Will Blizz Make WoW a MMO Again Next Xpac??

[Deleted]

No, this is wrong. We learned WAY back with Diablo 1 in 1996 what happens when players get all the choices they want, and the outcome is a disaster. Diablo 1 was client-side only. So what happened was everyone immediately hacked the game files, gave themselves god mode, bypassed THE ENTIRE GAME, one shot Diablo in 5 minutes and then said "this game sucks" and quit.

THAT experience proved to everyone that the concept of "choice is always good to have" is a rotten concept. Diablo 2 was designed with a mandate to strip away choices. Specifically, strip away enough choices so people cannot just bypass the game and one shot everything. So Blizzard gave us the client-server model, where there were realms where Blizzard could limit your choices and patrol for hackers and cheaters. Taking away choice was universally recognized s a GOOD thing to revitalize the game.

The social issue is a LOT like that. When players get the option to be antisocial, they all wind up taking it, and it actually ruins the game, just in a different way than hacking does. Without the in-game community, the game stops having meaning. You achieve things, but for too many people, there is no one to share those achievements with. Attempts to lay the blame on the players for not socializing on their own fall flat, just as they do when creating a client-only game and then blaming the players for hacking.

Unfortunately, choice MUST be restricted for the good of the game by creating a server-client model to block choices deemed unhealthy like hacking. But just as important is to remove and disincentivize antisocial playstyles because in-game community is critical to success.

Proof of that is how subs grew constantly in vanilla and most of BC until they started demolishing the in-game community late in BC. Destruction of the community was in full force in Wrath. During Wrath, the playerbase growth stalled and leveled off because while Blizzard was destroying the in game community, the work had not been completed yet and parts of it still existed. Wrath benefitted from the last vestiges of the ingame community built up over vanilla and BC. By Cataclysm, the community had collapsed, and subs began their descent.

Blizzard attempted to arrest sub loss but has so far been unable to correctly diagnose the problem. They thought the problem was leveling needed to be streamlined and made easier. Wrong. They thought it was to make raiding more accessible. Wrong. They thought making a minigame like garrisons would appeal to lots of players because it was easy content. Wrong. They thought being SAVAGE with lots of wild orcs would fix it. Wrong. They thought adding demon hunters AND adding loads of endless content in legion would surely fix it. WRONG! We currently sit at around the same subs as we had in WoD.

The game needs the community back. Only that will fix subs.

Interesting how you blame antisocial WoW on decline of subs. Yes, I know you want your arguments to win, but this is ridiculous.
Subs went down for many reasons, sure, some of them are things you said, but same things might attract different kind of players.

Overall, you oversimplified the problem and turned all the burden on antisocial.

[Namalia]

What do you guys think? Legion was Blizzard waking up after being drunk for the past 2-3 expansions and while it added a lot of good it still plays like a lobby and its very anti social compared to the first 3 expansions. Do you think Blizzard will announce something next xpac to counter this issue? Maybe tune world quests to not be so easily solo'd, or remove LFG from world quests and provide an incentive for group questing so that solo players can still get what they want done but are encouraged to socialize with players for a better reward?

Considering it has never stopped being a "MMO", they son't need to "Make it a MMO again."

- - - Updated - - -

Does it? MMO originally meant massively multiplayer online, meaning an online game with a large number of people in-game that you don't necessarily have to interact with

FTFY
/10chars

[HuxNeva]

Probably not. The people who are left in the game now pretty much don't like MMOs and prefer antisocial queue systems and solo grinds. The people who actually like MMOs already gave up on the game years ago. Changing back would alienate their new customers and not likely bring anyone back (since whoever is still interested is playing in private servers already).

Thing is, experiencing the game through a good guild and being on you own living in PUG/QUEUE land are two widely different worlds.

[Demithio]

No, WoW has been locked into this path for a long time now and theres no turning back. Sure, they always promise blah blah blah, but never deliver. Safe to say, what we have now is what we will get in the future.

[MoanaLisa]

Does it? MMO originally meant massively multiplayer online, meaning interacting with a large number of people, regularly, as the core of the game. Not just massive in size of world or total number of players. The original Diablo and Starcraft also had one or both of those and they were just called games with online multiplayer.

No, there's nothing in the definition that demands interaction. It's implied that if there is group content there needs to be some interaction and there is. But there's nothing there that says that is the core of the game. The core of the game is up to the developers. And from the beginning a huge chunk of the game was something that could be done solo or in very small groups of five or less. Even today, you can do practically everything in the game with 10 people max.

It's OK to have that opinion but 1)massive/big, 2) multiplayer/more than one playing at a time 3) online doesn't have anything to do with defining how many people are required to do things. You just made that up about "large number of people" basically. Nothing in that definition that requires talking either. It's better when people communicate, no doubt. But definitionally required? Nope.

[Demithio]

Probably not. The people who are left in the game now pretty much don't like MMOs and prefer antisocial queue systems and solo grinds. The people who actually like MMOs already gave up on the game years ago. Changing back would alienate their new customers and not likely bring anyone back (since whoever is still interested is playing in private servers already).

While you're on target with most of this, I would have to somewhat disagree and say that changing things back would in fact bring back old time players who crave 'old style' WoW. Myself included, I would definitely resub if WoW was restored to its former self, game play and design wise. A very slim chance of that happening however. Private servers a cool and all, but what the old timers want is not so much replaying everything, rather having new content with old style mechanics.

[ryanmahaffe]

It is still an mmo, all the salty nostalgic geasers here somehow think Wrath was this grand adventure of epic proportions and it was like gods gift to gaming but really Legion is just as much "mmo" as other expansions, especially with such a massive amount of world content, I still see a good amount of people doing world quests on Broken Isles and Argus and premade group finder usually has some funny people for world bosses.

[Saucerian]

No, there's nothing in the definition that demands interaction. It's implied that if there is group content there needs to be some interaction and there is. But there's nothing there that says that is the core of the game. The core of the game is up to the developers. And from the beginning a huge chunk of the game was something that could be done solo or in very small groups of five or less. Even today, you can do practically everything in the game with 10 people max.

It's OK to have that opinion but 1)massive/big, 2) multiplayer/more than one playing at a time 3) online doesn't have anything to do with defining how many people are required to do things. You just made that up about "large number of people" basically. Nothing in that definition that requires talking either. It's better when people communicate, no doubt. But definitionally required? Nope.

Not required by definition, I guess, but that's what was implied when the name/genre originated to differentiate from games that were just "online multiplayer".

That its current generally accepted definition is so broad, makes it not really mean anything anymore. "Lots of players and you can group with X many online" descries darn near every modern game. When everything is an MMO, nothing is, they're just.. video games.

[MoanaLisa]

Not required by definition, I guess, but that's what was implied when the name/genre originated to differentiate from games that were just "online multiplayer".

That its current generally accepted definition is so broad, makes it not really mean anything anymore. "Lots of players and you can group with X many online" descries darn near every modern game. When everything is an MMO, nothing is, they're just.. video games.

I wouldn't disagree with any of this. It's why I call out those who decide all on their own to narrowly define what an MMO is or isn't.

[Coffeexbean]

Pretty much. There is nothing on thr market right now that has that old wow slowed down game play it's all just a bunch of single player mmo with the worst one of the bunch being black desert. My God that game could be so good if it revolved around player interaction