While I may not be as zealous as the OP, I think we all should be hoping GW2 has a positive influence on future game development (I personally see evidence that it already is having an impact but that's beside the point), not just in miming GW2s exact features, but in showing other designers that it's now safe to step away from the WoW model and be creative once again. Finally.

Whether you're a GW2 fan or not, you'd be an idiot to not want that. I'm excited for GW2 for sure, but I'm more excited about its potential impact on future games. Either way, I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing anywhere near the amount of blatant WoW clones.

If GW2 is successful (which seems a pretty safe bet at this point) it only further guarantess fewer WoW clones blemishing future horizons. That's good news for any of us that saw the MMO genre get put on hold for years in the wake of WoW as nearly every developer scrambled to recreate the exact same experience WoW was already delivering, while those of us not playing WoW didn't want WoW anyway.

I'm sure those that are still content with WoW, Rift, Swtor or any of the other clones couldn't care less, but there certainly seems to be a fairly large percentage of us that are done with that crap and flat out don't enjoy it and would welcome any deviation from the clone blueprint. I'd say it's about time.

Originally posted by Loke666

I more hopes for headlines like: "GW2, WoDO and Class 4 finally made EA and Activision realize that they must stop just copying eachother and have started to make original games" instead.

GW2 is a really well made fun game but the real reason it is getting so much more attention than games like Rift is that they at least try to make something a bit original. If everyone just start to copy and paste from it instead of from EQ and Wow it would be the final nail in the coffin for MMOs.

I would say that MMOs need to change but it really s MMO devs and publisher that needs to change. They need to actually start thinking instead of just spying on eachother and stealing eachother few ideas.

We need more companies like CCP and Undead labs, they don't care what others do, they instead do their own thing.

huh? Rift did Events before GW2 did. the events in GW2 are the same concept as events in Rift.

Originally posted by Valkaern

While I may not be as zealous as the OP, I think we all should be hoping GW2 has a positive influence on future game development (I personally see evidence that it already is having an impact but that's beside the point), not just in miming GW2s exact features, but in showing other designers that it's now safe to step away from the WoW model and be creative once again. Finally.

Whether you're a GW2 fan or not, you'd be an idiot to not want that. I'm excited for GW2 for sure, but I'm more excited about its potential impact on future games. Either way, I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing anywhere near the amount of blatant WoW clones.

If GW2 is successful (which seems a pretty safe bet at this point) it only further guarantess fewer WoW clones blemishing future horizons. That's good news for any of us that saw the MMO genre get put on hold for years in the wake of WoW as nearly every developer scrambled to recreate the exact same experience WoW was already delivering, while those of us not playing WoW didn't want WoW anyway.

I'm sure those that are still content with WoW, Rift, Swtor or any of the other clones couldn't care less, but there certainly seems to be a fairly large percentage of us that are done with that crap and flat out don't enjoy it and would welcome any deviation from the clone blueprint. I'd say it's about time.

but how do we define success with a B2P MMO?

like a few pages ago, most fans will ignore the retention rate of players.

if Player population drops, who here will point that issue out when fans start throwing around the total box sell numbers around like they did in GW1?

nobody will... because its only player point of view on population issues, verse Anet's box sell numbers which I am sure they will market since most MMO consumers here confuse the two terms (Sub numbers, Box Sells numbers)

and we all know, MMO consumers love games to be able to hold Sub Numbers. So if these people confuse Sub number and Box Sell numbers, its easy to fool them with cleaver marketing into seeing GW2's total Box sells as an important factor in population speculation.

OP is a good troll.  This thread and his "the word fanboy is sexist against women" thread are proof of his intentions.

He be trolling, son. At least I hope he is, if he is serious...a double facepalm would not suffice.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Loke666

I more hopes for headlines like: "GW2, WoDO and Class 4 finally made EA and Activision realize that they must stop just copying eachother and have started to make original games" instead.

GW2 is a really well made fun game but the real reason it is getting so much more attention than games like Rift is that they at least try to make something a bit original. If everyone just start to copy and paste from it instead of from EQ and Wow it would be the final nail in the coffin for MMOs.

I would say that MMOs need to change but it really s MMO devs and publisher that needs to change. They need to actually start thinking instead of just spying on eachother and stealing eachother few ideas.

We need more companies like CCP and Undead labs, they don't care what others do, they instead do their own thing.

huh? Rift did Events before GW2 did. the events in GW2 are the same concept as events in Rift.

Ferrari and Lada are same concept, they are both cars, the difference is obvious to anyone. The difference between DEs and Rifts should've been obvious as well.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Valkaern

 

but how do we define success with a B2P MMO?

 

I'm not exactly sure why this seems to be an area of contention for anyone, considering it's not hard to gauge GW1s success and it followed the same model. 

It sold over 6 million boxes (which is good for any game let alone an MMO), released expansions that were well recieved and still retains a populated and active community to this day -  on top of that a quick glance at trade chat and public areas also shows a lot of players are clearly taking advantage of the cash shop. 

It's not like there's no other criteria for judging how well a game is doing without subscription numbers. Clearly GW1 was successful enough to afford them to pursue GW2 after just a few years and it performed well enough for the parent company to  feel comfortable taking a very hands-off approach.

I don't think that in two years anyone with common sense and the most basic understanding of gaming business models will have any difficulty judging how well GW2 is or isn't doing.

Do you really think it'll be that hard?

The only difference between the forums now and in 2015 will be the names of the games.

Originally posted by grogstorm

The year is 2015 and I am browsing the forums and see a few interesting topics I want to read.  Here are a few of them:

• All these new games are just trying to copy GW2 without..
• I remember where I was and what I was doing the day GW2 release date was published.
• The day the industry changed forever, GW2 release date
• GW2 clones are popping up everywhere..
• Can you remember back when you played a subscription to play a game you already own.
• Once upon a time, back in the dark ages of MMO’s, pre GW2,  we..
• …. has officially declared bankruptcy after their P2P games…
• The un-holy trinity is officially dead since…
• “LF Healer” has hit an official low in all…

I can see the posts now J

Sorry but you are dreaming. Maybe there will be headlines about PR work ANet did to hype this piece up but other than that there won't be anything. And I promise to start a thread here to apologize if I'll be proved to be wrong. Safe promise anyway.

Originally posted by Valkaern

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Valkaern

 

but how do we define success with a B2P MMO?

 

I'm not exactly sure why this seems to be an area of contention for anyone, considering it's not hard to gauge GW1s success and it followed the same model. 

It sold over 6 million boxes (which is good for any game let alone an MMO), released expansions that were well recieved and still retains a populated and active community to this day -  on top of that a quick glance at trade chat and public areas also shows a lot of players are clearly taking advantage of the cash shop. 

It's not like there's no other criteria for judging how well a game is doing without subscription numbers. Clearly GW1 was successful enough to afford them to pursue GW2 after just a few years and it performed well enough for the parent company to  feel comfortable taking a very hands-off approach.

I don't think that in two years anyone with common sense and the most basic understanding of gaming business models will have any difficulty judging how well GW2 is or isn't doing.

Do you really think it'll be that hard?

GW1 wasnt a MMO. It never took into fact the population drops, which never effect the PvE gameplay in GW1.

in a MMO, population has a far greater effect. if population drops in a MMO, than something bad usually happens. Because players population effects other players.

this is something many of you are ignoring about GW2. GW2 is not a CORPG like GW1. its a MMO. Population is a factor here.

with box sell numbers, that mean nothing.

How many Elder Scroll Oblivion boxes sold? and what percentage of them are still playing? Box sells mean nothing in MMOs. in non MMO, the percentage of people playing, means nothing. but again, they arent MMO.

....but its not that good of a game...

Originally posted by Valkaern

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Valkaern

 

but how do we define success with a B2P MMO?

