This is all you'd get:
- Have proper GM's who could retrieve deleted items/trashed accounts.
- More CM's who have the time to interact with the players
Pay to play has never had benefits like this.
- Have a bigger development team releasing regular content updates
- Able to have a team of people re-skilling mobs and so adapting to fotm builds, and thus keeping us on our toes and busy
- More of a sense of 'hands on the wheel' by Anet, and so a more confident community
If anything they're much worse with content updates for some reason. Maybe it's the massive piles of money take away their incentive to work on the game properly?
GW should have been pay to play.
IlikeGW
JR
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
We need to cast our mind back to when GW1 was first released in 2005. WoW had'nt been out long, still had issues with wait times etc etc and had nowhere near the level of clout it has now.
|
Back then the hardcore MMO players (most of which had just recently migrated from EQ) were looking for something familiar. WoW stepped up to fill that gap nicely. There was also a lot of skepticism surrounding free-to-play MMOs (people following your logic), which has faded considerably since. Now there are probably as many succesful AAA F2P MMOs (holy acronyms batman) as there are monthly fee MMOs.
Your average joe had little way to judge between the two, other than Blizzard's significantly larger marketing budget getting them a lot more coverage. There was a definite sense that Guild Wars was the underdog, and those that did swing towards it probably did so precisely for the lack of monthly fees.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
I'm not arguing that GW was'nt fantastic vfm, i'm saying that their business model is flawed because it cannot deliver what people expect of an MMO(which whether it was intended or not GW is now) in 2009 and in the long term.
|
trialist
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
We need to cast our mind back to when GW1 was first released in 2005. WoW had'nt been out long, still had issues with wait times etc etc and had nowhere near the level of clout it has now.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
I'm not arguing that GW was'nt fantastic vfm, i'm saying that their business model is flawed because it cannot deliver what people expect of an MMO(which whether it was intended or not GW is now) in 2009 and in the long term.
|
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JR
It's a make or break vicious circle, and I'm just not sure anyone but WoW can pull it off anymore.
|
Quote:
| ArenaNet has (what was) a revolutionary business model, and it works well for them. At a time when the genre is plagued by dying MMOs I would love for ArenaNet to stick with it. |
OT: OP you are starting from the principle that "if some people want it, then it's viable" which is not business common sense. Anet only exists thanks to the niche they created (top-quality F2P; not F2P itself which is a small world getting bigger) and it's vital to them to have this bubble, without which they may not survive. You (and me) may well pay for a more polished, expanded and supported GW, but we don't constitute a "market". Not yet at least.
Aljasha
why do people think games should last forever? i simply don't get it. gw is doing well regarding the fact that the last major content update was released two years ago. however and ofc, it is getting old and dieing but you will never experience gw like it was once a new campaign hit the shelves.
just get over it.
just get over it.
Shanaeri Rynale
Yes I remember the GW vs WoW debates that were on forums, and how the f2p thing was GW's main attractant.
My thoughts are, was that for the long term health of a game f2p has shown not to be ideal and perhaps P2P would have been a better long term route.
I did'nt say it was'nt successful. I said it was flawed because it's not sustainable. If a buisness model's aim is to make a shed load of money and then stop it's done what it's supposed to.
Anet's business model was to make a shed load of money to tide us over, then release something else to make a shed loda of money to tide us over, then release something else to make a shed load of money to tide us over.... and so on and so on.
What we got was 2.5 iterations of that. What Anets buisness model is now is that they made a cashcow (GW) and are slowly letting it bleed to death while hoping they have enough from the cashcow to make a new one. It's a buisness model, sure. But it's not the one they stated at the start.
My thoughts are, was that for the long term health of a game f2p has shown not to be ideal and perhaps P2P would have been a better long term route.
Quote:
| You can't call a highly successful business model flawed just because it doesn't live up to your expectations and desires. Yes, if ArenaNet wanted to make a WoW killer they would need WoW-level funding. They aren't, and they don't. |
Anet's business model was to make a shed load of money to tide us over, then release something else to make a shed loda of money to tide us over, then release something else to make a shed load of money to tide us over.... and so on and so on.
What we got was 2.5 iterations of that. What Anets buisness model is now is that they made a cashcow (GW) and are slowly letting it bleed to death while hoping they have enough from the cashcow to make a new one. It's a buisness model, sure. But it's not the one they stated at the start.
