is freaking fun.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasoki.5180 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 > @"Tekneeq.4302" said: > its not nostalgia,,, ive never played wow till a month ago..first time ive ever subbed.. ive been playing classic all day everyday since its re release.. ive never played it before now and i cant stop playing.. ive always hated the graphics and toon models.. but guess what the game is freaking fun.. Dont even bother to try to explain. As it has been demonstrated time and time again people on this forum live in a bubble. Glad you are enjoying classic. As someone who played vanilla back in the day I thought i was going to hate playing it again. Boy was I wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elric.4713 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 People are mad that a fifteen year old game generates more buzz than GW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pifil.5193 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 > @"Tekneeq.4302" said: > its not nostalgia,,, ive never played wow till a month ago..first time ive ever subbed.. ive been playing classic all day everyday since its re release.. ive never played it before now and i cant stop playing.. ive always hated the graphics and toon models.. but guess what the game is freaking fun.. It's an excellent game alright, might dust off my subscription, I have no re interest in the new expansion really but classic will be fun for a while, slow levelling to 60 through fun quests. Sounds good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coso.9173 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 wow classic is destined to fail after some time. either it will update with new (old) content or not, in both options people will leave when nostalgia wears out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knomslayer.9457 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 gw2 right now is still better and fun to play than wow classic. you dont play wow classic for fun. I bet only 17% of people playing now will reach level 60 the others will quit bored from leveling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knomslayer.9457 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 > @"coso.9173" said: > wow classic is destined to fail after some time. either it will update with new (old) content or not, in both options people will leave when nostalgia wears out. they already have plans for content. classic wow have 5 planned phases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now