Game Design Article about Classic Vs BFA Analysis:

[TJ]

Difference is that Classic is fun and retail is complete garbage.

[Halyon]

Difference is that Classic is fun and retail is complete garbage.

I don't think either are fun atm, but particularly not vanilla/classic. OPinions. Yai. We all have them.

[TJ]

I don't think either are fun atm, but particularly not vanilla/classic. OPinions. Yai. We all have them.

Yep, we all have different opinions, especially when it comes to WoW ������

[Acidz]

Ah, the angry retail downies out in full force again

[lummiuster]

But classic doesnt hold 12M subs right? where are they? classic is a failure! see how dumb this argument is? thats how you guys look like when basing stuff on subs and growth, now give it a break and use your braincells to articulate better arguments.

Yes in a long period, studying the growth and subs number and events can tell you a lot. I'm sorry you dont have the IQ to understand this.

- - - Updated - - -

Looking at a single metric does not give give you a good idea on the performance of a product. For every 4 people that played Vanilla, 3 quit. By the time WotLK was released WoW had probably saturated its market. Customer Adds as a whole had been declining way before WotLK. But churn had been decreasing which made WotLK better at keeping customers than classic was. It just wasn't adding them as fast enough to fully counter churn. Which frankly as the product ages was to be expected.

The biggest problem with people thinking like you is that you are so challenged to understand that WoW was FAR from reaching the full market. Rather than reaching it, the market kept growing super fast. FYI the market looks like this:
- We are 8 billion on this planet (keeps growing every year)
- Maybe (random number) only 30% have internet to play (this number keeps increasing every day)
- Maybe (random number) only 10% can afford it (this number keeps increasing every day)
- Maybe (random number) only 5% of people like playing video games
No matter what are the real numbers, the market is growing super fast, stop saying it reached its cap.
And stop ignoring the drastic stop in growth that was steady for 3 years and stopped under 2 months at the same fuckin time as a new expac got released.

[Relapses]

Yes in a long period, studying the growth and subs number and events can tell you a lot. I'm sorry you dont have the IQ to understand this.

- - - Updated - - -



The biggest problem with people thinking like you is that you are so challenged to understand that WoW was FAR from reaching the full market. Rather than reaching it, the market kept growing super fast. FYI the market looks like this:
- We are 8 billion on this planet (keeps growing every year)
- Maybe (random number) only 30% have internet to play (this number keeps increasing every day)
- Maybe (random number) only 10% can afford it (this number keeps increasing every day)
- Maybe (random number) only 5% of people like playing video games
No matter what are the real numbers, the market is growing super fast, stop saying it reached its cap.
And stop ignoring the drastic stop in growth that was steady for 3 years and stopped under 2 months at the same fuckin time as a new expac got released.

Yeah dude, you figured it out. WoW's potential growth isn't affected by actual legitimate veritable information like market trends or box sales and instead is only inhibited by the number of people on the planet with access to the internet. I can see why you questioned that other dude's IQ, you're over here playing 4D Interdimensional Chess and we're playing Checkers.

[Alkizon]

I didn't read article... simply because I don't think that there is something new and interesting for me, exclusively private opinions (I'm not against it, but my own is fully enough for me at current stage). All I wanted to say is, that, judging by comments, WotLK is mentioned there, which we have already discussed in sufficient detail here.

And just for reference: sharing mobs' tags should only be in a party for normal organization and maintenance of various server's regulation mechanisms (including social one). As for "chance" of dropping quest items, I partially agree with claims (by the way, the most adequate explanation of this, in terms of "spare parts of bodies" - its integrity could be violated during murder, sometimes even to complete unrecognizability due to awkwardness of performer, but this doesn't always save logic of what is happening). But on the other hand, this should look a little different: number of necessary spare parts can be increased to an acceptable level at which devs will assume that player has enough with this task (with drop rate being almost guaranteed), while mobs must be sufficiently "complicated to kill" for quest's accepting level - its faster to kill mobs being in a group, but there’s less experience for them (choice between) and you simply can’t get more quest items than reasonable logic suggests. Moreover, assassination tasks done in a group of 5 people may require elements, as "confirmation", which victim may have several of (eg. fingers with "tattoo", elements of mechanism with "personal" marking, etc).

