Why is Exclusive content a bad thing to some people?

[Dreknar20]

Fact is: Noone knows what kind of player are leaving the game and even Blizzard can only gueass why they are leaving.

well according to GC, most of the players that leave dont even reach end game content so........your call if you wanna believe that

---------- Post added 2013-06-10 at 03:34 PM ----------

Maybe because there are actually less artists working on the team than there used to be.

on the contrary they say there is many more people on the team than before

[Osmeric]

The totality of evidence is simple: your model lost WoW millions of players, mine made WoW one of the most successful games ever.

No, the totality of the evidence is that early WoW was a success despite having a hardcore endgame, not because of it. Eventually the game saturated the market, and when they tried to go back to a hardcore style, it was a disaster.

GC has repeatedly mocked the argument that "early WoW was successful because it was hard". Their evidence just doesn't support turning that correlation into causation. They tested that theory with Cataclysm and disproved it.

[PenguinChan]

on the contrary they say there is many more people on the team than before

Definitely didn't feel like it during Dragon Soul. Mists of Pandaria though, certainly has proven that. But it still feels like the content is not being produced in mass on the artistic side as much as I would imagine.

[LeperHerring]

No, the totality of the evidence is that early WoW was a success despite having a hardcore endgame, not because of it. Eventually the game saturated the market, and when they tried to go back to a hardcore style, it was a disaster.

That's just your opinion with zero backing. The facts are that when my model was in the game there were millions more subscribers. You can construct whatever kind of theories to try to spin that fact around, but it's not very interesting given that you have no sources or data to back your theories.

GC has repeatedly mocked the argument that "early WoW was successful because it was hard". Their evidence just doesn't support turning that correlation into causation. They tested that theory with Cataclysm and disproved it.

GC is the guy who failed to do anything but cause WoW's sub numbers to fall. Why would I care about what he has to say? Cataclysm did not test anything. It still had normal modes, it still had LFD, it still had badge gear. Some stuff was slightly tighter tuned in the beginning, but the underlying systems design was the same. Then they went back to extremely loose tuning and went further in the accessibility direction with the systems design and they lost more people.

[Deleted]

well according to GC, most of the players that leave dont even reach end game content so........your call if you wanna believe that

"70% of new players dont even make it past level 10... "

Thats one of the "facts" Blizzard knows. What they dont know is why they already stop playing that early.

[Holtzmann]

It showed that you can have both accessible content and "exclusive" content that are separate in the same game and be incredibly successful.

Not really. It showed that if you provide players with a more accessible game than what the competition is offering, they will flock to it. World of Warcraft grew explosively early on because it didn't require nearly as much time investment as EverQuest did at the time. By the time Burning Crusade rolled in, it had already pretty much gone viral within game circles. Nearly everybody tried playing it at some point, and subscriptions balooned because there were a lot of people who had not yet played it wanting to try it out.

Nowadays the market is fractured between many competing MMOs (specially in Asia), all of them featuring very similar levels of accessibility as WoW. The average gamer's tastes have changed since 2004. Many of the folks who played hardcore in Vanilla and BC have gotten into college or started working.

If Vanilla World of Warcraft had been released today (with updated graphics, of course), it would fail miserably or end up stuck in the same level as EVE Online. Times have changed: its original market is simply not there anymore. What worked for it back then is not what works now.

[melodramocracy]

No, the totality of the evidence is that early WoW was a success despite having a hardcore endgame, not because of it. Eventually the game saturated the market, and when they tried to go back to a hardcore style, it was a disaster.

GC has repeatedly mocked the argument that "early WoW was successful because it was hard". Their evidence just doesn't support turning that correlation into causation. They tested that theory with Cataclysm and disproved it.

Early WoW was successful because the majority of the experience was compelling to play. The difficulty of end game raiding likely wasn't even a factor, and the importance of raiding to the vast majority tends to get overblown on the forums.

