Who will be more successful when this two mmos come out?

(And this thread is not put out to start a fight as some people it seems like to happen, but to simple see your opinion on who is your favorite. Just that.)

Define success.

Decided to add: Games sold pre-launch or subs still active after a year.. but wait - GW2 is not a sub game it is a buy and play - so how do you tell activity?  TSW is sub and cash shop - which may drive away people at first until they see how it works. I would say it will mostly depend on which has the better PvP options. 2 different games and  payment options - hard to compare.

Originally posted by ElderRat

Define success.

 

No comment.    

  (but there is emote)

Will enjoy both thanks.

ok, but... AoC was very unsuccessful at launch and then... later turned out to be playable. Star Wars Galaxy was good until a certain event.   

Success can be many things.  I think TSW will be the better game but that GW2 will probably sell more boxes,  Funcom + Cash shop will turn many people off.   I see GW2 being very solo-centric, which for me is a turn-off. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right - hard to tell right now.  But I think you should have specified what you mean by success when you asked which will be more successful - not everyone answering will mean the same thing by success.

Funcom history -

AO and AoC - terrible launches, never big success, AoC goes F2P.

Anet history -

Sells 3+ million copies of GW1, over a million beta sign ups in 48 hours for GW2.

Hmmmm....

*Edit- Oh wait, according to Anet as of 2009 they sold 6+ million copies of Guild Wars products.. which included expansions.

Originally posted by ElderRat

I see GW2 being very solo-centric, which for me is a turn-off. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right - hard to tell right now.  

You do know that like 90% of the content in GW2 is open world and heavily group oriented right?

Doesn't matter to me one bit. I am going to play and enjoy both, that is the big perk of GW2 being B2P. I get two games, vastly different from each other, with one sub fee. Yay!

Originally posted by ElderRat

Define success.

Decided to add: Games sold pre-launch or subs still active after a year.. but wait - GW2 is not a sub game it is a buy and play - so how do you tell activity?  TSW is sub and cash shop - which may drive away people at first until they see how it works. I would say it will mostly depend on which has the better PvP options. 2 different games and  payment options - hard to compare.

You are right about PvP.

And, yea they are two different games, but both of them are trying to redefined mmo scene with truly innovative approach. That can backfire when you are going in new and unexplored way and desired effect dont happen.  Will just have to wait and see who will be more "successful" in there journey.

Ugh, can we not do this? They are both doing interesting things and I wish them both well. I'm more excited about GW2 but I'd like to see TSW succeed as well even if I don't end up playing it.

I do know I beta'd the original and it turned out different than what I was exposed to in the beta.

Originally posted by sidhaethe

Ugh, can we not do this? They are both doing interesting things and I wish them both well. I'm more excited about GW2 but I'd like to see TSW succeed as well even if I don't end up playing it.

This.

Also, there really isn't a "rivalry" between these 2 games, their fanbases, or a competing method of doing the same thing (unless you count story, which I think every game needs some of).

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by ElderRat

I see GW2 being very solo-centric, which for me is a turn-off. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right - hard to tell right now.  

You do know that like 90% of the content in GW2 is open world and heavily group oriented right?

Like the man said. GW2 is supposed to be completely opposite to solo-centric play.

not what I heard, sounds very soloable - like all the other games lately.

I've looked into both as much as is possible from the time being and I can say I am much more impressed with Guildwars 2.

I do not like the enime style that The Secret World is using. I do not in general like games that push the dark theme to much.

Originally posted by grimm6th

Originally posted by sidhaethe

Ugh, can we not do this? They are both doing interesting things and I wish them both well. I'm more excited about GW2 but I'd like to see TSW succeed as well even if I don't end up playing it.

This.

Also, there really isn't a "rivalry" between these 2 games, their fanbases, or a competing method of doing the same thing (unless you count story, which I think every game needs some of).

 

I agree - the thread is a troll to begin with  - trying to conflict the 2 sets of fan boys.  Especially with a non defined criteria for success.

Originally posted by sidhaethe

Ugh, can we not do this? They are both doing interesting things and I wish them both well. I'm more excited about GW2 but I'd like to see TSW succeed as well even if I don't end up playing it.

I wish them both best of luck.

Originally posted by ElderRat

not what I heard, sounds very soloable - like all the other games lately.

Link or it didn't happen.

You can't throw a stone without finding a video or preview article proving you incorrect.

Originally posted by ElderRat

not what I heard, sounds very soloable - like all the other games lately.

Soloable does not mean single player, especially with a scaling system that makes group play more fun.  It means that players that want to play alone can play alone, and players that can't log on during peak hours won't have trouble playing the game.

GW2 is soloable, but nearly every PvE feature is designed around players playing together (because games are more fun that way).

daoc2 vs walking dead    b2p vs p2p   gw1 vs AoC   not that hard to figure that out.