JR
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
I did'nt say it was'nt successful. I said it was flawed because it's not sustainable.
|
Are you following this?
pumpkin pie
“Certainly you can look at business model as a big reason for the success of ‘Guild Wars,” says Strain.
“’Guild Wars’ has been a phenomenal success, and we’re proud of it,” he says. “We’re not going to ruin it by making it more like every other MMO on the market.”
^^source
interesting find for me (at least) as of December 2008 there are 5.8 million ACTIVE guild wars accounts.
^^source
and its not gonna happen
“’Guild Wars’ has been a phenomenal success, and we’re proud of it,” he says. “We’re not going to ruin it by making it more like every other MMO on the market.”
^^source
interesting find for me (at least) as of December 2008 there are 5.8 million ACTIVE guild wars accounts.
^^source
and its not gonna happen
Benderama
$5 is reasonable and in my opinion every mmo shouldnt charge much more
We would have been able to.
we got content updates every 6-12 months a lot more frequent than other popular MMOs?
part of what makes GW so good is that the community are quite a big factor in the direction the game takes
sorry to be sort of narrow-minded but for paying to play i don't know if i'd be that much happier. i like the way that other MMO's demand money whilst GW shows that its not that necessary.
We would have been able to.
Quote:
| - Have a bigger development team releasing regular content updates |
Quote:
| More of a sense of 'hands on the wheel' by Anet, and so a more confident community |
sorry to be sort of narrow-minded but for paying to play i don't know if i'd be that much happier. i like the way that other MMO's demand money whilst GW shows that its not that necessary.
vamp08
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
GW2 is being designed as an MMO from the ground up, and without the support needed and expected of a modern MMO it could well fare badly.
|
Verene
The vast majority of people got into GW because of the fact that it's so different from every other MMO - including the fact that it's free to play.
If it were play to pay (a business model that I can never support), it would have no playerbase.
If it were play to pay (a business model that I can never support), it would have no playerbase.
gremlin
I don't like pay to play games I don't care that maybe gw would be a lot better if it was a pay game.
I have been told often and at length that wow is rubbish compared to gw and wow is pay to play.
Is there a game similar in concept to gw that's pay to play that is a lot better ?
I consider myself a typical gamer, I own many games and I still play several of them as it all depends what mood I am in and which friends I am online with.
Lets see how pay to play would affect my life.
GW1
Gw2
Ghost recon advanced warfighter 2
Call of Duty modern warfare 2
Il2
Colin Mcrae rally
Need for speed
Diablo3
Ok that lot would be around £40 a month and I would probably only be playing a couple of them in any given week.
But I would have to pay monthly for them all whether I played or not.
To put it simply if I owned a game company pay to play is a wonderful idea that would make me rich but its a very bad idea for gamers.
I have been told often and at length that wow is rubbish compared to gw and wow is pay to play.
Is there a game similar in concept to gw that's pay to play that is a lot better ?
I consider myself a typical gamer, I own many games and I still play several of them as it all depends what mood I am in and which friends I am online with.
Lets see how pay to play would affect my life.
GW1
Gw2
Ghost recon advanced warfighter 2
Call of Duty modern warfare 2
Il2
Colin Mcrae rally
Need for speed
Diablo3
Ok that lot would be around £40 a month and I would probably only be playing a couple of them in any given week.
But I would have to pay monthly for them all whether I played or not.
To put it simply if I owned a game company pay to play is a wonderful idea that would make me rich but its a very bad idea for gamers.
zwei2stein
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JR
I didn't say you said it wasn't succesful, I said you said it was flawed - which it isn't - because it's succesful.
Are you following this? |
And if they stopped doing it, yep, there is some flaw that prevents them form producing more.
It was, in fact, bad enough to scrap original plans and start over.
N1ghtstalker
if this was p2p
i would have quit a week after i got it
i would have quit a week after i got it
Laraja
/notsigned
I bought GW *because* it is free to play. As much as I wanted Aion, I didn't buy it because it's subscription based. One of the big draws of GWs is that, because you're not paying monthly, you can walk away for a while and not feel like you're wasting money by paying for something that you're not playing.
I bought GW *because* it is free to play. As much as I wanted Aion, I didn't buy it because it's subscription based. One of the big draws of GWs is that, because you're not paying monthly, you can walk away for a while and not feel like you're wasting money by paying for something that you're not playing.
