GAMEBREAKER posted recently about updates planned for Guild Wars 2, which will likely include more PvE end-game content. The absence of such in the game had been identified by ArenaNet, as well as by several players, as one of the key reasons why the game seems unappealing at maximum level. Guild Wars 2 had previously focused its content on PvP, both for leveling content and for end-game and this had been very well-received, but could it be that the key to a game’s longevity is PvE?

Taking World of Warcraft as an example, when the developers introduced no real end-game raiding content towards the end of Cataclysm, subscriber numbers dropped substantially. PvP-focused players, however, stuck around to PvP, even when the dragon in Dragon Soul was long dead.

It seems, to me at least, that no game can survive with just one or the other. PvP has great longevity, as it’s not possible to complete it like it is to complete a raid. There’s not an end-boss in PvP; not a final furlong, but, on the other hand, PvE brings in new content, and new challenges, and refreshes the game world. PvE, more than PvP, brings new story, new twists and turns, and adds something to the world. While PvP can do this too, it seems that PvE has an easier time.

What do you think? Do your gaming experiences indicate that PvE or PvP is the better route for longevity in an MMO, particularly, or in any other game where both are present? Do let us know in the comments below!

  • Skyreth

    Due to the many different time of gamers, they both play an important role in keeping the game alive. That being said, unless PvE content is added all the time, what is given becomes boring and repetitive. PvP, however, is never scripted…meaning what happens is random and far less of a chore.  

  • Skyreth

    Addition – EVE Online is an example of PvP keeping a game going (PvP makes up a huge segment of the game, and its still rolling and the amount of active members is actually increasing).

    • Filip Buhov

      most of eve pvp is ratish , in most cases it makes new players leave the game , rather than play it more.

      • FoulBeast

        nah, my take is people aren’t prepared to jump into a hardcore pvp environment that is common in eve because they’re pampered by the other mmo’s out there today that when you die you don’t lose anything, unlike eve.

        but I do agree with this post, eve’s pvp is a big factor to why it is doing so well, been pvp’ing since day one.

        • Demi_God

          Personally I find candy forcibly taken from small children tastes better than anything I can buy at a store.  But what can I say, I’m hardcore.  

  • Ayhan Çoban

    PvP is the main thing I think. PvE must be just the way to reach it on top.

  • Hicks64

    I’m more of a PvPer when it comes to MMO’s due to AI only being so smart and scripted, but ultimately all I need is variety, fun, and replay-ability  So far only Counter-Strike and Diablo 2 has kept me playing for 10+ years.

  • Mark F Sindeldecker Jr

    I think PvE (for GW2) is great, the way the armor works is perfect….Only thing is, progression…What happens when you have 2-3 toons already fully geared? Only WvW feels left, and it is a interesting PvE and PvP mix. ~ Now, for sPvP in GW2 (Structured Player Versus Player) it feels like the best way to do things as far as that goes.

  • ToriMcgrath

    I definitely think both are important, mostly because different players enjoy different things. That being said I agree that PVP is less likely to get boring and is a lot easier for game devs to keep up. At the same time I know that I’m very into the personal story line of almost any game I play. It’s like Gary said in the Republic yesterday, I like feeling like I am part of a highly interactive movie. At the same time PvE can get boring while going in, while the feeling of pride you get from defeating someone never gets old. Hence why competitive sports have been around for ages.

    Then again Movies have been around for a long time too… Oh boy, this is a good question. 

  • Filip Buhov

    sPvp in guild wars needs ALOT of work. New mods and balance changes are needed. The current payed tournaments remind me of the way the free to play model Swtor is working out.

  • St_Draco

    First thing, GW2 does not lack endgame, stop perpetuating this concept.  GW2 lacks instanced raiding, that is it.  There is more to do in GW2 PvE then in WoW and you can do all the GW2 content at max level, unlike in WoW where you are limited to only the max level content once you reach max level. Find the quote where ANet says that GW2 lacks endgame content. Too my knowledge, ANet has never said that they have a lack of end game content, only that they will expand on content on a regular and quick cycle.

