Should Blizzard make content designed around player participation?

[Flurryfang]

In the last week or so a new trend of threads have jumped up on nearly all forum sides, which talk about solo play. While i don't really see myself on either side of the discussion, it did make me think about something.


Should Blizzard make their game around what players want to play?

You may say, thats an easy question, but let me set up a situation for you:

Blizzard are very happy about raiding. They like designing it and alot of the devs see it as the ultimate MMO experience, but lets say that 50% of the current raiding community start getting alot into pet battles, and even more people from the solo/dungeon community join them. With the raiding community cut in half, should Blizzard focus more on pet battles then raids?

It is an extreme situation, but it does help people see how the game could evolve if Blizzard followed a specific trend. So what would you do if you were Blizzards place? Would you change the focus of the game, if the playerbase suddenly used more time on something like Pet battles then raiding/dungeons?


Note:I believe that there are more factors in this then just "i like this, so Blizzard should make this". In the end, Blizzard have to make sure that they have a good game, something which can be build on.

[hyphnos]

In the last week or so a new trend of threads have jumped up on nearly all forum sides, which talk about solo play. While i don't really see myself on either side of the discussion, it did make me think about something.


Should Blizzard make their game around what players want to play?

You may say, thats an easy question, but let me set up a situation for you:

Blizzard are very happy about raiding. They like designing it and alot of the devs see it as the ultimate MMO experience, but lets say that 50% of the current raiding community start getting alot into pet battles, and even more people from the solo/dungeon community join them. With the raiding community cut in half, should Blizzard focus more on pet battles then raids?

It is an extreme situation, but it does help people see how the game could evolve if Blizzard followed a specific trend. So what would you do if you were Blizzards place? Would you change the focus of the game, if the playerbase suddenly used more time on something like Pet battles then raiding/dungeons?


Note:I believe that there are more factors in this then just "i like this, so Blizzard should make this". In the end, Blizzard have to make sure that they have a good game, something which can be build on.

No, nor should restaurants plan their menus around what people eat. It should be about what the chef wants to cook right up until the restaurant goes out of business.

[Osmeric]

Blizzard management should hold their developers responsible for the consequences of their decisions.

[Flurryfang]

Blizzard management should hold their developers responsible for the consequences of their decisions.

How? Should they fire people if the game looses subs?

[SirCowdog]

No, nor should restaurants plan their menus around what people eat. It should be about what the chef wants to cook right up until the restaurant goes out of business.

A business that is not aware of the trends and desires of its customers is headed for one place: Out of Business.

But lets be clear here: Blizzard doesn't need to bend to every whim or angry basement dweller that posts on the forums. They have millions of players in WoW alone, and more with Overwatch, Hearthstone, Diablo, Starcraft, and HotS. They've got their bases pretty well covered. However, if enough players in one of those game express concern over a feature(or lack of one), then it behooves Blizzard to listen.

Think about how many features that are part of WoW right now used to be player-made addons. Quest tracking on the map? Yup, that used to be an addon. To contrast: How many people raid without DBM? And yet that STILL isn't built into the game(probably because it saves blizz time to let the community update it for them).

Blizzard NEEDS to listen to their players. But ultimately they also don't need to be dictated by them. Right now I get the feeling that the WoW devs just don't listen, even if they say they are. They're off in their own land doing their own thing, and who cares if ideas work or don't work? They've got all their other titles and hardcore fans to keep them rolling. But that's just my personal opinion on the matter.

[HumbleDuck]

Yes, they should shift resources towards pet battles.

[Osmeric]

How? Should they fire people if the game looses subs?

If a designer has a personal game design philosophy that ends up being incompatible with commercial goals, then they should be removed from the team.

[A Chozo]

They need to find some sort of stability between doing what they want to do and doing what they need to do.

WoW is a special case because even if the game is in a shitty situation, someone will still play. They can make a expansion with one zone and nothing more - it will sell.

[melodramocracy]

If a designer has a personal game design philosophy that ends up being incompatible with commercial goals, then they should be removed from the team.

Thankfully you don't work for Blizzard.

