Third Guild Wars this year

By Tom Bramwell Published 19 April, 2006

Jeff Strain reiterates dev plan.

Jeff Strain, co-founder of Guild Wars developer ArenaNet, has reiterated what he told us in a recent interview - that new Guild Wars titles will very likely be released twice yearly from now on.

"I would not be surprised to see something by the end of the year," he said, speaking on VGM Daily's podcast. "Obviously we're so early in development we're not committing to any kind of release schedules, but if we're going to be on a two-a-year schedule and we're shipping one in April, that kind of helps you set the time frame for the next release."

Strain also said that the third title - i.e. the follow-up to Guild Wars: Factions, which is due out on April 28th - is well into development and the fourth is in planning. That also tallies with what Strain said when we sat down recently; that "each of these new campaigns has an entire year of development, from a full development team, and they're released on staggered six month cycles."

"Campaign III has been in development since about November of last year," he told us at the time. It's expected to be shown off behind closed doors at E3, where Factions will also be playable.

We'll bring you more on Guild Wars when we have it.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (19) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • asphaltcowboy #1 6 years ago

    Crikey, twice a year? They may have to start dropping the price a little!

  • reality_cheque #2 6 years ago

    It's only £20 for each one I think, same as the original GW - which as you don't need the original to play it isn't bad imo considering it's a new full game.

    I just hope the future expansions are as good as the first game but with more replay value.

  • asphaltcowboy #3 6 years ago

    Yeah, I guess games like WoW chrage a lot more over the same time period... but I'm pretty sure they are releasing Collector's Editions of every... edition, and at £40 a pop, it's a little silly... Please correct me if I'm wrong! :)

  • optimusprym8 #4 6 years ago

    nobody forces you to buy the collectors edition though

  • Burton2000 #5 6 years ago

    I bought the collectors edition of factions due to the fact i missed the first one and i wanted a special ingame thing like divine aura.Hopefully the dances are as good as people say they are.

  • Darkedge #6 6 years ago

    and the standard tends to go for like 20 quid if you shop around.

    for 6 months WOW costs £30 for game plus £8 a month - hmmm that'll be £48 for game time ALONE not inc game. GW is much cheaper even if you buy the collectors ed. (one year of wow is over 100 pounds ffs)

    I think virtually every game released needs to drop it's price before GW does as GW is ridiculous value for money if you take gameplay time into consideration.

  • Azazel #7 6 years ago

    "GW is ridiculous value for money if you take gameplay time into consideration."

    I would never have considered playing a MMORPG before Guild Wars came along. It's been said before, but you really can't go far wrong for no subscription fee.

  • UncleLou #8 6 years ago

    GW is great, but I wish people would stop comparing it (and its price policy) to real MMORPGs, because it isn't one.

  • asphaltcowboy #9 6 years ago

    Yeah ok, I concede :]

  • Tomo #10 6 years ago

    Sounds like a fking bargain to me if I actually played MMORPGs. 20 quid for a new game every 6 months is awesome value.

    Are these new games actually *new* tho? Or more like expansion packs?

  • Darkedge #11 6 years ago

    "GW is great, but I wish people would stop comparing it (and its price policy) to real MMORPGs, because it isn't one."

    hmm

    Big World - Check
    lots of people to play with (more than on a Wow server by a huge factor)- Check
    Online - Check
    RPG - Check

    So M, M, O, RPG. got the lot. Problem? oh instances.. virtually every online game uses instances so ignore that. Anything else?
    Edited by 1 at 19/04/06 @ 13:31

  • reality_cheque #12 6 years ago

    Are these new games actually *new* tho? Or more like expansion packs?

    Full games - you don't need the original to run them and they've got about the same amount of content as the "Prophesies" campaign. The thing I love most about Guild Wars is the fact that if I don't play for 5 months (which I haven't) then I've not wasted any money.

  • UncleLou #13 6 years ago

    "GW is great, but I wish people would stop comparing it (and its price policy) to real MMORPGs, because it isn't one."

    hmm

    Big World - Check
    lots of people to play with (more than on a Wow server by a huge factor)- Check
    Online - Check
    RPG - Check

    So M, M, O, RPG. got the lot. Problem? oh instances.. virtually every online game uses instances so ignore that. Anything else?



    Playing with more than 5 people at once?
    Oh.

    A "MM"-lobby doesn't make it a MMORPG game, unless, like you did, you cling to the literal meaning of the single words rather than how the term is used. According to your "definition", Neverwinter Nights would be a MMOPRG as well.

    I like GW a lot, but it does not have the typical MMORPG element of being able to meet thousands of other players, anywhere, in some kind of persistent world. It has the towns, which are glorified lobbys, and missions for small teams. That's not the typical MMORPG experience. The fact that most MMORPGs have instances doesn't change that. If you can't see the fundamental difference between WoW or EVE on the one and GW on the other hand, then I can't help you. :)

    Not exactly a coincidence that the publisher and developer have always been reluctant to call it a MMORPG.
    Edited by 2 at 19/04/06 @ 15:27

  • reality_cheque #14 6 years ago

    Playing with more than 5 people at once?
    Oh.
    I missioned with 7 others at the end. :p The only difference between GW and, say, FFXI, is that in Guild Wars you don't have to camp around waiting for monsters because you're not sharing an instance with 100 twats.

  • UncleLou #15 6 years ago

    Well, make it 7 then. :p

    But you can't travel the plains and accidentally meet old comrades, and enemies, as you simply don't inhabit the same world, except the glorified lobbys. That's a key factor in MMORPGs, and GW just doesn't have that. Which is perfectly ok, it's a different kind of game. ;)

  • Darkedge #16 6 years ago

    stick to your traditional mmo's but really guild wars is an mmo and in factions you have 16 person instances.

    Oh btw that makes D&D online not an MMO either.

  • Azazel #17 6 years ago

    I think the point people make that Guild Wars is first and foremost a game is an important one. Comparing it to WoW feels like saying there's no fundamental distinction between Battlefield and Planetside. It's not really an MMORPG, but then it's not really just bog standard multiplayer either...

    Either way I think it's a game that was badly needed.
    Edited by 1 at 19/04/06 @ 17:06

  • UncleLou #18 6 years ago

    stick to your traditional mmo's

    No thanks, I quite enjoy GW. :p

    but really guild wars is an mmo and in factions you have 16 person instances.

    Which is still something fundamentally different than a couple of hundred players meeting each other in a MMORPG, anywhere, anytime. GW is online, and it's an RPG, and it's multiplayer. Just not "massively" multiplayer.

    quote:

    ArenaNet coined the term CORPG (Competitive/Cooperative Online Role-Playing Game) to describe Guild Wars. This title describes the competitive PvP-oriented (Player vs. Player) design of the game or the cooperative PvE-oriented (Player vs. Environment) instances of the game, as well as serving to differentiate it from the standard, subscription-fee-based, MMORPG genre. Guild Wars does not support hundreds of players in combat, instead having large towns where people form groups of eight or fewer players who then fight in their own unique instance of the game world. "Guild Wars is not an MMORPG," said Jeff Strain, producer of the game.

  • optimusprym8 #19 6 years ago

    indeed, it's a MORPG for the PvE parts (you don't have to sound like a muppet with a stutter either) and a CORPG for the PvP parts.

    God, a year on, I can't believe we're still arguing whether it's a MMORPG, CORPG, RPG, MMO whatever... who f'king cares!? Why do you need it to be labelled within the confines of a specific bracket in order to be able to comprehend what it is? Is it really that important?
    Edited by 1 at 20/04/06 @ 13:18