Originally posted by XiThRyL

Originally posted by Volkon
Still playing it, still loving it. Still hit queues in WvW, still overflows in L.A. Still find that events draw a crowd in PvE pretty much anywhere. Still a great game.

I agree, I have been enjoying my time in GW2. Always something to do, always an adventure, heck the other day I was wandering with a friend through a cave, and he was like, yeeaaahhh I don't think there is anything in here, soon as he said that BAM! a large fire harpy spawned and we were immediately in a all out battle. Its things like that, that I love.

I haven't even really been able to test out zones of my level because I'm always playing with level 20-30 friends :P I'm sure its going to be epic!

Keep on enjoying Volkon, and if you ever wanna team up let me know :)

LIke this post, quite a few of the big defenders of GW2 claiming it's exciting, fun, and always an adventure are not max level.  Yes there are some players max level that defend the game.  But the large majority of the defenders are simply not max level and still enjoying the leveling portion of the game with friends.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Warband

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Warband

Originally posted by Teilo

Originally posted by Warband

Guild Wars 2 has sold over 3 million copies since its August

I have to admit, my initial reaction was.

"is that all?"

How many copies did SWTOR sell again? And that was sub game ...that still isn't doing that well. :-/

Swtor went f2p within a year. It's box sales and sub after after were obviously terrible. This game managed to sell and extra million well after launch in about 3-4 months. That's the distinct difference. One game continued to sell well after launch and probably will continue to sell and the other didn't.. Also considering swtor had star wars IP and the Bioware name recognition near it's peak as well as the massive marketing campaign it's not really comparable, it was also the largest budget mmo in existence and the strongest combined brand power to grace an mmo..

GW2 was however leagues better recieved than swtor was and post launch sales infer that, Considering the most a pc game has sold in that period of time is 6 million (released in far more territories than gw2 was and the biggest in pc game history), there's no way you can infer it so far as mediocre or bad.

"Obviously terrible" is conjecture, as well as subscription numbers total, as nobody really has that information.  In comparison... GW2 went "F2P" after the initial box sale - hence its payment model.  Alternatively, we have no idea how the switch to F2P actually impacts SWTORs revenue... or their current playerbase.  This isn't an apples to apples situation... 

 

Many games have gone F2P, yet they are still active and generate revenue... how much revenue?  Who knows,  but "obviously" profitable for them to still be running.

Umm no... I'm not sure if you can tell the differene but f2p effectively kills box sales as the game is free, logic would dictate, that the sales would have had to have been bad and a rapid decline in subscriptions in order for them to do so.  Also no numbers stated by the company essentially in this situation so heavily implies that they were bad that it could not be so obvious without them telling by how much. GW2 is not F2P, it doesn't even have a free trial you still require to buy the box which is actually fairly expensive in comparison to most pc games. One has box sale revenue the other does not (or not very much). One has a barrier to playing the game another does not.

You clearly missed the point...  SWTOR had plenty of box sales prior to going F2P, plus subscriptions, and now they are F2P.    Games that go F2P aren't necessarily unsuccessful, and we have no idea of how successful SWTOR has or hasn't been.  Thats not "conjecture"  or "common sense"  thats fact.   No numbers stated by the company means very little, as in many cases NCSOFT never revels subscriber numbers, and much less costs on development... nor will GW2 reveal the amount of active players.  

 

Point being, we can sit here and pretend like we know what we're talking about, but my question stands,  profitability is what matters on a project to determine its success...  the point I made earlier,  even with GW1s amazing "17 billion boxxes zold!" (the amount doesn't matter)  they decrease in revenue per box sold.  In comparison to a subscription model,  or purchase - per - content model, that isn't necessarily the case.

GW2 also has gems.

And then you have Arenanet has been growing since GW1.

Bioware started to layoff people in April 2012.

 

GW2 does have gems, but again, we don't know how that plays out in comparison, when you look at revenue.

EA lays off tons of people in different studios everywhere,   NCSoft does just as much, which Arenanet is a part of.  NCSoft will choose what studio needs to layoff who as they have done in previous years. 

