Quote:
|
Gun doesn't imply GW should have been a monthly subscription MMO where exactly did you get that from?
Actually Gun makes a fair point with which I agree. I bought this game knowing they will release updates periodically and that I would have to pay for them. It was advertised as a different "pay-to-play" model. I could have payed monthly and play something like WoW but I never liked that system as *I don't play every month, week, day*. If the system WoW had was "pay per number of hours you play/per usage" (more like mobile carriers) it would have been more appealing maybe. So the different model was one of the main reasons I chose GW and I am pretty sure I'm not the only one, I know I'm not that exceptional/unique. Regarding the model they advertised... they failed. Undeniably. And like Gun I also think they should have kept building campaigns/expansions for GW1 *during* the same time they worked on GW2. Yes there might have been technical difficulties... But they obviously did not need to add new skills or classes every expansion. However they chose to dump and run. |
Then you yourself say that Guild Wars should have continued developing Guild Wars through the development of Guild Wars 2, which again has all the same implications as Gun's argument: monthly fees would have been a better choice.
"Regarding the model they advertised... they failed. Undeniably."
How? Why?
They made a profitable and popular game, and have consistently released large amounts of content for it over a four year period. How in any way has their model failed?
Do you mean you feel like you didn't get the content updates you felt you opted in for when you bought the box? If so I have to ask, exactly how recently did you start playing? I also have to ask at what point you feel it would be OK for ArenaNet to stop developing content for a dying game?