    Second, GW2 was never a PvP only focused game.  GW1 was originally designed that way and ANet discovered that people enjoyed their PvE content, almost more than the PvP.  So when they set about designing GW2 they took the approach of building around 2 groups.  It is the media that latched on to WvW, the sPvP structure, and the desire to be an ESport as being newish and unique in the MMO space, resulting in the perception that GW2 was all about the PvP.

    As to your question, it is too difficult to answer. The reason being is that there are tons of MMOs that are still going, even the original graphical MMOs of UO, The Realm Online, Meridian 59, and Tibia.  Longevity needs to be placed in context.  Does PvP or PvE offer greater sustained growth in an MMO? Well WoW is arguably the most popular and mainstream of MMOs and it offers both, although I would say that its PvE community is larger than the PvP.  EvE online has constantly grown since launch and it is PvP focused. GW1 was designed as a PvP focused game, as mentioned above, but it was largely sustained by the PvE community. So, I would offer that it is neither and both and one and the other.  What seems to sustain growth in the MMO market is a combination of the communities’ commitment to the game and the commitment of the Developers to invest in their game and their community. Oh and not having EA as your producer/publisher.

    • samysnes

      I agree to that 100%. It’s really annoying when people base their opinions on a general idea or what the media say.

    • Dularr

      Just reread “The Endgame Reimagined” posted by Mike Zadorojny on September 13, 2012.   While you can debate what the entire game is end game means, the general perception now is the game was released without an end game at launch. 

      I do feel Arenanet is trying to address this now, with the progression nature of Fractals and the introduction of a slow stat increase of Ascended gear leading to Legendary gear (whatever that ends up being).  

      • St_Draco

        It doesn’t say anything about them thinking they left out endgame content or that there wasn’t enough.  It defined what ANets goals are/were with content and how that applies to the level 80 experience along with stating at the very end that they will be introducing more content as the game grows, something that has always been apart of their design philosophy. Reading into what was said that there wasn’t endgame is like saying MoP is incomplete and without endgame because it didn’t launch with tier 16 raid gear or raids.

        What has happened is that people use to the WoW/EQ progression model were expecting a similar experience in GW2 even though they were told it was not going to happen that way.  As a result they rushed all the content, looked at open world the same way as they did in WoW, a thing to grind past and novel story/lore, promptly assumed that dungeons were the only thing to do, exploited them/grinded them into dust and then said, “What? There’s nothing to do at 80, this sucks.”  The media latched on to this mentality and then keeps perpetuating it as truth when it is not. 

        Yes it is the perception that the game was released without an end game at launch… the problem is this is a false and misrepresented perception.

  • Cerein

    Hi Larry, now even Gamebreaker has Chat Bubbles.

  • Depravity

    Olivia Grace is awesome.

    p.s.: Take that. Most concise and on point comment ever. In the history of mankind.

  • CosmicKirby

    Is it key to a “game’s” success to have both?
    Absolutely not.  Counterstrike is purely PvP and there are plenty of single player only games.

    But that’s semantics, in regards MMO games I would again argue it is not vital to success.  Focusing on either PvE or PvP can lead to a successful game, but I don’t think it can lead to the type of massive success that WoW experienced. The largest draw to MMOs is the player population or community they generate.  If you have both PvE and PvP you are just casting a wider net that can pull more players in, and the more players you have the higher likelihood that some positive community interaction is going to go on between them.

    But I think it is really a question of how many resources are going to be devoted to either type.  Take Global Agenda for instance.  The core PvP gameplay was the primary focus at launch, which IMO was great fun.  However, the dev team then decided to shift focus and produce PvE content in the form of their open world area, much to the dismay of a fairly glitchy and abused AvA system which needed attention and refinement to keep the considerable player base it had drawn into the game.  Fast forward and the game goes free to play and further down the road is now a ghost town.

    Interestingly enough,  the team at Hi-Rez then sent out a survey to Global Agenda players asking them if they wanted a sequel, and what should it focus on?  A large percentage of the people who took the survey said they wanted a sequel that focused primarily/completely on PvP.  (And they announced Global Agenda 2 is in the works and the beta is potentially set for the summer of 2013).

    TL:DR  No, not needed.  But it helps.

  • Michael

    Olivia stick to writing about WoW. We all know you are not as familiar with GW2 as you think you are. GW2 was not a PvP focused game ever. GW1 was, but GW2 is not. I don’t even know where you got that they focused on PvP for the game’s level content either. The leveling content is FAR more focused on PvE. The only PvP option for leveling is WvW and it is terrible  experience that most people don’t consider a real option. The game has always focused alot on PvE and PvP both. I would actually say the thing that keeps people playing the game the most right now is PvE. 

    • =maD.Doc:.

       Actually, GW2 was always focused on the PvP, just as GW1, but they also put an effort in for the PvE more than in GW1. They are doing a lot for the PvP aspect of GW2 to make it viable for future eSports. They are not focusing on leveling through PvP (WvW), however, they are very focused on the sPvP.

      • Michael

        It is not that GW2 was not always focused on PvP..but it was always focused on it being an MMO. That being said, it is focused on MMO stuff (PvE and PvP) and is not just a PvP game. They are focused on the game, not just PvP. And personally, I am sick of uninformed gamebreaker hosts calling it a PvP game when it is not “JUST” a PvP game. That is like saying WoW is a PvE game. 
        Infact, iirc, Elisabeth said just last week that it is a common misconception that GW2 is just a pvp game.

    • Demi_God

      At launch WvW was a pretty viable way of leveling a character.  Unfortunately, the bolster mechanic no longer curbs the power creep enough now that so many players are level 80 with full exotic+ gear, rune, sigils, and talents. 

  • Luke Malcolm

    A Game can’t live off PvP, as games in the past have shown it. Sometimes PvE games wont last. Its gotta be new content a certain rate not super fast or you overwhelm, Blizzard does a good constant pace for the size of playerbase it has & has worked for the last 8 years.

    GW2 PvE still needs some sort of trinity or it will continue to be a mess, where you roll as a melee & forced to be ranged.

    • Demi_God

      World of Tanks is purely a PVP MMO and very successful.  A rarity, but so is a purely PVE MMO.  I digress if you are referring only to MMORPGs though.

    • St_Draco

      No such thing as rolling as melee or ranged.  Every profession is both, stop pigeon-holing yourself and others.  The only issue GW2 has at the moment with roles is that new and slow to adapt players are lost because they are so use to the trinity system of other games where you have a set and defined game play role within your class. I play my Thief as melee, ranged, a skirmisher, an initiator, a support, a damage dealer, a harasser and a focus/control.  I fill the roll as needed, by the dynamics of the group and the situation.

  • BabyChooChoo

    A good game is the key to longevity. Look at Everquest(or WoW, whatever). Look at Eve. Both games could not possibly be farther apart from each other and yet both games have enjoyed nearly a decade of success.

    Everquest/WoW is not known for it’s PvP. It has pvp, sure. It’s fun, no doubt. But it’s pve content is what made it successful.

    Eve is not known for it’s PvE. It has pve. It’s…”fun”? But it’s pvp is what is known for. It’s what put that game on the map.

    Good games will resonate with certain audiences and those audiences will stick with it. I don’t think just having PvE or just having PvP will help with your game if your game isn’t fun.

  • Daniel Scott Blair

    I’d say you need both if you want your game to be successful at this point.  I mean I could be wrong but for me I like Planetside 2 allot even though it’s a PvP only game.  However when I log into the Firefall beta I find myself actually enjoying the game a bit more.  I don’t have to be competitive all the time but I have the option and that makes the game more interesting to me.  However both games are new PS2 says they have some crazy stuff coming down the pipe and it’s new so it’s hard to determine if people will burn out on it and FF is still in beta and doesn’t have as many people playing it.  Only time will tell.

    • Demi_God

      The problem I find with Planetside 2 is that there isn’t enough reason to play when my friends aren’t also playing.  Regardless of whether or not I am part of a dominating zerg, I still feel like I am getting farmed.  Rez, kill something, get killed, rez, rinse, and repeat. 

      So I will opt to play a single player game instead. If I get attached to that single player game, I am resistant to going back to playing planetside 2 when I can go back to playing with friends.  I would much prefer to have a reason to keep playing PS2 solo.

  • Dean Scott

    For me personally it is PVP that keeps me in a game for the long haul.  If the game has good PVE that is a bonus but I concentrate on PVP almost exclusively.

    Also, you have the craziest eyes!! In a good way of course.