GW2 is by far there most popular western game if anything they'll want to grow A-net due to gw2's success. That doesn't neccsarily mean hiring people or keeping people if streamlining the hierachy will increase profits. but I'd say A-net is fairly safe right now. I likely meeting any expectation NcSoft had for the game.

Originally posted by Warband

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Umm no... I'm not sure if you can tell the differene but f2p effectively kills box sales as the game is free, logic would dictate, that the sales would have had to have been bad and a rapid decline in subscriptions in order for them to do so.  Also no numbers stated by the company essentially in this situation so heavily implies that they were bad that it could not be so obvious without them telling by how much. GW2 is not F2P, it doesn't even have a free trial you still require to buy the box which is actually fairly expensive in comparison to most pc games. One has box sale revenue the other does not (or not very much). One has a barrier to playing the game another does not.

You clearly missed the point...  SWTOR had plenty of box sales prior to going F2P, plus subscriptions, and now they are F2P.    Games that go F2P aren't necessarily unsuccessful, and we have no idea of how successful SWTOR has or hasn't been.  Thats not "conjecture"  or "common sense"  thats fact.   No numbers stated by the company means very little, as in many cases NCSOFT never revels subscriber numbers, and much less costs on development... nor will GW2 reveal the amount of active players.  

 

Point being, we can sit here and pretend like we know what we're talking about, but my question stands,  profitability is what matters on a project to determine its success...  the point I made earlier,  even with GW1s amazing "17 billion boxxes zold!" (the amount doesn't matter)  they decrease in revenue per box sold.  In comparison to a subscription model,  or purchase - per - content model, that isn't necessarily the case.

No you missed my point a company is about maximising profit a conversion to f2p is not some cheap thing you do just for the sake of it, it actually costs money. and is a massive risk (there's no guarantee that going f2p will drastically increase revenue) That means the previous revenue modle was unsustainable, companies don't give a shit if something was profitale before hand if it was a bad oportunity cost and is drastically on the decline. The means the box sales weren't working out for them at all. Bacause the profit from the amount made from the game wasn't even and worst still was greatly decreasing. Success of products like these aren't determined by a products launch but by long term achievements.

It doesn't mean that at all.  For example LOTRO never HAD to go F2P,  but they did to Maximize Profits.   The game not hitting projections doesn't mean the game isn't profitable...  and in fact, switching to F2P is exactly the point of trying to get more money out of an existing project.  Hence, why games go that route.  Subscription projections might still be low, but again, who is more profitable,  someone who sells 7M after 10 years with diminishing sales returns,  or someone that keeps 200K subscribers during that time?

If youre answer is.. "I don't know"  then you're on the right track.  Because you don't.... neither do I.. thats the point.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Warband

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Umm no... I'm not sure if you can tell the differene but f2p effectively kills box sales as the game is free, logic would dictate, that the sales would have had to have been bad and a rapid decline in subscriptions in order for them to do so.  Also no numbers stated by the company essentially in this situation so heavily implies that they were bad that it could not be so obvious without them telling by how much. GW2 is not F2P, it doesn't even have a free trial you still require to buy the box which is actually fairly expensive in comparison to most pc games. One has box sale revenue the other does not (or not very much). One has a barrier to playing the game another does not.

You clearly missed the point...  SWTOR had plenty of box sales prior to going F2P, plus subscriptions, and now they are F2P.    Games that go F2P aren't necessarily unsuccessful, and we have no idea of how successful SWTOR has or hasn't been.  Thats not "conjecture"  or "common sense"  thats fact.   No numbers stated by the company means very little, as in many cases NCSOFT never revels subscriber numbers, and much less costs on development... nor will GW2 reveal the amount of active players.  

 

Point being, we can sit here and pretend like we know what we're talking about, but my question stands,  profitability is what matters on a project to determine its success...  the point I made earlier,  even with GW1s amazing "17 billion boxxes zold!" (the amount doesn't matter)  they decrease in revenue per box sold.  In comparison to a subscription model,  or purchase - per - content model, that isn't necessarily the case.

No you missed my point a company is about maximising profit a conversion to f2p is not some cheap thing you do just for the sake of it, it actually costs money. and is a massive risk (there's no guarantee that going f2p will drastically increase revenue) That means the previous revenue modle was unsustainable, companies don't give a shit if something was profitale before hand if it was a bad oportunity cost and is drastically on the decline. The means the box sales weren't working out for them at all. Bacause the profit from the amount made from the game wasn't even and worst still was greatly decreasing. Success of products like these aren't determined by a products launch but by long term achievements.

 

It doesn't mean that at all.  For example LOTRO never HAD to go F2P,  but they did to Maximize Profits.   The game not hitting projections doesn't mean the game isn't profitable...  and in fact, switching to F2P is exactly the point of trying to get more money out of an existing project.  Hence, why games go that route.  Subscription projections might still be low, but again, who is more profitable,  someone who sells 7M after 10 years with diminishing sales returns,  or someone that keeps 200K subscribers during that time?

 

If youre answer is.. "I don't know"  then you're on the right track.  Because you don't.... neither do I.. thats the point.

Yes, yes it does, compare how long each game had been out Lotro only went f2p after seeing how well dungeons and dragons went. Bioware NEVER had any intention of going f2p any time soon even despite knowing how popular it was. This was made abundantly clear. The fact they scrambled to do so within a year means worse case scenario occured.

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

GW2 does have gems, but again, we don't know how that plays out in comparison, when you look at revenue.

EA lays off tons of people in different studios everywhere,   NCSoft does just as much, which Arenanet is a part of.  NCSoft will choose what studio needs to layoff who as they have done in previous years. 

 

ArenaNet may be a subsidiary, but they have autonomy in that regards and even have a buy-back clause for their products should relations with NCSoft go south. NCSoft fronts cash, collects profits and stays out of the way.

While that is the case that they are their own company,  restructuring can still affect them depending on what NCSOFT decides.  

Just with all business, as long as its profitable, things won't change much,  but we aren't looking at uninterrupted growth for Arenanet either -- and that also doesn't speak to the amount of revenue generated.   

Originally posted by Warband

Originally posted by maskedweasel

No you missed my point a company is about maximising profit a conversion to f2p is not some cheap thing you do just for the sake of it, it actually costs money. and is a massive risk (there's no guarantee that going f2p will drastically increase revenue) That means the previous revenue modle was unsustainable, companies don't give a shit if something was profitale before hand if it was a bad oportunity cost and is drastically on the decline. The means the box sales weren't working out for them at all. Bacause the profit from the amount made from the game wasn't even and worst still was greatly decreasing. Success of products like these aren't determined by a products launch but by long term achievements.

 

It doesn't mean that at all.  For example LOTRO never HAD to go F2P,  but they did to Maximize Profits.   The game not hitting projections doesn't mean the game isn't profitable...  and in fact, switching to F2P is exactly the point of trying to get more money out of an existing project.  Hence, why games go that route.  Subscription projections might still be low, but again, who is more profitable,  someone who sells 7M after 10 years with diminishing sales returns,  or someone that keeps 200K subscribers during that time?

 

If youre answer is.. "I don't know"  then you're on the right track.  Because you don't.... neither do I.. thats the point.

Yes, yes it does, compare how long each game had been out Lotro only went f2p after seeing how well dungeons and dragons went. Bioware NEVER had any intention of going f2p any time soon even despite knowing how popular it was. This was made abundantly clear. The fact they scrambled to do so within a year means worse case scenario occured.

And what does worst case scenario indicate?  They couldn't keep 1 Million subscribers?  They couldn't keep 200K subscribers?    And "yes it does" doesn't answer which is more profitable between the two revenue models either...

Unless we have exact sales figures.. we don't know.  We still don't know how much SWTOR actually cost, nor GW2.  We don't know the final sales totals on SWTOR prior to F2P.. and we have no idea how many subscribers were retained..  

Its like how people have said  WAR and AoC failed.... its been the general consensus around here for years.... and yet AoC not only is still open, but as recently as a year or so ago they released information stating they nearly doubled profits with their F2P model.  

Unless numbers are exact, the truth is.. we have no clue how well SWTOR or GW2 is really doing.

Originally posted by Jean_Luc_Picard

Originally posted by Slappy1

The problem I see here is that you're saying people are telling lies about WOW to bash GW2.That's pretty pathetic to me,cause I bought and played GW2 for over 2 month's,yet I know what the reality is and it's not lies.

You can be right in your own mind and still wrong. And that's exactly what you are. Another poster who doesn't play GW2 anymore but posts doom and gloom about it because he thinks that if he dislikes a game, it's a failure without a decent player population. Because it's impossible that something you dislike can still succeed.

I could waste some time posting screenshots of WoW and GW2 at the same time of the day, but why bother? Haters gonna hate, and liars gonna lie, no matter what.

By the way, the 10 or so kiddies playing "duel me" with twinks in Goldshire on almost every server don't count as part of a healthy leveling character population. Nor do the twenty or so ones AFK near the auction house or the bank. What counts is random characters in quest gear you meet all over the world doing quests. And for those, if GW2 is bad in your eyes, then WoW is just as bad if not worse these days. And this was to my greatest surprise when I upgraded my accounts to play Pandaria... I didn't think the game had been hit that badly by Cataclysm.

What seem's to be missed by a large amount of people saying WOW has noone are frgetting that they use phasing heavily in many zones since Cata.

You can be in a zone and not see many people because they're in another phase.Someone that has done more ques'ts in a zone may be invisible to you.Also if you do a /who it only show's people from your home server not the one's from other realm's.

Research WoW and it's phasing and how people have had problem's grouping because of it.

Btw any negativity is always twisted to be doom and gloom by fan's like you,it's not it's coming to realize it just wasn't as good as hyped.Anet thyemselve's have admitted to mid zone's being a wasteland.

Didn't say this game can't succedd,but playing from 20-70+ soloing many De's may be possible,but the it's basically a single player game and purpose to continue playing it is lost!But by all mean's keep comparing it to WOW that's over 8 year's old.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Also as a comparison,  GW1 sold 7 million total - but that included ALL expansions.. which again,  meant  that since they release what.. 4 copies total?  Even and including that they packaged them all in after factions for the same price as the standalone... the sales revenue decreases per sale over time.    

 

Thats why the B2P model is a little misleading the way GW does it,  as with subscriptions, you could say "I have 200K subscribers"  and GW2 would say.. "We sold 7M boxes" .... who comes out ahead in this scenario?   Could you imagine the difference if WoW touted boxes sold instead of active subscribers?

If at worst SWTOR had only 200k subs per month all last year that still comes out a $35 million.

The cash shop sales are a little alarming for someone whose anti-gambling but I guess there's worse things to spend your money on.

Originally posted by Teilo

Originally posted by Warband

Guild Wars 2 has sold over 3 million copies since its August

I have to admit, my initial reaction was.

"is that all?"

How many copies did SWTOR sell again? And that was sub game ...that still isn't doing that well. :-/

Bioware+Star Wars+millions of star Wars fans compare that to Guild Wars fans..

Thought so.

Originally posted by ragz45

Originally posted by XiThRyL

Originally posted by Volkon
Still playing it, still loving it. Still hit queues in WvW, still overflows in L.A. Still find that events draw a crowd in PvE pretty much anywhere. Still a great game.

I agree, I have been enjoying my time in GW2. Always something to do, always an adventure, heck the other day I was wandering with a friend through a cave, and he was like, yeeaaahhh I don't think there is anything in here, soon as he said that BAM! a large fire harpy spawned and we were immediately in a all out battle. Its things like that, that I love.

I haven't even really been able to test out zones of my level because I'm always playing with level 20-30 friends :P I'm sure its going to be epic!

Keep on enjoying Volkon, and if you ever wanna team up let me know :)

LIke this post, quite a few of the big defenders of GW2 claiming it's exciting, fun, and always an adventure are not max level.  Yes there are some players max level that defend the game.  But the large majority of the defenders are simply not max level and still enjoying the leveling portion of the game with friends.

Gotta love posts like this, where someone finds on person whose post supports their slant, and suddenly it's the "large majority".  Even if every single forum poster here said that they were bored of GW2, even that wouldn't be the "large majority" of people playing the game.  Why don't you just admit that you don't know what the vast majority thinks?

