Is GW business model really unique?

I would like to quote this from the GamersGlobal article:

Despite the fact that A.net representatives claim their busines model to be "unique", they actually use both the mentioned systems.

When we buy a new campaign or expansion, we buy "special moves" that in GW case are skills.
PvP players could stick to the "special moves" of one campaign forever, but this is not very likely. To stay competitive, it's more reasonable they buy all new "special moves" as soon as they become available with a new campaign/expansion.

Luckily, GW is not equipment based. Anyway, to some extent heroes can be considered "better equipment" compared to normal henchies.
And with inscriptions, we bought the possibility to get "better equipment" - althought only marginally better because equipment again counts very little (luckily) - in an easier way compared to Prophecies and Factions.

So basically they sell the same things, together with new "maps" to play (missions and dungeons).

And they charge it on a regular basis: provided that they're able to supply a new campaign/expansion every six months, we pay them twice per year in advance, instead of monthly, to get the "special moves", the "better equipment" and the new maps.


So I would say that their business model is a mix of the two, presented in a very intelligent way to hide the fact that is essentially the same.


After more than 2 years playing GW, I start to dislike this model.
The main reason is that once I've given them my money, I lose my "customer power" against them.
If they take some technical or marketing decision I disagree with, I have no way to "punish" them for that.

Let me explain the meaning of the word "punish": I use it in a commercial context, referred to a customer-supplier relationship.

In my job, I deal with suppliers of my company.
If a supplier fails in something, like for instance they don't respect the delivery time, or their product doesn't comply to what agreed, or they start to have marketing policies I don't consider correct, I can "punish" them stopping the payment of invoices, charging them economical penalities and so on, to force them to respect the contractual obligations, or to give a better service to my company.

I do this in the interest of the company I work for, and I don't enjoy if this happens, this means that there are anyway troubles to manage. It's much much better when I'm completely satisfied.

This is what I call customer's power. Suppliers need customer's money, and this is used in every correct commercial relationship to make them work better. It's the basics of business.


With the current GW business model, once I've given my money to the supplier, they can do whatever they want, I have no means to force them to do what I want.
If the game was subscription based, in case I disagree with some of their decisions I could send them an email explaining my disappointment and stop the payments.
Although minimal, this would be anyway a loss of income. If thousands of players did the same, they would be more willing to rethink something.
This would be a more balanced commercial relationship. The current one is unbalanced.


Luckily, I don't have to complain much about the quality of their products, they created so far very good games, I give them A+ for this aspect. I like the basic concepts, level cap, game mechanics, 8 skill bar, no item-based, graphics, actually nearly everything.
But their marketing has always been horrible, and for me a product is a package of technical features (A+) and marketing (horrible), and I have no means to "punish" them for their horrible marketing approach.


For the reasons above, I'd prefer GW2 to be subscription based.

you can "punish" them by not buying products off them in the future.

like pretty much EVERYTHING in the real world....:s

Jeff said he hopes all business models are used not just GW's.

Yes GW uses both a cash shop (online store) and it's current selling pont.
One time payment Console game fee.

I'd say thats more unique.
Just because something else exists....

Also most online stores in games have their items only last for about a month!

But unlike canceling subscription, they wont notice that you are rebelling and "punishing" them for several months/years.

Subscription cancel has immediate effect: obvious lost customer. Company has immediate feedback.

What gets anet? few flames on forums, no reall "o crap were loosing people" feedback, and once qq is over they can hype next campaign and get most of those "i quit!" people back.

With subscription, you ask your customer every month to decide whether is worth it to continue p(l)aying same old game. With gw they ask you every year whether you would like this cool new thing. Its just much easier for gw to retain its customer base because they never have to ask their customers "YEA/NAY" question hard way.

The current business model + more frequent skill updates = Win

i disagree.

sure in the p2p model they get immediate feedback but is there an immediate analysis of said feedback? by the time they get round to "fixing" their "problem" its already too late and they will have lost their customers, whats more do you really want a company who's too affraid to innovate or change some feature (that they feel would improve the game) because of what a percentage of the playerbase MIGHT possibly react to, OR a company who has nothing but kneejerk reactions to whatever "feedback" they receive.

Looking at other MMORPG games the typical reaction is usually "lets not take any risks". The end result is always more of the same old same old.


in the GW model they are obliged to do a good job or people will not buy their next product. Whats more using gaming magazines and reading reviews are PART of what buying a game is about.

I think that other thread "we are beta testing GW2" summed it up pretty nicely, not only are we testing the game mechanics but also their business model and player evolution.

When GW2 comes out i will carefully look for the things that i wanted changed in GW1 as well as the things i felt that should have stayed the same.
Ill read reviews and make my own decision based on what GW1 provided me and Anets treatment of the game was like.

I bet i will not be the only one either. THEN Anet will get their just reward.

The downside to Anets current business model, is that in order to get constant income, they need to sell games. This means that until they bring out a new chapter, they are basically just spending the money from the last one. Which means that they aren't able to hire as many staff as they would if they had subscriptions, because the money is simply not there. Yes, they profit from their games, but it's all at once.

On the whole, this business model is bad, because it relies on Anet releasing new content every 6 months, which doesn't always make the players happy. I only hope they see the light and make GW2 subscription, but make it better than GW1 by spending money on constant skill updates/etc.

So instead of simply not buying any more games if you don't like something in them, you'd cancel your subscription everytime there is something you don't like and then resubscribe if they change it?

Addiction is one roller coaster ride of emotion.

GW has (apparently) around 1 million players currently active. If those players were paying even $10 a month on a subscription (which is the same as a chapter every 6 months), it would give Anet constant income, which would allow them to concentrate on bigger and better expansions, rather than one every 6 months. It would also mean that they would get money every month, as well as selling the expansions, which would be even more.

It's silly NOT to have subscriptions, tbh.

Thing is, is breaking working game (even with best intentions bad things happen) worth innovation or trying out new stuff?

IMO its better to innovate per product rather than per patch. Mostly because several different products allow you to go in radically different directions and/or approach problem differently.

If you stick with one innovative game, you cant really try different things since you are tied up by its design. And whats worse, if you try different concepts despite that, you loose possible feedback on longevity and durability of previous design.

What i am basically trying to get across is that its better to create game on fresh new idea and stay true to it and try out new ideas and experiments in separate new and innovative games.

(MMOs are mostly same of the old thing because they were designed that way from day 1 rather than because devs are unwilling to take risks later on when game is live.)

I have yet to play a p2p online rpg where people did not start complaining that there wasn't anything left to do before another expansion came out. Despite the game being designed with grind elements to artificially inflate the content's longevitiy.

Even in WoW I'd see 'I'm bored', and 'What is there left to do besides grind <blank>' threads only months after a new expansion was released.
The problem isn't with not having enough income to produce more content, it's that there are very sick people out there who buy a online rpg and expect that game will exclusively occupy a chunk of their life constantly and consistently to no end.
That behavioural disorder often leads to people threatening to quit and never come back when the game deviates from consistently rewarding their playtime in any way.
Yet, they simply don't walk away. Nor can they quietly leave and play something else in the meantime, if it was simply a matter of having nothing left to do. It's one of the most distinctive signs of addiction.

p2p means quitting is not being able to play ever again without paying a lump sum fee. Non-p2p means you are free to come and go as you wish, for as long or short as you wish.
The p2p model fuels addictive behaviour and is often criticized for such.

I have a problem with paying for a game, and then paying to play it. Period. One or the other, not both.

Even then, it depends on the subscription. I think WoW is too expensive. I can't see anybody who earns their own money paying that fee monthly.

Most people who play mmorpgs with a subscription are paying through their own income. The average age of EQ2 players in the 30s.
I knew players who played every day for hours, despite having a family and full time job.
They'd joke about their spouses giving them allowance time to play, but I thought it was horrible and no joking matter.

If people haven't guessed from my posts so far, I feel that the popular mmorpg model is quite unethical.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Majority of GW population can hardly afford the game as it is. If they could, they'd be playing subscription games.

This is the secret of GW's success (not balance, skill, graphics, etc...).

Why is Runescape so popular, and has playerbase larger than WoW? Not because it's so bitchin' good - it's free.

You live in a strange, fictional world. You never have power against a company - subscriptions are velvet rope, that have been studied extensively when EQ came out. They make players believe they matter. Well, they don't. It's just a little thing they give you to make you feel in charge - but they operate just like any other company.

Ever heard the phrase: "I'm going to take my business to competition!"? Well, the company people will laugh at you, and wait until you come back, once you realize grass isn't greener on the other side.

There's a reason people play one game or another. Either they like it so much, they don't want to play anything else (even if they threaten to quit), or they can't afford another one.

So people can threaten to rage quit all day long... It's merely added fun factor.

But people subscribe to services every day: water, electricity, internet, phone, television, car insurance - if you miss a payment on those, it's goodbye and good luck. And you don't even have a choice there.

No kidding. MMOs are engineered to be addictive, its basis of their business model. There is no way anyone giving it thought can consider that ethical.

Only difference between gw model and their is that traditional mmo can be likened to "hard drugs" where GW can be compared to soft drugs - not really much better for user, but less stigmatized and more accessible. But becoming drunkard can ruin your like just as easily as being coke head, and its kinda more common too.

I'm talking about the popular mmorpg design, where being rewarded is the incentive to invest time in the game. Where the game is designed so that every subsequent reward requires a greater investment of time and canceling is designed to appear as a loss of all time invested.

Imagine if your electricity company kept giving you free goodies, but if you canceled your plan and switched electric companies, you have to return every goodie you got...until you changed back to that company.

One thing I can agree on is poor marketing. I suppose you have to blame NC Soft for that.

You've done little but make a case by defining things in the most vague, worthless sense. Comparing a hero that you, at most, finish a usually trivial quest to unlock with a game design like WoW's that makes a group of 40 people play the same dozen dungeons several dozen times (i.e. hundreds of runs collectively) so that some of them will be lucky enough to walk away with something to show for it is specious on the face of it (and this is just so they can move onto the next tier of doing the same stuff). Even more specious is comparing providing an entire new storyline's worth of content to play through to a direct sale of skills, which, although they do, is strictly for the PvP side of things and VERY discounted (not to mention, a very recent addition to the sales model).

The difference between a subscription based and the pay-once, play all you want is the difference between a developer that has to "addict" you to his product and a developer that has to provided enough compelling new content to convince you to pay again. In other words, no thanks. With a sub based model, all they have to do is put you in the position of liking the game enough that you don't want to lose everything - it's an all or nothing proposal that makes the game devs into hostage takers of your characters who only need keep you satisfied enough to keep the ransome payments coming. In the GW model, they have to contend with the fact that you'll never have to pay them after the initial purchase - the very model is based on the idea of a purely voluntary parting of the money. Your characters and your goods are yours for so long as they keep the servers running. They must design with the expectation that the only people who will pay for the content are those that actually want it, so they need to make you want it. Contrast this with the example of the vast majority of development of new content in WoW going to endgame raids. Content that is not coincidentally a massive time sink, but also only appealing to a relatively small subsegment of the player population who, also not coincidentally, are the segment so married to their toons that as long as they have some notion of improving will keep on forking over the cash.

One only need look at what GW added in the time since its launch compared to something like WoW to see where the difference in sales model drives developers. In two years time, the only significant PvE content added for the casual player was the burning crusade expansion, of which the majority still requires you to be a high level, end game style grinder to access. Yes, the casual players finally got tossed a bone in the form of new starting areas and quests, but, once all is said and done, it still breaks down to the same game Blizzard shipped in the end of 2004. Compare this to GW that in less time added two complete storyline's of content for players to experience AND managed to get out an endgame style expansion for those that enjoy that side of things. You can argue the quality and value of each of the expansions, but you can't argue that it's more new content served up for less money.

There are trade offs in the two game design and sales models, and they're both great games with great developers behind them, but one sales model keeps the developers committed to the casual audience and one doesn't.

My main problem with their business model is it forces them to work on the next project right away when some of their current ones still need a lot of fixing.

Can you people stop the QQ please, and if you're bored with GW try out another game, or maybe real life?

These threads end up being like you're discussing world economics. Let them do their thing, it's original and works well, the only issue people have right now is having nothing more to do in the game (which is quite expected after so many years the game was out - it lasted longer than most mmos, and yet charged you less for it), and that's what's fueling the pointless drama threads.

Seriously...

Anet's support for existing Chapters is pretty good. There are tons of examples of updates that fixed errors / bad design and added beneficial content.

The Chapter concept for Guild Wars was unique: you were buying a New Chapter every 6-12 months, and it was basically a new game that kept your old characters stuff. So, I don't think it's fair to compare a whole Chapter to paying monthly.

The Key Difference being once I buy an GW product, I never have to buy another one again to keep playing.

That said, I don't expect GW2 to be funded by selling Chapters. It could exist by selling "mini-packs" (new armor, weapons, some new content) that will hopefully come more frequently than Chapters at less cost.

In the end, as long as Anet keeps new content a choice, it has a winning strategy for success.

