I get the feeling you've rather missed the point.

Who is going to buy Guild Wars 2? People who know the brand and have followed the hype, of course. But those people were going to buy it from the very get go. People who have friends playing or will see ads online and have the spare cash will definitely consider, especially if they see it on offer.

But this cuts out a huge group of people who played the original Guild Wars because at the time there was no alternative to paying a subscription. In 2006, Guild Wars was deemed cheap because you paid once and that was it. Now, with Guild Wars 2 being offered at $50+ digital, it is amongst one of the more expensive games out there. That doesn't matter to people that want it (there's always a core group of MMO players willing to shell out money on the latest and greatest), but for those that played it originally because they didn't have to pay monthly there's no reason to invest in the sequel. Those same people now have access to thousands and thousands of hours of quality MMORPG game time without having to pay a penny.

SWTOR and GW2 can be compared because they're direct competitors over the same crowd of people. Saying they can't be compared because of different circumstances is ridiculous. Do you really think a casual or new-to-market MMO gamer will take into account a game's long history when choosing which game to play? Of course not. Star Wars, Free to Play or Guild Wars 2, money down straight away. It's as simple as that.

My thought that you missed the point completely is backed up in your other post. This isn't about subscription games Vs Guild Wars 2, but rather how a changing market has made the way Guild Wars 2 markets itself irrelevant to the people it was originally made for. That's not an opinion. Take a look at why the original Guild Wars put itself in the niche it did, why they had their game available in the way they did. Anyway you look at it, it just isn't applicable in today's MMO world.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm asking the question. I tend not to wait for everybody else to ask and answer a question time and time again before writing an article about an idea that interests me. If you were looking for that sort of thing, I'm sorry.

There are a number of reasons why this article is erroneous in its assumptions. I also find it amusing that the writer himself feels the need to come to N4G and substantiate his own opinions with what he sees as factual information. If an article or argument is strong, it speaks for itself.

First and foremost, you're comparing a game that was already exposed to the MMO market, including all said consumers that you're ranting about and FAILED. Going F2P won't give them the billions of subs that you're conjecturing nor will it renew interest in a game that sold amazingly well to the aforementioned fanbase and was subsequently discarded by it.

The rest of your arguments exist entirely in the realm of supposition with so much "what iffing" and "coulds" that I'm suprised you even have the gall to post them as if extrapolations or educated guesses in any way founded in reality.

The MMO market is contractile:

http://lorehound.com/news/m...

http://www.play.tm/wire/520...

These mythic players that you see flocking to the genre simply don't exist. People who wanted to play SWTOR have likely already played it, those who aren't simply aren't interested.

That Google search took a second and I took the first two hits I saw btw. Some research before your next editorial would be welcome.

Edit: If "a changing market has made the way Guild Wars 2 markets itself irrelevant to the people it was originally made for" is FACT. Please back that up. With data. Like this:

http://torwars.com/2012/02/...

(again a 1 second Google search did wonders)

Even your own reference to SWTOR DISPROVES this theory, as that game sold in the neighbourhood of 2 MILLION at launch. WITH a sub, I might add. Therefor one could argue that not only are boxed AAA MMOs STILL a profitable venture, but a resonable assumption would be that a boxed AAA MMO WITHOUT a sub would be an added incentive to purchase, no?

A more apt editorial (and feel free to use this) would be on if and how GW 2 will change the market to include a 3rd option for AAA MMOs of a box price without a sub. I was not saying that GW 2 and SWTOR can't be compared, I was implying that they can't be compared in the way that you are choosing to do so.

Anyway, I'm not going to try and reason with people who make sensationalist articles that bring nothing interesting or valid to the table.

Do take care.

@BicFitness

Have you read the article? I kind of feel you haven't. If you had - at 1100 words and with more than enough to back up what I've now had to explain three times to you - I don't feel you could call it sensationalist. The Old Republic is mentioned only once in the context we're discussing it, as a representation of ONE of the many, many free to play titles that casual and new-to-market players can get for free over the paid-for Guild Wars 2, and then it's instantly bunched in with every other f2p game on the market. I also explicitly say that Guild Wars 2 will be a success and that the AAA MMO is going nowhere so long as the core gamer still has an interest.

It just seems you're arguing with me over points that I haven't actually used. There's no way of arguing that the market that the original Guild Wars most appealed to - people tired of paying monthly for World of Warcraft and the other bevy of MMORPGs that came out 2004-2007 - just doesn't exist any more. There's no way you can back that up outside of common sense. There's no figures needed to back up that statement because the free-to-play market has quite obviously filled that gap. Those people are happy playing Perfect World and Aeria games and that free-to-play market is where the majority of new players will end up. Either that or World of Warcraft.

Which bit of that do you disagree with? Because at the minute, in a roundabout way, we seem to be agreeing on almost every point except the one presented in the article.

...which is exactly what I've put. You're one of the group buying it because you like the looks of Guild Wars 2. You don't fall into the group of people not interested but who, six years ago, would have been interested in Guild Wars because it meant you didn't have to pay a subscription.

Presumably you're NOT buying it because you don't have to pay a monthly subscription?

EDIT: Then you're not one of the people I'm talking about in this article.

Everyone considers subscriptions. If you think casuals don't weight $15/ month you're wrong. In most cases they feel cheated when they realize "what do you mean I have to pay to keep playing?".