f13.net

I see a lot of people talking shit about how they think this game won't sell 300k copies or whatever.   Here is your chance to make an official prediction.  I'll edit the post as people reply

Box Sales in the first month: 500,000
Subs: 300,000


Azaroth: 1.5 million boxes 900,000 subs
Soln 600,000 boxes 500,000 subs
amiable 1.5 million boxes 900,000 subs
Morfiend 1.2 million (something) by the end of 3 months.
Khaldun 1 million boxes in 2 months, 700k subs
Comstar 1.2 million units first 2 months 800K subscribers in 2 months.
Draegon 900k boxes sold first week 1.2 million subs in 3 months
hawkbit 750k boxes first month, 1.2 million after 3 months. 600k sub retention after first month, 750k after third month
UnSub First month box sales: 800k First sub month: 500k Second sub month: 700k
Ratman: UnSub Sycophant
Falwell: 1.2 mill boxes in 60 days 680k subs in 60 days
Photek: Falwell Sycophant
Wasted: Emo Warrior
Slayerik: 750,000 boxes sold in a month. 500,000 subs
Nebu 800k boxes after 3 months.  450k subs after the first month
Miasma: Boxes: 900,000 first month and 1.3 million in the first three months. Subs:  800,000 as a peak in the first few months and then down to around 500,000 a year later
MrBloodWorth: 800k boxes after 3 months.  450k subs after the first month
trias_e: 800k boxes sold first month, 600k subs after first month over
Lantyssa: 900k boxes initially, 450k subs, 150k subs at 6 months

I say it triples that.

Everyone wants to play WoW, but everyone is sick of playing WoW.

As such, the perfect solution is Warhammer.

Box Sales in the first month: 600,000
Subs: 500,000

This.  If not better.

I say 1.2 mil by the end of 3 months.

1 million boxes sold in 2 months or so.
700k subscribers at or around Nov. 30th.

After that, unless the game is in very solid shape, expect a bleed out of subscribers back down to about 400k, maybe smaller.

1.2 million units first 2 months.
800K subscribers in 2 months.

900k boxes sold first week
1.2 million subs in 3 months.

750k boxes first month, 1.2 million after 3 months.

600k sub retention after first month, 750k after third month. 

I'd love to see myself projected low. 

(Does anyone know if Mythic is going to be staggering the release of box copies like they did for DAOC? Because if they 'only' ship 800k, then that's what they will be limited to)

First month box sales: 800k

First sub month: 500k

Second sub month: 700k

Sub figures when WotLK comes out: 300k  :why_so_serious:

Update: 12 months from launch: 500 k (unless a major new expansion has been launched by then, in which case 700k)

I like these numbers.

What are the criteria exactly? 30 days? 60? 90?

I'll do mine for 60 days since that 30 day first billing cycle is such a critical time.

1.2 million boxes
680k subscribers

I think I'm with Falwell here. Around 1,1-1,5 million boxes sold, 600-700k subscribers after 60 days.

I predict no figures will be released that everyone will agree to.

I haven't played beta but I think it will sell similar boxes to Conan initially, I think that represents the pool out there of people willing to try at release a reasonably well marketed and hyped game with a perceived level of production quality.  I think they will retain more people than Conan did and not be hurt too dramatically by WotLK.

This game lacks the hype AoC had going for it at launch. The poor performance of AoC (after the tortage bait and switch) may leave people like myself a little weary on another non-Blizzard MMO. Due to those crazy Euros though, I'll give it:

750,000 boxes sold in a month.
500,000 subs

800k boxes after 3 months.  450k subs after the first month. 

I hate this type of thing, we're just pulling numbers out of the air, I might as well start buying lottery tickets if I think I have a hope of being right.

Boxes: 900,000 first month and 1.3 million in the first three months.
Subs:  800,000 as a peak in the first few months and then down to around 500,000 a year later.

One in three chance that the subscribers will briefly break one million.


By subscriber I mean someone who has had to actually pay the monthly fee.

Same.

800k boxes after 3 months.  450k subs after the first month. 

Worldwide right?

800k boxes sold first month, 600k subs after first month over.

Gets up to 800k subs before WOTLK comes out, after which it loses about 25% of the population, many of which filter back at a later time.  Population fluctuates between 600k and 1 million for the first year.  I would wager a reasonable amount that the game at some point does crack 1 million subs...but not my life savings.  After that depends on Mythic's success with expansions.

900k boxes initially
450k first month retention
150k six month retention (WoW expansion releasing as the shine is wearing off is going to hurt)

500k boxes first month, 750k boxes after 3.

First month retention 250k, 3 month 350k, 6 month 150k.

I'm not going to give heavy numbers, but if Mark wants 500k, I think he'll be surprised. The market is ripe, they're beating wrath, box sales will be impressive and will be more than AoC, easy. As long as they ship that many on Day 1 at least.

500k box sales, 100k subs

Box sales: 500k
Subs: 250k

Boxes after 3 months: 1.3 million
Subs after 3 months: 600k

This based on, of course, nothing whatsoever.

If you mean beating by pre-orders then of course. Who pre-orders an expansion? Besides everyone knows the wotlk boxes are going to be so plentiful on opening day in every store that sells games to make pre-ordering a pointless endeavor.

Someone in this or another thread hit the nail on the head, the MMORPG market is not what's grown vastly, it's the casual people using wow as another 'sims' type leisure activity and the vast majority of players don't really want/like mmorpg's.

However....1mil box sales in the us, 650k after 3 months but no higher than that

Key thing here is predicting up to release of Wrath of the Lich King. After that point, all bets are off, as things may change both based on whether Wrath keeps WoW players interested for more than a month or two AND whether Warhammer has run into serious technical or content-related snags.

1.2m at launch (as long as they make that many boxes)
Half of that untill Wrath launches
Half of that post Wrath

I do not hope that it is a resounding success, I do hope it fails. Only to prove that the market might be ready for something different then *YAWN* high-fantasy-diku-shizzle.

Pretty sure that is beating as in, beating to market.

[Morgan Freeman]
"I wish I could say that the sisters left him alone after that. But prison is not a fairy tale."
[/Freeman]

If WAR is deemed a "failure" (probably by not having 20 zillion subscribers) people will just blame it on Blizzard cornering the market, not on their own choices of game design.

1st month 800k boxes, 600k subs after the free month is done.

1st month 1.5 million boxes
3rd month 2 mill subs
6 month 1.2 mill subs

Box sales: Somewhere around one and a half million, and steady sales after that.
Subs: Three-quarters of a million at launch, up to about a million or so by November, then back down to just over half a million or so.

Sales: First month 1 million, 2nd month 200k
Subs: 30 day 800k renewal, 90 day 250k or fewer

Vector: The game will have every sign of huge success up to when WOTLK is released and will then be gutted in both new sales and subs.

Box sales ~1 million
Subs, month 1: 600-700k
Subs, month 3: 350k, with it dropping to ~200k by month 6.

There will be a good sized dip when WotLK releases, but I think plenty of them will come back, the pvp crowd first, and the pve types about a month later, once they're done with the new content.

~1.6 million subs in the EU/NA after a 7 month period
2.2-3.5 million subs in Asia after a 7 month period.
I don't do box sales.

1.5m-2m initial box sales (by Christmas). Down to 400-500k players by June/July 2009. (Both numbers for US/Euro/AU)


Also, this:

Box sales: Who cares.
Subs: 500k

If possible I would like to revise my numbers downward:

1 million boxes sold - 500,000 subs.

Box sales: Who cares, but for the sake of completeness I'll guess 750k.
Subs retained: 150k after WotLK goes live.

(edit: my sub retained guess is for NA only.)

Do you "who cares about box sales" people realize that the total number of subscriptions can never be greater than the box sales?  It creates an upper bound making them rather important...  Millions of dollars coming your way in sales revenue after doing nothing but spend money for years is rather nice too.

The quality of the game is going to be reflected in the subscriber retention. Does the game have something others don't? Is that "something" compelling enough to retain a large (i.e. more than 300k) subscribers? Are there really enough dedicated RvR/PvP subscribers out there to make this game a smash hit? Or is it going to end up a niche game?

The initial box sales can be driven by many things that have nothing to do with the quality of the game. Did you like the developers' past offerings? Did the developer and publisher do a good job of hyping the game? Has it been awhile since the last big thing came along? Etc.

In terms of financial success, you're right. Box sales matter. The developer and publisher are certainly going to be interested in those numbers. I'm thinking in terms of whether the game itself is going to be worthwhile, so I don't really care how many people play for the first free month. It's how many people are still playing in a year that matters to me.

