Should Blizzard start seriously considering WoW2?

[mordale]

I've heard that, but no one seems to be able to point to an actual source. From my understanding the only thing we know for sure is that it'll be based on a completely new story rather then Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft, Lost Vikings, etc.

that and we know it will be a sci-fi based, what with the massive art recruitments they were doing.

[Demetrion]

I for one like this idea and support it (not like it means anything ).

The thing i like the most is 3rd faction, or breaking/making some new alliances between some factions.

But as someone stated, Titan and D3 inc so WoW 2 won't happen in any near future.

[texan]

so they lost 600k ppl. There is still 11.5 mill people playing and paying.

There is no cause for Blizzard to worry yet

Ok, two random things here from Blizz. One is that they lost 600K people due to them digesting the content very fast. Second, they delayed 4.2 and Firelands because the 12 million players weren't ready yet.

Those 2 statements seem at odds with each other. Also, they lost 600K, but iirc, they had a big influx of Chinese customers due to opening up certain networks or something like that. This may mean that they added a couple million users, and lost tons of US/Europe players, with a net effect of just 600K lost.

They have tons of issues, which will bring lots of opinions from various players. Here is one that is almost universal though. Queue times are bad, and this has become of game of queuecraft. Heroics, BG's and rated BG's are all queue time heavy. They wouldn't even acknowledge a BG queue time bug for 5 months, even though it had thousands of reports from players. I have alts that can tank, but I don't have time to wait for queues on my main DPS toons, and then run more heroics on the alts too. We spend a lot of time in heroics now, way more than needed. I often end up 45-60 min in heroics, when it should be 20-30 min, so i can get them on my other toons. The CTA bribes for tanks won't work until it is at 500-100g each time, as tanking pugs isn't very fun usually.

I think that when they confirmed that the top programmers had moved on to work on Titan, it confirmed what many had suspected. The game isn't going to die soon, but I do expect a very steady decline in paid subscriptions. No one wants to sit in queue's all day, and while I often run with my guild tanks, it's not always possible and the 35 min queues are really killing dedication to the game. Some aspects of communication are good from Blizz, but I am kind of sick of them not acknowledging bugs until they are ready to deploy a fix in the next patch. It took many years for them to admit that hunter traps had a resist bug, and what do you know, a couple weeks later they are reworking how traps operate for patch 4.2.

[Venziir]

The real question is:
Should people stop whining, and just move on with their lives?

[unholytestament]

Everquest dominated the MMO market before it launched EQ2. After EQ2 launched, it did not. Connect the dots.

You forgot a dot. World of Warcraft was released and it soared to new heights that Everquest never even approached.

Everquest wasn't "destroyed" because it released a sequel.

[Clouce]

Personally id rather WoW 2 over Titan, but id want some serious changes.

Like.

5 levels. Yes 5! Why? Because leveling sucks ass... it really really does. Its ONLY purpose should be to teach you how to play your toon and if you can't figure that out in 5 levels then you don't get to play wow. Now maybe you will reply well I like leveling! That's fine, there is NOTHING stopping you from doing all the exact same things at level cap that you did while leveling.

Combine the classes
Aka I want Warrior/Pally/Dk Hunter/Rogue/Ranger Shaman/Druid/Witchdoctor and Priest/Warlock/Mage to all be the same class but different trees. That way we effectively reduce the game from 30 trees to 12 greatly increasing how easy it is to balance while also keeping the diversity of the classes.

Then id like Any race to be able to be any class. If NPCs can do it why cant I!?

[Wixwix]

Only if it's non casual/scrub friendly, then yes they really should.

[BatteredRose]

Making WoW2 is the solution since it can bring lots of new things to the table without said bad things happening.

XT would like a word with you...

Anyway, I think WoW2.0 would be a terrible idea. It would be much better if they went back to a RTS game, imo.

Plus what people said about Titan and D3.

[madyrn]

WoW still has a good deal to live out. Blizzard has managed to squeeze out a massive amount from this game and there is really no point in putting the amount of resources in to a "next gen" WoW as long as this one continues to turn such a large profit.

With regard to subscription loss. No one seems to understand just how overstated the whole thing is. Wrath brought a surge of new players to WoW. Whether or not those players had ever played an MMO before, that surge cause a major shift in design philosophy. That shift was cause for a great deal of unrest among the already established base and led to the more "difficult" Cataclysm. With Cata comes a drop in subs. It stands to reason that the same influx of people that found Wrath and all it's "changes for the casual" appealing, have found Cata more distanced from them and, as a result, left.