[Osmeric]

Thankfully you don't work for Blizzard.

Companies exist to make money, not to cater to the traitorous inclinations of disloyal employees.

[Flurryfang]

Companies exist to make money, not to cater to the traitorous inclinations of disloyal employees.

But Blizzard also have an IP and legacy to keep in the works. What would happend to that IP/legacy if Blizzard sold out and turned WoW into a worse game, that earned more money.

[Deleted]

Companies exist to make money, not to cater to the traitorous inclinations of disloyal employees.

I think Blizzard is still turning nice profit though? Or did I miss disastrous quarterly report somewhere?
What would the corprorate KPI's be in that case? Some kind of "Employee traitor index"?

I'm having a bit hard time to envision how this would work in real world.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Play participation is a poor metric.

I mean in WoD EVERYONE did a garrison right. But it is also kind of known as one of the worst forms of content ever. So should they only make the game centric around the garrison over and over again?

Why did they do the garrison? Because they pretty much didn't have a choice. Which in a video game boils down to what they put into the game. So it is very limited scope to design around.

What Blizzard should do is just make the game that they choose to make and how they make it. The people that like that game play that game. The ones that do not like that game do not play that game. I mean.. it only make total and utter complete sense it works this way.

[Sansnom]

Should Blizzard make their game around what players want to play?

You may say, thats an easy question, but let me set up a situation for you:

Blizzard are very happy about raiding. They like designing it and alot of the devs see it as the ultimate MMO experience, but lets say that 50% of the current raiding community start getting alot into pet battles, and even more people from the solo/dungeon community join them. With the raiding community cut in half, should Blizzard focus more on pet battles then raids?

It is an extreme situation, but it does help people see how the game could evolve if Blizzard followed a specific trend. So what would you do if you were Blizzards place? Would you change the focus of the game, if the playerbase suddenly used more time on something like Pet battles then raiding/dungeons?

This not just WoW sense. It is business sense. It is common sense.

A company makes a product. The product does not sale. Would the company continue to make that product?

If you partner does not like apple pies, would you continue to serve apple pies?

A company needs to adjust as the time change. If raids are no longer popular, then why continue to make it?

[Darsithis]

Companies exist to make money, not to cater to the traitorous inclinations of disloyal employees.

Traitorous?

As a developer, I do what the client/lead (I'm the lead now) project manager says to do. So do they. The developers aren't just randomly doing whatever they feel like, they're following plans laid out by the management and the team as a whole.

Of course, if someone is under-performing, like failing to meet deadlines for changes, not willing to participate in specific things or just generally slacking off, by all means, fire them.

[Deleted]

How? Should they fire people if the game looses subs?

Well, they could at least move the responsible person to some other, less critical project.

[Lady Dragonheart]

Making money should be the prerogative for every company. While Blizzard has a theme centered around raiding, I believe that they shouldn't restrict themselves to it, more resources should be either generated (larger dev teams with smaller and more precise projects) or directed towards what people do on a daily basis and not a basis of "play until you kill x boss, then unsub until the next one is added." Casual players and solo-playstyle players are making up more and more of the population that's willing to pay for the product. With that notion, it is only a matter of time before resources are used to reciprocate the growing population willing to pay money, invest time, and put forth effort for solo-orientated content in WoW.

[SirCowdog]

But Blizzard also have an IP and legacy to keep in the works. What would happend to that IP/legacy if Blizzard sold out and turned WoW into a worse game, that earned more money.

Oh, you mean like they did with WoD?

There's no question that WoD made money, and no question that WoD was a sellout expansion. They tried their damndest to cut corners at every chance they could, and look what it did to the playerbase.

[Alydael]

I think they are already doing so. They must have internal numbers about how many players are doing x,y and z. The only thing they hold onto which is not so popular is the high end raiding and the race to world first. I think they enjoy watching it as devs, which is why they keep it.

[Osmeric]

Traitorous?

(Was referring to those who set the direction, which is likely not the grunts in the trenches.)

If a developer causes a design choice to be made because he personally prefers it, even if he knows it will negatively affect the interests of his employer, then, yes, he is being a traitor, "a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust."