"Catering to 5% of your player base will leave you with 5% of your player base"

[Glazey]

"Designed to be able to be played Solo"

Happy?

Salty over getting called out?

[Triceron]

Salty over getting called out?

I don't think it's worth having arguments with people who are anally retentive over semantics. Easier to just update my statement.

[MoanaLisa]

Uhm it stands for "massively multiplayer online role-playing game", always has. wth
And yeah u would lose that bet.

There nothing, nada, zero, in the word multiplayer that defines how people interact with each other or if they must interact at all. It's just a big game with people sharing a world online. How they go about that is something entirely different.

[Tiwack]

Catering to FOMO-players will leave you with FOMO-players!
Am I doing this right?

[Glazey]

I don't think it's worth having arguments with people who are anally retentive over semantics. Easier to just update my statement.

bruh that's not semantics, your statement wasn't the same as what's factual.

semantics would be like saying "Quests and Exploration are designed for multiple people to experience together" "Quests and Exploration are intended as a multiplayer experience"

[Imaginekekw]

I'm very disappointed with whole announcement. No single world about casual and solo players.
Imo Ion again will focus on raiders and make ppl quit fast.

You are literally trash in the game so go Get chemo and dont play more please

[Triceron]

bruh that's not semantics, your statement wasn't the same as what's factual.

semantics would be like saying "Quests and Exploration are designed for multiple people to experience together" "Quests and Exploration are intended as a multiplayer experience"

It's semantics because the context of my argument was regarding MMOs having a solo viable component to them. That you needed it to be specific is literally being anally retentive, because you could have easily gleaned the meaning and context of my argument, you just wanted to be 'that guy' instead and make a fuss about it.

So bravo, to you, sir. I will be setting you on ignore now, since you're just wasting my time.

[Glazey]

It's semantics because the context of my argument was regarding MMOs having a solo viable component to them. That you needed it to be specific is literally being anally retentive, because you could have easily gleaned the meaning and context of my argument, you just wanted to be 'that guy' instead and make a fuss about it.

So bravo, to you, sir. I will be setting you on ignore now, since you're just wasting my time.

What I saw is that you tried using a false statement as to why you're right in that argument, was proven wrong, then tried saying "if a quest is faster this way, then thats the intended design" then incorrectly used the word semantics as if your original statement implied that it was player agency and not designed for solo content.

[Berndorf]

Did you forget the part where WotLK was the most successful expansion Blizzard ever released?

I think in terms of gaining subs tbc was more successful. Wrath basically just maintained the subs gained in tbc and added a little. Not that I'm against most of the changes made in Wrath but WoW really took off in Vanilla/tbc.

[Triceron]

I like this. This is how you win an argument online. You argue stupid bullshit until someone calls you on it and points out how stupid your argument is. Then you make ad hominem attacks against their intelligence and put them on ignore claiming "you're just wasting my time with your common sense and critical thinking skills that prove you are vastly more intelligent than I am". You sure are a pro at the internet arguments aren't you? I bet in your mind you're always right and no one ever proves you wrong, right? LOL, how sad.

When it's time wasting semantics? Yeah, I ignore them.

Because nothing I said was wrong. Are quests designed for solo play? Yes, they are. They are also designed for group play. Nothing in my statement actually excludes any other way to do quests, because I never implied that quests are exclusively designed for solo play. There was no intention to single out questing as designed only for solo play, only a point being made that they are designed with solo play in mind. The context was a direct reply to people saying MMO's are not designed for solo play.

Like if I said 'Spoons are designed for drinking soup', it doesn't exclude it from being used for other purposes too.

But hey, if you think 'Quests are designed to be soloable' is stupid bullshit, I guess you're the expert on the subject, right RAWRF?

[arkanon]

Multiplayer and not instanced....

It stands for "not instanced"? really? where did you get that from?

[Triceron]

It's an MMORPG. MM means MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER. If you want to only play solo then you fail to access about 70%+ of the game.

So? Questing is designed to be soloable. Tell me, what about this statement is wrong? Because otherwise you're shifting goalposts to talking about 'bullshit' that I didn't say.

Did I say MMO's are designed to be played Solo? No, I did not. I said Quests are designed to be soloable. And if casuals are only interested in questing solo, then that is how they are playing the game. What you're ignoring is that a majority of the WoW player base is 'intentionally failing to access 70% of the game' because most of it is locked behind mandatory group content which they don't want to do. So they unsub.

Majority of the WoW player base is doing this. As in, there are millions of casual players who are only playing WoW as a solo experience, and only doing the '30%' if we're to use your numbers as example. And Blizzard has intentionally continued to design WoW with soloable content in mind, for these returning players, without making all quests mandatory group content.

If you want a solo play experience there are a thousand other games you can fuck off to. Don't come to an MMORPG and whine like a little bitch about wanting to play solo. All that does is make you fucking stupid.

When did I ever say I wanted to play solo? lol. Not once have I said that here, ever.

Like, I haven't been subbed to WoW since Cataclysm. Why the fuck would I care about playing solo or not? I only said questing in the game was designed to be soloable. Everything else you're saying is literally projection.

[arkanon]

Because that’s how the game use to be before they changed it to what it is today.

When was WoW a solo game? Who thinks this way.....if you want a SP game, there are thousands to choose from and RPG is probably one of the best represented genres on PC with some amazing titles.

[dragonflight10]

What more do you want them to hand to you? This last expac has been more solo friendly than ANYTHING IN THIS GAME HAS EVER BEEN. Yet you still fucking cry and whine and want more?

This is why Bliz shouldn't a shit about what people say. They meet their demands at every step, give them what they want, then they just stick their grubby little hands out further begging for even more scraps claiming they deserve more.

People like you are what's wrong with gaming communities. People like you ruin it for everyone else because no matter what concessions you get NOTHING will ever be fucking good enough because your a spoiled rotten little prick. Same goes for anyone that agrees with this swill.

Agree, they are so self-centered

[Kallisto]

I'm very disappointed with whole announcement. No single world about casual and solo players.
Imo Ion again will focus on raiders and make ppl quit fast.

Funny people saying this here where elsewhere it was basically rage videos and threads about how raiders (aka the so called top 5% or the top 0.01% in the other thread) got nothing out of the reveal and that's in their mind the people who should be focused on.

[Glazey]

So? Questing is designed to be soloable. Tell me, what about this statement is wrong? Because otherwise you're shifting goalposts to talking about 'bullshit' that I didn't say.

Did I say MMO's are designed to be played Solo? No, I did not. I said Quests are designed to be soloable. And if casuals are only interested in questing solo, then that is how they are playing the game. What you're ignoring is that a majority of the WoW player base is 'intentionally failing to access 70% of the game' because most of it is locked behind mandatory group content which they don't want to do. So they unsub.

Majority of the WoW player base is doing this. As in, there are millions of casual players who are only playing WoW as a solo experience, and only doing the '30%' if we're to use your numbers as example. And Blizzard has intentionally continued to design WoW with soloable content in mind, for these returning players, without making all quests mandatory group content.

Any actual numbers on this or are we gonna change the argument again?

[Triceron]

Any actual numbers on this or are we gonna change the argument again?

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...-launch/890278
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...its-playerbase

Independent research data, google trends, we have quite a bit of information on the subject.

World of Warcraft player numbers fell back to normal levels as the excitement around November’s Shadowlands expansion subsided. From November to January, revenue fell by 61% and user numbers declined by 41% (these figures do not include China). This roughly matches the pattern seen for the past several expansions, though Shadowlands had a bigger launch. Blizzard does appear to have found a way to increase how often expansions are able to boost earnings. The publisher recently announced that it will be adding the 2007 Burning Crusade expansion into World of Warcraft: Classic this year. Alternating between releasing all-new and classic expansions could cause WoW revenue to spike annually for the near future, instead of every two years (the typical development time for the title’s expansions).




Google Trends is probably the most accurate way we have to gauge sub numbers, outside of Blizzard releasing internal numbers.


A pattern of huge player spikes at the beginning of each expansion and falling back to 'normal' levels suggests a large influx of players who are doing content that lasts about 3-4 months before subs decline back to a 'normal' amount that we see throughout the rest of the expansion.

The explanation for this is dirt simple, and has been known for quite some time. A large number of players resub to new expansions, treat it like a '10 hour' video game experience, then unsub until the next big adventure. Whatever you want to label these players, it's a trend that's been cyclical for WoW throughout its lifespan, with much of the 'spiking' being less apparant early on in WoW's lifespan because of its continued growth, and being much more apparant over the years now, when we can clearly see when these spikes happen, and they almost always happen around the launch of a new expansion and last within the first 3-4 months.

[Gimlix]

After six years of Ion as the game director, I don't think it should be any surprise that Ion is going to Ion. WoW won't change until he is replaced.

Pretty sure we heard this statement before Ion too though? WoW won't change. Especially when 90% of the original Blizzard crew is gone.

- - - Updated - - -

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wo...-launch/890278
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...its-playerbase

Independent research data, google trends, we have quite a bit of information on the subject.

World of Warcraft player numbers fell back to normal levels as the excitement around November’s Shadowlands expansion subsided. From November to January, revenue fell by 61% and user numbers declined by 41% (these figures do not include China). This roughly matches the pattern seen for the past several expansions, though Shadowlands had a bigger launch. Blizzard does appear to have found a way to increase how often expansions are able to boost earnings. The publisher recently announced that it will be adding the 2007 Burning Crusade expansion into World of Warcraft: Classic this year. Alternating between releasing all-new and classic expansions could cause WoW revenue to spike annually for the near future, instead of every two years (the typical development time for the title’s expansions).




Google Trends is probably the most accurate way we have to gauge sub numbers, outside of Blizzard releasing internal numbers.


A pattern of huge player spikes at the beginning of each expansion and falling back to 'normal' levels suggests a large influx of players who are doing content that lasts about 3-4 months before subs decline back to a 'normal' amount that we see throughout the rest of the expansion.

The explanation for this is dirt simple, and has been known for quite some time. A large number of players resub to new expansions, treat it like a '10 hour' video game experience, then unsub until the next big adventure. Whatever you want to label these players, it's a trend that's been cyclical for WoW throughout its lifespan, with much of the 'spiking' being less apparant early on in WoW's lifespan because of its continued growth, and being much more apparant over the years now, when we can clearly see when these spikes happen, and they almost always happen around the launch of a new expansion and last within the first 3-4 months.

This is so not true. I can't remember last time i used google to try to search something for WoW. so i wouldn't count as sub in that case. Which i've been for 11 years.

[Unholyground]

I'm very disappointed with whole announcement. No single world about casual and solo players.
Imo Ion again will focus on raiders and make ppl quit fast.

Crafting will get you raid level gear, stop worrying so much.

[exochaft]

This is so not true. I can't remember last time i used google to try to search something for WoW. so i wouldn't count as sub in that case. Which i've been for 11 years.

It can be useful in trend analysis, but it needs to be used in conjunction with other factors and information so it actually has meaning beyond "This is how many people searched for something Google." For example, you could use data on raider.io or meta-data available from Blizz's API to create a better picture of what's going on in conjunction with Google trends.. Not one single source will tell you everything you want to know, other than Blizz actively telling people their numbers.

The use of Google search analytics can be used to see how much a certain phrase or topic is relevant to people... but you don't know if it's good or bad (unless you're a "even bad press is good press" sort of person... but that has limits, too). The analytics don't necessarily say what people were looking for. Could be people looking for news on the expansion, could be people looking for negative stories about the expansion or Blizz, could be looking for a lore video/wiki with respect to the expansion, could be someone not even playing the expansion just looking for info. The reasons are varied, and it's not as telling as using such analytics to see how an up-and-coming TV series or movie is trending in the populace after a trailer drop, which again still has some issues but just not as many.

Going back to WoW specifically, if all your data sources all trend in a similar direction, there's probably something going on worth mentioning or looking into. The raider.io and Blizz API meta-data is trending in a direction that indicates a way lower rate of players playing and completing the content compared to every patch in this expansion and past expansions' last patches. Considering how Blizz is doing a 180 on many things out of the blue, that's just not something a company does when they feel they're on the right track for whatever goals they have.