Originally posted by Chieftan

GW2 only sold 2 million copies.  If it sold more Anet would have told us by now.  That's really not very good for a game relying so heavily on box sales.

Retailers are now slashing the price on GW2...what exactly does that tell you? 

3 months later -- GW2 is *still* in Amazons Top 10 PC games

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Video-Games-PC-compatible/zgbs/videogames/4924894011

Originally posted by mnwild1998

 

Anet kept forums closed at launch the minimize negative post. Anet kept their AH offline to force people to buy Gems hoping people would use those gems to buy game gold. This was there hope to get that extra boost in income when they run out of box sale revenue. Also SWTOR had ques on all servers at launch they sold exactly what they thought or more....their issue as with all mmos was retention.

Besides your theorey that Anet risked all that bad press at launch to "fleece" their playerbase for a week's worth of gems, I find your statement that SWTOR sold exactly what they thought it would or more laughable.

Nevermind the shelves after shelves of the game seen at stores for months, the fact that you can still buy collector's editions of the game should tell you something.

Someone says Lucas Arts are removed from the credits. A poster notices Lucas Arts in the latest video on the site. Another says no, check the game - that's what they mean. The poster checks game credits and Lucas Arts is there. The other poster retracts and clarifies PRODUCTION credits.

Can't lie, I found that humorous.

On topic, I guess that makes Lucas Arts more knowledgeable than a good portion of people that hyped the game only to dismiss it later. For me, though, I'm not one to stir up facts about a games failure or success and spend a good portion of my time stalking the boards always joining in, mostly beating a dead horse - though it seems that's a hobby of many on these forums. If I enjoy the game, I play it until it stops holding my interest. If anything else effects your opinion of a game, that's on you I suppose.

Would there be anything preventing me from writing a blog claiming to be a former EA employee and posting it on this website? 

Is there any proof, that if, in fact this guy worked for EA, that he was 'in the know'?

A janitor who works on the the Washington D.C. mall is technically a part of the Executive branch of government. Does that mean he knows insider information about the president's political agenda?

Do we know his job in the game? Do we know his exposure to high level meetings with LucasArts? Do we have any of this info? If this guy is for real, why would he use this avenue to tell his story? A true 'scoop' would be taken up by a gaming journalist; but only if the guy is legit. He very well could be a lowly 3 month contract employee  - his guess on why he lost his job may be as good as ours. IF he isn't completely fabricating the story. But, although many seem to have personal loss clouding your judgement about this game, what kind of bias would someone have if they lost their job?

The amount of folks giving credence to this guy astonishes me. 

Originally posted by mnwild1998

Well I disagree with you. But history shows you look for TOR post to bash the game and think its a fun game and we wont be on the same page when it comes to this game anytime soon.

 I actually rarely bash the game itself, nor its playerbase. I mostly observe EA's handling of the game, and admittedly find it lacking.

I knew TOR would bomb when the Bioware co-founder stated WoW is the 'touchstone' of MMOs and Wow has "...established standards, it's established how you play an MMO. Every MMO that comes out, I play and look at it. And if they break any of the WoW rules, in my book that's pretty dumb."

That combined with the on rails tunnel shooter for space combat.

Don't think you had to be Nostradamus to see that failure coming.

Originally posted by Nadia

Originally posted by Chieftan

GW2 only sold 2 million copies.  If it sold more Anet would have told us by now.  That's really not very good for a game relying so heavily on box sales.

Retailers are now slashing the price on GW2...what exactly does that tell you? 

3 months later -- GW2 is *still* in Amazons Top 10 PC games

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Video-Games-PC-compatible/zgbs/videogames/4924894011

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Video-Games-PC-compatible/zgbs/videogames/4924894011?tag=vglnk-c864-20#2

Well, interestingly;

GW2 download is #22

just ahead of cataclysm at #23 

which amazingly is outselling

Pandaria at #29.

But ToR is still #25 after almost a year.......

(still outselling WoW's latest expansion to boot.)

And, to show what all of this is worth.

The #34 selling game out of hundreds and hundres on Amazon = Farming Simulator 2013.

so what's your theory again?

P.S. 3 months after release; ToR was still in the top 10 as well.

TOR is a good 1 player game.   I have no clue how they justified making it a mmo.  It just is not up to snuff to be an mmo.

Some people like it... some people also like bieber, it doesn't meant its good.  Let them enjoy like a pig enjoys to wallow in  crap. 

Originally posted by citan79

TOR is a good 1 player game.  

TOR to me is one of the best co-op experiences I've had. NWN2 was my favorite before, but I think TOR took the top spot.

