Why is Exclusive content a bad thing to some people?

[Seefer]

If you remove LFR then only raiders can raid. If you removed tier pieces from LFR only raiders get those. That is the only argument on these threads.

But you are correct I should have stated that differently.

Uh..........yeah only raiders should raid otherwise they wouldn't be raiders they would just be some scrub #30000, if you want to raid RAID, don't even think of claiming LFR is raiding either.

[Ronduwil]

Uh..........yeah only raiders should raid otherwise they wouldn't be raiders they would just be some scrub #30000, if you want to raid RAID, don't even think of claiming LFR is raiding either.

So the 'R' in LFR stands for what? Rig? Rudeness? Racket? Riot? Rowdiness? Ra-den? I was under the misconception that all this time it stood for 'raid.' Thanks for the clarification. I can't believe people would make such an outlandish claim.

[Seefer]

So the 'R' in LFR stands for what? Rig? Rudeness? Racket? Riot? Rowdiness? Ra-den? I was under the misconception that all this time it stood for 'raid.' Thanks for the clarification. I can't believe people would make such an outlandish claim.

I have a word for what the R stands for but won't use it, LFR is not raiding sorry, when you can ignore mechanics or just go AFK and get loot it isn't raiding.

[Otimus]

I have a word for what the R stands for but won't use it, LFR is not raiding sorry, when you can ignore mechanics or just go AFK and get loot it isn't raiding.

It's just a game, dude. What does putting people down serve? You're like, the videogame form of some sort of quasi-bigot.

[Sierra85]

There is no reason to make content exclusive any more. There is no barrier of entry for Heroic content, and you can see right now how few people are actually doing it.

yeah pretty much this, and that's the main problem. Is that just the times changing and the game evolving naturally or is that purely from blizzard wanting to cash in on as many subs as possible?

[Deleted]

The barrier for enty into Heroic content is that you have to clear normal first.

Yes, Blizz did away with all exclusivity to cash in on as many casuals as possible. Seems it backfired though.

[khalltusk]

The barrier for enty into Heroic content is that you have to clear normal first.

Yes, Blizz did away with all exclusivity to cash in on as many casuals as possible. Seems it backfired though.

There is no data to suggest it though, all we have is opinion on what caused all these sub losses.

Some people will burn through the content regardless its always been like that. (I know a lot of guys who burn through it) I used to my self but now i'm mainly doing fun stuff and will clear ToT LFR when my friend reaches max level so I don't get sick of it waiting.

I will be glad when flex raiding is out as I will be tempted to give it a go. the guys I play with are not really normal/heroic raiding material but can easily complete LFR so I want them to give flex a whirl and see how it goes.

I do think LFR and such can do with improvements to those features.

[LeperHerring]

There is no data to suggest it though, all we have is opinion on what caused all these sub losses.

What we do know is that LFD/LFR did not make the game wildly popular, and further, that the game without those features was much more popular than it is today. That does not prove causality of course (to shut up all the "hurrdurr correlation does not imply causation" drones), but it does prove that it's possible to be more successful without LFR/LFD than with them.

[Deleted]

What we do know is that LFD/LFR did not make the game wildly popular, and further, that the game without those features was much more popular than it is today. That does not prove causality of course (to shut up all the "hurrdurr correlation does not imply causation" drones), but it does prove that it's possible to be more successful without LFR/LFD than with them.

Correct.

However, its safer to say that the entire direction change in game-design is much more likely to be a major factor in explaining the large amount of players unsubbing. LFR and LFD are part of that game-design direction and therefore can be held to account from this correlation.

The game-design direction can also include other things such as, Pandas, childish artwork, simplification of talent trees, homogenisation, installation of more queing systems etc etc.

[khalltusk]

What we do know is that LFD/LFR did not make the game wildly popular, and further, that the game without those features was much more popular than it is today. That does not prove causality of course (to shut up all the "hurrdurr correlation does not imply causation" drones), but it does prove that it's possible to be more successful without LFR/LFD than with them.

Actually it does and doesn't prove it was more successful.

