MMO Subs are a dead model - John Smedley

[Sky]

Casual is a mis-used and mis-understood word.

[Merusk]

Casual is a mis-used and mis-understood word.

"I'm casual because I don't raid.  Ignore my 55h/ week playtime!"

 

[Lantyssa]

I believe the Wow "reinvention cycle" is completely intentional, and contributes directly to its successes.

It contributes as much as an expansion does for any game.  Nothing more.

[ghost]

Casual is a mis-used and mis-understood word.

Everyone that thinks they understand what "casual" means should have children and actually care for them in a meaningful manner. 

[rk47]

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

[Nebu]

Be careful!  The loser must not know that they lost due to use of an advantage giving item.

Interesting talk.  It's interesting to see things from the business side.  Most of it was expected, but there were a few interesting tidbits I hadn't considered. 

[Evildrider]

Casual is a mis-used and mis-understood word.

Everyone that thinks they understand what "casual" means should have children and actually care for them in a meaningful manner. 

Isn't that what TV is for?   

[Mrbloodworth]

I believe the Wow "reinvention cycle" is completely intentional, and contributes directly to its successes.

It contributes as much as an expansion does for any game.  Nothing more.

I don't think so. Redoing parts of the rule set at set intervals makes even the core game new again for older users. Of course changing it to drastically or frequently is bad. But tossing out most of what you know, likely keeps people interested who were already saturated. It even effects core community sites, jockeying for the scoop on the new system workings. Like live hype for a game already released. Eternal buzz machine. After all, even a forum fight puts the topic on peoples tongs.

Example: look at the conversations here from vets, good and bad. Its 'new' again. Again. That doses not happen with just content updates, at least not to the degree that changing a core rule set does.

Content can be consumed, Version debates are eternal. 

[Pezzle]

People tend to dislike change.  Changing the core rules will make people nervous.  Who is dumbing down the classes supposed to attract?  Old players who quit because of the class changes to begin with?  New players who have no basis to judge the changes?  Is it worth the expense?  How are these changes going to bring up sub numbers? 

I can tell you that when I quit it was not class ability frustration, and none of the changes put in since then have enticed me enough to return.

[Mrbloodworth]

dumbing down

Overused term. If you are coming from that perspective, your following questions can not be answered.

Also:

"everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" - Albert Einstein

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo da Vinci

"It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away" - Antoine de Saint Exupéry

Anyway, my point was not about the methods used, but rather than with a 7 year product, Reinvention does add to longevity. You can look at any successful commercial product for this. Where other games have stagnated ( Due to lack of the loot bags blizzard have ), Blizzard has consistently reinvented Wow. Not always necessarily in major ways. But it does keep the game fresh over time.

[Pezzle]

Would you prefer simplify?

This is not marketing paper towels, your audience is different. 

I do not see this as a substitute for real content.  Do you honestly believe subs will go up?  Wow itself will remain unchanged.  Same monsters, same faction grinds, same quests.  More subs from that or less?  Mucking about in this fashion seems like a losing proposition.

[Merusk]

The only people who prefer complexity are those odd ducks who enjoy lording their superior knowledge over those who lack it.  They have nothing else to cling to and fortify their dubious position at the top of the heap, so they hold to that tiny thread of relevance and guard it jealously.

See also: Unix zealots.

[Mrbloodworth]

I do not see this as a substitute for real content.

Its not a substitute. Nowhere does anyone think this. I believe pandas and such are the content. But thats again beside my point.  At this point wow is so wide, some streamlining is warranted, but I digress.

Lets put it this way. If you still had wow 1.0 talent trees right now ( Ignoring the perceived flaws ), and they had never changed the basic system. Would that not have stagnated that part of the game?  How do you think this would have helped player retention and growth? Again, I'm not talking about flaws, just the simple fact, it was never changed.

Hell, are you still playing DnD 1.0 with the same books you bought 40 years ago? Trading card games are an accelerated form of this reinvention, with lower initial investment.

[Pezzle]

Heh.

This explains the rampaging success of coin flipping in online game rooms.

[Merusk]

I think calling the grind to the next tier of tank in WoT "content" is stretching the term past breaking.  The content is ownership of the tanks and the actual battles, not the Tech Tree. That's more of the incentive to put money into the game so you get XP faster.

Much like making tank prices so high you have to grind many, many battles or pay cash for the funds to purchase them and the relevant accessories.  Something that becomes more required at the high end of the tree. It's my understanding after T5 that prices for repairs, ammo and tanks take a steep incline while the currency payouts per match level-off or flat-out decline.

[Numtini]

I see the entire fiddling with trees and theorcrafting as a kind of "offline game" that keeps people interested in the actual gameplay. So I can see changing trees around as being a player retention thing, but I can't see dumbing it down to the level that we seem to be talking as adding to retention.