  • sheduur

    Both parts are equally important. The key to a games longevity lies in having variety of stuff to do. WoW is a bit of an exception here since it is the first mmo for many gamers and thus they compare everything to it and even if they get bored, after a short while most ppl end up going back to it eventually.

    With pvp that is actually having a meaning and things like RvR you could create a great endgame metagame, but most developers seem to shy away from this because as most developers of games do, they want to get a slice of each audience, and creating a very pvp focused game means that you might loose out on a lot of the pve crowd once youre labeled as a pvp game.

    Also, why do people always think theres way more pvers in WoW? Are there actual statistics available somewhere so you can back up those claims or are you guys just feel that way?

    All I can say is that there was always tons of lag and servers almost exploding from the load of people who wanted to pvp on season end/start and expansion endings. I have never experienced this on new pve content, at least not at such an amount.

  • Tom

    I love the Chat Bubbles videos 

    Yes, PvP if done correct can add the highest longevity to a game. 

    Even with Raids, you are in a sense competing against the Boss’s mechanics and also other players by working toward the best max output /stats/ for your class.

    As for the PvE, games like Guild Wars 2 and WoW, they are designed to have PvE and PvP as core parts of the game. This allows players more flexibility to do different things to keep from getting bored. 

    The question that game companies are asking if they make a MMO with a core of one of these which one. PvP is the least costly but they need a hook to make themselves different then other PvP focus MMOs and MMOs that have both. 
    PvE does allow a developer to show off something fresh a little easier since they have more variables to play with verse PvP’s. But PvE as you stated is costly and you can run out of the content very quickly. Guild Wars 2 does a good job with the Dynamic Events to help keep things fresh but even those over time if not switch around will feel like other MMO’s PvE content.

    Just as a side note- this is a major battle in the Single player games that get a multiplayer attached on when the series didn’t really call for it. We see the new COD/BF making single player as a side note while muliplayer is their core. Publishers know that PvP like combat equals cash and less costly (unless you factor in marketing) verse a strait single player game which can hit or miss and are costly.
    Developers will be looking for away to have a hybrid of the two- PvE and PvP which could lead to some nice future sandbox games.

    Keep up the great work

  • John Gerry

    Here’s the thing.. most mmos besides in a few older ones pvp isn’t really a fully fleshed end game.  For example in WoW there is no way to actually have the hoard take a town besides when blizz decides to make it so.  Also since WoW almost every game enforces factions.. whether it be two or five it still is less organic than player alliances.  So yeah.. I’d say PvP is more important in the right setting but not in WoW’s.  Think Lineage 2 where crafting is/ or was king and the alliance who owned key castles were the “elite”.  Raiding had a place but not in the way most modern mmo players know. Darkfall has it as well.. I’m not that huge on full loot pvp but I’ll have to figure out if I change my mind.. or even Eve.. most of eves end game is very similar and generally aimed towards pvp. (everything works towards it whether your a king pin of a merchant or not).

    That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for pve but I can’t help but think that it would be better if players had more controll over the world and less raids.. my two cents.

  • Christopher James Weimer

    well its not the pve guild wars 2 is just fine half the severs are still full and hard to get into i played wow and only a hand full of people hardcore pved and the others dident have the time for it so alot of us just pvped wpvped rped on my sever and it was a big sever when i played 
    plz no more comparing wow and guild wars 2 different games 2 different ways of doing things 
    its working for guild wars 2

  • samysnes

    Olivia clearly doesn’t know enough about Guild Wars 2 to give a relevant opinion. Total misinformation right there or perhaps she just said it wrong. It doesn’t lack any end game content, it’s only different. It may lack dungeons and raids but “lacking” is only a matter of taste. Personally, I don’t think it “lacks” raiding because I’m not really into that kind of stuff. I really like working hard to get some epic looking gear and then go show it off in WvW. As for the “PvP oriented game” statement, it is completly wrong. Yes they are focusing on PvP, but they are equally focusing on PvE. If she had followed the game development like I did since 2008, she would know that they never intended to ONLY focus on PvP or more than PvE. Not a fanboy, just stating the facts.

  • cyberpunkhobo

    Whether your MMO is a sandbox or a theme park, pve- or pvp-centric, the key to longevity is “metagame”.