 

I'm not exactly sure why this seems to be an area of contention for anyone, considering it's not hard to gauge GW1s success and it followed the same model. 

It sold over 6 million boxes (which is good for any game let alone an MMO), released expansions that were well recieved and still retains a populated and active community to this day -  on top of that a quick glance at trade chat and public areas also shows a lot of players are clearly taking advantage of the cash shop. 

It's not like there's no other criteria for judging how well a game is doing without subscription numbers. Clearly GW1 was successful enough to afford them to pursue GW2 after just a few years and it performed well enough for the parent company to  feel comfortable taking a very hands-off approach.

I don't think that in two years anyone with common sense and the most basic understanding of gaming business models will have any difficulty judging how well GW2 is or isn't doing.

Do you really think it'll be that hard?

The only thing is your numbers are slightly misleading. GW1 did sell 6 million boxes, only that number includes all of the expansion packs. Not that a few million accounts is bad, but it is nowhere near the 6 million you try to portray.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

in a MMO, population has a far greater effect. if population drops in a MMO, than something bad usually happens. Because players population effects other players.

The best way to measure population is with the active/full servers. The game had 48 in the last BWE and they were increased to 96, that means the population increased. If at any given point in the future we go back to 48 then the game is obviously failing (see SWTOR) if the servers instead increase even more, then it is doing fine.

We won't have many server transfer issues either, the guesting system helps and it is ridiculously easy to change a home server as well (if they reduce the servers they will give free transfers of course)

Counting the servers (and their activity status) should be a good indication on overall game population health.

Once of course they give us a way to see server status while not in-game (I hope Anet will have a server status webpage at release)

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Valkaern

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Valkaern

 

but how do we define success with a B2P MMO?

 

I'm not exactly sure why this seems to be an area of contention for anyone, considering it's not hard to gauge GW1s success and it followed the same model. 

It sold over 6 million boxes (which is good for any game let alone an MMO), released expansions that were well recieved and still retains a populated and active community to this day -  on top of that a quick glance at trade chat and public areas also shows a lot of players are clearly taking advantage of the cash shop. 

It's not like there's no other criteria for judging how well a game is doing without subscription numbers. Clearly GW1 was successful enough to afford them to pursue GW2 after just a few years and it performed well enough for the parent company to  feel comfortable taking a very hands-off approach.

I don't think that in two years anyone with common sense and the most basic understanding of gaming business models will have any difficulty judging how well GW2 is or isn't doing.

Do you really think it'll be that hard?

GW1 wasnt a MMO. It never took into fact the population drops, which never effect the PvE gameplay in GW1.

 

in a MMO, population has a far greater effect. if population drops in a MMO, than something bad usually happens. Because players population effects other players.

 

this is something many of you are ignoring about GW2. GW2 is not a CORPG like GW1. its a MMO. Population is a factor here.

with box sell numbers, that mean nothing.

How many Elder Scroll Oblivion boxes sold? and what percentage of them are still playing? Box sells mean nothing in MMOs. in non MMO, the percentage of people playing, means nothing. but again, they arent MMO.

Off the top of my head some factors that would indicate how healthy or successful GW2 is in the future would be:

- Box sales (You say they don't matter, I think that's silly - of course they matter to a game that's relying on box sales)

- Server populations (anyone that's previously bought the game faces no barrier to hopping on and seeing how busy it is)

- Number of servers (were they merged, were more added?)

- Chatter and presence in the community and media

- Expansions (How many boxes sold? 100k? 2 million? Regardless of the number, it's pretty indicative of how many are still actively playing. This would generate a very clear picture of how many people are currently playing.

- Quarterly reports &earning reports/ user milestone reports/ concurrent user reports: Companies love sending out little media blurbs whenever they reach certain user related milestones (eg. ''Shadowbane saw a record number of players last saturday as over 40k players flooded the servers setting a new all time concurrent high for the game'').

Again, I don't think anyone with any amount of common sense will have any trouble at all determining if the game is doing well or not. Is your server dead? Are other servers dead? Might not be doing so well then. Is there an active community in all  3 venues of gameplay or is, for example, WvW dead?