[Lantyssa]

I don't think so. Redoing parts of the rule set at set intervals makes even the core game new again for older users. Of course changing it to drastically or frequently is bad. But tossing out most of what you know, likely keeps people interested who were already saturated. It even effects core community sites, jockeying for the scoop on the new system workings. Like live hype for a game already released. Eternal buzz machine. After all, even a forum fight puts the topic on peoples tongs.

For a subset of people, it is an attraction.  For someone still invested in the game but unhappy with current mechanics, it is an attraction.

For the majority of people, most of which are happy if they're playing, it is about as welcome a change as making dungeons harder.  Only the theory crafters and the unhappy welcome large changes.

[Pezzle]

I do not see this as a substitute for real content.

Its not a substitute. Nowhere does anyone think this. I believe pandas and such are the content. But thats again beside my point.  At this point wow is so wide, some streamlining is warranted, but I digress.

Lets put it this way. If you still had wow 1.0 talent trees right now ( Ignoring the perceived flaws ), and they had never changed the basic system. Would that not have stagnated that part of the game?  How do you think this would have helped player retention and growth? Again, I'm not talking about flaws, just the simple fact, it was never changed.

Hell, are you still playing DnD 1.0 with the same books you bought 40 years ago? Trading card games are an accelerated form of this reinvention, with lower initial investment.

That is a much deeper conversation though, isn't it?  I think it is a mistake that most MMO's make their own content obsolete to the point where they feel compelled to redesign the system.  We should be able to agree that retention can come from additional content and non fubar system enhancements?  

Isn't the contention here that this system redesign is more about retention (bored players)than actual content or fixes?  Did I get that wrong?  

For me, WoW never addressed the fundamental problems.  If anything, Blizzard has only exacerbated them.  You redesign the class system because it is flawed, not because people are bored.


As for the rest?  

Board games can extend longevity with expansion, so can card games, so can pen and paper games!  I will object to the D&D comparisons.  Today's D&D is substantially different than the 70's version.  They do not function in the same way.  We are not on WoW 4, they have not scrapped the engine.

And from time to time I do break out the 70's books, yes.  

[Ingmar]

Casual is a mis-used and mis-understood word.

Everyone that thinks they understand what "casual" means should have children and actually care for them in a meaningful manner. 

Isn't that what TV is for?   

This is totally a non-sequitur, but you know you've been playing too much Blood Bowl when the first thing you think when you see "TV" is "team value."

[Mrbloodworth]

Isn't the contention here that this system redesign is more about retention (bored players)than actual content or fixes?  Did I get that wrong?

Only part you got wrong was thinking I was saying its the only reason its done.

Today's D&D is substantially different than the 70's version.  They do not function in the same way.  We are not on WoW 4, they have not scrapped the engine.

Same content included. Also, many re-bought new editions of the books ( $$ ). Discussions also happened around the gaming world. Many, have no clue about the 70's version, nor care.



How many systems are there now to define your Toon? Talents, Race, Class, Glyphs? Nothing wrong with streamlining systems as you add more.

[Pezzle]

Having played all the editions I disagree that it is the same content beyond "hey look, a wizard".  They have made so many mechanical and atmospheric changes the only things you really have in common are the name, dice and SOME basic character functions.  Of course it is about the money! 

On WoW, even if retention is only a part of the redesign it is a big gamble for reasons better illustrated by Lantyssa.

[Mrbloodworth]

Has dungeons, and dragons.

[Ingmar]

You inadvertently used a very bad example, Bloodworth. Trust me, the little fights we have here about WoW vs. EVE vs. EQ2 vs. whatever don't even begin to plumb the depths of hate and invective that characterize D&D edition wars. There are indeed people who still play the 40 year old game and will rip you a new one for suggesting that it isn't the perfect incarnation, and these people exist for every single version, sub-version, and home-published variant rule set that ever existed. More people still probably play 3rd edition or one of its millions of offspring than play 4th edition in total, although 4th I believe has the biggest single slice of pie if you don't combine all the various 3e flavors.

[Pezzle]

You can do better than that Bloodworth.

Trust Baba Yaga there.

[Nebu]

The last time I played D&D was in 1978.  Don't ruin my fond memories! 

[Ingmar]

You can do better than that Bloodworth.

Trust Baba Yaga there.

Actually... that's the hermit from Keep on the Borderlands. 

[Evildrider]

You inadvertently used a very bad example, Bloodworth. Trust me, the little fights we have here about WoW vs. EVE vs. EQ2 vs. whatever don't even begin to plumb the depths of hate and invective that characterize D&D edition wars. There are indeed people who still play the 40 year old game and will rip you a new one for suggesting that it isn't the perfect incarnation, and these people exist for every single version, sub-version, and home-published variant rule set that ever existed. More people still probably play 3rd edition or one of its millions of offspring than play 4th edition in total, although 4th I believe has the biggest single slice of pie if you don't combine all the various 3e flavors.