There isn't enough to this game. I don't believe it'll keep the attention of very many players.

First month box sales: 600k

Subs after free trial month: 200k

Subs this time next year: < 200k. Wild guess, 100k.

The majority of you are flat out wrong.

Yes, I know things. :awesome_for_real:

Well considering its a pretty specific question being asked and people are giving different answers its pretty safe to say that a lot of people are going to be wrong...except for those that are right.  :awesome_for_real:

I don't think the open beta went as well as they must have hoped, and on playing it a bit now don't think its going to reach the heights many people are predicting here.  If they get their 500k subs I think they will be very lucky.

AOC was the biggest effect on potential loss of sale.   :awesome_for_real:

Yeah, but have you been playing the game for a year like I have?\

What does playing a game for a year have to do knowing things? You hate everything.

Even though my estimates were higher than average I'm starting to think that if enough WoW people stick with the game it might achieve a critical mass and continue to increase its subscription numbers as time goes on instead of losing them.  That's a big if though.  It primarily centres around whether or not people enjoy the RvR I think.  I'm not a big PvP guy and even I really enjoy the RvR in this game.  That's not necessarily a good thing though, I like it because there are no consequences and you immediately get back up and into the fight like an FPS, more "hardcore" PvP players probably loathe what I enjoy here.

I've already noticed a serious problem with the scenarios though.  Last night if you joined solo you would get destroyed four times out of five because you were matched against full guild groups with vent who could actually plan.  We lost a scenario 500-3 last night, I shit you not, 500-3.  It was a stunning loss.  Our side had a lot lower levels but still FIVE HUNDRED TO THREE.

From my omnipresent useless predictions thread.

Please bear in mìind that all predictions were cast in January 2007, that is 20 months ago.

This will hopefully change as the uber-guilds level out of the Tier 1 bracket, so you should see a lot more pugs...  At max level, yes, you will get steamrolled in scenarios unless you are part of an organized group.  But thats what world PvP is for!

f13 lost once about 500 to 73. We got steamrolled by level 11s. Our same group - which was between 5 and 8 won against a bunch of 9s and 10s about 5 times in a row after that. We handily gave them their ass on a platter. It was good fun though as they were decently organized. We were just completely on the ball with focus fire.

Also, yes, pretty much every major guild came to WAR. Which made server decisions a nightmare.

There is also more guild organization when you only have CE people playing.  Wait until the unwashed savages get in, then you'll have some fun.

Press release (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080915005624&newsLang=en)

Is it me or it speaks about a record in preorders but doesn't give that number away, and shifts to "boxes sold to retailers", which is completely different?

Does it matter though?  Their record could be 300k from DAOC for all I know.

Hopefully it won't end up like AoC, here the local bestbuy has a whole shelf of boxes that have been sitting there for ages. Old Fat one, small Clamshell ones, even a few CE boxes.

Sold to Retailers does not equal Sold Retail

Ya, but it's good sign.  Wasn't AoC's prelaunch to retailer number 700k?

What's the difference really?  I'd guess it's a difference in potential subscribers and in profit margins being lower than selling direct.  Still, you have to be happy about selling 1.5 million boxes of anything to anyone, don't you? 

Except for Retailer Returns. If the retailers don't move the boxes, you get them back.

Box sales for 2 months 1.5 mill
Subs 800k

How do returns work.  I have seen stuff sit on the self forever.

If this is the case, then you're not really "selling" the boxes to the retailers, are you?  Sounds like consignment of sorts, not a box sale. 

Is this really how it works?  Do game makers just rent shelf space?  How odd.

That's how a LOT of retail stuff works.  It will undoubtedly depend on the deal between manufacturer and retailer, but chances are that the risk is primarily with the manufacturer.  Even if they can't now, I'd wager Best Buy would eventually be able to return all their AoC boxes.

I don't think it works *exactly* like that, or our local Fry's wouldn't have had TA: Kingdoms on sale for 1 cent for like 8 years.

First 60 days:

1.5 million sales
1 million subs

People are sick to death in WoW and want more meaningful PVP than stupid BG's that don't mean anything or l33t arena kings who's gear is 90% of their skill.

Warhammer provides the right alternative at the right time.

fixed it for you, warhammer is gonna be fun but different? it ain't.

Nija read my mind.