    Gamers love having that extra layer to a game that only matters to other gamers and not to the game itself. It could be coming up with counters to builds in an arena, working out your guild’s raid composition for the next tier, or playing the economy; whatever floats your boat. Give gamers the framework to create their own metagame and you can start thinking about longevity.

    After all, at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if I’m smashing A.I. over the head or other players if all I’m doing is smashing things over the head.

  • DoctorOverlord

    Neat GBTV show, I’ll have to keep checking these out, it sounds like there are some interesting things being discussed.  

    I think the thing that keeps players in an MMO is a variety of choices.   A game that continues to let you play how you want will keep people logging in.    So I think you need both PvP and PvE to offer the widest range of choices.   Certainly it was pointed out that PvE is more expensive, but to neglect one or the other would be a mistake in the modern MMO market. 

  • German Lopez

    Guild Wars 2 already added endgame PvE through fractals!

    • Demi_God

       Fractals still confuse me.  Is it the numerator or the denominator that is on the top? 

  • RBHgamer

    I think monthly additions to PvE that ArenaNet is planning is enough to satisfy most PvE players.  There will always be those who have tons of time or are just real fast at new content who wont be as satisfied but those kind are playing several games anyways.

  • Dennis Schmidt

    This is an interesting question.  Generally, I would agree an MMO can maintain longevity for the reasons Olivia states, but there is a problem.  PvP in general just isn’t as accessible to a larger majority of players because of the twitch skills required.  So although PvP can keep a game going long, the audience is naturally smaller, which may affect the long term profitability of an MMO.  Throw in class balance, vertical scaling, gear grinds that some MMOs have like WoW and SWTOR, I think you can argue that PvP players will suffer from the same burn-out once they reach the top tier, the equivalent of clearing heroic raids in PvE.  Ultimately, the key to the longevity of an MMO is BOTH vibrant PvE and PvP so players that can burned from one gameplay can potentially switch to the other and find enjoyment.

  • Michael MacLean

    Your video looks a lot better now. While I think that most players play wow for the pve side there is definitely a strong pvp scene. The only way I could think to make wow pvp get stronger is to make it more consistent. Or in other words not change when the game changes for pve.

    The way I would suggest this is to have a spec solely for pvp – possible add a 4 or 5 spec strictly for pvp with all pvp talents/spells.

  • Marco Antelope

    Good premise for a show, but get someone who plays more than one game.

    Olivia admittedly ONLY plays WoW. Works for Legendary, but it’s blatantly obvious that she knows very little about anything other than WoW.

    I’m sure that im far from the only GBTV view who hasnt played wow since Vanilla, could care less about anything WoW related, but plays many many MMO’s…and comes here for some relevant MMO news.

    • Jason Ames

      I agree with you, though I love the content thast Olivia puts out. Gamebreaker is a fantastic sight relating to MMOs, but would love to bring in new talent to try to inform us about other gaming genres. you can only imclude the old guard on so many shows before they just cant sleep anymore :)

    • Olivia Grace

      I don’t *only* play WoW, I only play WoW seriously. There’s a difference! That’s why I’m asking for other people’s opinions here. It’s topics for discussion, not a factual piece.

      • Demi_God

        I didn’t really care for the troll’s comment about you only playing wow. 

        Still, the PVE vs PVP question you posed doesn’t really apply to WOW. WOW makes for a good basis for the discussion when comparing new titles.

        But I would suggest the main reason WOW is still the #1 MMORPG, is because it is still the #1 MMORPG.  It has different challenges that face it in continuing to be successful.

        New games have the difficult challenge of becoming successful.  Good PvP and/or PvE is a huge component of that. 

  • Dularr

    This video was about a game longevity, so all I can personally provide is my experiences.

    Played WoW exclusively through TBC and Lich King.  Enjoying both PvE and PvP content. Raids, heroic dungeons, Battlegrounds and Arenas. 

    By the time I started Cata, i was watching GamebreakerTV.  While I continued to play WoW, I tried out new MMOs.

    Tried out Rift.  Got my cleric to level 20.  Didn’t really enjoy PvP, too much slowing CC.  Didn’t care for the single starting zone. Tried re-rolling during the last beta, still don’t care for the starting zone. At the time I stopped playing Rift, Trion World was allowing shard transfers, so entire raiding guilds would jump from shard to shard.  Going to give it another try, during the free SL trial.