But this all is hypothetically, based on standard logic and with right approach, which, as we know, devs don't always follow.

Let's look at such situation: you need to collect 30 bats' ears (instead of 5 with rare chance), this is very likely that it drops both, rarely - one (since character either “chopped” second one during the battle, or didn't manage cut it off correctly after), very rarely - none, and this is whole group's drop (no personal loot, never). It's a long time to do quest/kill them solo and other people will interfere with you, but quest items' drop is very stable and you get everything (private experience and loot), or you'll kill them grouping and agree in advance (sharing experience and loot), but much faster and with great competitive advantage. Here is your choice for such task (you have choice and you have to do it - show your attitude to everyone, no double way actions, devs won't do any decisions for you, everything is on your conscience).
Possible results: either you're grinch, trying to take everything for yourself, thereby showing everyone around you own contempt or ignorance (depending on situation, because it's not known who you have to deal with, maybe they deserved it in your previous meetings, one server/no CRZ and stuff), or you communicate and accept decisions together.

I don’t specifically want to discuss tags here, but I repeat once again - they're needed exclusively in individual+group order, no “hit&get every” (this is mostly about loot, but since system ain't understand difference...), no “automation”. This is necessary for quest mobs and bosses, for social experience, for competition, and for many other elements, which haven't much sense to discuss specifically within current topic. Big NO! for "brainless" sharing tags.

ps. Moreover, I'm not talking here about any changes, that Classic would need (it's don't), only about system's adequate operation in general. Because no any Classic's changes are appropriate, what really needs to be changed is retail.

[gamingmuscle]

Yes in a long period, studying the growth and subs number and events can tell you a lot. I'm sorry you dont have the IQ to understand this.

- - - Updated - - -



The biggest problem with people thinking like you is that you are so challenged to understand that WoW was FAR from reaching the full market. Rather than reaching it, the market kept growing super fast. FYI the market looks like this:
- We are 8 billion on this planet (keeps growing every year)
- Maybe (random number) only 30% have internet to play (this number keeps increasing every day)
- Maybe (random number) only 10% can afford it (this number keeps increasing every day)
- Maybe (random number) only 5% of people like playing video games
No matter what are the real numbers, the market is growing super fast, stop saying it reached its cap.
And stop ignoring the drastic stop in growth that was steady for 3 years and stopped under 2 months at the same fuckin time as a new expac got released.

Your hypothetical is only 12 million. At least do the freaking math. We know 100 million people have played.

Growth was not steady. Look at any chart of WoW's quarterly subscription numbers and you can see a downward trend in the number of accounts added each quarter. Frankly, it looks as if wow had plateaued in BC and got a bump by Wrath.

[Tekkommo]

Ah, the angry retail downies out in full force again

I'd be angry if I was still playing retail, so they do have a reason.

[time0ut]

I was having a good time in BFA. The raids were good. But there are just so many horrible chores. Islands and world quests and weekly mythic+ and essences.

Classic is like a drug. I can't get enough. I'm too lazy to enumerate everything I like about it, but by far the best part is how chill the PvE is. It requires enough skill to be engaging, but there's enough down time to socialize a lot.

[lummiuster]

Your hypothetical is only 12 million. At least do the freaking math. We know 100 million people have played.

Growth was not steady. Look at any chart of WoW's quarterly subscription numbers and you can see a downward trend in the number of accounts added each quarter. Frankly, it looks as if wow had plateaued in BC and got a bump by Wrath.

Indeed, the fact that over 100 million people tried wow means that the market saturation was at least 100 million. So here is what is happening in your graph:
- Vanilla. Players tried the game (full of bugs) but still loved it. Blizzard is enjoying being pretty much the only decent MMO and grew fast.
- Q1 of TBC 2007. Vanilla players + new players got excited to try the new expansion
- Q2 2007 to Q1 2008. Subs kept growing, people enjoy the game.
- Q2 and Q3 of 2008. End of expansion, no new content, nothing to do, still growth because people are enjoying the game
- Q4 of 2009 (WotLK). Expansion hype attracting more players like every expansion.
- Q1 2010 and onward. For the first time growth stopped. New subs=cancellation. WoTLK is still benefiting of the "wow hype" to keep its numbers. "hey come play wow its the best mmo" which is the reputation it got from vanilla/TBC.
It is obvious WoTLK was not at the height of vanilla/TBC. If you look at the numbers and you are a player and so you know when there is content and when you are excited (releasing new expansion and before patches) it is easy to understand that WoTLK was the new game mechanic that ruined everything.