You know what, having played the beta, I'm going to change my prediction. I'd say 750k box sales and 400k subs.

Honestly, after that patch in the OB, i think i will need to raise mine as well, i was impressed by how much they were able to turn around.

Does this really matter when EA has already done their marketing push and admitted they are making way more copies available to retailers in hopes of cashing in on the hype of day one new mmo rush thing. Again just funky wording, Perhaps just say we've cut/pressed this many on initial CD/DVD pressing and hence had our flunkies those underling retailers take on stock all these to capialize on the day one - first week or two buying power. So not to be out of stock and have to rush a second printing.

nm, already posted

I think watching the development process for the past year gives me a good vantage point. I've watched the skill system change 3 times. I've seen the landscapes contract and expand. I've played a scrapped class to level 40. I've played two other classes to high 20s. I didn't like very much of it. I've seen them react to things that were perceived as problems. I didn't like how most problems were approached and felt a little left out as there wasn't much discussion on many matters that I considered important.

The people who are approaching this game as PVP "Done Right" are way off base. The pacing is all wrong. The skill system is vanilla, predictable, and boring. The encounters are predictable and boring. The landscape is forgettable - environment and positioning are irrelevant. The classes are cookie cutter with near carbon copies present on either side. I understand this is needed for balance purposes, but they still are lacking on that front as well. There's a lot of "math" to the gameplay. You are dealing with a lot of percentages while you're staring at the "ABILITY NOT READY" notification. In the end, focused fire voice communication will win the day and render the final opinion of the game for most players "more of the same."

I don't think this product is a good use of what little spare time I have. I don't hate everything. Right now, IMO, TF2 is the best mix of time/fun. I've played MMO games since '96 so I don't think you can say that I blindly hate all of them. Those that I hate, I hate for very particular reasons. I could go on, but nobody reads this crap and it's better said on Vent.

I agree.  This game is definately not "pvp done right".  I would say that it's more "PvP for the masses".  It's accessible, dumbed down, and viscerally fun.   I don't think it will hold people for long... it just doesn't have the complexity to keep people. 

Over nine thousand.

So I was inside a game-chain shop today, in the nearby shopping mall and talking to the salesguy.

He told me that they have been totally shocked by "people coming out of the woodwork" to pre-order the game. He talked about how heaps of them were Warhammer players, "with the little figures and all that". There's a GW store about 200m away from this store, so I'm sure that it's had an effect, and clearly my example here is anecdotal, but it goes along with what I was saying before about the Warhammer players being a big market along with the MMO fans that are the only thing most of you can see and many are being douches about. It's not just disenfranchised AoC fans.

PvP is about the complexities of fighting other people, not fighting an arbitrary game system. I can't say if WAR got this right or not, but actual game system complexity is really minor for a PvP (not just MMOs) game's stickiness. Pulling in fresh blood is more important than clinging on to a hardcore niche population in any case, it will keep even the hardcores interested longer than just ganking the same old people over and over would.

I'm having flashbacks to comment boards on WoW's release.  Mythic should be so lucky as to grab the masses.

Think about this.  Complexity adds to depth and strategy elements.  It's the difference between having 2 abilities and having 20.  If there is no subtle strategy in deciding which buttons to push at which time, then the game devolves to who pushes all their buttons first.  WAR isn't as simple as all that, but it's certainly not as deep as it could be.  Timing abilities, the use of counters, positioning on the battlefield, use of the landscape, etc. all add to depth of gameplay. 

I don't disagree, certainly not, that clever systems earn a game alot of depth, but I don't think complexity is needed for PvP to be fun/satisfying. Rather I feel that complexity should be avoided in PvP as much as possible since it makes it harder to balance and appears daunting to new players. It needs to make sense from the get go and for natural reasons, not because some designer thought it was cool to add +1% damage for every feet of elevation you got. PvP in MMOs is full of that kind of thinking - that the mechanics need to be learned first and then you get to learn to use them. It's part of the diku heritage where tabular data is king and theory is more important than practice.

To keep it short, I don't think we've really seen the essence of WAR PvP yet and that the depth might be looked for in the wrong areas. Perceived simplicity, I think, in an MMO is a good thing. Few thought Quake had much depth... until people realised just how much there was to gain from learning a particularly tricky jump.

Edit:
Grammar are hard.

I think I agree with you and am just arguing with myself.  You're right in that fun should be primary and that complexity shouldn't get in the way of fun.  I think the problem I have is one more of a niche nature.  I like complexity and find fun in having to make on-the-spot decisions often during gameplay.  Any game that forces me to make tough choices quickly during pvp is more fun to me.  A personal thing on my part. 

You will have tough choices. You'll have to decide whether you want to kill another sorceress for the "OMG you just killed 100 sorceresses" achievement, or whether you want to be sensible and take out the healer first.

Common result of having two abilities: players choose which of the two abilities to use depending on the situation.
Common result of having 20 abilities: players figure out which is the best and spam is over and over and over.

The more complexity you put into a system the more of a chance there will be one choice that is far better than the rest. Simple PvP games usually have more complicated strategy than complicated ones (Chess, Diplomacy, etc.).

So, you're suggesting that Checkers is more complex than chess?

I get your fundamental point, but I don't think it quite works in this case.  WAR with nothing but auto-attack wouldn't attract much attention. 

Perhaps he means convoluted?

Go is more complex than chess? :awesome_for_real:

Go, while very simple in its ruleset is a deeply complex game.  You've made my point for me.    Again, compare checkers to Go.  Similar length of the rules, VERY DIFFERENT game complexity.  It's all in the construction of the mechanics.  The number of options available to the player every move is what makes Chess and Go such tactically rich gaming experiences.   Each move in chess (or Go), there are significantly different options and resulting outcomes. 

So what's the solution? Do you want something like the slotted powerup ala City of Heroes? Where people can choose longer stun duration, less recharge etc? I think it's one avenue they can add in. It may not change the power radically but facing someone who is just a master of snares (longer snare duration, fastest recharge) vs a damage crit freak (higher crit + damage) are totally different experience.

I see it as a problem of interface.  Complex mechanics aren't a problem if you can adequately display what is going on in the heat of battle.  Otherwise it feels arbitrary.  The great of advantage of hp is that it is easily groked in a health bar.

The interface certainly doesn't help. 

If I'm going to be totally objective here, I should confess that I've not played the game past level 35.  I think that my opinions should honestly be held until I've had a chance to play the endgame for an extended period.  In all of the time I've spent playing this game it has always felt like something was missing.  It has much more of a WoW-like pvp feel to me than it does the strategic elements of DAoC.  Perhaps this will change as people overanalyze builds, powersets, buffs/debuffs, etc.  In other words, I'm just giving my gut impressions after months of gameplay.  It's probably best that I give this game a chance and just hold my reaction until the endgame has been reached and allowed to evolve a bit both in the playerbase and through patches.

Yeah my impression has been: 'Don't believe the hype, but it's pretty fun back in beta', so I'm picking a box up tomorrow right during lunch hour and start right away. I'll see what happens then. Maybe I'll see you guys tomorrow.

Well the endgame is still under NDA for us elder server folks.  But I can at least tell you it's not more of the same.

I was actually agreeing, albeit with a snarky remark.

Actually boardgames in general are very good (and transparent) indicators of what are good mechanics and what are not. Good (modern) boardgames, like Settlers of Catan, or my favourite El Grande, have very few moving parts (systems) but each system interlocks in a way that makes the planning tought because you can't say what is objectively best at a given time. Ancient Go (and it's pronounced "goh", not "go" as in movement ;) is such an example - your move depends entirely on your opponent's move.

Just for the sake of theorycrafting, I think MMO PvP had better odds at being widely appealing if it was, like boardgames, more transparent. Less hidden factors (cooldowns, crazy ass skills, item usables) and more direct information to consider. Make it about making the right decision quickly - not about guessing what items they wear or what cooldowns are up. But that is just a theory. Although, even Magic the Gathering seems transparent when compared to your average diku PvP.

MtG is transparent, at least to high knowledge players.  Formats I'm familiar with,  I know what cards a guy is playing based solely on what their manabase and first or second turn plays are.  MtG also supports low knowledge skill strategies, though in allowing aggro decks to "play a dude,  turn your guys sideways".


Any time you need to "make the right decision quickly"  by and large gameplay devolves into spamming the most universally powerful ability.  (see "Spam doublefrost for the win!!!")