3e sucks!  2nd edition all the way!  

[Mrbloodworth]

You inadvertently used a very bad example, Bloodworth. Trust me, the little fights we have here about WoW vs. EVE vs. EQ2 vs. whatever don't even begin to plumb the depths of hate and invective that characterize D&D edition wars. There are indeed people who still play the 40 year old game and will rip you a new one for suggesting that it isn't the perfect incarnation, and these people exist for every single version, sub-version, and home-published variant rule set that ever existed. More people still probably play 3rd edition or one of its millions of offspring than play 4th edition in total, although 4th I believe has the biggest single slice of pie if you don't combine all the various 3e flavors.

It likely was a bad example. But I also knew this. The discussion between those groups make buzz. I had already talked about that. Those fights are part of that products successes.
Indeed, I am trying to avoid bring in peoples pet peeves into the conversation about my original assertion. It does not seem to be working. I think I expressed my point best here:

I believe the Wow "reinvention cycle" is completely intentional, and contributes directly to its successes.

It contributes as much as an expansion does for any game.  Nothing more.

I don't think so. Redoing parts of the rule set at set intervals makes even the core game new again for older users. Of course changing it to drastically or frequently is bad. But tossing out most of what you know, likely keeps people interested who were already saturated. It even effects core community sites, jockeying for the scoop on the new system workings. Like live hype for a game already released. Eternal buzz machine. After all, even a forum fight puts the topic on peoples tongs.

Example: look at the conversations here from vets, good and bad. Its 'new' again. Again. That doses not happen with just content updates, at least not to the degree that changing a core rule set does.

Content can be consumed, Version debates are eternal.  

[Sky]

We last played in 94, I think. 1st edition only! I should snap a pic of my rpg bookshelf.

Began a long tradition of hating constantly having to buy new rulebooks to keep up with the tards. We knew 1st ed, we knew the quirks and had extensive house rules, there was no reason to bother with newer editions. Especially if you look at the outlay of cash, which is of course the driving reason.

See also; MtG.

[Ingmar]

You inadvertently used a very bad example, Bloodworth. Trust me, the little fights we have here about WoW vs. EVE vs. EQ2 vs. whatever don't even begin to plumb the depths of hate and invective that characterize D&D edition wars. There are indeed people who still play the 40 year old game and will rip you a new one for suggesting that it isn't the perfect incarnation, and these people exist for every single version, sub-version, and home-published variant rule set that ever existed. More people still probably play 3rd edition or one of its millions of offspring than play 4th edition in total, although 4th I believe has the biggest single slice of pie if you don't combine all the various 3e flavors.

3e sucks!  2nd edition all the way!  

The people who prefer 2e are of course the smallest and saddest group out there. 

[Mrbloodworth]

I suppose the worst part pf my example is the fact the DnD books don't magically bust into flames when a new version comes out :)  But i bet this little bit of DnD talk has you guys thinking about it again. 

[Evildrider]

We last played in 94, I think. 1st edition only! I should snap a pic of my rpg bookshelf.

Began a long tradition of hating constantly having to buy new rulebooks to keep up with the tards. We knew 1st ed, we knew the quirks and had extensive house rules, there was no reason to bother with newer editions. Especially if you look at the outlay of cash, which is of course the driving reason.

See also; MtG.

Our gaming "club" got 3 sets of free 2nd edition books to play test with.  it was the main reason we decided to switch over.  It was nice having gaming connections back then.

Don't even get me started on MTG lol.  I spent too much money on that back in the day.  I remember going to the gaming store and buying boxes of the cards.

[Mrbloodworth]

See, I played Rifts. ( and/or Palladium Rules )

[Ingmar]

I suppose the worst part pf my example is the fact the DnD books don't magically bust into flames when a new version comes out :) 

Yeah, that and the fact that you can't house rule things you don't like in a video game (barring mods in single player games, but that's not what we're talking about).

[Evildrider]

You inadvertently used a very bad example, Bloodworth. Trust me, the little fights we have here about WoW vs. EVE vs. EQ2 vs. whatever don't even begin to plumb the depths of hate and invective that characterize D&D edition wars. There are indeed people who still play the 40 year old game and will rip you a new one for suggesting that it isn't the perfect incarnation, and these people exist for every single version, sub-version, and home-published variant rule set that ever existed. More people still probably play 3rd edition or one of its millions of offspring than play 4th edition in total, although 4th I believe has the biggest single slice of pie if you don't combine all the various 3e flavors.

3e sucks!  2nd edition all the way!  

I think the main reason we didn't upgrade to 3rd was the cost and the fact we were so burned out on D&D.  The last few years of my pen and paper gaming life was pretty much 40% Cyberpunk 2020, 40% Mechwarrior, 10% WoD Mage, and 10% Marvel Super Heroes.