
Originally Posted by
Biomega
I've also been saying this for a while, and it seems to make sense from a business perspective.
HOWEVER
It kind of inverts the argument. "It's fine for them" is all well and good, but it's also, you know, ACTIVELY CAUSED BY THEM. They're purposely designing with that dynamic in mind, because it's cost-effective. The kind of player who buys an expansion, plays for 1-3 months, and then quits tends to be very hard to please almost no matter what. They're people who ride hype, who jump on something that's new and interesting and in the moment, and then get bored and jump on the next thing practically regardless of how good the previous thing was. Trying to create content good enough to retain that kind of player is almost impossible, SO THEY DON'T EVEN TRY. Instead, they double-down on what attracts that kind of player: a splashy release, a considerable hype window, and features that look attractive and interesting irrespective of their long-term viability: flashiness over substance.
That doesn't mean the long-term subbers are irrelevant, of course. Far from it. But there, too, that kind of stratification holds: people who sub for 1-3 months on a new tier, etc. Repeat the same model again: flashy hype, big splash, long-term viability doesn't really matter. That's why the story has become an absolute shit show, for example - because they don't care about a larger, intricately woven narrative. They care about periodic high points to coincide with seasons/expansions, that deliver cinematic sound-bite moments everyone can go OMG WOW over, and never you mind how it all fits together or how characters do or do not develop because they can just ex-machina at will and pull the next big moment out of a hat whenever they please.
Of course it's not like all of this is perfect, or as if WoW doesn't have any problems. Of course it does. But that's connected to how they're doing business there, sacrificing the long term in favor of short-term hype spikes they can plan to fall in around important business dates like quarterly reports or investor calls. That may not be good for the game's health in the long run, but the game can't survive the long run anyway; it'll die off eventually no matter what. And this seems to at least LOOK like a good cost/benefit ratio for them, as making content better gets more expensive but doesn't necessarily scale the number of new/retained players at the same rate. At least that - or something like it - appears to be their current business strategy. Whether or not that turns out to be a smart play is anyone's guess.