GW should have been pay to play.
Zahr Dalsk
Actually Guild Wars is free to play. You play it without paying a fee. You do need to pay for an account, but not to play. It's free to play.
Rekliss
If you don't like the way it's going, don't play. I don't play other games because of the pay-to-play. I'm a firm beliver in the fact that if I have to pay a monthly fee, I don't have to pay $40 for the game in the first place (have yet to see that happen).
/notsigned
/notsigned
FoxBat
How I see the OP and everyone else talking past each other: yes GW1 could be a better game if it had fee support, in theory. The problem is it wouldn't have made nearly as much money, which translates into not having any more resources at all. Even if half the guru hardcore fanboys would appreciate it (and this thread shows that obviously isn't the case), you'd lose so much on the "play a campaign for a few months and move on" type that it's not even funny.
GW succeeded financially precisely because they didn't engineer it for long-term gameplay. It's not the best game to play for years and years, and it's not suppoed to be. It's not worth their time trying to make and sell major content to their dwindling active population, when they can make so very much more from non-committal gamers on the next boxed product.
GW succeeded financially precisely because they didn't engineer it for long-term gameplay. It's not the best game to play for years and years, and it's not suppoed to be. It's not worth their time trying to make and sell major content to their dwindling active population, when they can make so very much more from non-committal gamers on the next boxed product.
Names Schmames
After "quitting" GW i tried two pay to play mmorpgs and i found they offered me nothing justifying a fee which i didnt find in GW beyond grind and a 3D chat room and i did raids and was in guilds all that stuff. Played one a month and the other two and both had me log on one day and then ask myself "well it was fun for abit but why am i still paying and playing" and the answer was "youre still playing because you paid and it feels like a waste of money if you dont".
Compared to that i played GW right from the start and kept at it for like years (still got my very first char and he got his 4th year pet now so i guess its 4, in theory :P ). Because i could stop when i was bored and come back anytime.
PS : Dont think p2p would have averted the downward spiral caused by heroes and catering to soloers and chievemint farmers/grinders
Compared to that i played GW right from the start and kept at it for like years (still got my very first char and he got his 4th year pet now so i guess its 4, in theory :P ). Because i could stop when i was bored and come back anytime.
PS : Dont think p2p would have averted the downward spiral caused by heroes and catering to soloers and chievemint farmers/grinders
Lifeshield
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk
Actually Guild Wars is free to play. You play it without paying a fee. You do need to pay for an account, but not to play. It's free to play.
|
jonnieboi05
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lifeshield
It's not free to play if you have to buy an account to play it in the first place.
Quote:
|
~LeNa~
Shanaeri Rynale
Out of interest, how well is perfect world supported/updated. They use micropayments I believe.
Sword Hammer Axe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoxBat
How I see the OP and everyone else talking past each other: yes GW1 could be a better game if it had fee support, in theory. The problem is it wouldn't have made nearly as much money, which translates into not having any more resources at all. Even if half the guru hardcore fanboys would appreciate it (and this thread shows that obviously isn't the case), you'd lose so much on the "play a campaign for a few months and move on" type that it's not even funny.
GW succeeded financially precisely because they didn't engineer it for long-term gameplay. It's not the best game to play for years and years, and it's not suppoed to be. It's not worth their time trying to make and sell major content to their dwindling active population, when they can make so very much more from non-committal gamers on the next boxed product. |
Voodoo Rage
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Names Schmames
After "quitting" GW i tried two pay to play mmorpgs and i found they offered me nothing justifying a fee which i didnt find in GW beyond grind and a 3D chat room and i did raids and was in guilds all that stuff. Played one a month and the other two and both had me log on one day and then ask myself "well it was fun for abit but why am i still paying and playing" and the answer was "youre still playing because you paid and it feels like a waste of money if you dont".
Compared to that i played GW right from the start and kept at it for like years (still got my very first char and he got his 4th year pet now so i guess its 4, in theory :P ). Because i could stop when i was bored and come back anytime. PS : Dont think p2p would have averted the downward spiral caused by heroes and catering to soloers and chievemint farmers/grinders |
What a piece of garbage. Maybe I'm just really over-attuned to GW since it is really the only RPG that I have played but I absolutely HATED trying to switch to another game. The graphics were terrible, monsters did not show up on the radar (no drawn aggro bubble), monsters respawned themselves, the combat system was very very clunky and unresponsive (you get a lot of "can't do that while moving"), all the characters looked the same...it was pretty bad.
