Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Typhoria]

Didn't most people just loot the blood and run away?

Looting it and then dying. =P
Not many people could escape the long leash + perma slow.

[gamingmuscle]

Very good counter argument there, so you ignore a fact that rules saturation or age out and go rambling about the market again when the harddata you should reading says you talking bs right now.

I gave you the reasoning behind why I think market saturation better explains the plateau in wrath...and ultimately the slow decline after that. Where spikes either up or down could be the effects of design.

I don't think you even understand that "harddata"....and I'm certain you need to edit the first 2/3rds of the that sentence.

Retail WoW defenders .. Sheesh! =D

Probably was a troll, but WoW didn't start losing sub's 'til auto-LFG came out, mid WotLK. You remember, when it went from 12 mil to 10 mil .. then kept falling as social aspects of WoW started vanishing .. lobby game left in it's place, where a once grand MMORPG once stood .. many remember. I remember it's glory.

I didn't say sub losses, I said net adds.

Plot the change in subs (not the # of subs) from vanilla through TBC or later. It it quite obviously trending down from Vanilla.

Wow didn't lose subs in Wrath. Cataclysm did.

[gamingmuscle]

Yeah bad design that strait away from the orginal problem. simple as that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Yeah that is not the least number of assumptions buddy. Your bad design has more assumptions then market sat =P

[Eliseus]

Shrug, if you look at the sub data from Vanilla and TBC it was clear that WoW was going to plateau soon. Net Sub adds per quarter was dropping steadily. The so called "Golden Age" was failing to bring in the same amount of new blood. To me this indicates market saturation more than anything else.

WoD sales prove you wrong. It doesn't even matter what he says for this argument. WoD proved that people will come back to your game if they think it will be good, better yet, TBC 2.0. Which it wasn't. Move along.

- - - Updated - - -

Never stop drinkin that kool aid

So all the above isn't happening? k.

- - - Updated - - -

Retail WoW defenders .. Sheesh! =D

Probably was a troll, but WoW didn't start losing sub's 'til auto-LFG came out, mid WotLK. You remember, when it went from 12 mil to 10 mil .. then kept falling as social aspects of WoW started vanishing .. lobby game left in it's place, where a once grand MMORPG once stood .. many remember. I remember it's glory.

The issue is all of what you say is true, not speculation, but people love current WoW so much they would rather speculate than look at the data that is actually there. They then try to use other MMOs as indication, but won't use other MMOs Legacy servers as to why this would be succesful. It's really just a gross circle of ignorance and arrogance.

[Deleted]

I didn't say sub losses, I said net adds.

Jeez, stop playing the boring aspiring geopolitics, you do not know shit about it.

Blizzard started to loose money at mid- wotlk , it's a proven fact and that's all it matters you boring moron

[Uurdz]

Shrug, if you look at the sub data from Vanilla and TBC it was clear that WoW was going to plateau soon. Net Sub adds per quarter was dropping steadily. The so called "Golden Age" was failing to bring in the same amount of new blood. To me this indicates market saturation more than anything else.

Ahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaah
No. Regression only occurred after Cata launched which wiped much of vanilla content.

[Sentynel]

You think Vanilla would last 18 months? People would be demanding the next raids to be released in no time at all. Vanilla lasting 18 months, hahaha that is a good one. It isn't like it is new and fresh content to keep people busy, all strats are known, mods are better than ever compared to the pathetic mechanics Vanilla has to offer.

Nostalrius lasted for ~14 months before getting shut down with player activity increasing on a daily basis. AQ gate opening was about to happen which also draws in tons of peeps. So yeah, vanilla can last 18 months if not longer.

[Deleted]

--SNIP--

Don't post spam

[Eliseus]

Nostalrius lasted for ~14 months before getting shut down with player activity increasing on a daily basis. AQ gate opening was about to happen which also draws in tons of peeps. So yeah, vanilla can last 18 months if not longer.

The question is can WoD last longer than 18 mon........ Oops, huge decline in first month.

[Deleted]

It's not about having another content in 1.12, just to have a legacy opportunity to still enjoy the old content.

[Eliseus]

It's not about having another content in 1.12, just to have a legacy opportunity to still enjoy the old content.

I personally feel a progression server will still be the most successful route to go, but at this rate I'll take anything. Better yet, a progression server where the population dictates when content comes out with server polls.

[flan1337]

Nostalrius lasted for ~14 months before getting shut down with player activity increasing on a daily basis. AQ gate opening was about to happen which also draws in tons of peeps. So yeah, vanilla can last 18 months if not longer.

and then pair that up when Naxx comes up. With all the requirements and loops it would take even more months! I could see vanilla wow going on by itself for quite awhile before a vast majority of people see the end game content.

Then again a lot of people think vanilla is like today where it only takes a couple days to clear out raids.

[Deleted]

I personally feel a progression server will still be the most successful route to go, but at this rate I'll take anything. Better yet, a progression server where the population dictates when content comes out with server polls.

Like, vanilla then TBC then WOTLK ?