In my case (might be unpopular opinion), I loved Vanilla/TBC because i enjoyed spending a lot of my time in STV/Hillsbrad/the old world which died at the release of WoTLK as they boosted low level experience and introduced herlooms. And introduction of fuckin death knights. I used to spend weeks queuing in AV just to get stuck in those 25v25 fight that would last 10mins standing in the back casting chain lightning. Ever since they introduced this stupid class, the 25v25 fights only last 2mins because they keep death gripping the casters/healers.

[Specialka]

Indeed, the fact that over 100 million people tried wow means that the market saturation was at least 100 million. So here is what is happening in your graph:
- Vanilla. Players tried the game (full of bugs) but still loved it. Blizzard is enjoying being pretty much the only decent MMO and grew fast.
- Q1 of TBC 2007. Vanilla players + new players got excited to try the new expansion
- Q2 2007 to Q1 2008. Subs kept growing, people enjoy the game.
- Q2 and Q3 of 2008. End of expansion, no new content, nothing to do, still growth because people are enjoying the game
- Q4 of 2009 (WotLK). Expansion hype attracting more players like every expansion.
- Q1 2010 and onward. For the first time growth stopped. New subs=cancellation. WoTLK is still benefiting of the "wow hype" to keep its numbers. "hey come play wow its the best mmo" which is the reputation it got from vanilla/TBC.
It is obvious WoTLK was not at the height of vanilla/TBC. If you look at the numbers and you are a player and so you know when there is content and when you are excited (releasing new expansion and before patches) it is easy to understand that WoTLK was the new game mechanic that ruined everything.

In my case (might be unpopular opinion), I loved Vanilla/TBC because i enjoyed spending a lot of my time in STV/Hillsbrad/the old world which died at the release of WoTLK as they boosted low level experience and introduced herlooms. And introduction of fuckin death knights. I used to spend weeks queuing in AV just to get stuck in those 25v25 fight that would last 10mins standing in the back casting chain lightning. Ever since they introduced this stupid class, the 25v25 fights only last 2mins because they keep death gripping the casters/healers.

Or that by woltk time, mmorpg time was over and ppl moved on to others game genre (like moba or fps), just saying.

[mehow2g]

Maaan this article resumes exactly what I have been saying for years. WOTLK is the game mentality that killed wow period.
- Vanilla = 1-3 millions growth in subscription per year
- TBC = 1-3 millions growth in subscription per year
- WOTLK = first time growth was negative.
Let's assume there are two different MMO style. Some players like classic game style while others like the modern wow game style (different taste its natural). If you are part of those who liked WOTLK, please dont give feedback regarding Classic because you dont belong to that group.

I think one of the main factors that people over look with Vanilla to TBC growth is that many many players quit before/soon after TBC launched many did not like direction the game was heading, 75% of the people who I played with in Vanilla simply quit, TBC rode the hype train. Another factor was many people who came to TBC never played computer games before and wanted to try WoW out.

From memory the steepest incline of growth was at the end of Vanilla, who knows what it would have hit if Activision decided to give Vanilla a few more years, the game had plenty of life in it but ever since the Activision merger the activation model came in and wanted to cash in on WoW while the going was good.

[ClassicIsTerrible]

And this exactly why I think "Classic+" as in Classic but with bunch of QoL improvements like the shared tags from retail would've actually been amazing. Hell, it would've been GotY material. Yea, it would've been faster to level up, you would not have had to spend 10 days in game to get to max level. But would that really been a bad thing? Like, really?

That's not classic lmao. Just admit that Classic was shit, especially when it came to class design and balance.

[Daedius]

Vanilla was the barebones of WoW that had a lot of flaws when it came to design that could've been improved upon and were in following expansions (before the game got bastardsized).

Example; Class balance philosophy didn't exist. Raids were super basic, due to being new then. And such.

I find the whole stance of Vanilla/Classic has to be as it was forever written in stone with zero changes to be rather ridiculous. The game can be improved upon while still retaining what it is. Therein comes the demand for Classic+.