So sawing a lady in two is a transparent trick. Well, to stage magicians it is? Transparency isn't what you think - it's perfect information, not "most likely, 99% sure, honest". That's experience you're thinking of - knowing best practices, patterns, popular builds and so on. It's actually a near-polar opposite of transparency and applicible to any game with hidden aspects. If you took 60 random cards and shuffled, you wouldn't have a clue what your opponent had on hand, so no, Magic is not very transparent.

As such, transparency disarms the method you described, because since it's out there - in the open - you'd need to be real stupid to fall for the cheapest methods of winning.

I think this is because, by and large, games are poorly designed.  Universally powerful ability = poor game design.  I don't think it's because creating a complex pvp game, a game with many different possible actions, somehow leads inevitably to shallow gameplay.  You can't usefully "queen spam" in chess.   

Virtua Fighter is a good example of a very complex pvp video game series that (usually) hasn't devolved into spamming a few key abilities.  And really, even playing as an elbow-spam Jackie in VF4 is pretty much the opposite of shallow gameplay:  you still need to be constantly aware of and ready to deal with your opponent's (many, many) options in any given situation to be even decent.

I think you're not talking about the same thing here. It is not obvious to a player who plays one or two or even five games of MtG what makes an efficient card, how to build decks, what a mana curve is, etc. If MtG was mechanically transparent, you'd have a good idea about how to go about being competitive after just a few games, like people are with Settlers or Puerto Rico.

I very much agree with some of this, but I do think complexity is necessary for good pvp in the absence of twitch--  I'd also say twitch is another kind of complexity.  The thing is, avoiding complexity as much as possible...  chess does that.  Go does that.  What do they say about great games...  day to learn, lifetime to master?

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather game developers were aiming for chess than for checkers.  Not that any of them are particularly worried about what I think, obviously.

 




  

Just to complete this thread and get it back on topic:

Paul Barnett's bet.


3 millions subs at WAR's peak.

1 million subs within 12 months. (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=239234)

 :drill:

Interesting interview... nevertheless... he is being rather brave saying it publicly.

He needs to talk less.

Are they even launching in asia?  Cuz I mean... those are high numbers.

Oddly, I expected peak within the first 12 months.  Not sure if his numbers are going to hold. 

I *hope* they do, because I really want to see the game take off.  But...

Yes they are (http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/news/currentNews/20070403.php). That's why some of us are projecting so high.

Oops, I am silly and uninformed.

I've thought this since the very first time he opened his mouth.

Paul Barnett is an idiot, but I can't believe that he would have said those numbers without SOME idea from the internal metrics of preorders and such what things were projected to be.  3 mil is a bit high, but stably above 1 is realistic. 

I reckon it's going to sell very well in the first month - 1.6 million or so. There's enough of an ex-WoW sub, current-but-bored-WoW sub and Warhammer tabletop base (although that group is likely to have a high WoW-sub proportion anyway) to give them a good kick-start and an bit infusion of cash.

I reckon they'll keep 1/3 of box sales past the first month, so say 500k. Then WOTLK will hit and those numbers will drop to about 200k and stay there. What happens after that will depend, IMO, entirely on how the early months of live go in terms of patching, fixing, addressing issues and community management. Which are, unfortunately, things that I remember being done really badly by Mythic/GOA in the past :(  I really hope they do better, I'd love to see those 3m sales and 1m stable subs, but I think it's unlikely. Just my opinion though.

Copypasta summary:

1.6 million box sales, 500k subs in first couple of months, dropping to 200k by 2009.

This sort of math always seems wonky to me. There's no way to gauge how much people will fall into the community zone with their guilds. It's a lot safer to say 750k-1M subs in 2009.

I think folk are really overestimating the allure of WOTLK.  The third expansion of any game is going to have a "been there-done that" feel to it.  I'm not saying there won't be folks who will leave for WOTLK, I just don't think you are going to see en mass movement,  (Especially since I hear rumors that Blizzard is releasing the game uncharacteristically early, and it it lacks polish, especially for a Blizzard title).

Agreed, actually. The first expansion that comes around holds promises of "fixing" all that people didn't like with the vanilla game. The hopes may not be well-founded or anything, but that's hope for you. With the second expansion the standard is set and people subconsiously know it won't really change from the game that's there today. I'm personally finding WotLK lacklustre due to that reason - that I know it won't really change WoW in a way I'd like to see, just as little as tBC did in the end.

(http://www.gucomics.com/comics/2008/gu_20080919.jpg)