There is no argument, your post is complete conjecture.  What drives people to make things up, is what I want to know.  For the record, I have a max level character.

Originally posted by Slappy1

Originally posted by Jean_Luc_Picard

Originally posted by Slappy1

The problem I see here is that you're saying people are telling lies about WOW to bash GW2.That's pretty pathetic to me,cause I bought and played GW2 for over 2 month's,yet I know what the reality is and it's not lies.

You can be right in your own mind and still wrong. And that's exactly what you are. Another poster who doesn't play GW2 anymore but posts doom and gloom about it because he thinks that if he dislikes a game, it's a failure without a decent player population. Because it's impossible that something you dislike can still succeed.

I could waste some time posting screenshots of WoW and GW2 at the same time of the day, but why bother? Haters gonna hate, and liars gonna lie, no matter what.

By the way, the 10 or so kiddies playing "duel me" with twinks in Goldshire on almost every server don't count as part of a healthy leveling character population. Nor do the twenty or so ones AFK near the auction house or the bank. What counts is random characters in quest gear you meet all over the world doing quests. And for those, if GW2 is bad in your eyes, then WoW is just as bad if not worse these days. And this was to my greatest surprise when I upgraded my accounts to play Pandaria... I didn't think the game had been hit that badly by Cataclysm.

What seem's to be missed by a large amount of people saying WOW has noone are frgetting that they use phasing heavily in many zones since Cata.

You can be in a zone and not see many people because they're in another phase.Someone that has done more ques'ts in a zone may be invisible to you.Also if you do a /who it only show's people from your home server not the one's from other realm's.

Research WoW and it's phasing and how people have had problem's grouping because of it.

Btw any negativity is always twisted to be doom and gloom by fan's like you,it's not it's coming to realize it just wasn't as good as hyped.Anet thyemselve's have admitted to mid zone's being a wasteland.

Didn't say this game can't succedd,but playing from 20-70+ soloing many De's may be possible,but the it's basically a single player game and purpose to continue playing it is lost!But by all mean's keep comparing it to WOW that's over 8 year's old.

Sorry but this is the most reaching post I've ever seen.  WoW's phasing is not used that frequently in mid level zones.  Even then, before phasing in zones even existed back in BC and early Wrath, when WoW was at its most popular, I saw the same amount of people (ie: very few) running around in zones as I did in Cata.  But it's apparently bad news for GW2.  You can't blame running into less than half a dozen people in Burning Steppes (or Stranglethorn, etc.) in two hours on "phasing".

But people noticed it less in WoW, because when you didn't see other players it was considered a good thing.  After all, the fewer people around, the fewer people to steal your mobs.

Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by Teilo

Originally posted by Warband

Guild Wars 2 has sold over 3 million copies since its August

I have to admit, my initial reaction was.

"is that all?"

How many copies did SWTOR sell again? And that was sub game ...that still isn't doing that well. :-/

 

Bioware+Star Wars+millions of star Wars fans compare that to Guild Wars fans..

Thought so.

Star Wars games and Star Wars in general doesn't have the allure they once did. Especially when it comes to games. They constantly flop. On top of that by TOR's release Bioware in general had started to recieve a not so stellar rep, due to the EA buyout as well as DA2 reception. Yet they still managed a large amount of initial retail sales.

Arenenet has a huge cult following due to the success of GW1, as well as their handling of it. Not to mention some of the names found in the company roster during GW1 and GW2's development stages. You make it sound as though they're some unkown indie developer. Star wars is a bigger brand yes, but that's due to it's large coverage in other mediums, not videogames.

On the other hand, Arenanet, and names like Jeff Strain, are hugely popular and well known in the online gaming world.

As we all know GW2 is B2P right we all get that, and GW2 sold sofar 3+million boxes and counting

We don't know how much they earn with gems but I take It It's pretty ok.

To balance up and make more profit they release expansions around once a year ( just hypothetical) with a price tag on it and free content updates in the between to get players to stay.

So in reality GW2 bring in as much if not more revenue with Anet B2P with It's Core Game+ shop+Free Content update+X-Pack than a standard sub MMO game.

I think this business model is far more profitble in the longrun due to the simple fact that people own the core box from the start, no sub, no restriction ingame so they are more willing to buy X-packs in the future than a failed sub MMO because we all know most MMOs only get one chance to prove themselves, if they fail dosent matter if they release X-packs not many will buy them only the fans and some odd sales from new gamers here and there.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Warband

Originally posted by maskedweasel

No you missed my point a company is about maximising profit a conversion to f2p is not some cheap thing you do just for the sake of it, it actually costs money. and is a massive risk (there's no guarantee that going f2p will drastically increase revenue) That means the previous revenue modle was unsustainable, companies don't give a shit if something was profitale before hand if it was a bad oportunity cost and is drastically on the decline. The means the box sales weren't working out for them at all. Bacause the profit from the amount made from the game wasn't even and worst still was greatly decreasing. Success of products like these aren't determined by a products launch but by long term achievements.

 

It doesn't mean that at all.  For example LOTRO never HAD to go F2P,  but they did to Maximize Profits.   The game not hitting projections doesn't mean the game isn't profitable...  and in fact, switching to F2P is exactly the point of trying to get more money out of an existing project.  Hence, why games go that route.  Subscription projections might still be low, but again, who is more profitable,  someone who sells 7M after 10 years with diminishing sales returns,  or someone that keeps 200K subscribers during that time?

 

If youre answer is.. "I don't know"  then you're on the right track.  Because you don't.... neither do I.. thats the point.

Yes, yes it does, compare how long each game had been out Lotro only went f2p after seeing how well dungeons and dragons went. Bioware NEVER had any intention of going f2p any time soon even despite knowing how popular it was. This was made abundantly clear. The fact they scrambled to do so within a year means worse case scenario occured.

And what does worst case scenario indicate?  They couldn't keep 1 Million subscribers?  They couldn't keep 200K subscribers?    And "yes it does" doesn't answer which is more profitable between the two revenue models either...

 

Unless we have exact sales figures.. we don't know.  We still don't know how much SWTOR actually cost, nor GW2.  We don't know the final sales totals on SWTOR prior to F2P.. and we have no idea how many subscribers were retained..  

 

Its like how people have said  WAR and AoC failed.... its been the general consensus around here for years.... and yet AoC not only is still open, but as recently as a year or so ago they released information stating they nearly doubled profits with their F2P model.  

 

Unless numbers are exact, the truth is.. we have no clue how well SWTOR or GW2 is really doing.

We've had statistcs saying about 10% of a player base for f2p actually buys anything 10%. Now compare that to say a monthly subscription where everyone pays $15 as well as a box fee. Then compare this to costs of maintaining the game etc. If the sub base showed any sign of being stable and decent they would NOT have gone f2p. At the very least not this quickly. Shareholders called them out on this shit and they were lambasted.

We know how well GW2 is doing to a reasonable degree right now as the main thing that really matters to A-Net and NcSoft is that the is still selling, ultimately that is the bottom line for GW2's success. if only 10k were concurrently play but the game continued to sell 1 million every 4 months A-Net would not give a single shit. Of course it probably won't do that but you get my point.

Originally posted by Eir_S

Sorry but this is the most reaching post I've ever seen.  WoW's phasing is not used that frequently in mid level zones.  Even then, before phasing in zones even existed back in BC and early Wrath, when WoW was at its most popular, I saw the same amount of people (ie: very few) running around in zones as I did in Cata.  But it's apparently bad news for GW2.  You can't blame running into less than half a dozen people in Burning Steppes (or Stranglethorn, etc.) in two hours on "phasing".

But people noticed it less in WoW, because when you didn't see other players it was considered a good thing.  After all, the fewer people around, the fewer people to steal your mobs.

That's a huge point there. In WoW, if you came across some random mini-boss (like the ones for the achievements) you kept your mouth shut, told noone and hoped you (or some guildies with you in party) would be the ones to tap it first and take it down. Or that dragon in Northrend that drops the mount... you don't call for help, you try and do it alone and hope noone gets a steal. (I'm thinking pre-Cata when there were people in Northrend... I hear the population there has lessened somewhat...)

Similar situation in GW2, you find a champion for example, you annouce it in chat, people appear out of nowhere and you all as a group take it down and get credit for doing so. 

Of course... I'm not sure that point has anything to do with the topic anymore, but I thought it did when I typed it. Still, interesting point, no?

Originally posted by Warband

We've had statistcs saying about 10% of a player base for f2p actually buys anything 10%. Now compare that to say a monthly subscription where everyone pays $15 as well as a box fee. Then compare this to costs of maintaining the game etc. If the sub base showed any sign of being stable and decent they would NOT have gone f2p. At the very least not this quickly. Shareholders called them out on this shit and they were lambasted.

We know how well GW2 is doing to a reasonable degree right now as the main thing that really matters to A-Net and NcSoft is that the is still selling, ultimately that is the bottom line for GW2's success. if only 10k were concurrently play but the game continued to sell 1 million every 4 months A-Net would not give a single shit. Of course it probably won't do that but you get my point.

Numbers are fun. 

I've spent $75.00 on gems for myself, and $50.00 ea for the kids. I bought the Collector's Edition, the kids got the Digi-deluxe (two copies total). I may or may not resemble a typical player, but they're doing alright by me.

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by Eir_S

Sorry but this is the most reaching post I've ever seen.  WoW's phasing is not used that frequently in mid level zones.  Even then, before phasing in zones even existed back in BC and early Wrath, when WoW was at its most popular, I saw the same amount of people (ie: very few) running around in zones as I did in Cata.  But it's apparently bad news for GW2.  You can't blame running into less than half a dozen people in Burning Steppes (or Stranglethorn, etc.) in two hours on "phasing".

But people noticed it less in WoW, because when you didn't see other players it was considered a good thing.  After all, the fewer people around, the fewer people to steal your mobs.

 

That's a huge point there. In WoW, if you came across some random mini-boss (like the ones for the achievements) you kept your mouth shut, told noone and hoped you (or some guildies with you in party) would be the ones to tap it first and take it down. Or that dragon in Northrend that drops the mount... you don't call for help, you try and do it alone and hope noone gets a steal. (I'm thinking pre-Cata when there were people in Northrend... I hear the population there has lessened somewhat...)

 

Similar situation in GW2, you find a champion for example, you annouce it in chat, people appear out of nowhere and you all as a group take it down and get credit for doing so. 

 

Of course... I'm not sure that point has anything to do with the topic anymore, but I thought it did when I typed it. Still, interesting point, no?

Yeah, that's what I found so likable about GW2 in general, even though when my friend first mentioned it to me I didn't expect much (didn't care for GW1).  It sounded a little too "friendly"... but I realized that I was simply conditioned by other MMOs like WoW to be selfish.  I think MMOs that followed the WoW clone concept were inherently selfish for that very reason.

Some people will disagree but I really don't care.  I know the massive amounts of negativity I saw in-game in WoW and I know why it happened.  It wasn't the players, it was the mechanics of loot and kills (and looting kills).  Everyone wanted to be the first, basically.  First to clear the raid, first to tag the mob, first to have the new tier set.  Honestly, I don't miss it.  Some people mistake elitism for competitive spirit and it's an ugly thing.

Originally posted by Warband

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

We've had statistcs saying about 10% of a player base for f2p actually buys anything 10%. Now compare that to say a monthly subscription where everyone pays $15 as well as a box fee. Then compare this to costs of maintaining the game etc. If the sub base showed any sign of being stable and decent they would NOT have gone f2p. At the very least not this quickly. Shareholders called them out on this shit and they were lambasted.

We know how well GW2 is doing to a reasonable degree right now as the main thing that really matters to A-Net and NcSoft is that the is still selling, ultimately that is the bottom line for GW2's success. if only 10k were concurrently play but the game continued to sell 1 million every 4 months A-Net would not give a single shit. Of course it probably won't do that but you get my point.

What statistics, where?  10% is all that buys anything in all F2P games ever?  Because DDO, LOTRO and AoC all reported increases in revenue.  So that 10% must be 10% out of a LOT more people,  and that still doesn't equate to profit.