[Ruchia]

Why should I be respectful of an article that does nothing but provide improper reasoning for an impossible conclusion? WotLK isn't my favorite expansion but it is, without a shadow of doubt, the most successful expansion Blizzard ever developed and it's intellectually dishonest to take away from this fact with unprovable conjecture.



...after already concluding that WotLK was, "the first failed expansion."



It may be baseless but there's still an incredibly active community for WoW and the game is still around today. I submit that the changes that were made didn't make the game inherently worse or less appealing as this article seems to suggest, but rather that it was made to appease the lowest common denominator... the countless players who never participate in these discussions but whose collective opinions and preferred methods of playing mean far more than a few angry people yelling about how great the game was before it changed.



I'll provide you an olive branch here and say that you are very correct here. But unlike the author I disagree with the assertion that Blizzard lost its way by introducing accessibility features. They made decisions that kept the company in business. You can disagree with the direction taken but I really strongly dislike the argument that had Blizzard just kept the game like it was in Vanilla/TBC that WoW's subscriber growth would have remained exponential.

The accessibility features were great back in the day at moment of introduction for a player base with a classic mindset. But anonymity and being able to solo a lot of things ( in an mmo) basically cause People to go lord of the flies and that killed it for me. Also long time friends stopping.

[Charge me Doctor]

This is very, very stupid because you assume things we cannot know.

Since we are assuming things, can we assume that part of sub growth during TBC should be accounted to WotLK, because at first there were rumors of Arthas being in next expansion, then it was confirmed with an announcement?

- - - Updated - - -

WoW was virtually unchanged for several years and continued growing. It was only until they started adding massive features that the players lost interest. I know correlation =/= causation, but is it really that big of a stretch to think there's some kind of relation between the two events?

Care to elaborate? Wow was always changing throughout its life, and "changes" barely make people quit. Stagnation makes people quit.

[Alkizon]

"changes" barely make people quit

That. is. not. correct. and. you. know. this

It's changes that contributed to stratification community (and continue) and are most of reasons for swearing on forums (and outside of it - toxicity)... another thing, that not each one of - did.

[LionSinMaikeru]

Care to elaborate? Wow was always changing throughout its life, and "changes" barely make people quit. Stagnation makes people quit.

It's possible to add things without ruining the foundation.

WoW added new things but they weren't massive that changed the original foundation. BC added a new continent and new areas to the old world + arenas as well as new races. WoTLK added a new class, new continent, and more battlegrounds. All of this is change that avoids stagnation and is good.

I don't think anyone can seriously say the game changed THAT much between Vanilla to TBC and the game grew a bunch. Even WoTLK is closer to Vanilla than current WoW is.

Cataclysm is where they started going wrong. They removed a bunch of old content, they butchered the talent system, they removed Zul'Gurub as a raid, they removed several epic quest chains / reputations, etc. With the content they added being less desirable.

A lot of QoL stuff that was added ruined immersion and also made the game feel less like an RPG and more like a single player game, IMO.

I also disagree with your premise that changes don't make people quit. A lot of people are more likely to leave something they enjoy when it changes in a way they find distasteful.

[Specialka]

It's possible to add things without ruining the foundation.

WoW added new things but they weren't massive that changed the original foundation. BC added a new continent and new areas to the old world + arenas as well as new races. WoTLK added a new class, new continent, and more battlegrounds. All of this is change that avoids stagnation and is good.

I don't think anyone can seriously say the game changed THAT much between Vanilla to TBC and the game grew a bunch. Even WoTLK is closer to Vanilla than current WoW is.

Cataclysm is where they started going wrong. They removed a bunch of old content, they butchered the talent system, they removed Zul'Gurub as a raid, they removed several epic quest chains / reputations, etc. With the content they added being less desirable.

A lot of QoL stuff that was added ruined immersion and also made the game feel less like an RPG and more like a single player game, IMO.

I also disagree with your premise that changes don't make people quit. A lot of people are more likely to leave something they enjoy when it changes in a way they find distasteful.

Same goes for stagnation.

And what Qol are you talking about? No more arrows for hunters? Sure, that was immersive to have 2k arrows in the bags.