Guild Wars 2

The poll results are in

http://www.gw2wvw.net/content/will-you-try-elder-scrolls-online-closes-8-march#comment-12219

100% Yes 61
Most Likely 97
Undecided 73
Most Unlikely 230
100% NO 1 21

ToTal votes 582

Pie Chart added below

Thank you voting. Looks like ESOL is not recommended by the GW WvW community.

-Fuzz

So who voted multiple times?

Not gunna lie, I will try it because I always try new releases. What happens from there depends on if I enjoy it and also if Anet does anything significant that we actually asked for.

Im waiting for the free to play patch. or at least until they get rid of the subsciption. ESO is simply not worth a monthly charge to me.

I’ve seen in-game reviews of the beta in PvE and PvP and I’m not impressed. Also after paying for WoW for 5 years, monthly subs are a big turn off.

Men the way I see it is I spend that in 30 min if I’m at a bar so its saving me money by giving me something else to do.

Jyeoi.6027:

I’ve seen in-game reviews of the beta in PvE and PvP and I’m not impressed. Also after paying for WoW for 5 years, monthly subs are a big turn off.

You see after playing GW2 free to play is a turn off for me.

Paying a monthly sub doesn’t guarantee a better game or that the devs will listen to you.

Jyeoi.6027:

Paying a monthly sub doesn’t guarantee a better game or that the devs will listen to you.

It doesn’t, but there’s a higher likelihood.

1) Business Model A (i.e GW2): your players have paid up-front (i.e. box sales) and little revenue is derived from them further on (i.e. in-game store). Ergo, why listen to your existing users as if you lose them, you don’t lose revenues (although your brand gets damaged eventually)? The minor ongoing revenue is also in all likelihood not enough to sustain major game development. The main focus is on penetrating new geographies, as this is the only way to generate major one-off revenue streams.

2) Business Model B: you get major revenue from box-sales at launch, followed by significant revenue streams through ongoing subscriptions. Your main costs are likely to be recouperated at launch, thereby allowing you to utilise your ongoing revenue streams for major development and frequent patches, which will create word-of-mouth and hopefully additional subscribers. The main focus is on keeping your users happy through development, potentially followed by penetrating new geographies.

I can bet which model will generate more frequent patches and more major development. I happily paid for Warhammer for more than two years and having played a “F2P” game like GW2 with virtually no investment from Anet, I’m more than happy to take my chances and pay for TESO.

Also, polls like this don’t matter. It doesn’t matter which game is “better”. It’s horses for courses, what works for some, doesn’t work for others. What is obvious though is that a significant portion of GW2 players are leaving or at breaking-point. PvP is a waste-land and WvW is getting less and less populated.

People are leaving and it doesn’t matter if they go to TESO or not, what the real question should have been is: “Will you be playing GW2 in 6 months time?”. That poll would have been quite different…

Marsares.2053:

Jyeoi.6027:

Paying a monthly sub doesn’t guarantee a better game or that the devs will listen to you.

It doesn’t, but there’s a higher likelihood.

1) Business Model A (i.e GW2): your players have paid up-front (i.e. box sales) and little revenue is derived from them further on (i.e. in-game store). Ergo, why listen to your existing users as if you lose them, you don’t lose revenues (although your brand gets damaged eventually)? The minor ongoing revenue is also in all likelihood not enough to sustain major game development. The main focus is on penetrating new geographies, as this is the only way to generate major one-off revenue streams.

2) Business Model B: you get major revenue from box-sales at launch, followed by significant revenue streams through ongoing subscriptions. Your main costs are likely to be recouperated at launch, thereby allowing you to utilise your ongoing revenue streams for major development and frequent patches, which will create word-of-mouth and hopefully additional subscribers. The main focus is on keeping your users happy through development, potentially followed by penetrating new geographies.

I can bet which model will generate more frequent patches and more major development. I happily paid for Warhammer for more than two years and having played a “F2P” game like GW2 with virtually no investment from Anet, I’m more than happy to take my chances and pay for TESO.