Honestly, I'd be more than happy to pay a subscription even to Guild Wars if I would be guaranteed a continuous stream of new content.
Zahr Dalsk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lifeshield
It's not free to play if you have to buy an account to play it in the first place.
|
FoxBat
Quote:
| You pay for an account; playing the game is free. |
Even NCSoft has never described GW as free-to-play, because it's not. GW is still in a very unique category like D2 inbetween P2P and F2P games, unique enough that we don't have a good name for it yet.
37er
@Shanaeri Rynale:
gtfo to wow
gtfo to wow
Lifeshield
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoxBat
Because you don't need an account to play.
|
Guild Wars is not free to play because you have to spend money to buy an account to play it. That means you cannot play Guild Wars for free at all.
For all four campaigns it's costing a player on average around £60-£70 (and if they bought at release or got collectors editions you can bet they cost alot more).
Free to play means free to acquire with no subscription fees whatsoever. The current version of Dungeons & Dragons Online is a decent example. You don't have to buy a copy of the game neither are you required to take up a subscription.
AlsPals
Had GW been pay to play, I wouldnt have quit D2. Game is one of the most fun in years, but I pay 1 time. Period.
Shanaeri Rynale
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Basch Oria
@Shanaeri Rynale:
gtfo to wow |
But I have seen some of the benefits of regular subscriptions in MMO's (not just wow) and wondered if such a model would be of benefit to my primary game which after 4 years and 15K hours is still GW.
I really do hate to see what has happened to GW over the last 18 months or so. Things that would never have been allowed to happen in 2005/06 have been just neglected.
For me, If the price of that being reversed was to pay a sub, then I would do..
dunky_g
If I wanted to pay monthly to play a game, I would.
But I dont.
So I play Guild Wars.
But I dont.
So I play Guild Wars.
BlackSephir
Cool, my time machine worked. It's 2005 AGAIN.
QueenofDeath
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
The more I think about it and with the benefit of hindsight, I am pretty much convinced that Guild Wars and in all probabilty Guild Wars 2 should have been pay to play.
So what's made me reach this almost heretical conclusion? Guild Wars has one of the best combat ideas ever seen in an MMO. Being able to change your skills, the equality of equipment and armor are all completely wonderful. They allow for a richness, inventiveness and nuances of gameplay that in my experience have never been matched. The lore is evocotive, intesting and compelling and the slickness of it all just draws you in. Some may say the free to play, chapter model worked really well. Just look at how many copies were sold, how much we got for our money etc etc. And to some degree I agree. However consider what we would have got, had we had to pay even a nominal amount (say $5) a month. We would have been able to. - Have proper GM's who could retrieve deleted items/trashed accounts. - 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 - More CM's who have the time to interact with the players. Now, what we get now is great for having to pay nothing a month. BUT we would be able to get all the above AND GW2 being developed for a nominal fee a month. Especially when GW2 is still a least a year away. I was never really a fan of Pay to play, but in an MMO I can see where such a thing can add real value to the players. Take a look at the current (sorry) state of PvE, and think what reskilling of AI/mobs every so often would do for the game, regular skill updates and new content once in a while. Think of PvP with proper cash prizes(as it used to be) with a full team of developers behind it. That is what pay to play brings you. Think of GM's who can get back your stuff/accounts if you have been scammed or hacked and the comfort you feel from knowing if the worst happens, they have your back. That is what pay to play brings you. GW may have never been intended to become a full MMO, but thats what it is now, and thats what GW2 will be, and indeed this is now my major concern for GW2. That we get a year or so of good stuff, and then due to lack of resource it dies at the vine. Pay to play would give Anet the resources to manage it better longer term. Would GW have sold as many copies as if it had been P2P? I don't know, my gut feel is that the effect on sales would not have been as bad as I once thought. What I do realise is that MMO's need continual changes, updates and 'an energy about them' and that does not come for free. Without that they, whither and die and lose their way. That is what happened to GW in my view, and I would hate it happen to GW2. |
It's become THE BABYSITTER for 12 year olds and under (even though the EULA says they are not allowed to play). Parents who don't obey the law and disregard any rules and regulations they press the button and they agree to when they press that button.