    Continued raiding in WoW and tried out SWTOR. Really enjoyed level 10 to 49 PvP, but got burned out with the random PvP loot bags at level 50. I can say SWTOR is the only other MMO that I’ve got a character to max level.   Unsub, after most of my guildies stopped playing. 

    Playing GW2, got my Charr Elementalist to level 65.  Really had fun with GW2 WvW and sPvP during the beta weekends.  Playing during the holiday events, hope to get to level 80 someday.

    Playing mostly WoW Mists, got three level 90s, one with the Sha touched staff and legendary gem.  Got my Undead monk to level 71 (crap, I’ve out-leveled my charr elementalist. Really need to finish leveling that toon.)

  • Keith William Gretton

    I think it’s very difficult to compare Diablo III and GW2 to WoW because they are fundamentally different games in the way they are put together and the type of appeal they have to players. Diablo is an action hack and slash RPG, with gear and talent progression, Guild Wars is a mostly horizontal action game with limited gear and talent progression, in which PvP is often considered separate from PvE progression. Both games have limited appeal to myself as I have found their stories to be infinitely less compelling than the stories in WoW (be they the in-zone stories, the current instanced stories or the overall meta-stories). In a sense I feel that WoW is a game in service of telling a story, whereas the other two games have a story to service their gameplay. In neither D3 or GW2 have I enjoyed the combat or be it cooperative or solo and the stories were never engaging enough to me.

    Where it comes to gameplay, I think both Diablo III and Guild Wars 2 were built with PvP balance in mind (even if Diablo III was not released with the Arena). As I indicated above their stories are not present in the games in the same way the story is in WoW. So for these two reasons alone I think that both games should focus on their PvP endgame for the long term player retention. While this might not be as interesting for a large playerbase as PvE endgame might have, I think they should not expect to achieve the same broad appeal that WoW endgame has, which is largely due to it enormous playerbase and focus on PvE play from the ground up. By sticking to what they already do well and catering to the type of player that enjoys their game already I think they can achieve the type of longevity that will sell them expansions and micro-transactions.

  • Shagral

    To my mind this issue is not PVP/PVE but the whole theme-park MMO thing. There hasn’t really been an mmorpg with holisitc approach like “this is the raiding mmo”, or “this is the battlegrounds mmo”. Everyone is trying to cover all the bases, or even mix PVP and PVE together (like WvW in GW2 or vanilla Alterac Valley). I think a game could do better (not in absolute numbers but relatively) if it focused on one aspect. Back in the day Lore said that Rift lost its momentum cause it didn’t focus on its obvious strengths – raiding – and spred itself too thin. I kinda agree with that. Whatever devs focus more on turns out to work for a game.

  • Paul Rocha

    for me NO amount of fun has ever even come close to the (19) pvp twinking days of WoW in late 2005, I would sit for hours after hours in giggling hysterics as one shot after one shot I would destroy players with my carefully crafted level 19 twink, it took dedication, research, and huge amounts of hours and commitment to build such a lethal correctly geared killing machine, but the rewards for all that work paid off when you were face to face with a noob under geared clicker, I still have screenshots of the massacres 80/0, 40 killing blows ect..ect
    pvp longevity? nahh Blizzard killed that a long time ago for me, ruined and took away a GREAT aspect of the game

    brawlers guild zzZZzz lmao!

  • Cinvinci

    For me it’s what my friends enjoy playing the most. In GW1 it was Alliance Battles, a format that had a nice community. After Team Arenas were removed, AB became somewhat competitive. I really liked that small hardcore community but now wish I could go back to 2006-2008 when AB was very popular.

    WvW and friends keep me playing GW2 atm. A format that’s mix of PvP & PvE is the key imo. :) But Anet really need to bring back guild halls & GvG and alliances & AB.

  • Deadnstien

    I’m going to go with PvE. People can and do burn out on both types of game play. In my opinion though the fact that PvE is so easy to update and add new content makes it more likely to bring back or reinvigorate those who are burned out on it. 