On the one hand yes the game had the most subscribers prior to this system. On the other we know that the games market has changed a lot since then. For instance we have an abundance of free to play games and MMOs. So there is a lot more competition that you can play for free which will entice some people in. There are a lot of factors though so its hard to say what the true cause of the lost subs are. I for one think its a combination of factors.

Burning through content too quickly for some, daily reputation being a major barrier early mop, lack of alt friendly features (tied to daily rep some what) F2P market growing a lot and general burn out from some wow customers.

Put them together and you have a possible reason for the huge sub loss.

LFR and LFD did prove to show that a lot of people who did not raid prior to this were now raiding. So it does serve a purpose. On the other hand did it contribute to player fatigue or also as importantly did a lot of casual players think ok I beat the game and quit. It's an open question. For me its a great feature I can login and get a raid/dungeon/scenario when ever I want with little effort. On the other I think LFR was a bit too easy for me and am looking forward to Flex to give me a bit more of a challenge (as much as I can get with some of my friends who are bad at this sort of thing).

I think personally LFR and LFD are good features and just need some adjustments to make them last longer content wise (so people don't wtf pwn and burn through it too quickly) and to try and offer incentives to step up to the other raiding tiers for people who have never tried raiding and want to make that step up.

---------- Post added 2013-06-19 at 12:47 PM ----------

Correct.

However, its safer to say that the entire direction change in game-design is much more likely to be a major factor in explaining the large amount of players unsubbing. LFR and LFD are part of that game-design direction and therefore can be held to account from this correlation.

The game-design direction can also include other things such as, Pandas, childish artwork, simplification of talent trees, homogenisation, installation of more queing systems etc etc.

Thats purely subjective. Childish artwork/pandas is possibly the worst example. We have talking cows and pink haired gnomes for chirst sake. The artwork has always been cartoon like in nature and the market appealing to a youngish audiance. The talent trees was a controversial change. On the one hand I agree it was a stupid system that offered no real choice before and now its a good setup but I feel it lacks some more choices/talents in general. Homogenisation I partially agree. It was nice to have something that sets you apart from other classes but on the other hand raid groups did struggle to get the right combination of classes to fill their raids.

As for queueing systems, I can see what you mean but its a double edged sword. I for one like the fact I can queue up for a dungeon and raid and get on with doing stuff while I wait for a group to be found. It was more productive than sitting in trade chat trying to get a group (which could be faster than waiting in a queue sometimes)

[Deleted]

Thats purely subjective. Childish artwork/pandas is possibly the worst example. We have talking cows and pink haired gnomes for chirst sake.

Completely agree... but the MoP overall artwork direction is extremnely Disneylike compared to lets say, Wrath, which had a much darker and consequently adult asthetic.

One point worth adding is that Taurens (Minotaurs) and Gnomes do actually have historical and traditional places within fantasy RPG... Pandas on the otherhand had only one correlation in modern fantasy and that was KungFu Panda. Like it or not, that connection was and will continue to be thrown at the Wow direction.

The artwork has always been cartoon like in nature and the market appealing to a youngish audiance. The talent trees was a controversial change. On the one hand I agree it was a stupid system that offered no real choice before and now its a good setup but I feel it lacks some more choices/talents in general. Homogenisation I partially agree. It was nice to have something that sets you apart from other classes but on the other hand raid groups did struggle to get the right combination of classes to fill their raids.

As for queueing systems, I can see what you mean but its a double edged sword. I for one like the fact I can queue up for a dungeon and raid and get on with doing stuff while I wait for a group to be found. It was more productive than sitting in trade chat trying to get a group (which could be faster than waiting in a queue sometimes)

I was just throwing out game-design points off the top of my head, i could list another 20 points if i needed to. I could throw in questing, flightpaths, flying mounts, re-using old dungeons and raids, crafting... all aspects that have been changed, and arguably simplified, since Wrath.

[Osmeric]

I'd argue that the biggest change affecting "casuals" in MoP has been a reduction in the benefit/time ratio. The game simply became grindier. Look at the VP payout, for example. Blizzard confused "I have nothing to do!" with "I want to have to do more!" It should be no surprise that some casual players didn't like this: their game suddenly became more expensive (in time, which is the dominant cost) to play.