I think I asked this question elsewhere, but what sort of expansion do you think would yield more subs:

a) amazing overall content with sub-par raids.
b) sub-par overall content with amazing raids.

People might love to point out that millions left this game because normals are too hard..perhaps the notion that the overall game content isn't compelling plays into it as well.

[Floopa]

No, the totality of the evidence is that early WoW was a success despite having a hardcore endgame, not because of it. Eventually the game saturated the market, and when they tried to go back to a hardcore style, it was a disaster.

GC has repeatedly mocked the argument that "early WoW was successful because it was hard". Their evidence just doesn't support turning that correlation into causation. They tested that theory with Cataclysm and disproved it.

How was Cataclysm hardcore? Cataclysm was casual paradise. Did we not experience the same dreadful, uninspired, short (albeit lengthy time wise) tiers with terrible bosses and some of the most screwed up lore ever written?

[Osmeric]

That's just your opinion with zero backing. The facts are that when my model was in the game there were millions more subscribers. You can construct whatever kind of theories to try to spin that fact around, but it's not very interesting given that you have no sources or data to back your theories.

As opposed to your theories, which have even less backing? No, you are engaging in the usual hardcore sophistry of carefully selecting only the evidence that supports your case.

GC is the guy who failed to do anything but cause WoW's sub numbers to fall. Why would I care about what he has to say?

Because he has evidence that you don't. But I know, the conclusions he draws from that evidence are contrary to your prejudices, so it and he must be dismissed, amirite?

[LeperHerring]

Not really. It showed that if you provide players with a more accessible game than what the competition is offering, they will flock to it. World of Warcraft grew explosively early on because it didn't require nearly as much time investment as EverQuest did at the time. By the time Burning Crusade rolled in, it had already pretty much gone viral within game circles. Nearly everybody tried playing it at some point, and subscriptions balooned because there were a lot of people who had not yet played it wanting to try it out.

Not everything was accessible. It had accessible content and exclusive content, which made it appeal to a large variety of people, which made the game world vibrant. There were people that just did PvP, some did questing, some did 5 mans, some raided, some were hardcore. The game supported a variety of playstyles with their own content. Today's wow tries to stretch the same small set of raid content to everyone, causing the game to become bland and lose the variety it had.

If Vanilla World of Warcraft had been released today (with updated graphics, of course), it would fail miserably or end up stuck in the same level as EVE Online. Times have changed: its original market is simply not there anymore. What worked for it back then is not what works now.

I'd say that if WoW was released today in the state it is in, it would never reach the numbers it has/had and would probably end up like D3.

[Sierra85]

a 8-9 year old video game engine isn't compelling anymore? who'd have thunk that people quit or move on to other things.

That said, exclusivity is something that personally i think should be more of a thing in an MMO. The sense of wonder and amazement you used to have walking into orgrimmar on your crappy Kodo and seeing someone in full Tier 2 and going wow, one day. One day i will be that cool.

[Deleted]

What worked for it back then is not what works now.

So trying to make WoW even more accessible than the competition again might not work this time.

[Jaylock]

Its a bad thing because the current generation of players feel entitled to every single thing in the game, regardless if they are paying a subscription or not. Its across ALL MMOs that you see this. People just *want* something that other people have, but they don't want to put the same amount of effort into getting it. Players feel like that if ONE person has it, then they should have it too.

It makes no sense to me and really angers me since that is one of the main reasons that I feel is making MMOs go down the drain in terms of quality and longevity. Sure, the casual players (which make up the majority of the playerbase) can log in and have tons of things to do... but the hardcore players quickly lose interest due to the carrot on the stick not being much of a stick.

When I started up WoW at launch, I was a young kid. I barely knew what I was doing but I loved it. I remember seeing those higher level than me and more geared than me and thinking to myself, "Wow... I want to get that!" I didn't immediately thing, "Wow... why don't I have that? This is unfair." The idea of working towards something and finally gaining it was gratifying. There is no sense of accomplishment when you get something that was practically handed to you and all you had to do was log on. Working on a full set of T2 and finally getting it was something to be proud of. Sitting around IF, players would naturally gravitate towards you in awe. Its just like in GW1 when people would understand how awesome you were if you were walking around in full Obsidian, or if you managed to become a Jedi in SWG.