  • SpirriX

    In wow, my favourite BG maps are actually WSG, TP, AB. In that order. I have to agree with you, PvP is more enduring, but PvE while it is more “fresh” and new, can bring the joy of “wow, how astonishing! I’ve never seen anything like it! (In this game)”

    Though in PvP in games like wow, you are actually dependant on gear. And some people need that carrot on a stick to get them through it, but talking about WoW in particular, the gear you accumulate have a significant impact on how well you perform. I do wish that it would have less impact, though still give you a little bit of an edge.

    On a side note, I think it is great that you are making these small videos, posing questions to the community! Keep up the great work!

  • Corey “Crimzen” Jenkins

    Just want to clarify a few things real quick just because I think there was a little bit of misinformation. Not trying to flame you or anything Olivia, because I think you’re awesome. But, I will say that as far as Guild Wars 2 being a “PvP focused game” I think that’s a huge misconception that a lot of people who haven’t been following the game as closely start to assume.

    They do have very polished PvP, but they focus equally on the PvE content as well. At launch the game started with a 25 questing zones, dynamic events, personal story, jumping puzzles, tons of gear, legendary items etc. While they do not have raids currently, they did launch with 8 different dungeons. Each one having a story mode and explorable mode, with explorable mode having at least 3 different paths to choose from(which are essentially separate dungeons in themselves). Aside from that we’ve already got a ton of new PvE content from the past few updates including a new zone, new dungeon, and also new events throughout the world. So while yes the PvP in GW2 is good, please please please don’t fall into the group of people who think that it’s a PvP focused game lol. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

    I think the whole thing about endgame really depends on the player. Going back to the GW2 end game issue right now. It’s not that “there is no endgame”. Coming from someone who only has one character I can say that for me there is plenty of stuff to do once you hit max level. The issue comes from a lot of the MMORPG community being used to the vertical progression style of endgame which you won’t really get from GW2. A lot of people are fine with this, a lot of people aren’t. it really just depends on what you enjoy doing.

    I used to raid in WoW, but for me the gear was only a tool that i used in order to get to see the content and fight those difficult bosses..and looked like a bad ass doing it. In Guild Wars 2 there is still plenty of content, but instead of having the barrier to entry be your gear, the barrier is your skill as a player as well as the skill of your party. They do still offer gear(so you can look like a bad ass) but they aren’t using it as the “carrot on the stick” as much as in vertical progression games. Regardless of how it’s vertical or horizontal style progression though, I think the group progression as well as individual progression is definitely needed in any MMO.

    Aside from just feeling that sense of progression as you clear the content. I think player retention also falls a lot on the social elements involved, like the people you are playing with and what the game does to support those social elements. Aside from just the group progression like raiding or dungeons I feel like more games could implement more things like player housing/guild housing for those people who still want to chat online, but maybe just want a social hang out spot instead of delving into another dungeon or arena. It’s clear that while both have room for improvement. Both Guild Wars 2 and World of Warcraft have have really good content, but at the end of the day I think it’s those connections you forge in game that keep people playing the most.

  • Vanagorn

    Hello, Olivia: PvE or PvP which route will last the longest. I would like to see some numbers on that :). I think at this point people have just come to the understanding that a games will have both elements of PvP and PvE included in a game. If you look at the PvP element alone you still will half to keep including more and more content to keep the players coming back just as you would in PvP. It all depends on the elements and structure of the game itself. for PvE i look for engaging storylines, Dynamic raid enviroments, Raid Mechanics i can sink my teeth into. For PvP I pay real close attention to layout of maps, strategic counter points, group composition and how the game as a whole is being played. For me, I would half to say PvP would last longer based on the Human/AI component that would keep players constantly challenged.

  • Clajo Mc’Har

    In my opinion, Quality = Longevity.

  • Fomorian82

    PvP is the sexy part of a game that will draw players in, it’s e-sports, it provides word of mouth and it makes the game “hardcore”. It’s relatively cheap for the game producers to make, however the vast majority of gamers prefer PvE, they are carebears. So although the PvP will provide the cool factor that will initially draw people in, it needs to have solid PvE in order to retain all the carebears who get scared when they realise just how hard it is to kill another player as opposed to the 10 rats they just killed for their quest.