Also, polls like this don’t matter. It doesn’t matter which game is “better”. It’s horses for courses, what works for some, doesn’t work for others. What is obvious though is that a significant portion of GW2 players are leaving or at breaking-point. PvP is a waste-land and WvW is getting less and less populated.

People are leaving and it doesn’t matter if they go to TESO or not, what the real question should have been is: “Will you be playing GW2 in 6 months time?”. That poll would have been quite different…

Very good analysis.

Also the "will you playing gw2 in XX period is a poll i intend to make. Im just waiting for the right time to post the poll, possibly next week.

Marsares.2053:

Jyeoi.6027:

Paying a monthly sub doesn’t guarantee a better game or that the devs will listen to you.

It doesn’t, but there’s a higher likelihood.

1) Business Model A (i.e GW2): your players have paid up-front (i.e. box sales) and little revenue is derived from them further on (i.e. in-game store). Ergo, why listen to your existing users as if you lose them, you don’t lose revenues (although your brand gets damaged eventually)?

I disagree, the gem store generates a lot of money for Anet. The people buying those gems are existing users. If they leave, Anet will definitely be feeling loss.

No thanks, why play a weaker combat system with weaker classes for a sub, when you can play this for free?

ESO is an embarrasing example of poor content at release, just like TORtanic, any game that states “re-roll” as content is a joke. It’s simply WvW with a small dash of PvE thrown in, games like this need to rot and stop being made. I am tired of lack of innovation, and poorly made games that we all know is just dead within a year.

A harsh statement, and I do wish the best for our genre here, but I feel games that don’t even really try just poison the genre as a whole. WS maybe yet another WoW clone, which is another problem altogether but at least SOME of their features bring some originality (or at least a return to modern times).

I feel Triple A Sandboxes will probably be the real future of MMORPGs (I hope so, I got into this genre for social virtual worlds, not basic lobby games, with a lack of need to communicate with the community).

TH

I’d rather play a game with the hope of adding/changing the WvW scene then play a game where they haven’t made changes in 1.5 years…

There is another free beta weekend next week, check it out for yourself. Don’t rely on other people’s opinion to make your opinion. Try it for yourself. Next beta is on the up to date version not outdated like the last one.

Marsares.2053:

It doesn’t, but there’s a higher likelihood.

snip

I can bet which model will generate more frequent patches and more major development.

Well, when you write hypothetical models in such a way that are biased towards your argument instead of using live examples, of course it is easy to make such a conclusion.

How about instead referencing ACTUAL data for both business models? There’s plenty of P2P and F2P games around: WoW and GW1 for one. There’s also live games that gasp switched models: SWTOR.

I don’t think I can go back to kill stealing in PvE (launch day, hundreds will be stuck in the first room waiting for the loot needed to leave to drop).

The fact that they are already allowing special classes for buying the SE version shows that an in-game shop will happen and most likely will not be fair.
The game looks like a massive cash grab and will probably go F2P win 9 months tops.
The one reason to get into it early is the PvP will probably req. a token purchase after F2P.

I was in the beta. If you want to play Skyrim with random people running around that you feel no reason to group with, go for it.

Chris.3290:

I don’t think I can go back to kill stealing in PvE (launch day, hundreds will be stuck in the first room waiting for the loot needed to leave to drop).

Not sure where that is coming from. I haven’t encountered anything like that. Sometimes there are quests that get bugged and people start piling up on it not realizing it’s broken.

The fact that they are already allowing special classes for buying the SE version shows that an in-game shop will happen and most likely will not be fair.

No special classes, one single race. The racial abilities for that race seem PvE oriented, not PvP. I doubt many people will choose that race for PvP.

Easterbunny.6170:

I was in the beta. If you want to play Skyrim with random people running around that you feel no reason to group with, go for it.

As if there is a ton of reasons to group up together in GW2 when you start leveling? Did you do the relatively low level dungeon in ESO? I’m going to go ahead and think, no… you didn’t.

