What's your predictions for the Q1 Call?

[MoanaLisa]

Some one has to tell me why I shouldn't take a sub loss as evidence that mists is a crappy product when the corollary would apply. You would do it for virtually any other service or product.

Because subscriptions to WoW don't rise and fall exclusively on the quality of the product. Marketing, entry cost, market forces, (as opposed to straight-out marketing), competition, patch cycles, seasonal variations and a variety of other things all play a part. You don't have to accept that but raging at people who have a more business-oriented view of how other factors can affect how and why things happen isn't going to be helpful either. Most people understand it's not that simple.

There are plenty of consumer products that are pure crap that sell through the roof while other quality products never make a dent. According to your limited perspective on how things happen that doesn't make any sense. Yet, it's true. Stuff like this is complicated and posing overly simplistic reasoning is liable to read as nonsense. People decide to purchase or not purchase based on lots of things of which quality--which is mostly subjective in this case--is only a part. It may or not be an important part depending on the consumer but it's still just a piece of it.

[Glorious Leader]

Because subscriptions to WoW don't rise and fall exclusively on the quality of the product. Marketing, entry cost, market forces, (as opposed to straight-out marketing), competition, patch cycles, seasonal variations and a variety of other things all play a part. You don't have to accept that but raging at people who have a more business-oriented view of how other factors can affect how and why things happen isn't going to be helpful either. Most people understand it's not that simple.

There are plenty of consumer products that are pure crap that sell through the roof while other quality products never make a dent. According to your limited perspective on how things happen that doesn't make any sense. Yet, it's true. Stuff like this is complicated and posing overly simplistic reasoning is liable to read as nonsense. People decide to purchase or not purchase based on lots of things of which quality--which is mostly subjective in this case--is only a part. It may or not be an important part depending on the consumer but it's still just a piece of it.

Really? Then the rise of the game during TBC was not based on the quality of TBC just pure fucking luck? No obviously that was a good product that drew players in. The developers apparently can only do good. When they do something wrong some people can dream up all sorts of fairy tales to make good. When they start to lose out well it's anything BUT the quality of the product. I'm not arguing that it isn't more complicated than the product being good or bad, just that the community has a tendency to atttribute success as solely being a result of the developers inspired genious and failure wholly on other factors that are out of their control. It simple isn't the case. The developers can and should make a game that grows wow again. Not phone it in because of fairy tales told by people on forums. Mists isn't that game and it isn't a quality product. saying wow is old is missing the fucking point. It doesn't have to feel old. It can and should be rejuvenated. Mists does not do that.

[Kanadei]

The developers can and should make a game that grows wow again. Mists isn't that game and it isn't a quality product. saying wow is old is missing the fucking point. It doesn't have to feel old. It can and should be rejuvenated. Mists does not do that.

And your suggestions to do this are...

It's all well and good to say "I don't like this so it's a bad product" (which is what you are saying, by all other accoounts Mists is a "quality product" and a successful game) but unless you can give us something more than "the developers should do better" it's kind of a pointless argument.

Saying "I want this game to be a better game because if it was better then I would like it more" is the equivalent of saying "I like chocolate icecream, but imagine if it was twice as tasty! Why don't icecream companies just do that?".

And for the record, I'm not even subbed at the moment.

[Glorious Leader]

And your suggestions to do this are...

It's all well and good to say "I don't like this so it's a bad product" (which is what you are saying, by all other accoounts Mists is a "quality product" and a successful game) but unless you can give us something more than "the developers should do better" it's kind of a pointless argument.

Saying "I want this game to be a better game because if it was better then I would like it more" is the equivalent of saying "I like chocolate icecream, but imagine if it was twice as tasty! Why don't icecream companies just do that?".

And for the record, I'm not even subbed at the moment.

Well for starters I wouldn't make daily questing grinding and reputation such a huge focus. I would encourage small group play and not shove everyone into lfr or worse solo activities.

Ultimately I'm not a game designer. I can tell you what I like and what I think would be good. That's about it though. I can tell you as well that appealing to really really dated and old models of what mmos are and should be isn't gonna make the game feel any newer.

[Kanadei]

Well for starters I wouldn't make daily questing grinding and reputation such a huge focus. I would encourage small group play and not shove everyone into lfr or worse solo activities.

Ultimately I'm not a game designer. I can tell you what I like and what I think would be good. That's about it though. I can tell you as well that appealing to really really dated and old models of what mmos are and should be isn't gonna make the game feel any newer.

I can agree with daily quest grinding, which even Blizzard has said was past the mark, but small group play has never been stronger with scenarios and challenge modes as well as small things like 3 mannable rarespawns and other stuff which has been introduced. I think the problem here is more about cross realm grouping and anonymity but thats getting off track. LFR is a result of the community dividing between difficulties, and while it's not a perfect solution it seems like participation kind of speaks for itself.

It's understandable that you can't solve all Blizzards problems since as you said it's not your job. But equally think about it from their side; they are torn between keeping the game familiar for the half of the community that generally enjoy what they are playing (and that is a large part of the community make no mistake) and mixing things up to keep the game feel "fresh" for the other (more likely longer-playing) people who want something new. Sure, they could just go back to the drawing board and make everything feel as new as possible, but I'm pretty sure from a financial and social standpoint - that's not really worth the risk.

At the end of the day you play the same game for more of the same (to an extent), if you really want a "new mmo" you can take your pick. There are plenty out there.

[Glorious Leader]

I can agree with daily quest grinding, which even Blizzard has said was past the mark, but small group play has never been stronger with scenarios and challenge modes as well as small things like 3 mannable rarespawns and other stuff which has been introduced. I think the problem here is more about cross realm grouping and anonymity but thats getting off track. LFR is a result of the community dividing between difficulties, and while it's not a perfect solution it seems like participation kind of speaks for itself.

It's understandable that you can't solve all Blizzards problems since as you said it's not your job. But equally think about it from their side; they are torn between keeping the game familiar for the half of the community that generally enjoy what they are playing (and that is a large part of the community make no mistake) and mixing things up to keep the game feel "fresh" for the other (more likely longer-playing) people who want something new. Sure, they could just go back to the drawing board and make everything feel as new as possible, but I'm pretty sure from a financial and social standpoint - that's not really worth the risk.

At the end of the day you play the same game for more of the same (to an extent), if you really want a "new mmo" you can take your pick. There are plenty out there.

I don't consider small group play strong. It has next to no reward and isn't encouraged in the slightest. If challenge modes and scenarios rewarded gear then I could agree but simple creating a system and putting no substantial or real reward behind it isn't actually supporting the content.

I like lfr I have no problem with it except for the fact that it's potentially made normal modes way harder and sucked ina whole bunch of players who would otherwise be raiding normals. In principle I have no problem with it though.

I have no idea why innovating the game will necessarily preclude half the players who already enjoy what they are playing. If blizzard does a good job then those players will like whatever else they create equally or potentially even more. People were happy with old school talent trees and yet it just had to be changed. The old guard has never really been an excuse to stop Blizzard from doing something in the past, I'm not sure why it should be now.

[Kanadei]

I don't consider small group play strong. It has next to no reward and isn't encouraged in the slightest. If challenge modes and scenarios rewarded gear then I could agree but simple creating a system and putting no substantial or real reward behind it isn't actually supporting the content.

I like lfr I have no problem with it except for the fact that it's potentially made normal modes way harder and sucked ina whole bunch of players who would otherwise be raiding normals. In principle I have no problem with it though.

I have no idea why innovating the game will necessarily preclude half the players who already enjoy what they are playing. If blizzard does a good job then those players will like whatever else they create equally or potentially even more. People were happy with old school talent trees and yet it just had to be changed. The old guard has never really been an excuse to stop Blizzard from doing something in the past, I'm not sure why it should be now.

Small group play has its time and place in the gearing strategy, although I agree its been usurped to some extent by dailies and LFR. Scenarios, and heroic scenarios when they are introduced, do reward good gear - it's just a bigger time investment then the epics which used to drop from the end of TBC heroics. It's a toss up really, adding substantial rewards to 5 mans devalues old raids - which are a massive time and effort investment and deserve to be valuable for progress.

I don't know if LFR really made normal modes any harder, it just cut away the "casual raiding" population to the point that getting a consistent team of decent people is harder than it used to be. Personally I found MSV no harder than I found BWD or BOT. But the lack of people raiding normals is annoying, although you could easily argue that its just stripping away the people who didn't really want to raid normals in the first place.

We're retracing to shaky territory here. "Innovating the game" and "doing a good job" are great to say, as well as the assumption that "players will like whatever else [Blizzard] creates equally or potentially more" but in the real world if you take risks you piss people off. The first two expansions (counting vanilla) operated off of a similar endgame structure and they are treasured as being the golden era for WoW. WoTLK and Cata began shaking these up and thats where the complaints began streaming in. As for talent trees, I agree that Blizzard jumped the mark for that - I personally don't see how the old "cookie-cutter" trees and the current "active" system are mutually exclusive, it would be quite easy to have both and give players even more control. The old guard has always been an excuse to an extent, Blizzard are careful not to change anything too much - even if they don't necessarily say so. Sure, they mix things up every now and again but we are still levelling, doing 5 mans, raiding then moving on to the next raid in that order like we always were (at least for PVE). It's really not as simple as "they should change things more, everyone would like it better or at least equally that way".

[Glorious Leader]

Small group play has its time and place in the gearing strategy, although I agree its been usurped to some extent by dailies and LFR. Scenarios, and heroic scenarios when they are introduced, do reward good gear - it's just a bigger time investment then the epics which used to drop from the end of TBC heroics. It's a toss up really, adding substantial rewards to 5 mans devalues old raids - which are a massive time and effort investment and deserve to be valuable for progress.

I don't know if LFR really made normal modes any harder, it just cut away the "casual raiding" population to the point that getting a consistent team of decent people is harder than it used to be. Personally I found MSV no harder than I found BWD or BOT. But the lack of people raiding normals is annoying, although you could easily argue that its just stripping away the people who didn't really want to raid normals in the first place.

We're retracing to shaky territory here. "Innovating the game" and "doing a good job" are great to say, as well as the assumption that "players will like whatever else [Blizzard] creates equally or potentially more" but in the real world if you take risks you piss people off. The first two expansions (counting vanilla) operated off of a similar endgame structure and they are treasured as being the golden era for WoW. WoTLK and Cata began shaking these up and thats where the complaints began streaming in. As for talent trees, I agree that Blizzard jumped the mark for that - I personally don't see how the old "cookie-cutter" trees and the current "active" system are mutually exclusive, it would be quite easy to have both and give players even more control. The old guard has always been an excuse to an extent, Blizzard are careful not to change anything too much - even if they don't necessarily say so. Sure, they mix things up every now and again but we are still levelling, doing 5 mans, raiding then moving on to the next raid in that order like we always were (at least for PVE). It's really not as simple as "they should change things more, everyone would like it better or at least equally that way".

Every time they make any change they take a risk of pissing people off. I don't understand where this argument comes from. They changed talent trees and pissed people off but it didn't stop them before. I like the new talent trees by and large and I was a huge skeptic before .They make constant class changes, in fact they even say that they make so many people leave the game. They still make changes. Really nothing ventured nothing gained. If their content to sit and watch the game flounder then it really doesn't say much about them does it.

Actually your dungeon example is perfect. You aren't by and large doing dungeons anymore, in fact they are actively trying to move away from that. They don't want you donig 5 mans as much and going forward I don't see them want you doing it at all. That's a huge change that upset alot of people and guess what? they did it anyway.

[The Ogdru Jahad]

I'd say either blizz loses no subs or 100k are lost or gained.

[randomone05]

if any change, id say a bump up in subs due to 5.2. and 5.3 is going to be a great patch, but not sure it will live up to 5.2 (raids) and what everyone and their mother is waiting for; 5.4 SoO. so for now, maybe around 10-20K increase. but im just some dude on the internet. probably wrong.

[Mouri Kogorou]

The hardest thing i have had in mop since i started this month is communicating with people other than the three guildies.

Almost no communication is required or learning for five mans. I just facerolled 5 man heroics.

Scenarios... I felt like i was playing with two other bots...


Bgs filled with bots.



There is almost no community, maybe my server is dead, no1 communicate in trade chat anymore. All i see is few bots asking for people to codmthem mop herbs.

[Kanadei]

Every time they make any change they take a risk of pissing people off. I don't understand where this argument comes from. They changed talent trees and pissed people off but it didn't stop them before. I like the new talent trees by and large and I was a huge skeptic before They make constant class changes, in fact they even say that they make so many people leave the game. They still make changes. Really nothing ventured nothing gained. If their content to sit and watch the game flounder then it really doesn't say much about them does it.

I'm not saying they don't make changes, or that the changes they do make don't annoy people. What I'm saying is that for you to sit here and say "they need to make the game newer and fresher and they aren't doing that and there is a lot more they could do to make it play like a newer mmo" is kind of aside from the point. They don't need the game to play like a newer MMO, the newer MMOs have got most of their success from emulating WoW not the other way around. Realistically Blizzard doesn't need to change a lot to keep the majority of people interested - and by changing a lot they risk losing even more than the wave of people who are pissed off by every other decision they make.

Until they have lost something in the vicinity of 20-25% within a year or two I don't really think we are in a place to say the game is "floundering". All I'm seeing is the typical peel off of players who play for the first 6 months after an expansions release, get bored and bail, with numbers more or less normalizing to what they were after Cataclysms losses of 1 - 1.5 million or so.

[dokilar]

i dont think you'll see anything more than a 100k swing in either direction.

[jahasafrat]

My prediction? Everyone will make a big deal out of it for no apparent reason.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! But seriously, do people really have so little else going on that this is worth contemplation?

[Kanadei]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! But seriously, do people really have so little else going on that this is worth contemplation?

Do you really have so little else going on that this was worth commenting on?

[Glorious Leader]

I'm not saying they don't make changes, or that the changes they do make don't annoy people. What I'm saying is that for you to sit here and say "they need to make the game newer and fresher and they aren't doing that and there is a lot more they could do to make it play like a newer mmo" is kind of aside from the point. They don't need the game to play like a newer MMO, the newer MMOs have got most of their success from emulating WoW not the other way around. Realistically Blizzard doesn't need to change a lot to keep the majority of people interested - and by changing a lot they risk losing even more than the wave of people who are pissed off by every other decision they make.

Until they have lost something in the vicinity of 20-25% within a year or two I don't really think we are in a place to say the game is "floundering". All I'm seeing is the typical peel off of players who play for the first 6 months after an expansions release, get bored and bail, with numbers more or less normalizing to what they were after Cataclysms losses of 1 - 1.5 million or so.

No it isn't aside from the point. It is EXACTLY the point. Everyone saying it's old is acting as if this is just the way the game is and nothing can be done about it. It's an excuse made up to defend poor development decisions on the part of the developer. I don't agree that they can just rest on their laurels like that. I also don't agree their content to watch the game whittle away into nothing.

Saying they don't need to change anything to keep the majority of players content is an argument for them not to grow the game again. It's an argument to just accept further stagnation and further decline. It's so fatalist. I can't imagine the developers are happy about that. Can you imagine the morale of working at such a place? Where you know the dagger is falling even if it's slow.

[Kanadei]

No it isn't aside from the point. It is EXACTLY the point. Everyone saying it's old is acting as if this is just the way the game is and nothing can be done about it. It's an excuse made up to defend poor development decisions on the part of the developer. I don't agree that they can just rest on their laurels like that. I also don't agree their content to watch the game whittle away into nothing.

Saying they don't need to change anything to keep the majority of players content is an argument for them not to grow the game again. It's an argument to just accept further stagnation and further decline. I can't imagine the developers are happy about that. Can you imagine the morale of working at such a place? Where you know the dagger is falling even if it's slow.

Nobody is saying they are "resting on their laurels" and stopping to change anything at all. The only thing I have said (again and again) is that there is no point trying to reinvent the wheel when you already have a massively successful game on your hands and people genuinely enjoy playing more of the same content that they have been producing for the better part of the last decade.

Sure jumping to World of Warcraft 2.0 and changing a whole bunch of things at once would be fun. It would be new and interesting and could revitalize some peoples opinions about the game. Equally it could alienate the 10 or so million people playing at the moment who are enjoying what they are doing, and it would be a massive financial risk for an unpredictable amount of gain (if any).