[khalltusk]

Completely agree... but the MoP overall artwork direction is extremnely Disneylike compared to lets say, Wrath, which had a much darker and consequently adult asthetic.

One point worth adding is that Taurens (Minotaurs) and Gnomes do actually have historical and traditional places within fantasy RPG... Pandas on the otherhand had only one correlation in modern fantasy and that was KungFu Panda. Like it or not, that connection was and will continue to be thrown at the Wow direction.




I was just throwing out game-design points off the top of my head, i could list another 20 points if i needed to. I could throw in questing, flightpaths, flying mounts, re-using old dungeons and raids, crafting... all aspects that have been changed, and arguably simplified, since Wrath.

Yeh I agree about the art direction, Wrath had a strong norse theme to it overall which was great. TBC had a high fantasy which split opinion. Vanilla was very DND in design as was cata. MoP is a change in direction and I guess its a love/hate thing. I loved it others hate it. I agree about kung fu panda aside from the wc3 bonus mission way back when pandas really did not have much lore in wow. Still the story in mop has been great. If it was any other race than pandaren no doubt people would not bat an eye lid.

Questing I think has been handled great but sometimes its a bit TOO linear. Flightpaths whats exactly wrong with them? Don't tell me you want Vanilla mode back on where you have to get off at each stop and then hop back on again.... As far as I know you still have to locate the flight paths as you did before in pandaria.

Flying mounts, yeh pandoras box has been opened since TBC. Honestly if they disallowed it in wrath and cata we would not have this problem. For outlands it made sense to include them as the place was designed for their use. Now it does make it feel cheap (yeh its fucking convenient though!)

The old dungeons and raids so far no old raid has been remade aside Nax 2.0 and that I can see why it was remade as it fits with Arthas and ofc it was hardly seen in Vanilla. As for old dungeons, I do agree we should have more new heroic dungeons than retuned existing ones. I do however think it was right to re-tune those dungeons for the lower levels to make them better.

Crafting for me has always been rubbish I do like the fact blacksmithing got the old TBC weapons and a chance to remake them in the thunder forge (currently made one at 476 level for my brother) but yeh professions require more work.

[Deleted]

@Khalltusk

U dont need to address every point i bring up, theyre just examples! lol

Im simply regurgitating arguments that can be found all over these forums concerning changes in the game since Wrath which has arguably simplified the game. I was making the connection that LFR and LFD should be discussed in this context and not on their own... LFR and LFD cannot be held accountable for sub-losses on their own... theyre part of a much larger direction change in game-design from Blizzard.

Thats my point.

NOTE: flightpaths, the fact theyve added loads more to the map is another indication of simplification to the game overall.

[Austilias]

Entitlement. It began when people began thinking that their subscription fee entitled them to see/do everything in the game, rather than merely granting them access to a server, the right to make an avatar, enter the world and progress in accordance with one's own merits. This mindset is fortunately rarely encountered beyond MMORPGs.

[LeperHerring]

Actually it does and doesn't prove it was more successful.

It was more popular.

On the one hand yes the game had the most subscribers prior to this system. On the other we know that the games market has changed a lot since then. For instance we have an abundance of free to play games and MMOs. So there is a lot more competition that you can play for free which will entice some people in. There are a lot of factors though so its hard to say what the true cause of the lost subs are. I for one think its a combination of factors.

You can find all kinds of correlations and claim those as causation. For example, rise of f2p model correlates with a fall of WoW's subs, therefore f2p caused WoW's subs. Your line of thinking is completely useless.

LFR and LFD did prove to show that a lot of people who did not raid prior to this were now raiding. So it does serve a purpose. On the other hand did it contribute to player fatigue or also as importantly did a lot of casual players think ok I beat the game and quit. It's an open question. For me its a great feature I can login and get a raid/dungeon/scenario when ever I want with little effort. On the other I think LFR was a bit too easy for me and am looking forward to Flex to give me a bit more of a challenge (as much as I can get with some of my friends who are bad at this sort of thing).