I also ran across a hidden area (it was well hidden) that had a miniboss mob. I couldn’t solo it, so I called in some guildmates and we killed it. Got some nice loot and an achievement unlock and a skill point for advancing our characters.

Easterbunny.6170:

I was in the beta. If you want to play Skyrim with random people running around that you feel no reason to group with, go for it.

As if GW2 promotes “grouping” in most of its content? LOL.

I have the Imperial edition pre-ordered and am willing to give it some of my attention for the free month, if it fails to hold my attention back to GW2 full time and laughing at my friends paying a sub fee.

rchu.8945:

Easterbunny.6170:

I was in the beta. If you want to play Skyrim with random people running around that you feel no reason to group with, go for it.

As if GW2 promotes “grouping” in most of its content? LOL.

I do most of Guild Wars 2 content in a group, even PvE content. When was the last Living Story stuff you did alone? Even the hearts you did beside people workin with you to the same goal (of making Farmer whatever happy) – you could even kill the same mobs to get the same credit. There’s not much reason to party up formally that’s true but that’s not the same thing as grouping up.

There might be something to ESO, I didn’t really see it in the half hour I saw it but I kinda feel like $60 + subscription is way too much for something that hasn’t demonstrated it’s any better. When it comes to me, spending that money on gettin the permanent gathering tools would probably add more to my overall happiness.

Marsares.2053:

1) Business Model A (i.e GW2): your players have paid up-front (i.e. box sales) and little revenue is derived from them further on (i.e. in-game store).

2) Business Model B: you get major revenue from box-sales at launch, followed by significant revenue streams through ongoing subscriptions. Your main costs are likely to be recouperated at launch, thereby allowing you to utilise your ongoing revenue streams for major development and frequent patches,

Except the inverse happens most of the time. F2P model has saved several MMOs including DDO, DCUO, LotRO, SWToR, etc. If Model B worked, games would actually switch TO it rather than FROM it.

Even the concept that Model B offers better patches isn’t true. GW2 has a really good rate of content patches compared to other MMOs. SWToR when it was P2P had virtually none. WoW doesn’t really do frequent content patches and instead charges for expansion packs. Even those paid expansion packs are spaced several months (years) apart and have fallen flat.

The theory of P2P might sound great but the reality is it fails far more than it succeeds. Even when it works, the content and patches are no better and usually worse than GW2’s track record.

Straegen.2938:

Marsares.2053:

1) Business Model A (i.e GW2): your players have paid up-front (i.e. box sales) and little revenue is derived from them further on (i.e. in-game store).

2) Business Model B: you get major revenue from box-sales at launch, followed by significant revenue streams through ongoing subscriptions. Your main costs are likely to be recouperated at launch, thereby allowing you to utilise your ongoing revenue streams for major development and frequent patches,

Except the inverse happens most of the time. F2P model has saved several MMOs including DDO, DCUO, LotRO, SWToR, etc. If Model B worked, games would actually switch TO it rather than FROM it.

Even the concept that Model B offers better patches isn’t true. GW2 has a really good rate of content patches compared to other MMOs. SWToR when it was P2P had virtually none. WoW doesn’t really do frequent content patches and instead charges for expansion packs. Even those paid expansion packs are spaced several months (years) apart and have fallen flat.

The theory of P2P might sound great but the reality is it fails far more than it succeeds. Even when it works, the content and patches are no better and usually worse than GW2’s track record.

I’ll add that in Model A you can get players who want to pay $15/month and those who don’t. With a lot of games in the past that are free to pay I just give himself $10-15 a month to buy somethin shiny from the cash shop.

It’s all about options for the customer. Also I feel like games that are subscription based just end up giving me treadmills to run on to keep me paying that subscription. I feel less like they have the money to give me quality content and more like they feel obliged to give me quantity of content. I hated the World of Warcraft dailies, for example. Sure, it was making me log in and play every day but it was miserable.