The game IS growing. It grows and changes all the time. The issue here is that you are taking issue with the rate of growth, when sales and continuing user support seem to indicate that while numbers may have diminished from their peak a few years back, there is a large majority who are content with the path the game is taking and the time it takes to advance.

[Glorious Leader]

Nobody is saying they are "resting on their laurels" and stopping to change anything at all. The only thing I have said (again and again) is that there is no point trying to reinvent the wheel when you already have a massively successful game on your hands and people genuinely enjoy playing more of the same content that they have been producing for the better part of the last decade.

Sure jumping to World of Warcraft 2.0 and changing a whole bunch of things at once would be fun. It would be new and interesting and could revitalize some peoples opinions about the game. Equally it could alienate the 10 or so million people playing at the moment who are enjoying what they are doing, and it would be a massive financial risk for an unpredictable amount of gain (if any).

The game IS growing. It grows and changes all the time. The issue here is that you are taking issue with the rate of growth, when sales and continuing user support seem to indicate that while numbers may have diminished from their peak a few years back, there is a large majority who are content with the path the game is taking and the time it takes to advance.

No their is a point in "reinventing the wheel". Growing the game again. The game ISN'T growing, it's bleeding subs and the trend is that it will continue to do this. It won't alienate anybody if the changes made to the game are on the whole good. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The large majority who are content, is shrinking and the reason for that according to everybody on this forum who defends them is that the game is old. Well you want to stop that attrition you rejuvenate the game with innovation. The game may be chronologically old but theirs nothing to say that it has to FEEL old. This is one case where you can have your cake it eat it to.

[Kanadei]

No their is a point in "reinventing the wheel". Growing the game again. The game ISN'T growing, it's bleeding subs and the trend is that it will continue to do this. It won't alienate anybody if the changes made to the game are on the whole good. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The large majority who are content, is shrinking and the reason for that according to everybody on this forum who defends them is that the game is old. Well you want to stop that attrition you rejuvenate the game with innovation. The game may be chronologically old but theirs nothing to say that it has to FEEL old. This is one case where you can have your cake it eat it to.

But the game doesn't need to grow. It's quite literally the largest subscription based game in the known world, why would you need to risk that on the gamble that you might be able to get EVEN MORE subs? Talk about greedy.

It's far from bleeding subs in any case. Yes, the number has gone down by a bit over the last 4 years or so, but its still very comfortably in the green and the numbers consistently rise when every expansion is released and then consistently fall a bit afterwards. That's just common sense.

This game IS old. It's an OLD game which is why its so STRANGE and LUCKY that people are still willing to pay for it month-by-month. I mean, it's even an old and outdated payment scheme which they somehow make work. Sure, they could risk it all on the offchance they could make the game "feel [new]" but it really would be a stupid risk. Until they are forced to change things drastically, making a change to that extent is just poor business. People want a product and more or less receive the product they want. The game makes money, everyone wins.

[Glorious Leader]

But the game doesn't need to grow. It's quite literally the largest subscription based game in the known world, why would you need to risk that on the gamble that you might be able to get EVEN MORE subs? Talk about greedy.

It's far from bleeding subs in any case. Yes, the number has gone down by a bit over the last 4 years or so, but its still very comfortably in the green and the numbers consistently rise when every expansion is released and then consistently fall a bit afterwards. That's just common sense.

This game IS old. It's an OLD game which is why its so STRANGE and LUCKY that people are still willing to pay for it month-by-month. I mean, it's even an old and outdated payment scheme which they somehow make work. Sure, they could risk it all on the offchance they could make the game "feel [new]" but it really would be a stupid risk. Until they are forced to change things drastically, making a change to that extent is just poor business. People want a product and more or less receive the product they want. The game makes money, everyone wins.

Because if it's not growing it's stagnating. That's why it needs to grow. It isn't far from bleeding subs, it actually is on a trend of loosing subscribers. It's not about greed, it's just about the trend.

Yes the game is chronologically old. Doesn't mean it has to feel old. It can and should be rejuvenated.