Can the new World of Warcraft Expansion halt Wow's decline

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

snip

You seem to have missed the other 99% of my post. I had some mistakes that I rectified when called out on them, but other than that it's accurate. He is right, a piece of art doesn't diminish its value over time, that's absurd. WoW's quality as a game has declined ever since Cataclysm and that has nothing to do with age. If Blizzard have designed WoW to actually be engaging and to be able to draw in new players (while keeping old players engaged, but that's admittedly harder) sub numbers wouldn't drop. Why? Because it's still one of the (if not THE ) best MMOs out there. What is there to play of this genre, seriously? Guild Wars 1 is not maintained anymore, GW2 is badly designed from the ground up, TERA, RIFT, SWtoR (lol) and all those other "WoW clones" have already failed. Everquest, DAoC or UO are too archaic (mostly because of really old and obtrusive technology, the age of them have no bearing on WoW, they have a completely different context and design decisions which also have no bearing on WoW) and almost impossible to pick up. City of Heroes/Villains is no longer alive sadly and what do we have left? FFXIV and WoW. I somehow think FFXIV is a temporary thing, although I haven't played it I just have a hunch judging from other similar MMOs.

What I am trying to say is that WoW has a lot of things going for it, but Blizzard aren't capable of maintaining or exploring that potential. THAT'S what's causing the sub loss, not age. They have tried to lessen the effects of age on the graphics which shows. It's still a very nice game to look at. I covered other things (like old players staying) in my other posts.

 

[gigastar]

Im sure it will, in the same way that linking the fire halts the worlds decline in Dark Souls.

Its just prolonging a slow, inevitable death.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

What I am trying to say is that WoW has a lot of things going for it, but Blizzard aren't capable of maintaining or exploring that potential. THAT'S what's causing the sub loss, not age. They have tried to lessen the effects of age on the graphics which shows. It's still a very nice game to look at. I covered other things (like old players staying) in my other posts.

WoW does have a lot of things going to it, and probably is still the principal draw in the (extraordinarily stagnant) MMO genre. There are a lot of reasons for that, and for the problems with the genre as a whole.

It is disingenuous, however, to hand wave age as the over-riding factor behind subscriber entropy. There isn't a game in existence that cannot wear out its welcome through excessive play, and the man-hours poured into WoW over its decade plus of existence are staggering. How many iterations can you make on that core formula before your play mechanics begin to grow stale? How many changes of venue, how many new classes, how many revisits of popular lore characters, before the fact you're still leaning on the same game play pillars becomes a problem? How many of the "me too" clones of Everquest's loot level treadmill failed...not because they were "bad games"...but because they were exploring an extremely tired formula?

There are lots of arguments about whether or not this quality of life change made WoW better or worse, or whether a particular streamlining robbed the game of important complexity or banished an annoying chore. It all depends on the gamer in question. Wildstar tried to capture "Burning Crusade era WoW" by revisiting hostile attunements and aggressively stratified player accomplishments (ideas a WoW player was recently triple gilded for after waxing nostalgic about them on Reddit) and the idea went over like a lead balloon. Was Wildstar just an exercise in ineptitude, or is it evidence that things aren't as simple as "the game was better back then"?

While debates might rage over whether WoW is a better game when it caters to hardcores or casuals, is better off being streamlined or groaning under the weight of a thousand game play complexities, thrived more during "raid or die" or "welfare epics", needs forced socialization or more solo content, etc, etc, etc, the one thing that is universally true of every last person playing it is that everyone has a boredom threshold. That a sizable amount of people might be hitting it after ten bloody years is not surprising, even by the standards of a genre that celebrates time sinks and treadmills.

TLDR - Age is a factor. Even if WoW was the best game ever made, it would still be shedding players due to age.

PS - I went back and read your post...where on earth are you getting those CoD and Battlefield numbers?

Call of Duty has sold 141 million copies in the entire history of the FRANCHISE going back to 2003, a total of 10 titles sold across a multitude of platforms. The highest single title sales were 26.5 million for Modern Warfare 3. Battlefield sold a fraction of that, with the highest single title sales being Battlefield 3 at 15 million.