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
Because it was unsustainable.
|
Enko
if this game was pay to play, I probably would've stuck with City of Heroes since I already had 4000 hours in that game and paying for 4 accounts. the person that got me into Guild Wars, likewise, probably would not have been playing this either.
Shanaeri Rynale
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JR
I didn't say you said it wasn't succesful, I said you said it was flawed - which it isn't - because it's succesful.
Are you following this? |
Quote:
| After EotN was released it was the technical limitations of GW1 that justified GW2. Business-model-wise we had the April update. |
I dont need citations to show GW2 wil be an MMO, if it barks like a dog it's a dog. http://www.iloveguildwars.com/2009/1...-what-we-know/ We know that GW2 will have persistant worlds, crafting, servers, higher level caps, Realm vs realm, auction house etc etc Seems like an MMO to me..
I note from the page I listed above that GW2 could well include another revenue stream in the form of optional downloadable content. Yes another pointer that the f2p model they chose was'nt enough to deliver what they wanted.
So yes GW2 will be f2p, but like so many games if you want the shinies you may need to pay for it.
I guess the point I was trying to make, was that. Is the current buisness model working in terms of quality of service for GW1, or is/was there another way of creating that service, for example p2p.
AngelWJedi
make gw p2p?! are you crazy? if i wanted to pay to play a game i would have picked WoW or any other game like that. f2p is the big reason i love gw. not every one could afford to pay to play even if its only 5 dollars a month. its true i wish they would do more for gw. but i bet even if it was p2p they could be half *insert bad word* to even do work then. but thats my opnion.
Dre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dzjudz
I'd rather not spend 480 euros to play a game 4 years.
|
The main reason I bought guildwars is because it doesn't have monthly fees
moriz
if GW was P2P, i would've never played it. simple as that. so no.
JR
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
Yet they stopped making new content chapters. Because it was unsustainable.
And if they stopped doing it, yep, there is some flaw that prevents them form producing more. It was, in fact, bad enough to scrap original plans and start over. |
The model was entirely sustainable, to the point where they almost did release another chapter. The fact that they felt secure enough and ambitious enough to move on to a sequel instead is only says good things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
Technically the engine and game were fine.
|
ddraeg cymru
If you want to pay for something....
----> WoW
/notsigned
----> WoW
/notsigned
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
I'm not sure thats totally correct. Technically the engine and game were fine. What broke GW1 is the complexity of professions, skills and balance which if utopia was released would trash.Not that we have balance now anyway, but you get my point.
|
This illustrate your approach so far: you start from your wishes, not from the actual reality of the product.
rokocoko
The main reason I started to play GW was the free-to-play feature. Now, I came to love this game, with all its good or bad things.
But, if I'll have to pay a monthly fee to play the future GW2 (thanks God, will not be the case), then it's "No, thank you, I'll pass" for me.
/notsigned
But, if I'll have to pay a monthly fee to play the future GW2 (thanks God, will not be the case), then it's "No, thank you, I'll pass" for me.
/notsigned
Arduin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JR
Lack of z-axis was a pretty huge constraint, and they are clearly capitalizing on that in GW2. Swimming is one good example of a mechanic impossible to do well without z-axis.
|
Operative 14
A big fat I DO NOT AGREE.
I would not have started playing and I would not have played if GW was subscription based. I would not have given Arenanet nearly $200, not to mention untold amounts in the future as I buy storage panes, upgrades, GW2 (and subsequent chapters), GW3 (and subsequent chapters), and (random non-GW MMO that Arenanet makes after their great successes with GW 1,2,& 3) (and subsequent chapters). And that would certainly have been my loss if I consider just how different my life would be without GW right now.
It would not have distinguished itself to me, nor the friend who introduced GW to me, nor his family for that matter, and quite possibly their friends if it was subscription based. I think combined we all could list millions of dollars in revenue from friends and family that would not have bought GW, and anything subsequent to GW, if it was subscription based.
GW distinguished itself in the market by trying the F2P concept in this form. Otherwise GW would have been an undistinguished fantasy MMO in a sea of undistinguished fantasy MMOs. It paid off big time. And it will continue doing so.
I am far more than content with GW as is, and I'm willing to sacrifice the could-be's that you listed to be able to play my favorite game.
I would not have started playing and I would not have played if GW was subscription based. I would not have given Arenanet nearly $200, not to mention untold amounts in the future as I buy storage panes, upgrades, GW2 (and subsequent chapters), GW3 (and subsequent chapters), and (random non-GW MMO that Arenanet makes after their great successes with GW 1,2,& 3) (and subsequent chapters). And that would certainly have been my loss if I consider just how different my life would be without GW right now.
It would not have distinguished itself to me, nor the friend who introduced GW to me, nor his family for that matter, and quite possibly their friends if it was subscription based. I think combined we all could list millions of dollars in revenue from friends and family that would not have bought GW, and anything subsequent to GW, if it was subscription based.
GW distinguished itself in the market by trying the F2P concept in this form. Otherwise GW would have been an undistinguished fantasy MMO in a sea of undistinguished fantasy MMOs. It paid off big time. And it will continue doing so.
I am far more than content with GW as is, and I'm willing to sacrifice the could-be's that you listed to be able to play my favorite game.
Shanaeri Rynale
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
So you know better than Anet about their software? If you need the quotes, I'll dig them when I can find the time.
This illustrate your approach so far: you start from your wishes, not from the actual reality of the product. |
Quote:
| ” Each campaign that’s been added to the Guild Wars world – three in total – has added another layer of design that, in the name of making things easier for new players, has actually ended up creating barriers to entry as they try to sort through multiple training areas, increasingly intricate tutorials, and an ever-ballooning list of skills |
P2P could have given them the resources they needed to produce the content, skill updates and TLC to put into GW1 while they made GW2.
jonnieboi05
Off-topic: No offense but, I expected something like this come from a [DVDF]. :\
On-topic: I would NEVER have looked twice at Guild Wars if it had a subscription fee. Having said that, I am more than 100$ positive Guild Wars would not have ever had as many says as it did if it was P2P.
On-topic: I would NEVER have looked twice at Guild Wars if it had a subscription fee. Having said that, I am more than 100$ positive Guild Wars would not have ever had as many says as it did if it was P2P.
~LeNa~
Premium Unleaded
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
if GW was P2P, i would've never played it. simple as that. so no.
|
Comparing to how WoW did/is doing is pointless. It's already been mentioned, but there were already a glut of p2p MMOs established when WoW went live, yet it stole the marketshare from all fo them just like that.
This game would have most likely either faded into a comparative mediocrity or even bombed if it was a full subscription-based system, which would have affected all further developments of the series.
Operative 14
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
Google is your friend http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Utopia
|
If you actually read and understand what they were saying about Utopia, they canceled it not because they didn't have the funding for it, they canceled it because they wanted to make the game do things that the GW1 engine simply could not support without completely remaking the game. The entire game. Not just future releases but also going back and completely reworking the already released chapters as well. That's something that a P-to-P game would have had to have done as well. It was a technical issue, not a business issue. If the engine had been able to do it, they would have continued with Utopia and quite possibly many GW1 chapters afterwards.
Their business model was so good, in fact, that while they wanted to continue with the status quo, they were able to decide instead to take 5+ years away from releasing anything, and continue with that same business model at the end of that 5+ years to boot.
If GW1 needs the support of P-to-P to be successful, why didn't Arenanet decide to do that with GW2? If they were to ever have the opportunity to do so, GW2 would have been it. Instead you have a business that needs to make a profit (not a player base making baseless speculations) and deciding that their best bet was to continue with F-to-P instead of a P-to-P system. Why would they have done that unless the business people whose jobs are on the line, not the speculative fanbase, decided that it was working?
Angel Killuminati
I wouldn't pay to play a game online, regardless of how minimal the fee is. I have better things to spend my money on, and it would seem like a waste. When I buy a game from the shops, that's the only fee I expect to pay. It may be an old fashioned way of viewing, but I've been brought up with that being the norm.
Fee paying games I avoid.
Fee paying games I avoid.
Shadowspawn X
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zwei2stein
Yet they stopped making new content chapters. Because it was unsustainable.
|
Shanaeri Rynale
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonnieBoi05
Off-topic: No offense but, I expected something like this come from a [DVDF]. :\
On-topic: I would NEVER have looked twice at Guild Wars if it had a subscription fee. Having said that, I am more than 100$ positive Guild Wars would not have ever had as many says as it did if it was P2P. ~LeNa~ |
We all want more support, more updates, more skill balances and anyone who has PvE'd for a while will know that a re-design and re-skill of many of the areas in game is sorely needed.
However, all this work needs to be paid for somehow, and that is where the p2p idea came in.
Yes it flies in the face of everything GW, but the GW we have now is unrecognisable (in a bad way) to what it was when the f2p ideal was at it's peak.
Yes I know every game spirals down, but it feels like GW has done so before it's time. I don't know how else to put it.
Somehow GW has lost it's way, and if the same mistakes that were made in GW1 are repeated in GW2 then we'll be having the same conversation again when that model starts to crumble too.
And no matter what the thoughts on p2p or f2p i'm sure no one wants that.
Nereyda Shoaal
With monthly payments GW would be a different game.
Different community, different updates, different everything. There is no guarantee you'll like it
Different community, different updates, different everything. There is no guarantee you'll like it
trialist
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
Google is your friend http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Utopia
GW had become impossible to balance with the resources they had. Their chapter based model was making the game very time consuming to produce(new tutorial areas) and they could'nt easily do all the fun things they wanted. That was the primary flaw in their buisness model. |
If GW was having financial difficulties, wouldn't it make sense to release utopia regardless of technical difficulties and whatever mayhem it would cause the game?
But no, they waited, released EotN and waited more as they worked on GW2. If that doesn't say something about their financial status, i don't know what does.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
P2P could have given them the resources they needed to produce the content, skill updates and TLC to put into GW1 while they made GW2.
|
Zahr Dalsk
I would not pay a monthly fee for this game. The lack of a fee is one of the reasons most of us play it.
Personally, I'd rather they just kept releasing campaigns.
Personally, I'd rather they just kept releasing campaigns.
snaek
if gw was p2p, it would be (even more) in direct competition with wow (and lose horribly)
your saying that if anet had more funds, gw would have turned out better? i highly doubt it. one possible outcome is that gw1 would not have been abandoned as much when gw2 development started; however, i think most can all agree gw1 was already going downhill way before gw2 development started.
i think you should add a poll to this thread with the question: "would you have bought gw if it was p2p?" (although, i'm sure that's already been done many times)
your saying that if anet had more funds, gw would have turned out better? i highly doubt it. one possible outcome is that gw1 would not have been abandoned as much when gw2 development started; however, i think most can all agree gw1 was already going downhill way before gw2 development started.
i think you should add a poll to this thread with the question: "would you have bought gw if it was p2p?" (although, i'm sure that's already been done many times)
Sword Hammer Axe
I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. The reason GW did so well in the first place is that they offerered a competeable game to WoW that was fee free. That is pretty much a fact. I mean they published it in WoW primetime and still got such huge succes and even the development team will tell you that the main part of that succes was the fact that it was fee free. Hell it was even made with the idea in mind that WoW's concept was too greedy and that people should be able to play a game in a more relaxed way and not have to worry about economics because of a computer game. That idea is also why they don't ask for fees in GW2.
That p2p would give more money to development is true, if they would have sold, and kept selling, as many copies that they did, which is a ridiculous thought because of the reasons I've just said. Besides is content really so lacking as you say it is? I mean during the last 4 years they have added new campaigns and tons of content with the amount of funds they have, and they are still rich enough to be able to claim themselves one of the greatest MMO developers that exists. They've even been so smart as to make sellable storage, skill, pets and so on kits, to earn a few bucks extra without going away from their original ideals.
Seriously make a poll asking whether players would have bought GW at all if there was fees. I'd have to answer "no".
That p2p would give more money to development is true, if they would have sold, and kept selling, as many copies that they did, which is a ridiculous thought because of the reasons I've just said. Besides is content really so lacking as you say it is? I mean during the last 4 years they have added new campaigns and tons of content with the amount of funds they have, and they are still rich enough to be able to claim themselves one of the greatest MMO developers that exists. They've even been so smart as to make sellable storage, skill, pets and so on kits, to earn a few bucks extra without going away from their original ideals.
Seriously make a poll asking whether players would have bought GW at all if there was fees. I'd have to answer "no".
Arduin
Guild Wars is buy-to-play: b2p
WoW is pay-to-play: p2p
Perfect World is free-to-play: f2p
Sorry for interrupting.
WoW is pay-to-play: p2p
Perfect World is free-to-play: f2p
Sorry for interrupting.