Do more player hours = successful game?

[RobertMugabe]

Short answer: yes.

More play time = more money for blizz

[Niwes]

Quoted for truth.

As for a game developer, activity within said game is part of the equation for a successful product.

nobody cares about stuff like that. companies (the bigger the more) care about quarter numbers. they just care about "success" as a metric of "more hours = more chances to sell services, shop stuff and tokens". the reputation or "we are successful" is irrelevant. as long as your quarter numbers are fine, all is fine. nothing else matters.

[Deleted]

Legion has clearly been designed to maximise the number of hours players spend in game, with the sheer volume of repetition, time gating and variance in player rewards. But is maximising player hours really improving the game?

I mean, sure, adding weekly 'content' like complete 12 Broken Shore world quests and collect 100 Marks of the Sentinax will increase player hours, but how has the story progressed for the players? How has the gameplay improved for the players? How has the game innovated?

To me, I think claiming that Legion is a success based on the increased player hours on the back of pathetic busywork like this is quite an insult to the playerbase. And is definitely not sustainable in the long term as more and more people realise just what Blizzard is really doing here.

I'm just enjoying every moment of Legion so far Just try not to get obsessed with the AP grind and you're all fine. So far I'd give Legion a 10/10 personally.

[Lochton]

nobody cares about stuff like that. companies (the bigger the more) about quarter numbers.
they care about that as a metric of "more hours = more chances to sell services, shop stuff and tokens".

Not right, companies do care about run time too. Not just if you pay your sub.

[Aggrophobic]

Legion has clearly been designed to maximise the number of hours players spend in game, with the sheer volume of repetition, time gating and variance in player rewards. But is maximising player hours really improving the game?

I mean, sure, adding weekly 'content' like complete 12 Broken Shore world quests and collect 100 Marks of the Sentinax will increase player hours, but how has the story progressed for the players? How has the gameplay improved for the players? How has the game innovated?

To me, I think claiming that Legion is a success based on the increased player hours on the back of pathetic busywork like this is quite an insult to the playerbase. And is definitely not sustainable in the long term as more and more people realise just what Blizzard is really doing here.

No, it does not.

[Niwes]

No, it does not.

but it doesnt matter. blizzard (and most mid to big companies) no longer invest in a longterm loyal customer base. its all about quarter numbers. ppl come and ppl go. market is changing rapidly. blizzard adjusted wow to that market.

- - - Updated - - -

Not right, companies do care about run time too. Not just if you pay your sub.

define "run time".

[Aggrophobic]

but it doesnt matter. blizzard (and most mid to big companies) no longer invest in a longterm loyal customer base. its all about quarter numbers. ppl come and ppl go. market is changing rapidly. blizzard adjusted wow to that market.

Thats a problem most larger companies have. Games by smaller studios usually start out as with people working on something they feel very passionately about but as it grows and people start treating it as a job as any other with no to little care for the product, we end up with a group of developers that care only for numbers in the quarterly reports.

[Spiral Mage]

Purposeful grinding, deliberate gating.

I've talked about where those have their places in game design, especially in MMOs.
But doing it just to do it isn't healthy.

However, Legion to me atleast, has been very successful because while there are many frustrating elements especially in gameplay right now. The end-game is far more flexible than it's ever been, and there's borderline too much to do per character (hence the claims of it being extremely unfriendly to alts which I agree with). But alot of the options you have are actually good ones. I feel like whenever I log on, I have choices and those choices are things I WANT to do, instead of frequently logging on and saying: "I should do this but I really don't want to --" .. so the fact I no longer feel that way is a huge step forward in my opinion.

[Niwes]

Thats a problem most larger companies have. Games by smaller studios usually start out as with people working on something they feel very passionately about but as it grows and people start treating it as a job as any other with no to little care for the product, we end up with a group of developers that care only for numbers in the quarterly reports.

yep. thats right. but its not in the response of the devs. its not that devs are bad. its just such a big time and single parts that wether a dev can still see "the complete big thing" nor have they any alternative. when leadership/managers told you, you have to go THIS route, you have to. and most of the time its such a small piece you even cant see the outcome. thats just how big business works.

and imo its the biggest reason why most ppl (including myself) leave. look at rob pardo, etc. and all that devs/designers started with blizz when they were a small studio, and that leaved the last 3 years. at some point you realize what it means to keep playing in a big business company. i know A LOT of devs that dont like that. and so they leave.

its not that "omg i am the bad guy now, i work for the dark empire! omg" or someting stupid like that. its the way you are working and how your work fits in the grand scheme. the bigger the company the less fun most devs have. thats the reason why clever companies like blizz give the devs that much freedom, selfstructuring, small grps, etc etc. they do well. but also this has limits. and at some point that dev/designer realizes that he want to go back to a point were he can focusize, be creative, have influence on things, be less dependent on shareholders, etc. and strive away from big business companies. thats all.

in the dev world this happens A LOT.

[Deleted]

More player hours does not mean much. A lot of abusive/addicting games have lots of player hours, like the modern Blizzard games, yet people don't really have a blast playing them. They are just addicting in a bad way.

[Niwes]

Purposeful grinding, deliberate gating.

I've talked about where those have their places in game design, especially in MMOs.
But doing it just to do it isn't healthy.

However, Legion to me atleast, has been very successful because while there are many frustrating elements especially in gameplay right now. The end-game is far more flexible than it's ever been, and there's borderline too much to do per character (hence the claims of it being extremely unfriendly to alts which I agree with). But alot of the options you have are actually good ones. I feel like whenever I log on, I have choices and those choices are things I WANT to do, instead of frequently logging on and saying: "I should do this but I really don't want to --" .. so the fact I no longer feel that way is a huge step forward in my opinion.

its the exactly opposite to me, in terms of your last part. thats funny i dont want to say anything with that, nor do i disagree. but its funny to me how twofaced Legion seems, because i never saw that polarizing feelings in an xpac in my 12 year wow career.

look at ppl like rocanna. that poster seems to love Legion for some aspects. at the same time i see posters like him (with a relatively same background/base oppinion), hating it. funny

Legion is definetelly a very polarizing xpac with a wide range in loveit or hateit

- - - Updated - - -

More player hours does not mean much. A lot of abusive/addicting games have lots of player hours, like the modern Blizzard games, yet people don't really have a blast playing them. They are just addicting in a bad way.

yep, sadly thats the simple truth.

superficial games without any deep, strongly focusing on getting a lot of players just to play for a while, arent a real measurement for a good game. but for a company only the profit defines success. so...

[Zylos]

more time spent playing=more likely to spend money on micro-transactions.

[Super Kami Dende]

I don't get these complaints. My character is stronger now in Legion then it ever has been with equal input of Work prior to final patch Content in any other expansion.

I literally hit 110 on a new Alt 2 weeks ago and he is already geared for heroic Nighthold with hardly any effort.

[Funky Kong]

It is undeniably archaic. People can argue all they want, but none of the gameplay aspects of 7.2 in particular do anything to innovate or advance the medium.

[Rotted]

How do you quantify success? If it is by player engagement? Yes, more hours is better. If it is to make money then I don't care if they play for 30 seconds so long as I get that cash.

From a player perspective, enjoyment:time is the ratio with a bit of total cost thrown in.

Pretty much this,

I'd say I've been successful, I'm sitting on 5 110s, the lowest being 860, my main being 900 (which I only just started at christmas). After Christmas I only spent a hour or two online every night, and for three weeks after 7.2 launch I didn't log in at all, my first time was 7 or so nights ago? I'm now caught up on the story line, have all the new traits bar the last one and have flying. The only thing I'm really missing is Curve Guldan.

I really dont think Legion requires the amount of time sink people claim it does (if your doing world firsts or server firsts or a top mythic progression, I can understand you defo need to sink countless hours in) The content is pretty straight forward and trivial, there isn't anything over complicated about it. The longest quest I've had is collecting those 100 marks and that only took 15 minutes (due to opposite faction tagging all my stuff)

Maybe I'm just a bit more efficient and forth planning than the avg player, maybe I'm a filthy casual who slacks, either way I'm on par with everyone I know or ahead

[Morbownz]

It's bullshit terminology that means nothing. Blizzard Dev's said (back in Cata) "we're fine with people running out of things to do and playing other games", or words to that effect. Blizzard don't have anything big to talk about concerning subs, that's it. I don't think subs have dive-bombed and everyone at Blizzard HQ are running around like headless chickens wondering what to do next, but if there was anything hugely positive to show concerning subs they'd be gloating like fuck about it.

[Lochton]

define "run time".

The time where people are using their product. As well, investors would like to know that it is thriving too (or how it is spelt).

[Deleted]

Legion has clearly been designed to maximise the number of hours players spend in game, with the sheer volume of repetition, time gating and variance in player rewards. But is maximising player hours really improving the game?

Based on the overwhelming feedback we, the players, gave Blizzard during WoD - then yes all of those things are of utmost importance to us. We care about content and we want to have something to do all the time. We don't necessarily care about the quality of it. That was the message we sent and that was what Blizzard delivered.

Hours spent playing (engaging with the product) is also important metric for investors.

So in many accounts, yes, it's important.

[Schattenlied]

Blizzard is a big company and big companies never do thing where there is no profit or at whim risking a backlash, they changed things because they had ton of proof that would have at preserved their income if not increased them.

And yet their actions did the exact opposite, and bled subs like crazy after Cata launched. I refuse to believe over 4 million people quit over the course of Cata and MoP just because the WC3 storyline was over, and then even more in WoD before the end of expansion content drought.

[bufferunderrun]

And yet their actions did the exact opposite, and bled subs like crazy after Cata launched. I refuse to believe over 4 million people quit over the course of Cata and MoP just because the WC3 storyline was over, and then even more in WoD before the end of expansion content drought.

so do you think that wow would be at 12mil subs if blizzard hadn't changed anything? I think not and they may not even offset the loss with the sales spike at the start of the xpack.
Imho everything is recorded and analized to check how the market move, sure minor things are left to the devs to decide but big things will never be made without an accurate research to see how the outlook would be, i won't believe that a multi-million company leave those ground breaking decision to the whim of peoples like Ion, Didier or Kosak.
Actually i also searched around but not found a single chart that explain how a company like activision blizzard is structured, anyone had a link?

nwm found some thing is interesting to see they have an office dedicated to "strategy"

https://www.theofficialboard.com/org...ision-blizzard