I simply can't understand why you're convinced you won't be able to tell if the game is healthy or not. Anything beyond 'Is it populated?' is of no concern in this instance as you're concerned with the number of people playing, and that can be answered by logging in or askling around if you don't own the game.

There's simply no mystery to it, sorry.

Originally posted by MMOExposed
Anybody wonder what the retention rate will be for gw2?

Judging by GW1 I don't think that term means that much.

People come and go in GW1 in a rather complex pattern.  Retention rate is a figment of a sub model.

Originally posted by seridan

Originally posted by MMOExposed

in a MMO, population has a far greater effect. if population drops in a MMO, than something bad usually happens. Because players population effects other players.

The best way to measure population is with the active/full servers. The game had 48 in the last BWE and they were increased to 96, that means the population increased. If at any given point in the future we go back to 48 then the game is obviously failing (see SWTOR) if the servers instead increase even more, then it is doing fine.

We won't have many server transfer issues either, the guesting system helps and it is ridiculously easy to change a home server as well (if they reduce the servers they will give free transfers of course)

Counting the servers (and their activity status) should be a good indication on overall game population health.

Once of course they give us a way to see server status while not in-game (I hope Anet will have a server status webpage at release)

But that was because of beta. We haven't even reched endgame yet. I believe he's talking about what might happen after the first few months when content runs out and we've run the same same pve dungeons and pvp maps. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that everyone's going to get bored and leave in masses (didn't buy a crystal ball yet), but using the last BWE isn't a good way to measure it.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Ryowulf

GW2 is appealing to me, but even so I'll play it for a bit then turn my interest to the next big thing. MMO players all suffer from ADD these days. GW2 will probably be around, but it will be the 4th expansion and most people will be talking about the newer games.

 

edit:

"Anybody wonder what the retention rate will be for gw2?"

That's the beauty of it. GW2 just needs to sell boxes. As long as they get decent word of month it doesn't matter how long or often people play. No subs to worry about.

 

That wasn't my point. Was talking about population, not subs.

 I think it will be pretty good.   I mean realistically even the best MMOs or games in general lose alot of people after a month.

But I think people will be satisfied with the game for the most part.  But also be much less motivated to get angry with it.  The sub implies an investment and that investment is what create the acrimony of "I trusted this game now  I will never play it again" type reaction.

Secondly I think that GW2 will have a lot of replayability through the various zones.  Therefore it will turn out much more like City of Heroes where people have tons of alts.  The game will be less top heavy population wise and much more hospitable to new players.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Loke666

I more hopes for headlines like: "GW2, WoDO and Class 4 finally made EA and Activision realize that they must stop just copying eachother and have started to make original games" instead.

GW2 is a really well made fun game but the real reason it is getting so much more attention than games like Rift is that they at least try to make something a bit original. If everyone just start to copy and paste from it instead of from EQ and Wow it would be the final nail in the coffin for MMOs.

I would say that MMOs need to change but it really s MMO devs and publisher that needs to change. They need to actually start thinking instead of just spying on eachother and stealing eachother few ideas.

We need more companies like CCP and Undead labs, they don't care what others do, they instead do their own thing.

huh? Rift did Events before GW2 did. the events in GW2 are the same concept as events in Rift.

They have some overarcing similarities.  Especially programatically

But DE's are generally each their own story, min-story whatever.  Whereas a rift was generic.

DE's can be mobile.  Rifts were not. 

DE's chain together.  Rifts do not.

Rifts basically always kind of existed in a few places in the zone and they had spawn locations.  Once you knew the spawn layout of the rifts in a zone you knew what was going on.  Even though rifts were dynamic, the way the zone turned out for fairly static.  Sure you never knew whether rift existed some particular place, but you knew where they would be and generally any rift would do for what rifts were good for so just go there since they were always around just waiting there.

What constitues the actions performed in a DE varies.  A rift is just killing waves of things.