World of Warcraft sold ~14 million core boxes, and over 28 million expansion boxes (through 2013, does not account for WoD). This does not account for revenue from subscription fees. In box sales alone it rivals the success of the CoD franchise, given it is a mono platform game, and that is counting the core game as a distinct entity from its expansions. If you count expansion sales as part of the whole, it dwarfs any single CoD title, which have had the benefit of unique titles and advancing tech, not just iterations on an aging engine. It is one of the top 5 highest selling PC titles of all time. The total revenue from that ONE TITLE comes close to rivaling the entire CoD franchise, and likely easily outstrips it on any single platform.

PPS - Through January of 2014, Skyrim had sold in excess of 20 million copies, putting it just shy of CoD's highest selling title. How exactly is it that RPGs are not "mainstream"?

 

[Saltyk]

Yes. For about six months.

Then, all the people that came back for the new expansion will get bored and leave. And anyone who was curious enough to try it out will get bored and leave. And probably some of the people who were still playing will get bored and leave, at some point.

Then, Blizzard will either release a new expansion and bring people back, or probably shut it down if it's no longer more profitable to keep the servers running.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

snip

My, literally, second sentence explained that I did have some mistakes that I rectified in my other posts in this thread. Those mistakes include the 500 mil copy thing. And it's literally the least important thing I've said. Skyrim is the least RPG of the Elder Scrolls series. It's, again, an action game with RPG elements. I also said that WoW might be mainstream in the same other post. That's irrelevant, because the sub numbers are dropping. I pointed out that it might also contribute to the decline. (trying to spread for mass appeal)

Moving on - I agree with you, age is a factor. But it's only a factor in old players, since new players won't have burn-out. Blizzard trying and failing to bring in new players is also telling. Age isn't the number 1 factor, which people seem to suggest. It IS a factor but it's probably not in the first 5 major ones.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

My, literally, second sentence explained that I did have some mistakes that I rectified in my other posts in this thread. Those mistakes include the 500 mil copy thing.

You did, but the you continued to (for some reason) compare franchise box sales against active subscription numbers in year eleven of a game's existence as some kind of substantiation for an argument of "mass appeal". I'm pretty sure you can see where that falls apart.

And it's literally the least important thing I've said.

Actually, your subjective assessments of WoW's quality are "literally the least important things you've said". That is not to denigrate your opinion specifically, but rather to indicate that statements of opinion of this nature are virtually worthless unless you are addressing an audience that already agrees with you. You attempt to make the argument that WoW "is almost an objectively bad game now", which is a patently ludicrous assertion to make. Not because WoW is observably an excellent game, but because making a statement of opinion and then qualifying it as "objective" is a very silly thing to do. The modifier of "almost" does not rescue it.

Judging from your text, you're clearly of the "Vanilla was best" persuasion when judging the game, and that's fine. It is far from a universal opinion, and there is absolutely no metric available to determine whether or not game play conventions are "good" or "bad". We can only even speculate as to whether or not they are "popular" as MMOs are games of many moving parts and people come and go for a great myriad of reasons.

Skyrim is the least RPG of the Elder Scrolls series.

Let's not play the "what's a real RPG" game, it's tiresome.

That's irrelevant, because the sub numbers are dropping.

They are also still ridiculously high. WoW continues to enjoy a preternaturally large market share in its genre.

But it's only a factor in old players, since new players won't have burn-out.

If you don't think age is a factor for new players, please think again. Compare the day one experience of a new player in 2004 with the day one experience of a new player in 2015. The player base is gentrified and jaded. The economy is ridiculously inflated. Old content is oddly balanced and largely treated as an afterthought. Boosting to high level immediately will only be confusing to a brand new player. There is no "fresh" experience that an eleven year old game can impart. There is no sense of exploring something new, and learning a game alongside others.

Blizzard trying and failing to bring in new players is also telling.

Yes, it's telling that the game is eleven years old and nothing lasts forever.

Age isn't the number 1 factor, which people seem to suggest. It IS a factor but it's probably not in the first 5 major ones.

It's the overwhelming #1 factor, followed by genre saturation, the barrier to entry caused by a subscription fee in a market that has become overwhelmingly free to play, and over-familiarity with mechanics leading to rapid content exhaustion. I know players like to imagine their personal pet peeves are the driving factors behind slumping sales or subscription loss, but they are micro factors, not macro ones.

However if you want to recapture the glory of vanilla WoW, a bunch of old vanilla WoW designers made a game just for you in Wildstar. It was a huge success, losing only 98% of its playerbase over two months.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

snip

You are insistently cherry picking anything I say. "I also said that WoW might be mainstream in the same other post." Was completely disregarded. Yes, me comparing total franchise sales isn't fair. It's also irrelevant lulz. I was trying to say that mainstreamizing WoW didn't work to keep subs stable. That's the point. Disregard the whole musing about RPGs not being mainstream. It was just a random thought. RPGs are mainstream, fair enough. I also said vanilla is horrible.

How do you know age is the number 1 factor? I certainly haven't come to that conclusion so how did you? Not retaining new players because of design decisions is Blizzard's fault. I can't really say anything about the objectivity part. If you haven't figured out that there is objectivity in game design and art by this point, I really can't say anything that will change your mind. It would be a mind-numbing exercise to even try. (philosophically speaking, not insulting you in any way)

 

[Cyncial_Huggy]

No, I played during mid-to-end Cata and I came back a few weeks ago, didn't know what the hell I was doing. Honestly, they made the whole game needlessly confusing and then I came to the realization that grinding, unbalanced PvP and a shit community is just the most bland experience to pay for for 15 dollars a month.

 

[LordLundar]

Yes. For about six months.

Then, all the people that came back for the new expansion will get bored and leave. And anyone who was curious enough to try it out will get bored and leave. And probably some of the people who were still playing will get bored and leave, at some point.

Then, Blizzard will either release a new expansion and bring people back, or probably shut it down if it's no longer more profitable to keep the servers running.

Pretty much. This expansion reeks of desperation much like Warlords. A munch of stuff thrown at you saying "look at all the stuff you miss from Vanilla and BC! It's back with the new play style we have! Isn't that great and want to make you come back?!" Much like warlords it will have the same effect of A short term upsurge then tank to well below what it started off with.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I was trying to say that mainstreamizing WoW didn't work to keep subs stable.

But it did "work". WoW itself representing a "mainstreaming" and streamlining of a formula that began with Everquest. Every expansion post Vanilla made the game more accessible. Was the massive growth it experienced during BC and WOTLK (where sales, sub growth and acclaim peaked, despite it being by far the most casual incarnation of the game until MoP hit) anomalous? Or is it more likely that the game's surge and then decline in popularity was part of the normal lifespan of an entertainment product, albeit an extraordinarily protracted one due to the game's status as a colossal genre-defining hit?

I'd argue that without the aggressive moves Blizzard made to capture a large, casual audience that WoW would've experienced subscriber drop off much sooner and much faster than it has. That it held on so long is evidence of the success of that strategy.

How do you know age is the number 1 factor?

Because it is an inevitable and universal factor.

I can't really say anything about the objectivity part. If you haven't figured out that there is objectivity in game design and art by this point, I really can't say anything that will change your mind.

By all means, convince me. Issue criticisms of the game that you feel are objectively measurable. You've stated a couple of times now that there are OBJECTIVE problems with the game that you are too tired/bored to list. List three. That won't take more than a few seconds.

And to make sure we're employing the same definition of the word:

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

There can't be any opinion involved. Measurable facts only, please. Even something as simple as "the graphics are bad" or "the game is too easy now" are statements of opinion.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

Because it is an inevitable and universal factor.

That doesn't answer my question at all. I was also clearly talking about the streamlining post-WotLK.

Everything else in your post is irrelevant. I said I'm not going to try to convince you of objectivity in art (which includes game design) because it's a very complicated concept in the philosophy of art and I don't have the years required. Start from Aristotle's Rhetorics all the way (you can skip the religious apologists) to Gadamer's Truth and Method and that will answer all your questions. I'm seriously saying that you should do it if you really are interested and in no way am I insulting you. Home-brewed philosophemes aren't serious. If you do have something to say on a philosophical level please don't because it's very off topic.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I was also clearly talking about the streamlining post-WotLK.

How was that remotely clear?

Everything else in your post is irrelevant.

As you consider my input on the matter "irrelevant", I shall cease to share it.

I said I'm not going to try to convince you of objectivity in art (which includes game design) because it's a very complicated concept in the philosophy of art and I don't have the years required.

Ah, I see that you are justified in your claims after all, but in such a complicated and academically rigorous fashion as to make it inexplicable to a plebeian such as myself without the requisite year to break down the communication barrier. I'll just have to accept your word on the subject as writ.