Does Classic have more players than retail?

[tikcol]

Full means the server reached its capacity, ergo the other servers are relative to a full server. But thank you for proving my point about your brightness.

Not always.. I see you still didn't bother informing yourself properly. I would start by doing that, then you can post non-sense but still have a conversation. This way it's only making you look like a fool

I don't know man you seem to enjoy throwing insults around while saying oblivious stuff in between, how am I supposed to take you seriously?

[Sociopathic]

Probably somewhere in the order of 70%/30% in favour of retail.

I find it hard to believe that Classic would overtake retail just given on how games and gamers have evolved these days. Classic was a game made for a 2004 audience, most gamers no longer have the patience and time that Classic demands. And even then, once the substantial initial grind is done I've heard a recurring theme among my classic friends the end game content doesn't have much to it aside from raiding twice a week.

Classic will likely always have a healthy population - but a population that exceeds retail? I doubt it. Classic appeals to the more hardcore gamers whereas Retail appeals to a very broad audience.

[Max Hurt]

Considering the 9:1 difference between the viewers in MMO-Champ between Classic and Retail General discussion forum, i would suggest that currently Retail population vastly outnumbers Classic population.
One month ago it was more like 1:1, and at the time of release Classic forum viewers even outnumbered Retail.

It's not much of a metric, but at the least is à metric of sorts.

[Nnyco]

Not always.. I see you still didn't bother informing yourself properly. I would start by doing that, then you can post non-sense but still have a conversation. This way it's only making you look like a fool

I don't know man you seem to enjoy throwing insults around while saying oblivious stuff in between, how am I supposed to take you seriously?

The irony in your posts is so delightful.

[tikcol]

The irony in your posts is so delightful.

Considering the facts are on my side and the post I first quoted was nothing but misinformed non-sense I would say my posts are nothing but me pushing your own bullshit down your throat.

It's also blatantly obvious that your insults are nothing else but the way you cope for getting corrected. So once again, how am I supposed to take you any more seriously than a child throwing a tantrum ?

[melkesjokolade]

Yes ofc it does

[Potatowizard]

This is also pure speculation. Not sure what the hissy fits are about

[Relapses]

I see it as the complete opposite and that retail players are the ones desperately to smugly say retail is better when all evidence points to the contrary.

I won’t speak for overall population (I suspect classic dwarfs retail) but for me personally, there’s more people in my classic guild than exist total players on my 3 retail realms

Skullcrusher, which used to be high pop, is all but a ghost town and Herod is booming. I can’t imagine a scenario where my group of wow players would ever go back to retail over classic. They’d have to fundamentally change the game back to tbc era mechanics and raids

And IF they do classic+.... gg

I really, really hope you can step back and appreciate the sheer irony of the way you responded to my post.

[FuxieDK]

Spoiler alert; you’re wrong. As a professional stock investor, classic wow and mw are the only things propping atvi stock up

Classic wow, for example, tripled the total number of wow subs when it released.

Let’s presume half quit already; that’s still double the player count of retail

A lot of numbers thrown away by the community but the only one that matters is corporate performance numbers and classic tripled bfa subs. Tripled. Let that sink in

1: You have no idea, if subs trippled or not, since Blizzard doesn't release sub numbers anymore.
2: If subs tripple (100% to 300%) and half quit, you are left with 150% of original. That's 100% for retail and 50% for classic...
3: People are bored with Classic. It took 150+ days, 15 years ago to kill Ragnaros. In Classic it took less than a week!
4: Stock investor that cannot calculate simple percentage? yeah right.
5: Subs didn't tripple... They didn't even double..

You think you do, but you don't!

Boy oh boy, Blizzard was right..

[arkanon]

They said otherwise very long ago, when they explained that a "medium" pop realm was already "far bigger than a full realm during Vanilla", which means that a medium server is already significantly above the 3000 cap.
THEN they increased massively the realm capacity when they were faced with queue.
IIRC there were tests being made by people with the census add-on before it was disabled, and they calculated that the cap was at about 15000.

This is true, and untrue. Yes, they have said it has been increased beyond the 2006 level, but that WAS the increase to server size. You are also adding in words like "MASSIVELY" to at weight to your argument. Taking the truth, and then grossly exaggerating it doesnt help anyone's argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Spoiler alert; you’re wrong. As a professional stock investor, classic wow and mw are the only things propping atvi stock up

Classic wow, for example, tripled the total number of wow subs when it released.

