guild wars server system vs other mmo systems

this has interested me for a while now:
how does the guild wars server system compare to a traditional MMO system that allows them to remain free of monthly payments?
in normal MMO's most events are not instanced in and out of towns without districts, requiring a massive server
in guild wars towns are divided by districts and combat events are always instanced -but doesnt this still require alot of resources to facilitate so many instances?

i believe that those servers is using the battle.net system that apply to warcraft 3, diablo2, etc..did those games require monthly fees? i guess not

A common misconception is that you pay for servers alone when paying for play to pay games. A lot of reason behind pay to play is also due to new content. It costs money to develop and keep a game evolving through new content, and you won't see in larger games, very major (asside from design flaws that can't really be helped) problems as they get patched. Guild wars does update content, but doesn't necessarily add a lot of "new" content. Thier business model allows them to update and to an extent, keep people satisfied by certain game improvements since their developing teams are always working on some aspect of guild wars. The new chapters allow them to develop changes for the rest of the game.

There is also that companies are greedy and take advantage of the pay to play system as its a very profitable source of income.

It also helps that the servers are fairly decent, and that the GW engine manages instancing in a very efficient way. Example: Texturing is done on the fly, not all at once when a map is entered, kind of like those lame Halo 2 cinematics where...well if you haven't seen it you wouldn't know anyway. If you have seen it you know what I'm talking about.

But yeah, PPM is pretty much a big rip off in most cases. In my experience, the PPM MMOs are indeed great games, but I have played great games like GW and Diablo for free for years and years, and I don't feel obligated to stay in touch with the world as much as an MMO where if you drop it for 2 days you're the n00blet on the block(exagerrationg a bit, but you get the point)

GW lowers their server/bandwidth cost by limiting the party system and using 'districts.' In other MMO, you can have hundreds, even thousands in one server. You can run in to other groups within the same PvE map. In GW, there is no such thing. Thus bandwidth needed is much lower. You can parse server request to a much wider network.

The downside is limtied partying abilities. Smaller districts. PvP action is also smaller scale (12 v 12 is the largest for GW and that is small compared to other games).

The upside is, they can adopt a different business model. Along with the chapter every 6 months system, the game can be a no monthly fee MMO game.

Overall, it cheaper than other games, but not that much. Remember many of the traditional MMO are MUCH bigger than GW content wise. Then again you would need to compare 'value' instead of sheer cost alone.

Well, what is more demanding. Having a few servers with thousands of players each or having thousands servers with a few players each? Every little thing you do in GW is hosted by anet's servers. As far as I know, the bandwidth the client goes through is comparable to other MMORPGs. All in all, I get the impression GW's server model would be just as expensive as any other common mmorpg.

Someone was comparing GW's system to battle.net earlier and that's not a fair comparison. Battle.net only acts as a master server for listing the games, it doesn't host a single game, the players do. But in GW *everything* is handled by anet's servers.

Maybe they have good managers?

There's not a single gamecompany out there that has enough serverpower for all their players.

For example, there are 1000 players but the server can only manage 400 at a time. Nobody notices because not all 1000 players will be there at the same time. That's why a lot of games kick you if you're afk for too long.

This is done to save $$.

If they have good managers who can balance these things out correctly (like, they'll get a few more temporary servers at gamerelease) then they save a lot of $$.

Some personal bandwidth comparisons between some other online games showed that GW took up much less bandwidth than other games, for me. People still play on 56k with some success around here, so that should be an indication of how demanding the netcode is. I would then assume that the netcode is designed very efficiently for optimum server use, with the 56k (good!) side effect.

No it can't. For all the reasons stated in the rest of your post, ie: Guild Wars needing to be 100% instanced; Guild Wars is not a MMO. People should really stop saying that. Guild Wars is as much of a MMO as Diablo II is (which is, not at all).

That's why it's not a pay to play game. Most people wouldn't pay for Guild Wars monthly, because the instancing makes it not worth it.

GuildWars is a CORPG (a subcategory of MMO)

MMO fits fine too

New D&D Stormreach is MMORPG and uses same type of instance system in PvE dungeons. I haven't played that game and don't know exatcly how Stormreach works but still it's a MMORPG with monthly fee.
__________________________

To topic, the streaming technology that Anet uses is kinda unique as well. I'm not an expert on servers but I'm sure that Anet's streaming system somehow reduces traffic/lag.

anet's servers are nice, but i kinda wish that it would kick you off if it gets bad. today i did an alliance battle with some guildies. the lag was so bad that everything i do was delayed by 4 seconds. in that instance, i wish the server could simply kick everyone back to the preparation area and give you an message saying too much server lag.

what's even more odd is, that lag spike seems to only apply to members of my party, and does not apply to anyone else. i wonder what's up with that.

How did you test it?

Of course in instanced areas the bandwidth is much lower, as you only have 8 players in normal PvE in the map, which doesn't really compare to having a full scale MMO area with hundred(s) of players in it. The server load thenagain would be similar to normal MMO as every player still needs to be hosted, load might be even higher as you have more data to store about the instances (what monsters are around, what loot is on the ground, where the patrols are running for every single instance)

Dunno how it would apply to the outposts and towns, like Lion's Arch and Kaineng Center. And how close to they are to 'normal' MMO areas when they are full. Tho, during xmas special, the districts were pretty full, and there was virtually no lag at all, atleast on broadband, which would indicate the servers are able to handle heavy loads. Wonder how 56k players felt during those events, if they had no problems, I'd say the GW's netcode indeed, is very well made.

This is, in fact, a common misconception. A single machine that has more parallel processors and more memory will always be more expensive than a cluster of machines that contains the same number of processor cores and the sum of memory...

For example, the price of one server with 16 cores and half a terabyte (512GB) of RAM is ALOT more expensive than 8 servers, each with 2 CPU cores, each with 64GB of RAM.

Although with the dual core technology, the price of the core has gone down, the price of memory, when going beyond 16GB is still prohibitive.

In terms of distributed system design, an instanced based design (like Anet has) is far more distributable than the unified design of other MMOs. In other words, they are better able to take advantage of many cheap cluster farms with so-so interconnects. In contrast, an MMO where everyone actually shares the same "universe" will require larger serves and faster interconnects, hence more expensive.

That has a monthly fee, but like Guild Wars, it's not an MMO. More like a "Let's make a game with a monthly fee to scam naive people who do not know what the difference between Diablo II and a MMO is."

DDO is a mmorpg
- never seen any press call it anything else

Well, that's just wrong. The MMO part refers the number of plays interacting simultaneously. Not just logged on - interacting, or at least sharing a game world. Diablo, like Guild Wars, and a few other "MMO"s I could mention (many of which charge monthly fees, funnily enough) will not have you come across another party while out questing.

you should familiarize yourself what MMO can mean
there are many kinds of MMO games beyond your personal definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive...er_online_game

heres a blurb about GuildWars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMORPG

Not that Wikipedia is really a credible source, but...

Emphasis mine. The only time GW is mentioned in that article is to point out that it isn't really an MMO--and with good reason, because it isn't one.

I agree Wiki is "a source" not a definitive source
(not that I know of one)

just because GW is a CORPG doesnt mean it doesnt belong to the generic category of MMO


heres a clip from todays Press Release

Guild Wars Factions #1 Game in North America and Europe
http://www.guildwars.com/press/relea...2006-05-23.php
why mention MMOG in their press release if it wasnt relevant?