But I agree, it would have been better received as a single player game with co-op included. But there'd be no content updates, so it's a win/lose either way for me.

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by citan79

TOR is a good 1 player game.  

TOR to me is one of the best co-op experiences I've had. NWN2 was my favorite before, but I think TOR took the top spot.

But I agree, it would have been better received as a single player game with co-op included. But there'd be no content updates, so it's a win/lose either way for me.

You must not play many non-MMOs. It's actually unusual for games not to have DLC this days.

Originally posted by Zorgo

Originally posted by Nadia

Originally posted by Chieftan

GW2 only sold 2 million copies.  If it sold more Anet would have told us by now.  That's really not very good for a game relying so heavily on box sales.

Retailers are now slashing the price on GW2...what exactly does that tell you? 

3 months later -- GW2 is *still* in Amazons Top 10 PC games

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Video-Games-PC-compatible/zgbs/videogames/4924894011

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Video-Games-PC-compatible/zgbs/videogames/4924894011?tag=vglnk-c864-20#2

Well, interestingly;

GW2 download is #22

just ahead of cataclysm at #23 

which amazingly is outselling

Pandaria at #29.

But ToR is still #25 after almost a year.......

(still outselling WoW's latest expansion to boot.)

And, to show what all of this is worth.

The #34 selling game out of hundreds and hundres on Amazon = Farming Simulator 2013.

so what's your theory again?

P.S. 3 months after release; ToR was still in the top 10 as well.

 

Although to a certain extent, I appreciate your point, you are leaving out the part that GW2 is #4 physical, #22 download, and even their stupid gem card is #33. (That and ToR began reduing in price in March till it was $19.99 in July, $15 in August, and the $13 it is now.)

Originally posted by citan79

TOR is a good 1 player game.   I have no clue how they justified making it a mmo.  It just is not up to snuff to be an mmo.

 

Some people like it... some people also like bieber, it doesn't meant its good.  Let them enjoy like a pig enjoys to wallow in  crap. 

 

now you are just being a troll. Ironically someone might turn their own microscope on your own little microcosm and find the same about you.

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by citan79

TOR is a good 1 player game.  

TOR to me is one of the best co-op experiences I've had. NWN2 was my favorite before, but I think TOR took the top spot.

But I agree, it would have been better received as a single player game with co-op included. But there'd be no content updates, so it's a win/lose either way for me.

You must not play many non-MMOs. It's actually unusual for games not to have DLC this days.

The extent of DLC =/= MMO content updates. Saying otherwise is fooling yourself.

It's ironic you mention me not playing MMO's, because atm I'm kinda in a drought for them. Just cancelled my XI sub after renewing it a few days ago and it was the only one I had active. I'm taking a break from them and going to play through the backlog of single player games I have - The Walking Dead, Skyrim Dawnguard (and most of the vanilla content), Legend of Grimrock, Dark Souls...lot's of things.

Originally posted by tiefighter25

Originally posted by Zorgo

Originally posted by Nadia

Originally posted by Chieftan

GW2 only sold 2 million copies.  If it sold more Anet would have told us by now.  That's really not very good for a game relying so heavily on box sales.

Retailers are now slashing the price on GW2...what exactly does that tell you? 

3 months later -- GW2 is *still* in Amazons Top 10 PC games

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Video-Games-PC-compatible/zgbs/videogames/4924894011

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Video-Games-PC-compatible/zgbs/videogames/4924894011?tag=vglnk-c864-20#2

Well, interestingly;

GW2 download is #22

just ahead of cataclysm at #23 

which amazingly is outselling

Pandaria at #29.

But ToR is still #25 after almost a year.......

(still outselling WoW's latest expansion to boot.)

And, to show what all of this is worth.

The #34 selling game out of hundreds and hundres on Amazon = Farming Simulator 2013.

so what's your theory again?

P.S. 3 months after release; ToR was still in the top 10 as well.

 

Although to a certain extent, I appreciate your point, you are leaving out the part that GW2 is #4 physical, #22 download, and even their stupid gem card is #33. (That and ToR began reduing in price in March till it was $19.99 in July, $15 in August, and the $13 it is now.)

Pretty sure his point still stands - a game that gets the critique SWTOR does on this site to still be in the top sellers a year after it's launch is a feat of it's own.

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by citan79

TOR is a good 1 player game.  

TOR to me is one of the best co-op experiences I've had. NWN2 was my favorite before, but I think TOR took the top spot.

But I agree, it would have been better received as a single player game with co-op included. But there'd be no content updates, so it's a win/lose either way for me.