    In short a good game needs to be good in both spheres to truly succeed. I would tip the scales in favour of good PvE as that is where most players will end up congregating. It’s more fun to kill a mob 99.9% of the time than get killed by another player 90% of the time, and you still get to say you play that cool game with the edgy PvP even though you just kill rats.

  • Chris P

    Lack of endgame content in GW2 was something people stopped talking about 2 months ago, even more so now with the announcement of expansion pack size updates in some cases. First episode and no research whatsoever went into it other than “WoW is fine now with MoP so you should do that since it has both.” As I recall 95% of WoW’s PvE is still grinding and boring. We were not just talking about how bad the dailies are? Completely misleading as always.

  • Michael Coulombe

    Both, really. It’s always a question of personal tastes. It’s not about one or the other. It’s about having both game modes fully developed while creating a good balance between both so that one doesn’t affect the other as much. 

    I like PVP, but I never got really into it in WoW because of their specialization system which every few weeks, things get changed in BOTH modes. I think GW2 could have had an amazing system if they had 2 different spec trees for both modes. I mean, you’ll not PVP and PVE in the same areas, so why not separate them and have them never affect each other?

    By fully developed, I mean something like WvW or RvR. You could add a nice modern twist to it where players could use an automatic LFG tool for keep offense and defense. Or possibilities for fast reinforcements with quick re-deploy / fast travel mechanics like Planetside 2.

    The major problems I have with PVP right now are: 

    The game is never quite balanced. If it is, the character customization and/or gear is so boring that I just don’t see the point when I know every, single, same class player will be identical. 

    When they add keep/outpost capture zones, it turns into huge zergs where you spec your guy for targetted AoE, and range, and just mindlessly attack things. I’ve yet to see Large scale PVP NOT be a battle of gear / strength in numbers. Sure, you can always roam… but that’s like World PVP in WoW, man. The rewards are significantly lower than doing the large scale mindless stuff.

    I think PVE is just natural for most players. Unless you’re in that generation and started gaming into PVP or competitive multiplayer, then you’ll have that desire to beat the computer. It’s within ourselves. It’s what the most basic games have thought us.

  • Rae

    I’d pay money to play a PVE only MMO with an intelligent AI,
    without the need for balance, items could truly be unique and not cookie cutter.

  • Hannu Kankaanpää

    It’s never that simple PvP/PvE. When people like the game mechanics and have things to do (content) enough to get to the expansion/content patches, then the player will endure. But every game that i played other than Warhammer Online has had the normal quest and do PvE to level, so i would say PvE is needed to level up and continue playing.

  • Marc Owens

    LoL is PvP, all you need to do is show off a magma chamber style map and never release it and you are golden. On a serious note, in WoW’s case, there is no community in pvp as you do in a pve guild so you are pretty much a lone wolf especially with the changes to premades. In the case of GW2 pve is lacking yes, but the pvp is such a tight knitt community as they hang out in the mists, converse with each other and have player run tournaments so ultimately gw2 pvp will make the game have longevity and wow’s pve will solidify its longevity.

    • Dularr

      I can believe the sPvP mists lobby is a great social hub.  Kind of mixed on a social hub that separates PvP and PvE players.

      I disagree with your characterization of WoW PvP.  It’s great chatting with all players in their PvE and PvP gear all hanging out in the capital cities.  The hardcore arena teams, the casual arena teams for points, rated battleground and pre-made battleground.  Even the players that hang in front of Org dueling all day, fighting off the alliance when they want to crash the party.  

      If you are doing more than five players in your pre-made battleground team, you really should be running rated battlegrounds. 

  • Pross182

    I think it’s focus on one or the other. A game like LoL succeeds because it isn’t pretending to be something it isn’t, in this case a PVE game. It focuses on one and does it well. 

  • ArsenicSundae

    PvP: the reason I own the $150 collector’s edition and haven’t so much as logged into the game since the first week of October. Once it become clear that all the long term goals that I could pursue, *required* involvement in PvP, I lost all interest in it. It was also after smashing two mice, during the process of confirming that I indeed *did* still hate PvP with a passion, even if it was well designed.

    A shame that I didn’t see the all-roads-lead-to-pvp philosophy before shelling out for the CE. But at least I now have a 10″ Rytlock to remind me to never take a developer at their word again.