Somehow GW is quite unique for an MMORPG or CORPG or whatever they call it. I like the way it is. You are not forced to play it because you are paying for a monthly subscription and you wanted the most out of your money. It's a more casual approach especially for people like me

And I agree with this, but it's unethical because the companies and therefore their game designers are.

Those games are designed in order to make any little advancement cost a huge time, the basic idea is actually force customers to spend XXX hours to level, force customers to spend other YYY hours to get gears, and all just to be able to enjoy the game, because hours mean monthly fees and incomes for the supplier.
Everything is designed around this simple (and unethical) old-school idea.

On the other hand, A.net adopted a totally opposite game design.
But is this game design coupled with an innovative business model?
In my opinion no, it's a mixture between "pay for special moves and new maps" and "pay on a regular basis".
It's a "pay on a regular basis for special moves and new maps"


A real challenge in my opinion would be offering a game which:
- doesn't require addiction to be enjoyed (low level cap, no item-based, like the current GW)
- it's so good that players would be motivated to pay for a monthly fee because the game is really freaking amazing good and worth to be played.

This would be a real challenge to the market, a courageous choice that would define a new standard in the stagnant (and unethical) MMO's market.

This would mean accept the challenge to keep customers loyal because of offered content and not with artificial barriers.
And the challenge to continue to keep their customers satisfied over time both under the technical and marketing aspects, taking the risk of losing their money if the content or the marketing are not worth it.

Strangely, I think that A.net team is one of the few which has all the possibilities to create such innovation.

Not really, challenge is in this field, but its a bit different:

- Undo years and years of CRPG influence thanks to which for vast majority of gamers rpg is about power gain and packrating leet stuff., without which people dismiss game in seconds ( 'cause there is nothing to achieve, (like there ever was...) )
- Undo "its online so it must fill my whole life" syndrom.

Basically, getting customers that wont whine about not raising level cap or that power growth is so easy and mild.

Feels more like bumper cars to me. It hurts!

Anyways, I really don't like to talk about their "business" model because it's not unique. Sure, it would be something unique to the MMO world if I considered it such a game, but the fact that so many people do see it as such is one of the core problems right now with the players - this thread is a damned good example.

Nonetheless, if you don't like their product, boycott. But if you think you deserve something for a "faulty" product, well you get what you pay for. It's the American way.

[QUOTE]ok Einstein answer this little simple question if that bs is accurate.

*did they make GW and the worldwide server with IOUs for 5 years before selling their first copy?*

and the answer is ................

Can you please calm down on the personal attacks? He's not spreading heresy, just what he knows or understands.

Bottom line: If GW cost a monthly fee, it would make less money, b/c less people would be playing.

To Jeff Strain's credit, he left Blizzard because he wanted to make a better game, not to try and create WoW 2. This is why I'm (overly?) optimistic about GW2 - b/c I believe Jeff has the vision to make GW2 better than GW.


And, for those who don't think of GW as a MMORPG, is it just because of the instances?

If not, then what makes GW so different?

well GW is better than wow...

jeff knows what hes doing...

its izzy im scared about >.>

I really like the way GW works. I like being able to take a break and do something else without having to hassle with subscriptions.

And I don't think I'd ever play a p2p game. I paid 50 bucks for the game already!

I finally read the (old) Gamers Global article that this thread was moved from, and found this interesting:

http://www.gamersglobal.com/special/...ers?page=0%2C4

So, I'm still wondering how GW2 will work: Are they going to do Chapters again? With new Professions / Races? Or just new content every 6 months?

A large part of creating a successful game is to succeed at appealing to the casual gamer which are the majority. Once you've accomplished this, then that's half the battle. Cherries on top include a fun game, a competitive game, etc. Guild Wars was released right in the middle of the WoW era and so they had to be unique to succeed and make their game easily accessible. They accomplished this. They won customers (like me) who will never pay a subscription for a game and they also opened their game up to WoW players who would also like to play another game, but aren't going to play a side game that costs them another subscription fee. As far as I know, GW is also the only MMO I've seen succeed after the release of WoW.

There is no perfect game or business model unless it is created for you and you alone. The moment you are opened up to 2+ players then it isn't going to be perfect for everyone. Nonetheless, I think Anet was quite smart with analyzing how they could make a profit. They have no subscription fee, they have both PvE and PvP, etc. A lot of players these days have allowed WoW and a lot of other games to make "subscriptions" become the norm which I think is a bad thing. Business models like Anet's helps keep those subscription fees low and keeps other companies in check knowing that there is another high quality MMO out there that doesn't have a subscription fee at all. I say kudos to them!