Depends how you define "raiding". Personally I don't consider LFR raiding since it doesn't match most of the characteristics I associate with the TBC style raiding. You're in a 25 man instance with some bosses that drop purples, but that's really a superficial similarity. Aspects like building and leading a team over an extended period to progressively make it further and further into the instance are completely missing.

[khalltusk]

@Khalltusk

U dont need to address every point i bring up, theyre just examples! lol

Im simply regurgitating arguments that can be found all over these forums concerning changes in the game since Wrath which has arguably simplified the game. I was making the connection that LFR and LFD should be discussed in this context and not on their own... LFR and LFD cannot be held accountable for sub-losses on their own... theyre part of a much larger direction change in game-design from Blizzard.

Thats my point.

NOTE: flightpaths, the fact theyve added loads more to the map is another indication of simplification to the game overall.

I just like discussing things.

I see your point on flight paths though, until flying mounts are used its kinda handy to have pre 90 in Pandaria.

[Osmeric]

Entitlement. It began when people began thinking that their subscription fee entitled them to see/do everything in the game, rather than merely granting them access to a server, the right to make an avatar, enter the world and progress in accordance with one's own merits. This mindset is fortunately rarely encountered beyond MMORPGs.

Entitlement is a propaganda word. It's used to disparage and disempower the average player. Apparently, in this mindset, requiring that a consumer product actually satisfy oneself is asking too much.

[khalltusk]

It was more popular.



You can find all kinds of correlations and claim those as causation. For example, rise of f2p model correlates with a fall of WoW's subs, therefore f2p caused WoW's subs. Your line of thinking is completely useless.



Depends how you define "raiding". Personally I don't consider LFR raiding since it doesn't match most of the characteristics I associate with the TBC style raiding. You're in a 25 man instance with some bosses that drop purples, but that's really a superficial similarity. Aspects like building and leading a team over an extended period to progressively make it further and further into the instance are completely missing.

Yes it had larger subs prior to LFR thing is LFR came out with dragon soul and Cata was losing subs with a FAR more hardcore setup than wrath had. The raids and dungeons prior to the nerfs were brutal compared to anything in wrath. Hardmodes in wrath aside that is. So LFR is not the proof that the game was more popular as the decline happened prior to LFR its just continued that downward trend afterwards.

My line of thinking is not useless as you've not disproven or proven anything. Like I said I think theres a few factors that accounts for sub falls but regardless its all opinion. The fact more F2p games exist and are very popular gives some ammunition to this theory.

I define raiding by playing with friends in large groups. LFR allows me to "raid" but not to the level I used to prior. A lot of people never raided prior to the implementation of LFR. For good or bad it has allowed more people to raid than ever before. It in my eyes is the same as any other game with a difficulty level. You choose between easy medium and hard. Same thing in wow. I am hoping flex gives me more of a challenge but still allowing me to play with my friends. I won't ever go back to hardcore raiding as I dont fancy putting that much effort into raiding anymore (by effort I mean time).

Raiding is one of those things though some people think only "the super cool hardcore are allowed" Well if thats the case since the super hardcore make up a vastly smaller amount then raids should receive the smallest budget. Then leveling/questing can receive more as can dungeons etc. This would be a disaster for those people wishing to raid.

[Deleted]

Raiding is one of those things though some people think only "the super cool hardcore are allowed" Well if thats the case since the super hardcore make up a vastly smaller amount then raids should receive the smallest budget. Then leveling/questing can receive more as can dungeons etc. This would be a disaster for those people wishing to raid.

Which brings us all the way round to the title of the thread "Why is exclusive content a bad thing to some people?"

Exclusive content game-design means that it doesnt matter if they budget so much towards the endgame raiding because its the exclusivity of those raids within the game which adds overall value to the game itself. In otherwords, the fact that there is an almost unreachable finale to the expansion actually keeps more players content than allowing everyone to 'see' all of this content (through something like LFR).

Exclusive content gives everyone something to aim at for the duration of the entire expansion. LFR is proving that spoonfeeding the content to everyone without asking them to perform any effort whatsoever is devaluing the content.

Thats my opinion anyway...