It has elitists galore that think because they can press 8 buttons in a row they know everything about the game, PVE and PVP hahaha (there's a lot of them here).
Bring back the $15 a month fee and you'll get rid of most of that.
gremlin
There is a third option when it comes to free play and pay to play and thats the one they went with in "Dungeon Runners"
Its free to download and play but if you pay some money you get extras.
More xp so you level up faster
you can use more powerful items.
Larger potions can be used
Finally you get a bling gnome that appears in dungeon and converts unwanted items directly to gold.
I cannot help thinking that since they have tried all this out in DR maybe some will appear in GW2.
The gnome is a little like the merchant summoning item.
Its free to download and play but if you pay some money you get extras.
More xp so you level up faster
you can use more powerful items.
Larger potions can be used
Finally you get a bling gnome that appears in dungeon and converts unwanted items directly to gold.
I cannot help thinking that since they have tried all this out in DR maybe some will appear in GW2.
The gnome is a little like the merchant summoning item.
DreamWind
There is something people aren't taking into consideration. First, Guild Wars has always been pay to play. It just doesn't have a monthly fee. Now that we got that out of the way...
For most players Guild Wars essentially had a monthly fee...it was just every 6months instead of every 1 month. Anet was just brilliant at marketing it. This is particularly true for PvP players, who had to have the new campaigns to compete. So back for the expansions, you could essentially count the monthly fee as $8-9 a month if you wanted to continue playing competitively or have new content.
So I can see the OP's point. Since Anet abandoned GW1 expansions in favor of GW2, GW1 has received much less attention which was expected. Even with the Anet genius that is suckering people into microtransactions, the game has received much less attention. So while GW1 was a success commercially, it was a failure in that it doesn't live up to other games anymore in other ways (which is largely why it is dying or dead in some cases). That is just a product of the model though, and the pattern will certainly continue into the sequel. I suppose this is the reason I always advocated Anet stay with the competitive model rather than the MMO model, but such is the past.
For most players Guild Wars essentially had a monthly fee...it was just every 6months instead of every 1 month. Anet was just brilliant at marketing it. This is particularly true for PvP players, who had to have the new campaigns to compete. So back for the expansions, you could essentially count the monthly fee as $8-9 a month if you wanted to continue playing competitively or have new content.
So I can see the OP's point. Since Anet abandoned GW1 expansions in favor of GW2, GW1 has received much less attention which was expected. Even with the Anet genius that is suckering people into microtransactions, the game has received much less attention. So while GW1 was a success commercially, it was a failure in that it doesn't live up to other games anymore in other ways (which is largely why it is dying or dead in some cases). That is just a product of the model though, and the pattern will certainly continue into the sequel. I suppose this is the reason I always advocated Anet stay with the competitive model rather than the MMO model, but such is the past.
Shanaeri Rynale
Exactly Dreamwind. New campaigns were not optional if you wanted to PvP, and pve was too limited not to have them also. You pay to play a game in some shape or form(even if it's in game advertising or micropayments). It's just that a subscription model is more 'upfront' about it.
athariel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
For most players Guild Wars essentially had a monthly fee...it was just every 6months instead of every 1 month. Anet was just brilliant at marketing it. This is particularly true for PvP players, who had to have the new campaigns to compete. So back for the expansions, you could essentially count the monthly fee as $8-9 a month if you wanted to continue playing competitively or have new content.
|
upier
The problem with GW is the lack of vision and understanding what the hell is actually going on with the game they created.
A fee would just cause this stupidity being rewarded even more.
A fee would just cause this stupidity being rewarded even more.
Shanaeri Rynale
IMHO there used to be a vision etc, until they ditched Gw1. Paying customers who you rely on to keep you in work would get back thier focus, not make them lose it.