You must not play many non-MMOs. It's actually unusual for games not to have DLC this days.

The extent of DLC =/= MMO content updates. Saying otherwise is fooling yourself.

TOR has been out for over a year. The average game with DLC has come out with more additional content than TOR for the same duration.

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by citan79

TOR is a good 1 player game.  

TOR to me is one of the best co-op experiences I've had. NWN2 was my favorite before, but I think TOR took the top spot.

But I agree, it would have been better received as a single player game with co-op included. But there'd be no content updates, so it's a win/lose either way for me.

You must not play many non-MMOs. It's actually unusual for games not to have DLC this days.

The extent of DLC =/= MMO content updates. Saying otherwise is fooling yourself.

TOR has been out for over a year. The average game with DLC has come out with more additional content than TOR for the same duration.

Guess we can agree to disagree. I'd say otherwise. Unless your counting other EA games - that's another matter. Pricing for features on the disc I wouldn't count.

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by citan79

TOR is a good 1 player game.  

TOR to me is one of the best co-op experiences I've had. NWN2 was my favorite before, but I think TOR took the top spot.

But I agree, it would have been better received as a single player game with co-op included. But there'd be no content updates, so it's a win/lose either way for me.

You must not play many non-MMOs. It's actually unusual for games not to have DLC this days.

The extent of DLC =/= MMO content updates. Saying otherwise is fooling yourself.

TOR has been out for over a year. The average game with DLC has come out with more additional content than TOR for the same duration.

Guess we can agree to disagree. I'd say otherwise.

Well...just look at Skyrim for example. Came out the same time as TOR and is on it's third DLC as of today. More content added than TOR in the same period.

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by SlothnChunk

Originally posted by Draron

Originally posted by citan79

TOR is a good 1 player game.  

TOR to me is one of the best co-op experiences I've had. NWN2 was my favorite before, but I think TOR took the top spot.

But I agree, it would have been better received as a single player game with co-op included. But there'd be no content updates, so it's a win/lose either way for me.

You must not play many non-MMOs. It's actually unusual for games not to have DLC this days.

The extent of DLC =/= MMO content updates. Saying otherwise is fooling yourself.

 

That is why TOR would be most suited for being a single player game, as the content that has been added, is like DLC and not MMO content.

Now if they were to update the game with stuff like Beast Master, instanced player housing, story/mission creator etc then it deserves to be a $15 MMO, but the game seems not be able to be enhanced with things like that

Looking at Sleeping Dogs released in August, after 4 months it has all these things:

Sleeping Dogs: Gangland Style Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Drunken Fist Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Ghost Pig

Sleeping Dogs: Nightmare in North Point

Sleeping Dogs: Screen Legends Pack

Sleeping Dogs: The SWAT Pack

Sleeping Dogs - Tactical Soldier Pack

Sleeping Dogs - Street Racer Pack

Sleeping Dogs - High Resolution Texture Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Top Dog Gold Pack

Sleeping Dogs: The Red Envelope Pack

Sleeping Dogs: The High Roller Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Top Dog Silver Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Retro Triad Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Police Protection Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Martial Arts Pack

Sleeping Dogs: GSP Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Deep Undercover Pack

Sleeping Dogs - Triad Enforcer Pack

Sleeping Dogs: Square Enix Character Pack

which all costs the equivalent of about 3 months subs, and you can choose to buy it or not

Originally posted by mikahr

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by mikahr

ANet closed their shop at launch for some period of time due to high sales, that would indicate they sold way more than they anticipated.

OTOH SWTOR opened enough servers for 3-4 times of what they sold, that would indicate they sold way less than they anticipated (which also reflects on sub money and GW2 doesnt really have that problem since their financial play relies mostly on box sales).

From that PoV, number of active GW2 players is pretty irrelevant as it only influences extra profit from cash shop, while that sam number is very relevant for SWTOR since it relies on subs (and when it failed on cash shop).

GW2 only sold 2 million copies.  If it sold more Anet would have told us by now.  That's really not very good for a game relying so heavily on box sales.

Retailers are now slashing the price on GW2...what exactly does that tell you? 

You're trying to tell me the GW2 cash shop is a huge success and SWTOR's isn't?  What evidence do you have to back that up??

Anet is in hot water right now.  Without revenue from box sales and a dying population to buy from the cash shop they're looking at NO INCOME to recoup development costs, host servers and fund development for future expansions.

The author was trying to say GW2 has triumphed when it's actually heading for the MMO dumpster.

[mod edit]

[mod edit]

A game with a 5 year development cycle needs alot more than 2 million box sales to break even.  I don't know how to spell it out any more clearly than that.