What we MAY GUESS  about the move to F2P....  1) SWTOR didn't hit their intended projections.  2) They either are profitable or see profitability enough to switch to a different model   

The point is,  they could sell 1 million boxes every 4 months (which they won't) - even if you don't want to include additional expenditure to retailers overhead..... and SWTOR could retain 200K (devising this to be the lowest amount)   subscribers for another 4 months....  eventually cost per box will decrease for GW2, but subscription cost will likely stay the same.    Which is more profitable?

Its all conjecture.  You don't know,  I don't know.  And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because we don't profit from it, nor does that project any certainty of increased support either way.

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by Slappy1

Originally posted by Jean_Luc_Picard

Originally posted by Slappy1

The problem I see here is that you're saying people are telling lies about WOW to bash GW2.That's pretty pathetic to me,cause I bought and played GW2 for over 2 month's,yet I know what the reality is and it's not lies.

You can be right in your own mind and still wrong. And that's exactly what you are. Another poster who doesn't play GW2 anymore but posts doom and gloom about it because he thinks that if he dislikes a game, it's a failure without a decent player population. Because it's impossible that something you dislike can still succeed.

I could waste some time posting screenshots of WoW and GW2 at the same time of the day, but why bother? Haters gonna hate, and liars gonna lie, no matter what.

By the way, the 10 or so kiddies playing "duel me" with twinks in Goldshire on almost every server don't count as part of a healthy leveling character population. Nor do the twenty or so ones AFK near the auction house or the bank. What counts is random characters in quest gear you meet all over the world doing quests. And for those, if GW2 is bad in your eyes, then WoW is just as bad if not worse these days. And this was to my greatest surprise when I upgraded my accounts to play Pandaria... I didn't think the game had been hit that badly by Cataclysm.

What seem's to be missed by a large amount of people saying WOW has noone are frgetting that they use phasing heavily in many zones since Cata.

You can be in a zone and not see many people because they're in another phase.Someone that has done more ques'ts in a zone may be invisible to you.Also if you do a /who it only show's people from your home server not the one's from other realm's.

Research WoW and it's phasing and how people have had problem's grouping because of it.

Btw any negativity is always twisted to be doom and gloom by fan's like you,it's not it's coming to realize it just wasn't as good as hyped.Anet thyemselve's have admitted to mid zone's being a wasteland.

Didn't say this game can't succedd,but playing from 20-70+ soloing many De's may be possible,but the it's basically a single player game and purpose to continue playing it is lost!But by all mean's keep comparing it to WOW that's over 8 year's old.

Sorry but this is the most reaching post I've ever seen.  WoW's phasing is not used that frequently in mid level zones.  Even then, before phasing in zones even existed back in BC and early Wrath, when WoW was at its most popular, I saw the same amount of people (ie: very few) running around in zones as I did in Cata.  But it's apparently bad news for GW2.  You can't blame running into less than half a dozen people in Burning Steppes (or Stranglethorn, etc.) in two hours on "phasing".

But people noticed it less in WoW, because when you didn't see other players it was considered a good thing.  After all, the fewer people around, the fewer people to steal your mobs.

The fact is though it's not reaching.The possibility is there as to why you're not seeing people in WOW.That's the point and yes phasing is used in the old zones since Cata,but once again the fact it's 8+ yrs old seems to be lost on so many,why is that?

I played that game at beta and launch and 5 month's in there were people everywhere in the low zone's all the way up,because people kept joining.The reason people are more forgiving with WOW is because phasing is a story telling feature and you see change's as you go.So it's been made into more of a single player game with Cata (didn't play much MOP at all,so don't know about it).

That's a model Blizz wanted to run with and you end up pretty solo(except dungeon' and Bg's) all the way to 85+.The thing about GW2 is the DE's are designed to have multiple player's.Many can be soloed at least the 1st couple phases,but isn't solo actually going against the design here?Sure you can,but why?

Isn't the whole concept of DE's a continuation of public quest's in War and the invasion/rift's in Rift.I'm not saying either of those game's does it better,but if you're soloing many of these isn't it defeating the point?