I guess long gone are the days of when effort was a part of the journey, not a hindrance. I know I didn't feel satisfied when I ran my alt through all of the LFRs and thinking to myself, "Really? This was it?" as I gemmed and enchanted gear that was practically given to me.

Im actually happy that a Moderator on this site commented on this subject as you have. I completely understand where you are coming from, and I too felt the same way you did when you accomplished something back "in the day".

I guess the game has gone way too far in the direction of a facebook game. It is Blizzards cash cow, and if they can do anything to appease the large portion of casual players, they will do it to ensure those dollars flowing into their pockets. The problem they may not have realized that when they alienate the playerbase that made the game great, they no longer have loyal customers, but rather the "come and go as you please, any next big thing jump ship player."

Exclusivity in terms of organizational skills, time commitment, and playing skills keeps the game fresh and alive. When the game becomes saturated with what?... 7 different modes of raiding (with the announced flex raiding being the 7th), it really destroys the sense of wonder and accomplishment of killing these raid bosses.

Just think, if there were only 1, (yes ONE) difficulty of raid boss, and you couldn't choose between 10 or 25 to kill that boss... lets say it was a 25 man raid boss.. wouldn't you the player feel much more accomplished after having killed that boss, than killing it 7 times on a myriad of different difficulties? Please mr. casual player, please answer that for me. (speaking generally of course)

[Osmeric]

How was Cataclysm hardcore? Cataclysm was casual paradise.

Cataclysm endgame, up until they gave up with the FL nerf and introduction of LFR, was casual hostile. The casual game was "level another alt!", or possibly spend hours in frustrating heroic LFDs.

Blizzard has admitted they made it too hardcore (in earnings calls and in the NY Times, no less), so your denial on this is remarkable.

[LeperHerring]

As opposed to your theories, which have even less backing? No, you are engaging in the usual hardcore sophistry of carefully selecting only the evidence that supports your case.

I'm advocating that everyone has different content designed specifically for their play style. I don't see how that's "hardcore". Also can you point to what actual evidence you have? Since I don't see how you can argue that the current system is better when the subscriber numbers are what they are.

Because he has evidence that you don't. But I know, the conclusions he draws from that evidence are contrary to your prejudices, so it and he must be dismissed, amirite?

He might have evidence I don't, but from the resulting sub numbers it's clear he is not interpreting it correctly. So again, why would I care what he has to say? If he released actual data I would care about that, but when all he's done is preside over falling sub numbers I'm not going to put any weight on his theories or arguments, only hard data that he provides.

[Deleted]

How was Cataclysm hardcore? Cataclysm was casual paradise. Did we not experience the same dreadful, uninspired, short (albeit lengthy time wise) tiers with terrible bosses and some of the most screwed up lore ever written?

yeah sure, hardest heroics since TBC and no easy mode 10 men. the lore doesnt have anything to do with casualness.

[Destruktion]

That is a rather long speculative shot you're taking there, buddy. It's about as big a "perhaps" as perhaps can be, given World of Warcraft subscription levels (which are still at least twice the size of any competition in the US alone) are affected not only by design decisions, but by evolving target demographics, new gaming trends, economic factors, market saturation and competition, among a host of other reasons.

I was addressing the point Grocalis raised specifically, not every single factor that made WoW successful, big or small.

Once again, the success has nothing to do with exclusivity. The game was so "new and fresh" that most casuals didn't care about raids just because they were so wrapped up in all the other cool stuff around them. Now we had nearly a decade in which to know everything. Back when I started this game I was 20 years old (Beta Tester), I am now 30 years old with a mortgage, a wife, and a son. My priorities in life and how I enjoy content have altered, and I also have grown more jaded. I have seen every inch of Azeroth and Outland thousands of times from all angles possible, over 30 different characters.