If the Rift devs had never worked on any quests and instead had made the rifts a richer experience then yes they might be exactly like DEs.  But they didn't they made them generic and made each zone have a sets of spawns for them.

How does one define "success" as far as a new mmo title is concerned? From the company's perspective, 1 million copies sold within the first month of a game's release my be perceived as good enough to be considered a "financial success". From a player's point of view, active players per server and a robust community (less than 100 thousand units sold on release) would still prove a big hit provided the game experience is everything and more than what the player expected. Is success based upon sales, the size of the player base or is success determined by the quality of the game experience itself?

From a player's perspective, the game is either good or bad, regardless how popular it has become. A company could have 5 highly active servers properly managed to ensure players are interacting with one another and each player is having both an amazing solo and community experience. On the other hand, the game could be mediocre with over 50 servers each with barely enough players to ever encounter more than 2 other people at any given time. The quality of game and game management often times determine how "successful" a game is in the eyes of the players regardless of it's over all popularity. There are many mmos out today that have a VERY loyal fan base, many of you have probably never considered because of lack of marketing or exposure, but the players that have encountered these rare jewels may probably never leave the game no matter what new mmo hits the market (they are that involved and satisfied with their gaming experience). In short, as unique and diverse their tastes may be, all players desire a sense of long term satisfaction from their gaming experience. Provided they can encounter this experience, a game is considered "successful" to each individual regardless of popular demand.

From a company's perspective, "size matters." The more players a company can amass to their game, the more money can potentially be made. Success is easily determined by numbers, not necessarily quality. Proper management of these numbers based upon what players respond to on a mass scale is what motivates updates, changes and added additions. The decisions are rarely based upon what players ask for or demand as it goes to say "What a player says he/she wants compared to what they respond to are two entirely different things." In short, do not confuse the player's definition of  a game's success with that of your typical gaming developer, director or administrator. Success is often determined by the over all financial gain a company has received comparatively over time. It has almost nothing to do with how happy the player base is with the product. Provided the majority of players continue to subscribe to WoW, the developers will always build upon their mammoth of a game changing little to their payment model and game design regardless how many topics are made on discussion boards about what needs to change about the game. The masses speak with their wallets, not their voices.

Who's opinion is most important as far as how one determines the success of a game? I will always lean in favor of the "player's opinion" as being most important. The quality of a game and how it is played should be the motivation behind game development and should not be based upon it's potential profitability. We live in a very practical world where money is a powerful motivational tool. Even within our virtual worlds have we created the demand for resource achievement as a motivation to continue playing a particular game for a particular course of time. The reality is that money can not be removed from the equation of game development. The cost alone for the production and maintenance of an mmo exceeds that of anyone's ability to provide services for free even with the best of intentions. We can only hope that in the long term scheme of things companies collectively can appreciate the value of a player's wants and unique needs to achieve video game fulfillment. Because this acknowledgement does not include the direct response of the masses, it would require a desire to create unique games for a particular type of gamer. It would be an explosion of more genres (not just medieval fantasy) and a dedication to improve the quality of gaming for that select group. The question remains, "Is this what you all are looking for?" If not, then we should also expect GW2 in the next few years to be equally criticized the way that WoW and EQ are today, for at one time they were the innovators of our day and the masses equally agreed so. History always tends to repeat itself...
 

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

But that was because of beta. We haven't even reched endgame yet. I believe he's talking about what might happen after the first few months when content runs out and we've run the same same pve dungeons and pvp maps. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that everyone's going to get bored and leave in masses (didn't buy a crystal ball yet), but using the last BWE isn't a good way to measure it.

I gave the last BWE as an example. We had 48, we got 96 (increase in population) so if we watch the server list at a later time, say in 1 year or 6 months, when most people would've reached endgame, and see 48 servers it means the population is dropping, if we see 97+ then it is increasing. Of course we must take into account the server capacity, 96 empty servers are worthless and 96 full servers is the opposite. I can't see any other meaningful way to judge the server population, other than observation.