Let’s presume half quit already; that’s still double the player count of retail

A lot of numbers thrown away by the community but the only one that matters is corporate performance numbers and classic tripled bfa subs. Tripled. Let that sink in

The problem is two fold. One, the source for the "tripple subs" is a youtuber just having a guess......and secondly, there is absolutely nothing to show that it was all classic players, or if they renewed their sub after 1 month, or, if they migrated to retail.

- - - Updated - - -

This is also pure speculation. Not sure what the hissy fits are about

Both sides of the discussion has hyperbole and speculation presented as facts, but this sort of nonsense takes the cake:

ClassicFan "High realms on Retail have 350 players on them. High realms on Classic have around 12-14k players on them."

This is a direct quote, and part of the reason its so godamn hard to take anything a diehard classic fan says seriously.

[Nnyco]

Considering the facts are on my side and the post I first quoted was nothing but misinformed non-sense I would say my posts are nothing but me pushing your own bullshit down your throat.

It's also blatantly obvious that your insults are nothing else but the way you cope for getting corrected. So once again, how am I supposed to take you any more seriously than a child throwing a tantrum ?

What facts are on your side? The ones you pulled out of your arse? Also please your entire persona on this forum is basically just a child throwin a tantrum.

[towelliee]

Probably somewhere in the order of 70%/30% in favour of retail.

I find it hard to believe that Classic would overtake retail just given on how games and gamers have evolved these days. Classic was a game made for a 2004 audience, most gamers no longer have the patience and time that Classic demands. And even then, once the substantial initial grind is done I've heard a recurring theme among my classic friends the end game content doesn't have much to it aside from raiding twice a week.

Classic will likely always have a healthy population - but a population that exceeds retail? I doubt it. Classic appeals to the more hardcore gamers whereas Retail appeals to a very broad audience.

Define HARDCORE? Like Making gold per hour, PvP Meta, or 2 Hour MC clears of auto attack goodness? DOn't get me wrong I log in once a week for Classic raid but it is completely effortless. The most HARDCORE aspect of it is the leveling. Maybe? Unless you mean HARDCORE FANS OF CLASSIC

[Gasparde]

Considering the 9:1 difference between the viewers in MMO-Champ between Classic and Retail General discussion forum, i would suggest that currently Retail population vastly outnumbers Classic population.
One month ago it was more like 1:1, and at the time of release Classic forum viewers even outnumbered Retail.

It's not much of a metric, but at the least is à metric of sorts.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooor, maybe it's to do with the fact that Blizzcon speculation threads are all located in the non-classic section, that there's 17 new things announced for retail and 8.3 is about to drop and that everything relating classic has already been discussed over the last 10 months and now it's just... waiting for P2 to hit and some Blizzcon announcements to be made. Let's not even talk about the toxicity and elitism going on in the classic forums where every single time someone suggests anything they're immediately shut down with DONT TOUCH CLASSIC YOU WRATH BABY - there's no discussion to be had there anymore.

The ratio is so skewed because there's nothing to discuss about Classic. The ratio is so skewed because Retail is about to get 10 updates announced. Your chosen metric doesn't say shit.

[Mikah]

1: You have no idea, if subs trippled or not, since Blizzard doesn't release sub numbers anymore.
2: If subs tripple (100% to 300%) and half quit, you are left with 150% of original. That's 100% for retail and 50% for classic...

Your math is pretty bad...

You are assuming that 100% of the player that were on retail either stayed on retail or are back on retail, which is far from the reality...

And you are assuming that half of those that quite were only on classic, but you include those playing retails in the drop in subs, which also does not reflect the reality considering that the current retail is in the end of the cycle when typically most of the players are taking a break..

Let's take your assumptions with numbers: you start with 100 in retail, and subs tripled, that means you add 200 in classic (we can at least assume that people that subbed did so to play classic, no reason to suddenly play retail on August 26th), PLUS a certain number from retail that moved to classic.

So at this point, retail is at 100 - x, and classic is at 200 + x. For example, if 50% of those on retail tried classic, they are left with 50 on retail and 250 on classic. That is at launch.

Now let's say you are right and half of the people quit (we have no idea, really), then the 200 + x is divided by 2, not 300 divided by 2, because again, we assume that the retail population remains stable at this point. There is no reason that people that were subbed to retail and playing retail start unsubbing because Classic gets boring after killing Ragnaros.

It is possible that those playing retail that had moved to classic are returning to retail. But again, I doubt many players that subbed to play classic will start playing retail again if they get bored of classic.

But let's assume, in an extreme case scenario, that all those playing retail who tried classic are back to retail, then retail would be back at 100. And if 50% of those playing classic leaves, that is 200 divided by 2, which is 100.

So if your initial number is true that the number of subs tripled at the launch of Classic (is that from the Activition reports???), in the worst possible scenario, where everyone that were playing retail are back to retail, no one playing retail unsubbed and you loose 50% of the people playing Classic (where does that 50% comes from), you are left with 100 on each side, or an equal number of paying accounts.

If your number of 50% of the players that left classic is true, but you also have some people playing retail who left because their guilds are not raiding anymore or whatever, and that some players that moved from retail to classic are still playing classic (which there are), then the number of players playing classic has to be greater then the number of players playing retail.

[legendaryusername]

If you think classic has more players then you're just retarded beyond belief

oh well then care to explain why retail servers are empty then, Mr. 400 iq?

retard

[Gasparde]

oh well then care to explain why retail servers are empty then, Mr. 400 iq?

retard

Because Asmongold logging in on a 10k players server on a saturday at 10 am and doing a /who while taking 5 steps in a layered Boralus doesn't proove shit.
The moment he went to Illidan, an actual server with an actual population, there were like 100+ people in Orgrimmar.

[dojichan]

Your math is pretty bad...

You are assuming that 100% of the player that were on retail either stayed on retail or are back on retail, which is far from the reality...

And you are assuming that half of those that quite were only on classic, but you include those playing retails in the drop in subs, which also does not reflect the reality considering that the current retail is in the end of the cycle when typically most of the players are taking a break..

Let's take your assumptions with numbers: you start with 100 in retail, and subs tripled, that means you add 200 in classic (we can at least assume that people that subbed did so to play classic, no reason to suddenly play retail on August 26th), PLUS a certain number from retail that moved to classic.

So at this point, retail is at 100 - x, and classic is at 200 + x. For example, if 50% of those on retail tried classic, they are left with 50 on retail and 250 on classic. That is at launch.

Now let's say you are right and half of the people quit (we have no idea, really), then the 200 + x is divided by 2, not 300 divided by 2, because again, we assume that the retail population remains stable at this point. There is no reason that people that were subbed to retail and playing retail start unsubbing because Classic gets boring after killing Ragnaros.

It is possible that those playing retail that had moved to classic are returning to retail. But again, I doubt many players that subbed to play classic will start playing retail again if they get bored of classic.

But let's assume, in an extreme case scenario, that all those playing retail who tried classic are back to retail, then retail would be back at 100. And if 50% of those playing classic leaves, that is 200 divided by 2, which is 100.

So if your initial number is true that the number of subs tripled at the launch of Classic (is that from the Activition reports???), in the worst possible scenario, where everyone that were playing retail are back to retail, no one playing retail unsubbed and you loose 50% of the people playing Classic (where does that 50% comes from), you are left with 100 on each side, or an equal number of paying accounts.

If your number of 50% of the players that left classic is true, but you also have some people playing retail who left because their guilds are not raiding anymore or whatever, and that some players that moved from retail to classic are still playing classic (which there are), then the number of players playing classic has to be greater then the number of players playing retail.

So your premise is:
1) Lets assume that subs tripled(It was a reliable source but not blizzard so decent assumption)
2) Lets assume that all those who came for classic release actually played classic and didnt join retail; aka the growth was all classic(I know this is not 100% true but it probably is still a decent assumption/close enough to true)
3) Lets assume people who play one dont play the other(A bad assumption but without it there could be any amount of population and your claim is pointless)
4) Lets assume people never convert from one to the other(A bad assumption but without it there could be any amount of population and your claim is pointless)
Conclusion) Then we have the following 1:2 ratio of retail to classic
Claim) You then hypothesis that if 50% of people stop then classic is > retail
Cases:
1) 100% of losses are classic : This would make the ratio 3:2 retail to classic
2) most of losses are retail(can't be 100% because half of people are not retail in assumptions) : This would make the ratio 0:1 retail to classic
So the ration is somewhere between 3:2 and 0:1... Thus your claim is not provable and at best a guess that requires 2 bad assumptions and 2 decent ones

[MoanaLisa]

OK. This has devolved into pointless talking points, speculative gossip about server caps presented as fact, insults and a lot of game vs. game stuff. None of that is particularly healthy for a thread so it will be closed.