It's a large part of it. It feels much more like Diablo than any MMO I've ever played. Each outpost just feels like the lobby in Battle.net.

Huge lack of endgame, easy to attain level cap, gear cap - many of the things that MMO players (and a few RPG players) enjoy, Guild Wars lacks. Bear in mind that these things aren't bad, but that ANet didn't include in GW.

How do you feel about Television? People spend hours and hours sitting on a couch watching tv. Not a flame, just a question.

I think television as a medium is fine.
It's a good question, because people do get addicted to television. But, I think it's the type of serial programming that rewards us for watching by giving us plot surprises and answers to cliffhangers, yet punishes us for missing an episode because it's designed that if we miss out it's hard to keep up with what's going on, that are questionable.

I can and have gotten addicted to watching shows like the Sopranos and Angel, but have yet to get addicted to the news or Saturday Night Live.

IMO, ANet's model is better than P2P MMOs because you do not feel the same pressure to play, since the clock is ticking until the next month rolls around and they bang you for another subscription fee.

Simply put, you should play a game because you enjoy it, not because you have some financial investment into a sub fee.

The problem I have w/ the P2P games is that you feel llike you're losing out when or if you can't play. With a project like GW, the company needs to bank on their game being entertaining enough that it will sell a lot of copies, and then it's only a matter of budgeting that income over the course of the game's life expectancy or until the next campaign comes out. Also, keep in mind that most MMOs require you buy their expansions as well, even though you still pay to play every month.

If I had some input on GW2's development, I'd like to have them sell more campaigns closer together; instead of 1 campaign every year, maybe 1 every 6 months. The only problem w/ that, though, would be one of keeping the storyline cohesive and enjoyable, and also having people tear through the content too quickly...

TV is different because it is a passive medium; you do not participate, and thus have less of a personal stake in its outcome.

Even the shows that are well written and draw you in lack a sense of being a personal achievement.

Hey, that's a good point.

To debunk this, one has to do the math:

WoW (prices taken from wikipedia):
15$ per month
minus 1 month you can problably get free
minus 15% if you pay 6 months in one go
-> so in 2 years it's 280$
PLUS price of game+extension=40$ (cheapest)
WoW total=320$

GW (prices on amazon.com were very high so I guessed best prices):
4 games at 80$
possibly a bit more with the BMP? let's add 20$ to make it
GW total=100$

So how is that "the same" for 2 years of gameplay?

Yes you do: you don't buy the next project! Or you complain on GWG, they quite often listen. (punish is a strong word, even if clearly explained in the "commercial" sense, if you think of our relationship with Anet as more "collaborative")

I understand your reasons, but they're not valid, because you simply want to "map" the model you know to Anet's business, that is very different from the one you know. It does work for most people, but not for you because you want to have a "financial stick" to beat Anet with so that you can feel that you're pushing Anet into "your" direction (no offense). I think that with their community relation and given the small size of their business, they're doing a better job. And it's cheaper for us.

Personally, I've always enjoyed the GW mindset for their business model. Since you're not paying anything, you never have any obligation to stay, and the only incentive to stay is the quality of the game. As the article states, the founders are instead dedicated to creating one high quality, innovative game rather than focusing their attentions on several games which may do moderately well.

I see it as a meeting of the minds, a kind of : "Oh you don't like the way we're going with the game right now? Well... peek your head in every once in a while to see if you like the changes after all. And don't let the door smack your ass on the way out."

Anet has provided quality material, quality customer service(from what I hear, better than other companies) and actually does incorporate player input into certain changes. And if you don't like the changes, you're not having to worry about cancelling a subscription and not getting your money's worth.

Not trying to sound like some kind of fanboy, I guess I just find they're involvement with the community and their attitude toward how to make a game refreshing. The're willing to take risks, and they're willing to 'abandon' their initial creation in favor for a (possibly) more realized version.

Just wait for GW2 to make any real calls on that stuff.

But that's just my two cents

/edit PS I'm glad that there is no obligation on either side of the table, that we can't 'punish' them when they do something we don't like. Not only are they taking chances, but it shows they are willing to stay true to an 'artistic vision' rather than allow themselves to be held hostage by subscibers. The position they hold now means they can simply listen and incorporate ideas which are actually good. After all, if they followed everyone's vision of the game, rather than their own, it would kill the game. Too many chiefs, not enough indians; too many cooks in the kitchen, etc,etc.