I was making the point that a balance between exclusivity and accessibility was a factor in WoW's early success, because that was the issue your post addressed.

In the end, the "problem" you guys have is not something Blizzard can "fix". If they make the content harder, they lose myself and those like me. They make the content nothing but easy, they lose people like you and those arguing about LFR. The whole reason we have LFR, Normals, and Heroic is a way to hopefully appease both sides as much as possible, thus why I am fine the way it is.

Raiding doesn't even make up the bulk of the game. Even since the introduction of LFR, most players are still not considered raiders. Because of this apparent reality, Blizzard can afford to make raiding more exclusive without alienating a very large segment of the player base, so long as they don't skimp out on the rest of the game.

No, the totality of the evidence is that early WoW was a success despite having a hardcore endgame, not because of it. Eventually the game saturated the market, and when they tried to go back to a hardcore style, it was a disaster.

GC has repeatedly mocked the argument that "early WoW was successful because it was hard". Their evidence just doesn't support turning that correlation into causation. They tested that theory with Cataclysm and disproved it.

Cataclysm was a poor experiment because, easy or hard, the endgame model was terrible.

[Holtzmann]

Not everything was accessible. It had accessible content and exclusive content, which made it appeal to a large variety of people, which made the game world vibrant. There were people that just did PvP, some did questing, some did 5 mans, some raided, some were hardcore. The game supported a variety of playstyles with their own content. Today's wow tries to stretch the same small set of raid content to everyone, causing the game to become bland and lose the variety it had.

Well, when your choice is between getting punched in the face five times (EverQuest) or just one time (World of Warcraft), I'd suspect most people would rather be punched just once.

And you're assuming there aren't people who just do one thing nowadays. There are people who just quest and level alts. There are people who just do 5-mans (I was one of those for a whole!). There are people who just solo old content/open world stuff (I ended up as this!). There are people who just PvP. There are people who just do 10-man Normals (my guild was full of those). There are folks who just do hardcore raiding. There are folks who farm mats. There are folks who play the Auction House. There are folks who only do Pet Battles (didn't have those in Vanilla!). There are folks who only go for achievements (ditto!).

Sure, if you're a Heroic raider who wants to min-max to the max (pun intended) or are just starting up on your gear on an alt, LFR might indeed feel like an obligation. But World of Warcraft had never more things to do than it has today.

I'd say that if WoW was released today in the state it is in, it would never reach the numbers it has/had and would probably end up like D3.

Probably, yes. World of Warcraft coasts on its user critical mass. The market simply doesn't have the space for something of the scope and size of World of Warcraft anymore. Which is why I'm sad for Wildstar. I really want that game to succeed, but it's very unlikely that it will.

[Jaylock]

Cataclysm endgame, up until they gave up with the FL nerf and introduction of LFR, was casual hostile. The casual game was "level another alt!", or possibly spend hours in frustrating heroic LFDs.

Blizzard has admitted they made it too hardcore (in earnings calls and in the NY Times, no less), so your denial on this is remarkable.

Did you not have a guild that you could run those LFDs with? Did you not make friends who were good players that you decided to put on your friends list to call upon to do heroics with you so you wouldn't have those "frustrating" runs? Did you not start outgearing the cata heroics quickly after the expansion launched?

BC would like to have a word with you in that regard.

[Deleted]

yeah sure, hardest heroics since TBC and no easy mode 10 men. the lore doesnt have anything to do with casualness.

Even if the heroic dungeons were the "hardest since TBC" it still doesn't mean that they were actually hard, it's 5 man content that is perfectly doable even with inexperienced players. The main difference between TBC and Cata was that they had introduced this abomination called LFD in WotlK and people got frustrated by the slightly higher difficulty because they were doing the dungeons with uncoordinated PuGs.