When you figure that percentage in with the usual drop off due to typical sub loss, temporary cancelling due to a wait for progression(4.2), cancellations for new games(Rift) and the myriad of other reasoning, that 5% not only makes sense, but it seems fairly small. Blizzard, more specifically the man announcing the numbers, the CEO, are not concerned and neither should any of the players be.

[Falrinn]

This.

It's not going to happen, not even if WoW loses 10x as many players as they have lost already.

They have to keep upgrading the base game rather than replace it. Forget the players: the shareholders would revolt if they tried to do anything else. Sad but true.

Not if it became obvious the current version of WoW was already no longer the dominate MMO on the market. Which is a very high possibility in another 5-6 years.

[Duster505]

The only reason why they should do WOW 2 is to redesign PVP and PVE apart from each other - PVP as special tree for an entire class. Would make it so much easier to balance.

[Dunefire]

There will be a WoW2, it's called the next expansion. Several graphics and general improvements have been shelved due to not enough time ATM to finish. Updating the engine would be included in a expac as well IMHO.

[Mayden]

Nice analysis and I agree that there will probably be a World of Warcraft 2. I think they already got that in their mind, knowing for example that The Lich King isn't really destroyed.

But they have learned a lot from WoW. Their new MMO will benefit from this. The best things will return together with a totally new universe, better graphics and other major changes that would probably be to game-changing to introduce in WoW currently.

A couple years in this new MMO and people will long back to WoW. Thats the right time to introduce WoW 2.

[unholytestament]

Not if it became obvious the current version of WoW was already no longer the dominate MMO on the market. Which is a very high possibility in another 5-6 years.

You see, that I disagree with.

A sequel to WoW should not be seen as a way to gain back or maintain dominance. It should be seen as a way to advance the damn game. If 6 years from now WoW is still number 1 I don't see why they still couldn't begin work on a sequel.

[Forthewin]

Instead of WoW2 they should make a "World of Starcraft".

Come on, that would be freakin' amazing if they did it right.

[Hanto]

so they lost 600k ppl. There is still 11.5 mill people playing and paying.

There is no cause for Blizzard to worry yet

I don't think there are actually quite that many people playing. Whenever Blizz announces their subscriber base it's a declaration of how many accounts there are total. It does not account for inactive, banned, or otherwise unused accounts.

Personally, I think WoW 2 is a few years away, if not more (if it's even a plan at all).

[Falrinn]

You see, that I disagree with.

A sequel to WoW should not be seen as a way to gain back or maintain dominance. It should be seen as a way to advance the damn game. If 6 years from now WoW is still number 1 I don't see why they still couldn't begin work on a sequel.

I don't disagree with that point, advancing the story in new and unique ways is one of the many benefits of a sequel. I was simply responding to the idea that shareholders would revolt if Blizzard were to announce a sequel even if WoW had lost over half it's playerbase.

[Malckeor]

Well, with Diablo 3 (plus its expansions), Starcraft II's expansions, Titan, and 3 more WoW expansions currently in the works...

...I'd say don't expect anything for at LEAST 10 years. Or just don't expect it at all, because I would honestly rather have Warcraft IV.



In terms of carrying things over from the original, I would think Blizzard would do something similar to what ArenaNet is currently doing with Guild Wars 2. You can migrate over your pets and mounts, and maybe specific sets of armor, but nothing much bigger than that.

[Falrinn]

I don't think there are actually quite that many people playing. Whenever Blizz announces their subscriber base it's a declaration of how many accounts there are total. It does not account for inactive, banned, or otherwise unused accounts.

Personally, I think WoW 2 is a few years away, if not more (if it's even a plan at all).

Closed accounts are explicitly excluded from the subscriber totals. Even in pay-by-the-minute regions like China, an account that's been inactive for 30-days is no longer counted towards the total.

[unholytestament]

It does not account for inactive, banned, or otherwise unused accounts.

Yes it does.

World of Warcraft's Subscriber Definition

World of Warcraft subscribers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or have an active prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the game and are within their free month of access. Internet Game Room players who have accessed the game over the last thirty days are also counted as subscribers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards. Subscribers in licensees’ territories are defined along the same rules.