[Relapses]

The question is can WoD last longer than 18 mon........ Oops, huge decline in first month.

Who cares? The fact that 10 million people were actively subscribed around launch means not only did those players pay the retail price of WoD, they subscribed for at least one month of the game. There's no way you can prove that Blizzard's current business model isn't to facilitate exactly that kind of resurgence/drop-off in subs after the gradual decline and waning of MMO popularity which began to occur at the end of WotLK. I don't necessarily agree with it but the fact that even at 3-4 million active subs WoW is dwarfing its nearest competition has to mean something. And sure it'd be nice if WoD had more content to keep people around but it's stupid to continue hammering the faults of WoD as an expansion when there's a new expansion on the horizon which may fix many of the previous expansion's cardinal sins.

Moreover, there's a possibility Legacy realms may have a near-identical impact as WoD's release did: An initial surge in subscribers followed by a massive drop off after players either get bored or disillusioned by the content.

[gamingmuscle]

WoD sales prove you wrong. It doesn't even matter what he says for this argument. WoD proved that people will come back to your game if they think it will be good, better yet, TBC 2.0. Which it wasn't. Move along.

No it doesn't. WoD sales do go against the trend, but does not disprove WoW hit market saturation in Wrath.

- - - Updated - - -

--SNIP--

Don't post spam

I bet you feel so clever. LOL

[Eliseus]

Like, vanilla then TBC then WOTLK ?

Essentially. The way I envision it is content patches are released in X expansion era, let's say a certain amount of time AFTER someone on the server clears X content, or instantly. Then when it actually comes time for the next expansion, the population gets to vote if they want it released yet or not. If not, great, if so, great. The pop dictates where the game is at basically. Of course I would hope there was preventive measures like at least a month play time on that server or something to be able to vote. You would already know people in this thread for example would purposely try to shit on everything Legacy even after it was official.

I know there has been some ideas of just creating a server for X era. I personally don't feel that will be very successful. You would have a lot of people everywhere among all the expansion. Would make things like pvp miserable etc...

Then if they take the same route is other MMOs. In roughly 6+ years, or whenever those servers catch up to live, Blizzard basically does it all over.

Of course they could just keep it locked to a certain expansion forever. I wouldn't mind that either. Just stating I feel to keep the replay value higher, progression servers would be the best route to go.

[gamingmuscle]

Ahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaah
No. Regression only occurred after Cata launched which wiped much of vanilla content.

I never said total subs dropped prior to cata. LOL is it really that hard to distinguish between total subs and net adds?

[Eliseus]

Who cares? The fact that 10 million people were actively subscribed around launch means not only did those players pay the retail price of WoD, they subscribed for at least one month of the game. There's no way you can prove that Blizzard's current business model isn't to facilitate exactly that kind of resurgence/drop-off in subs after the gradual decline and waning of MMO popularity which began to occur at the end of WotLK. I don't necessarily agree with it but the fact that even at 3-4 million active subs WoW is dwarfing its nearest competition has to mean something. And sure it'd be nice if WoD had more content to keep people around but it's stupid to continue hammering the faults of WoD as an expansion when there's a new expansion on the horizon which may fix many of the previous expansion's cardinal sins.

Moreover, there's a possibility Legacy realms may have a near-identical impact as WoD's release did: An initial surge in subscribers followed by a massive drop off after players either get bored or disillusioned by the content.

I'll believe it when I see it. I'll refrain from speculation and keep my opinion on the factual data that exists.

- - - Updated - - -

No it doesn't. WoD sales do go against the trend, but does not disprove WoW hit market saturation in Wrath.

"No it doesn't. Game did exactly what I'm saying doesn't happen, but doesn't prove I'm lying".

[Uurdz]

I never said total subs dropped prior to cata. LOL is it really that hard to distinguish between total subs and net adds?

Net adds mean growth, regression is the opposite of growth. You're wanting to argue that there wasn't consistent growth through vanilla and tbc? Or are you trying to argue that because growth in wrath was minor that it was obviously at peak population? You really think that's a good argument?

- - - Updated - - -

No it doesn't. WoD sales do go against the trend, but does not disprove WoW hit market saturation in Wrath.

- - - Updated - - -



I bet you feel so clever. LOL

Lol gets countered hard and calls it a statistical outlier without any proof or evidence

[Relapses]

I'll believe it when I see it. I'll refrain from speculation and keep my opinion on the factual data that exists.

I think the problem is the interpretation of the data which is ambiguous enough to sway in favor of either argument. At the end of the day, we don't what kind of focus groups Blizzard has to determine the outcome of the features they've added since the end of WotLK. For all we know, it's exactly these features which have prevented the game from completely crashing and burning sooner. And yeah, perhaps Legacy realms would be a great way to get previously unsubbed players back into the game but there's the very real possibility that Blizzard has already done market research on this possibility and found that the trade off in potential revenue doesn't warrant its development time. (That's kind of the interpretation I received from the official response on this matter but we're again going back to the ambiguity of the data available.)