AmbientMelody
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
The more I think about it and with the benefit of hindsight, I am pretty much convinced that Guild Wars and in all probabilty Guild Wars 2 should have been pay to play.
So what's made me reach this almost heretical conclusion? Guild Wars has one of the best combat ideas ever seen in an MMO. Being able to change your skills, the equality of equipment and armor are all completely wonderful. They allow for a richness, inventiveness and nuances of gameplay that in my experience have never been matched. The lore is evocotive, intesting and compelling and the slickness of it all just draws you in. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
Some may say the free to play, chapter model worked really well. Just look at how many copies were sold, how much we got for our money etc etc. And to some degree I agree. However consider what we would have got, had we had to pay even a nominal amount (say $5) a month.
|
If you were hired by Anet or Blizzard and told on an interview that your game is free to play, you would get fired. Quality sells, 'free to play' merely breaks the entire image of quality production, so it's not viable marketing-wise.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
We would have been able to.
- Have proper GM's who could retrieve deleted items/trashed accounts. - 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 - More CM's who have the time to interact with the players. |
Pay to play games are designed around leveling up, grinding for items, hard way switching attributes, skills and builds, long travel times, easy ways to 'screw up' your build, usually dull plot ... pretty much the opposite of what entire Guild Wars franchise is about.
Why such features? Because they 'guarantee' that 'average customer' will spend at least 18 months in the game and pay X $$$ before he leaves for good, because it took him a lot of time to eventually figure out it's not game for him. With Guild Wars, you could tell after few hours of playing on a free trial account if the game is for you or not. You can't tell the same about other games.
I can't imagine any live team capable of pulling out enough quality roleplaying content in Guild Wars fashion every 1-2 months and enough goodness for the pvp crowd at the same time. It's impossible, you need to 'make players grind' to slow down their progress and their demands for new content, even in a p2p game. Go read some scientific stuff or at least meet some actual people working in top MMO gaming companies, you will figure out your theory is not really 'heretic' but simply ... naive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
That is what pay to play brings you.
|
Pay to play brings you nothing but a thinner wallet.
The future lies in 'boxed' and digital buy-to-play games, with optional microtransactions, made by talented, small teams. Highest chance of success, biggest return of money investment to game development, easy game audience targeting (i.e. you don't make game 'for everyone and his dog' to compensate for very lengthy and costly development).
@ Dreamwind
I, and many others, would have no means to play this game if it was p2p. We don't live in a 'fantasy world' where everyone is born as an adult with a credit card.
Martin Alvito
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame
But no Anet is lazy, and that is the ONLY reason why we arent getting enough crap for GW1.
|
There have been some questions regarding how work gets done from some previous dev posts, but it's hard to make an assessment of whether or not things are managed efficiently without experiencing the work environment first hand.
I've said it before - retain about 6000 hardcore customers you would otherwise lose, and you can pay for ten young staffers to help keep this game alive until the release of GW2. That's an investment in the future too, because those staffers learn the problem solving skills to help support the new game.
Clearly management isn't thinking this way. Best guess is that someone with decision-making powers has performance or compensation incentives that encourage mortgaging the future.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
For most players Guild Wars essentially had a monthly fee...it was just every 6months instead of every 1 month. Anet was just brilliant at marketing it.
|
Unfortunately, it also led to a host of balance problems. Same basic trap that WotC fell into with Magic. Power creep was used to sell poorly balanced content, to the detriment of the game's integrity. Look at Factions and the Fallen Empires expansion of Magic; they were received similarly and led to a similar response by the company.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
IMHO there used to be a vision etc, until they ditched Gw1. Paying customers who you rely on to keep you in work would get back thier focus, not make them lose it.
|
The basic problem is that somebody at a very high level in ANet either doesn't understand their business, or is precluded from taking proper action due to the constraint of the publisher's shareholders.
Entertainment software companies open and close all the time. It's the publishers that stick around, and they don't do that by acting in the interest of the companies that provide them product. Companies like Blizzard, Valve and Bioware that hang around for a long time are rare. They survive because they understand their business well enough to provide consistent product, and because they have the financial muscle to weather the cyclical revenue stream long enough to produce consistent products.
