Valkirus Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Thankfully Guild Wars 2 is neither Free to play nor PvP oriented. Not sure if ignorant or just trolling... It is not free to buy, but it is free to play as there is no sub. It can be played free up to the max level and the gems to improve your char can be purchased also with in game gold. And you are free to not use any real money if you choose not to. And the game has a lot of PVP oriented content. You sound like you donot know much about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvtcarnage Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I thought they only needed 500k subs to keep afloat and turn a buck. Did they fall below that number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscad Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I thought they only needed 500k subs to keep afloat and turn a buck. Did they fall below that number? That number has probably lowered due to all of the servers they are going to close and all of the layoffs, less stuff to pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTHC Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I thought they only needed 500k subs to keep afloat and turn a buck. Did they fall below that number? They had 1,300,000 across 240 servers. They will have 24 servers later this summer after the forced transfers. Do the maths. Edited July 20, 2012 by DarthTHC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Victus Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Yowza, Meridian 59 and UO? That's quite the pedigree. Good luck, Rich! My $0.02 is that games often shed their executive producers post-launch -- the set of skills required to get a game launched aren't always the same ones required to to maintain and expand it. This. It's usually a new team of devs that work on the expanded content of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NasherUK Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) People leaving after a game is released is normal. Their primary job is done. Only indie developers seem to keep their staff forever. A load of Blizzard's developers left when the game was half finished to start up their own project, which is why the old content is very different from the new. Then another wave left half way through wotlk, when the quality of the game took a big nose dive. Then they laid off a few 100 people at the beginning of the year after their subscriptions took a nose dive... Edited July 20, 2012 by NasherUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celebrus Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) People leaving after a game is released is normal. Their primary job is done. Only indie developers seem to keep their staff forever. A load of Blizzard's developers left when the game was half finished to start up their own project, which is why the old content is very different from the new. Then another wave left half way through wotlk, when the quality of the game took a big nose dive. Then they laid off a few 100 people at the beginning of the year after their subscriptions took a nose dive... So...it's normal for people to be laid off after a MMO is launched, but it's also normal for content quality and delivery rate to drop when people are laid off as well, so whether expected or not, it is still a bad sign. Thats really the only thing I can take from what you've said, especially using WoW as an example. The game got worse everytime one of the original minds behind it moved on, at this point I'd say that WoW is on retention mode. They are simply sucking everything they can from it keeping the game maintained by the cheapest possible means, while they are busy pushing Titan out of the stables. I'm going to go ahead and continue to assume this isn't a good sign, as every indication would point that way. Edited July 20, 2012 by Celebrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCandyMan Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Would you swear to your statement in a court of law ? Which part? I've had multiple instances where CSR took 3+ days to get back to me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RolyartNala Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) At release and shortly after yes. They had some peaks and dropoffs in subs. But 8 months down the road after release WoW was in much better shape than TOR is now. And thier issues was mainly technical with server stability and bugs. The "core" of what the game was...was solid.WoW was adding servers to keep pace with demand a year after release. They had 5 million people play the game within that first year. Edited July 20, 2012 by RolyartNala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 For someone to suggest this truly means one has no clue what being part of an MMO community really means. There is a lot more here involved than simply $15 a month. The largest factors here are community, relationships and time spent. Time. When a developer makes an MMO, they are inviting players to invest a large portion of time and who they are into a new community, to make new friends, to spend time with this new community, to potentially bring a community over from another game and in doing so make a consious choice to let another large time investment go. When this happens, Devs have to understand that they cradle the trust of these flesh and blood, living (not pixels) people in their care. And when things do not go as expected, as promised, as hyped, as suggested, the community investing large portions of thier precious time into this game, damn well have the right voice their opinion and speak up as to how they wish the developers to interact with them and how the product is created and delivered to them. This is something that the Devs of this game still have not figured out... And someone in charge needs to wake up ASAP and start moving things in a direction that is more open, collabritive, and real time two-way with the TOR community. You think Bioware/EA (or any other developer) gives a hoot about your time, gaming experience or community? They don't. They are a business out to make money. You aren't even a person to them, you are an account number that generates them $15/month, nothing more. The only power you have over them is the same power you have over any other company you deal with, you give them your money or you don't. Case closed. They owe you nothing else. You, me, and everyone else giving them $15/month has the right to suggest anything we want to them, no matter how brilliant or idiotic that suggestion may be. To expect any action to come from those suggestions is monumentally naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I dont know what you are talking about. UO was awesome when it came out. How could you say anyone thought it was aweful? Hell they still have around 300k users (maybe more than swtor now?) after 12 years and counting. UO was incredible the best game out at the time period. The only reason people moved to EQ was because EQ was 3D while UO was 2D. You must not have been there at the start. On launch they had a fraction of the infrastructure required to support the number of copies they sold. It was literally unplayable due to lag for weeks. The game itself wasn't so awful, it was the very poor decisions they made. Open world free-for-all PvP had been proven by every game before to be unworkable, yet they insisted on the "player controlled world". The result was the game being ruled by the same sociopathic griefers that had leterally ruined every other MMO before it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorgonKara Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I hope this means they are finished trying to copy WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 WoW was adding servers to keep pace with demand a year after release. They had 5 million people play the game within that first year. Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, and New Kids on the Block sold more records than The Who. There is no accounting for taste, except that most people have none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscad Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, and New Kids on the Block sold more records than The Who. There is no accounting for taste, except that most people have none. ^Quoted for truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafaman Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, and New Kids on the Block sold more records than The Who. There is no accounting for taste, except that most people have none. Lol! I have to quote this again. Nice analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cs_Kimmo Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, and New Kids on the Block sold more records than The Who. There is no accounting for taste, except that most people have none. Unfortunately this game doesn't amount to the "musical genius" of The Who. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkirus Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, and New Kids on the Block sold more records than The Who. There is no accounting for taste, except that most people have none. Or it could be the Back Street Boys was that much better than the The Who. Which I think they are. The "matter of taste" is in the mouth of the one eating. What you think taste good others may think sucks. But the ones who are trying to make a profit off a product are more concerned about how well thier products does in terms of return revenue. They donot care at all about the 10 who donot like thier product, but the other hundred who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Or it could be the Back Street Boys was that much better than the The Who. Which I think they are. The "matter of taste" is in the mouth of the one eating. What you think taste good others may think sucks. But the ones who are trying to make a profit off a product are more concerned about how well thier products does in terms of return revenue. They donot care at all about the 10 who donot like thier product, but the other hundred who do. I'm quite sure there will be people buying The Who's music in 100 years. I'm also quite sure if you tried to buy Back Street Boys music in 100 years you would be asked "Who?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscad Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I'm quite sure there will be people buying The Who's music in 100 years. I'm also quite sure if you tried to buy Back Street Boys music in 100 years you would be asked "Who?". This is all a matter of Who, The Who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kharnis Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I'm quite sure there will be people buying The Who's music in 100 years. I'm also quite sure if you tried to buy Back Street Boys music in 100 years you would be asked "Who?". There are still people who are buying music by Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Bach, and so on. I guess by your logic, because The Who sold more records than the Masters, The Who must be worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 There are still people who are buying music by Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Bach, and so on. I guess by your logic, because The Who sold more records than the Masters, The Who must be worse? I doubt The Who has sold more than any one of them, if you added up all the various recordings. Especially that Beeth-Oven dude. Saw him in San Dimas Mall once, he was totally excellent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt_Latency Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, and New Kids on the Block sold more records than The Who. There is no accounting for taste, except that most people have none. Different Demo graphic. Those sold lots of records because there were popular with tween girls who by more then anyone else and then are quickly replaced by the next flash in the pan. If any of those people were still doing well it would be different. But they all got replaced by next wave of pop tween stars like justin biber and katy perry Edited July 21, 2012 by Lt_Latency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kharnis Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I doubt The Who has sold more than any one of them, if you added up all the various recordings. Especially that Beeth-Oven dude. Saw him in San Dimas Mall once, he was totally excellent! The moment The Who sold one album they over sold the Masters. Records weren't invented at that point when Beethoven et al. were composing and playing. Every recording of their music is done by someone else. But, since the argument could be made that this is semantics on my part, let's make the example more contemporary. Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and The Rolling Stones have all sold more than The Who. I take it, then, that they are all worse than The Who? Edited July 21, 2012 by Kharnis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicKat Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The moment The Who sold one album they over sold the Masters. Records weren't invented at that point when Beethoven et al. were composing and playing. Every recording of their music is done by someone else. But, since the argument could be made that this is semantics on my part, let's make the example more contemporary. Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and The Rolling Stones have all sold more than The Who. I take it, then, that they are all worse than The Who? My point was that popularity does not ALWAYS equal quality. Someone had said WoW was the greatest MMO ever, or something to that affect, because it was the most popular. I said it wasn't, cause it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kharnis Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 My point was that popularity does not ALWAYS equal quality. Someone had said WoW was the greatest MMO ever, or something to that affect, because it was the most popular. I said it wasn't, cause it isn't. "WoW was adding servers to keep pace with demand a year after release. They had 5 million people play the game within that first year." That was the post you were quoting. Nothing was said about popularity equating quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts