Why are people genuinely mad that Classic is a success?

[Deletedaccount1]

Every expansion is Blizzard making it up. Warcraft 1, 2, and 3 were all made up. How is Shadowlands any different in that aspect?

Because back then it was driven by creativity and passion and not a desire to keep cash stringing along. The little talent and passion still left at Blizzard is working on their newer projects. WoW relied heavily on the world built by those 3 games because WoW was never good at telling or expanding the Warcraft story, it simply used it up. It's been 15 years now and they've officially drained Warcraft of everything that the 3 RTS games and the books created.

[Majestic12]

You guys brought this on yourselves, we told you that you wouldn't like it but noooo, original Classic was soooo good, so much better than modern

It is better than modern, lmao. I wouldn't trade any version of Classic for your trash version of the game.

I always wanted the private server version. I didn't bring shit upon myself. Anyone with experience and a bit of sense would stand against the 1.12 version of the game, with artificial raid progression, Kronos-like itemization(which messes up the game - you'll see when people get R14 weapons) and just flat out trash optimization for PvP.

If your argument is that the popular consensus was that Classic would overtake retail in players I call BS on that.

Still, the fact that Classic is a huge success for Blizzard is a fact. It's showing its bad sides now beacuse of terrible decisions by Blizzard, that many were speaking against since the beginning with pure FACTS coming from patch notes and so forth.

Bottom line: Private servers -> Classic -> Modern WoW.

[Deletedaccount1]

Good comment! I'm just wondering if there's that much people on mmoc that are actually STILL playing the game or it have become the place to just trash on Wow!

To answer your question, there's not many people anywhere still playing retail.

[Pete]

Think its cool that it is enjoying the success it has, my only negative is not having the time to enjoy it in full, but then that is nobody elses fault.. and I got to enjoy it the first time around anyway Was a brilliant time to game

Don't get why we can't just accept both games do things well in different ways tbh, its like the console/pc master race thing all over

[deenman]

maybe dont play on a pvp server then baby

you think you do....but you dont...baby,has been proven 100% right

[arkanon]

Go to their website. Duh

Their website shows a price of $2,000. Not "tens of thousands of dollars".

[keldarepewpew]

Why do people genuinely believe a vocal minority that likes to spout hatred is representative for the opinion of the general crowd.

[Tweedzz]

To answer your question, there's not many people anywhere still playing retail.

Mod seems to disagree with you on that point, at least in terms of raw interest. Unfortunately, we have no real way to be certain of the numbers for either/both games.

Anecdotally, my experience has been most of my guild/friends dropping classic at about the 2 month mark. I am personally hoping it does well enough to merit BC servers.

[themaster24]

From a statistical standpoint, 20k is far larger of a sample than what is needed for accurate results. If their methodology for data collection and analysis was sound, then results from such a sample should be adequate. Frankly speaking you could do it with 1000 to 2000 people and still be accurate. Many high reputable pollsters for national political elections only get between 1000 and 2000 respondents and are considered reputable and accurate.

20,000 is roughly .00006% of the US population, and even at the supposed estimate that around 1/3 of the population are TV watchers, that's still .00018%. Purely on that fact alone, for something like TV, that is not a very good sample size. Just because 20,000 is a good sample size for some statistical studies, doesn't mean it is for all. TV is far more complex from this standpoint than a yes or no poll, whether or not a certain medicine has severe reactions, or who will you vote for. There are very limited data points the be looked for in these kinds of studies, and thus, smaller sample sizes are viable.

TV, on the other hand, has a vast swath of data points, far greater than 20,000 can properly handle. A single person can only watch one show live (generally speaking), but that doesn't properly indicate engagement for the whole spectrum of shows. Look at TV shows that get cancelled for "poor" ratings, and then millions upon millions of fans appear, and then suddenly another network picks up the show.

Nielsen is not only woefully outdated, they are also a monopoly in this business. No one else exist in the viewership game, therefore allowing Nielsen to do whatever it wants without reproach. That's what makes the figures Nielsen puts out the word of god in the business world, even when many executives in the TV industry have openly admitted the system is inaccurate and antiquated.

[AcidicSyn]

IS this really a big thing? As far as i can see generally most ppl actually are happy and its just some niche groups of ppl that either don't like retail or don't like classic and troll about it.

14 pages in yet here is the /thread response way back at number 3 pg 1.

People love being angry.

[Queendom]

Is it though?

[Jazzhands]

Shadowlands looks like trash. They have literally killed off or finished the story of every notable Warcraft character so they are just making shit up at this point.

You... You do know that fictional story telling is literally all just made up shit right? Every story in Warcraft is just made up shit. All the good story and all the bad story, just shit they made up at one point or another. They need to continue making shit up one way or another, because some shit will be shit still but some shit will still be decent. A lot of people still enjoy a lot of the shit they make up.

[Tweedzz]

20,000 is roughly .00006% of the US population, and even at the supposed estimate that around 1/3 of the population are TV watchers, that's still .00018%. Purely on that fact alone, for something like TV, that is not a very good sample size. Just because 20,000 is a good sample size for some statistical studies, doesn't mean it is for all. TV is far more complex from this standpoint than a yes or no poll, whether or not a certain medicine has severe reactions, or who will you vote for. There are very limited data points the be looked for in these kinds of studies, and thus, smaller sample sizes are viable.

TV, on the other hand, has a vast swath of data points, far greater than 20,000 can properly handle. A single person can only watch one show live (generally speaking), but that doesn't properly indicate engagement for the whole spectrum of shows. Look at TV shows that get cancelled for "poor" ratings, and then millions upon millions of fans appear, and then suddenly another network picks up the show.

Nielsen is not only woefully outdated, they are also a monopoly in this business. No one else exist in the viewership game, therefore allowing Nielsen to do whatever it wants without reproach. That's what makes the figures Nielsen puts out the word of god in the business world, even when many executives in the TV industry have openly admitted the system is inaccurate and antiquated.

That's not really how statistics work. You could have a population in the trillions and only need a sample of 200 people for measuring a single yes/no variable (if you don't mind a 95% confidence interval). Frankly, population is not a huge factor in determining an appropriate sample size, other than the fact that you obviously can't have a sample larger than your population. Most national studies only involve samples from the range of hundreds to thousands of participants. The larger your sample, the more precise your answer, but we don't need massive samples to get a reasonable likelihood that our answer is right.

Numbers here are not the problem, potential sampling bias could be though.

EDIT: There are not many quickly accessible resources for this topic (stats books), but here is a decent article on the subject: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...l-of-only-100/

[Relapses]

You do not understand statistics at all, obviously.

It's easy to say somebody doesn't understand statistics when you disagree with what somebody says these statistics represent.

No matter how you dress it, Superdata is guessing. And any claim that "subs tripled" is simply comparing one set of guessed numbers to another set of guessed numbers.

[Shibito]

Only reason i enjoy classic is i know TBC will come the greatest wow of all times.

[themaster24]

That's not really how statistics work. You could have a population in the trillions and only need a sample of 200 people for measuring a single yes/no variable (if you don't mind a 95% confidence interval). Frankly, population is not a huge factor in determining an appropriate sample size, other than the fact that you obviously can't have a sample larger than your population. Most national studies only involve samples from the range of hundreds to thousands of participants. The larger your sample, the more precise your answer, but we don't need massive samples to get a reasonable likelihood that our answer is right.

Numbers here are not the problem, potential sampling bias could be though.

EDIT: There are not many quickly accessible resources for this topic (stats books), but here is a decent article on the subject: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...l-of-only-100/

You're right, the primary issue is that TV has A LOT of data points (Really, the population thing to me is more of an absurd feeling, when you consider how complex TV data is). That is primarily what impacts the sample size you look for. If you are researching something that is 2 data points (Yes/No), you don't need much because there's only so much variance that can come from that, so it's much easier to collect a small pool of samples. Yet, Nielsen has been constantly adding more to it's sample size in the last 5-6 years as it recognizes that as TV has exploded, it's numbers are lacking.

Also tack this into the fact that not only does Nielsen use their sample size to extrapolate total viewership, they also utilize weighted users to infer the viability of very specific points (the coveted Demos, Ethnic Viewership, etc). It just doesn't work well with TV, and history has often found that very popular shows come up with poor Nielsen ratings.

[Tweedzz]

You're right, the primary issue is that TV has A LOT of data points (Really, the population thing to me is more of an absurd feeling, when you consider how complex TV data is). That is primarily what impacts the sample size you look for. If you are researching something that is 2 data points (Yes/No), you don't need much because there's only so much variance that can come from that, so it's much easier to collect a small pool of samples. Yet, Nielsen has been constantly adding more to it's sample size in the last 5-6 years as it recognizes that as TV has exploded, it's numbers are lacking.

Also tack this into the fact that not only does Nielsen use their sample size to extrapolate total viewership, they also utilize weighted users to infer the viability of very specific points (the coveted Demos, Ethnic Viewership, etc). It just doesn't work well with TV, and history has often found that very popular shows come up with poor Nielsen ratings.

Ah, that's fair. Frankly I don't know much about Neilsen, or TV data, my comments come from general statistical stuff, not the specific scenario.

[Beefhammer]

You do not understand statistics at all, obviously.

I understand perfectly. I also know limiting you data set won't get you accurate results as Rasmussen does when polling mostly people on land lines and Nielson does when getting data from mainly TV users, not people who watch online through non TV devices.

Again, they may be perfectly in accurate amonst TV users but people have been moving away from TVs for years, yet ratings are still based on who sits and watches programs on a TV. Which is missing an important, growing and soon to eclipse TV users.

- - - Updated - - -

You... You do know that fictional story telling is literally all just made up shit right? Every story in Warcraft is just made up shit. All the good story and all the bad story, just shit they made up at one point or another. They need to continue making shit up one way or another, because some shit will be shit still but some shit will still be decent. A lot of people still enjoy a lot of the shit they make up.

He just a shitposter. Would be best to put him on ignore.

But this does get me. People bitch about Bkizzard making shit up. As if it all wasn't just made up. Hell almost 75% of everything that launched in Vanilla was not in the RTS games, maps completely redone to mak a living world, races invented, cities created, factions, elemental planes and all that jazz. These same people would complain if the game only consisted of stuff from the RTS about how Blizzard is unimaginative.

[Beet]

Just had a quick look and i see they are like,.....$2,000? am i missing something? Where did they (not you i realize) come up with "tens of thousands of dollars". That would mean $20,000 - $90,000 in my book, not $2,000.

It amazes me how dishonest and disingenuous people can be on these forums just to desperately try and push their agenda.

- - - Updated - - -



If you read my posts as well in this thread its the same question - why are SOME of the classic fans so desperate to defend "their" game that they constantly lie and grossly exaggerate things to push their agenda. In this thread alone someone claimed certain data was reliable because it costs "tens of thousands of dollars". Turns out it costs $2k, and thats just the general public full price, before taking into account any discounts, if they got charged at all.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree entirely with this comment.

Wow editing my comment to agree with it. So clever! Herp de derp. The fact is classic got a ton of people back that hadn’t touched retail in years. That’s a success. You can hate it all you want but they’ve had a success. A failure would have been three servers all dying fast. I mean shit of what we have now isn’t a success I don’t know what you expected. They rereleased a 15 year old game and it got them many people back that hadn’t touched the game in a decade. It isn’t like they had to put a ton of work into it either as they’ve said it took nothing away from retail to do it. But go head and seethe that some people happen to enjoy classic more than BFA.

I also like how you talk about people pushing agendas when all your posts are literally that. Why do you seethe so much that people prefer classic over live? It’s like imagine getting mad at someone who says Final Fantasy 7 is better than the newest one. Those damn fools don’t they realize the newest final fantasy improved on 7 in every way? How dare they!

[retailpleb]

Game discussions have largely moved to other platforms. Retail WoW is somewhat alive on Reddit and the Blizz forums do a lot of business. There's a great interest in News about the retail game as seen on this site, WowHead and Icy Veins. My impression is that many people who want to seriously discuss the retail game are doing so on Discord and as much as people scoff about it, I'm aware of at least two Facebook groups with casual players that are well over 10,000 strong, very active and in tone about as much unlike MMO-C as it's possible to be. So much for the idea that there's no interest in Retail WoW, BfA as an expansion or Classic. There's a fuck of a lot more people with an interest in BFA/Shadowlands than in Classic even on this site. If you spend most of your time here and think that represents the greater universe of WoW players, you are most certainly wrong.

Anyone wanting to talk constructively about either game, who absolutely will be met with "X is trash," won't stay here long because there's very little discussion going on here. This site has been my home for WoW discussion for years but I'm not so blind that I can't see that the forums here have been marginalized into unimportant, unconstructive and often stupid immature fights with people who are much more interested in insulting one another and fighting over trivial things.

That's the problem with this thread specifically. There's a lot of blame to go around on both sides yet people think it's remarkably clever to talk up the one thing and completely ignore the other. This game vs. game shit is cancerous to both games. Most of what you see on forums these days--both pro and con nearly any topic including World of Warcraft--is less communication and more public performance.

I have never understanded how a moderator is allowed to post such false things. Classic wow have a lot more interest on almost ALL sites except mmo champion and wow forums (close though). Look at google trending search, twitch, discord chats, etc....

I have always not quite understand why mmo-champion only hire people who are pro-retail, as seen in all your posts.
Theres like 2x the playerbase in classic than retail and the moderator here still claims otherwise..