You'd think that NCSoft would permit the ANet people some latitude to do the right thing due to their large stake. But apparently long-term thinking just isn't encouraged for whatever reason.
Operative 14
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
Exactly Dreamwind. New campaigns were not optional if you wanted to PvP, and pve was too limited not to have them also. You pay to play a game in some shape or form(even if it's in game advertising or micropayments). It's just that a subscription model is more 'upfront' about it.
|
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
IMHO there used to be a vision etc, until they ditched Gw1. Paying customers who you rely on to keep you in work would get back thier focus, not make them lose it.
|
Shadowspawn X
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
I really do hate to see what has happened to GW over the last 18 months or so. Things that would never have been allowed to happen in 2005/06 have been just neglected.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
IMHO there used to be a vision etc, until they ditched Gw1.
|
The Drunkard
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
We would have been able to. - Have proper GM's who could retrieve deleted items/trashed accounts. - 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 - More CM's who have the time to interact with the players. Take a look at the current (sorry) state of PvE, and think what reskilling of AI/mobs every so often would do for the game, regular skill updates and new content once in a while. Think of PvP with proper cash prizes(as it used to be) with a full team of developers behind it. That is what pay to play brings you. |
You also have to remember that while the staff is working on things, there are people higher up on the totem poll actually make the call. Money will never fix ignorance on their part.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
Think of GM's who can get back your stuff/accounts if you have been scammed or hacked and the comfort you feel from knowing if the worst happens, they have your back.
That is what pay to play brings you. |
As far as your monthly analogy goes you're missing a big flaw. What if I didn't want to pay for factions since I didn't like how it looked? Now instead of $8/9 per month Anet is getting nothing.
I wouldn't pay for a monthly fee simply because I've beaten the expansions too quickly to want to keep my account active until the next campaign. I mostly play GW as a place to socialize and blow off some steam from RL, so I would just jump to another game.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
- 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
|
Xenex Xclame
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martin Alvito
The problem is that management is cheap, and perhaps is also incompetent. There's a difference. It's not that the employees don't work. It's that current staff don't have the time to produce the outputs that we would like to see.
|
Wouldn't telling the community as soon as the first mount passes that the work is delayed?At least that way the community is informed and will not be pissed when the time comes and no update is there just to be told, oops its late,sorry about that.
I mean dont they work with some kind of schedule? first 3 weeks get all updates down, test for 2 weeks after that,fix problem that have come up in 1 week,second testing for 1 week, 1 extra week for any work that might have been delayed and/or extra fixes.As soon as you see that testing hasn't began after the 5th week you know your gonna be late, so why pretend (and rush) as if your gona make it anyways, just to get to the date and then finally realized you were never gonna make it.
If managment is the one telling them to shut up and take the heat,I would quit being in their shoes,there only so many stabs a thick skin can handle.Let the managment handle the crap we throw at them.
Sword Hammer Axe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shanaeri Rynale
Exactly Dreamwind. New campaigns were not optional if you wanted to PvP, and pve was too limited not to have them also. You pay to play a game in some shape or form(even if it's in game advertising or micropayments). It's just that a subscription model is more 'upfront' about it.
|
Second: BS. It doesn't add under the definition of p2p saying that you have to buy a new game or expansion because of the following reasons: Buying the shit is optional, it immediatly unlocks the feature you know you payed for, it is a once in a lifetime fee. Saying anything else simply doesn't make any sense.
And not optional if you want to PvP? Says who? You will be limited buildwise, but that doesn't mean you can't play it. No ones forcing you to buy extra content for neither PvP nor PvE.
PvE too limited: EVERY freaking game is too limited with that logic. As soon as new content is out it gets limited to that and then more content will get out and you are limited to that. Can you see my point? You can't get satisfied with that logic. When you buy a game you get what you payed for. In GW's case you actually get what you payed for AND the bonus of updates FREE OF CHARGE! Why the feck do you want to change that?
GW is pay ONCE to play and that's it. There's no hidden unoptional fees.
MithranArkanere
People still play Diablo I and II, and they are no MMOs. And they don't get even a little percentage of the updates GW gets.
"PAY ONCE". Is the real way to go. You pay once for each piece of the content, and play forever without having to worry about fees.
That's one of the pillars of GW's success, anyone that disagrees with that is either blind or refuse to see.
"PAY ONCE". Is the real way to go. You pay once for each piece of the content, and play forever without having to worry about fees.
That's one of the pillars of GW's success, anyone that disagrees with that is either blind or refuse to see.
gone
http://www.planettr.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11581
http://unsubject.wordpress.com/2009/...-its-failures/
gonna drop these off here. stay loose.
http://unsubject.wordpress.com/2009/...-its-failures/
gonna drop these off here. stay loose.
gremlin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
There is something people aren't taking into consideration. First, Guild Wars has always been pay to play. It just doesn't have a monthly fee. Now that we got that out of the way...
For most players Guild Wars essentially had a monthly fee...it was just every 6months instead of every 1 month. Anet was just brilliant at marketing it. This is particularly true for PvP players, who had to have the new campaigns to compete. So back for the expansions, you could essentially count the monthly fee as $8-9 a month if you wanted to continue playing competitively or have new content. So I can see the OP's point. Since Anet abandoned GW1 expansions in favor of GW2, GW1 has received much less attention which was expected. Even with the Anet genius that is suckering people into microtransactions, the game has received much less attention. So while GW1 was a success commercially, it was a failure in that it doesn't live up to other games anymore in other ways (which is largely why it is dying or dead in some cases). That is just a product of the model though, and the pattern will certainly continue into the sequel. I suppose this is the reason I always advocated Anet stay with the competitive model rather than the MMO model, but such is the past. |
Let me say that again for the slow to learn it is not pay to play.
If it were then every computer game is pay to play.
One has a monthly fee that you always pay on the same date every month rain shine playing or not ok ?
The other lets you buy a game and play it for years at no extra cost and has expansions you may want to buy at some date or not if you don't want to.
Its an interesting idea but except for a dedicated pvp player who needs access every skill to have a chance of winning and needs them the second they become available there is no comparison.
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X
The degenerate state of the game has nothing to do with fiances. It has to do with piss poor administrative decisions.
Many companies lose their direction when they grow and no longer adhere to core principles and beliefs of the founders. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sword Hammer Axe
And not optional if you want to PvP? Says who? You will be limited buildwise, but that doesn't mean you can't play it. No ones forcing you to buy extra content for neither PvP nor PvE.
|
In the same way, for many people theres no point in playing PvE if you don't buy the expansions. If your guild members and friends buy it, you will feel like you have no choice but buy to continue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gremlin
Let me say that again for the slow to learn it is not pay to play.
If it were then every computer game is pay to play. |
Xenex Xclame
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flubber
http://www.planettr.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11581
http://unsubject.wordpress.com/2009/...-its-failures/ gonna drop these off here. stay loose. |
Thanks for the links, great read.It's too bad this is the way things are.Maybe i should give one of the many F2P mmos I played the attention i give to GW.
prinzess of life
If Guildwars was pay to play i wouldn't have bought it and if Guildwars 2 is pay to play i won't buy it - as simple as that. We already pay enough for broadband... why don't online games company's not claim money from the isp's that get so much money from us...
Konker2020
Sorry to say, but I wouldn't pay monthly to play a game that has had so many short comings on a company's end as this...
gremlin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Excellent post Shadowspawn.
Uh...of course it is pay to play. Let us analyze that...you have to pay for the game to play the game. If you don't pay for the game you can't play the game. Very simple. And not every computer game is pay to play...there are tons of free downloadable games. |
The phrase pay to play that's in common usage means paying a monthly fee.
I know you said in your post gw was pay to play even though there is no monthly fee.
So let me change my statement a little to be more accurate.
GW and all other none free games are pay to own the game and the right to play as often as you like for no extra cost so to that extent are pay to play.
Pay to play games with a monthly fee have a constant ongoing cost that you pay whether you play or not.
This monthly cost never goes down, unlike gw style pay to play games which have a cost that goes down the older the game is.
I can live with that explanation but its a little complex I would just rather say GW isn't pay to play and WOW is.