Who DOES Blizzard need to fear?

[Falconeer]

I just think WoW will start shrinking and decaying soon, if it isn't already started and well covered by Blizzard. After all we are feeded their numbers.
I think Warhammer will be the best selling MMOg after WoW in 2008 but I don't think it will ever "surpass" the scary wowesque 6 million mark. I just think WoW has started its slooow shrink and sooner or later we will notice that a random game has more subscriptions than WoW. Of course this won't be this year or next year but in my opinion second half 2008 could be close to correct.

The core of my thinking is that 6 million users is such an EXAGGERATE figure that it is almost not real. It WILL shrink, and when that will happen it will happen fast. They garnered lots of casual players and turned them in hardcore ones (as someone whose name I can't remember said on these boards), sure, but how will that last? How long before those players grow, get back to life or just start playing other non-massive games as they did before?
I know I could be way wrong, but there's SO many burned out and bored WoW players out there just hoping TBC could refresh their love that when it won't happen their love will eventually start to fade. When they'll found out TBC is not enough to re-live those magic past 2 years they will start to leav en masse.
EverQuest resisted on the top for years before FFXI came out, but that was with a new expansion every 6 months and with close to no competitors at all.

How many times, how many years, can you run Molten Core, or the new killer-dungeon-moltencore-equivalent we will get with TBC, before thinking getting a break, or just daring to try the new stuff people is buzzing about, could be a good idea?

Bottom line:
WoW will start to churn and get old soon. In fact it will show very soon after The Burning Crusade release.
And will be beaten by Warhammer Online in late 2008.

[Falconeer]

I don't know about you all, but I'm waiting for this.

Sigh, I know. As I am waiting for this.

[Ironwood]

Hey, another "I'm on Teh Drugz" thread.


Excellent.

[El Gallo]

For reals, as Schild said, the current gaming companies in the MMO-verse are no competition at all.  If even 1/10th Koster says is true, they don't have the talent, money, culture or ambition to do more than fight each other for the crumbs falling off Blizzard's table for the rest of their miserable corporate lives.

What Blizzard could more realistically fear is a non-clownshoes entertainment company making a move into the market.  Sony Pictures.  Dreamworks.  Disney.  And their East Asian counterparts I am unfamiliar with.  Especially if they make console MMOS.  They can hurt Blizzard on its own turf.

They also would suffer some bleed from a "sims done right" Desperate-Housewives-Online-style game or from a MaddenFootballOnline game (at least in the USA). 

They have nothing to fear from pissant myspace minigames anymore than they fear McDonalds.  They are not competing for the same customers.

[Nija]

WoW is currently No.1, but you need to measure the genre one way in order for that #1 rating to apply.

"Best game" is how you have to "look at the genre" to see WOW sitting at #1.

Nobody with an IQ above 80 takes shit like Runescape seriously.

edit: and fucking Maple Story. Maple Story has a ton of accounts, you say? How many MS accounts do I personally have? 2. How many actual minutes have I played MS? 2.

[Viin]

Blizzard has two things to fear:

1) Themselves. If they get too comfortable they will shoot themselves in the foot. They have to be looking at where the 'mature mmo players' go after they've had their fill of WoW. Sure, it might be a couple of years, but they have to catch those people with a different kind of game before they leave MMOs completely or to someone elses MMO.

2) The amount of competition. Some folks mentioned smaller MMOs (niche).. this is very true. However, now that there are some solid examples of "wow, these games can make a lot of money!" the VCs are now interested in putting a lot of money into a game (or suite of games) to steal WoW players and grow the overall MMO player-base.

WoW will ultimately defeat itself, even if only from the standpoint that it was too successful. Blizzard can retain the customers, but not with WoW.

[Nebu]

WoW is a polished and well marketed game.  Those happen to be two things that Blizzard does well.  WoW also happens to hit the middle of the gaming bell curve providing a low entry barrier and a shallow learning curve.  Now that they've introduced so many new people to this type of game, players will be expecting more innovative features as they become familiar with MMOG's.  This is something that I'm afraid isn't Blizzard's strength. 

If Blizzard wants to maintain status at the top of the heap, they will eventually have to give people more than the usual old_game_done_better.  They certainly have the resources. 

[Simond]

2. Any other console company saying - I can do this too. And there exists a console revolution of MMOGs that completely overtakes any effort put forth by Blizzard. The only way to counteract this is to create a Diablo MMOG for the 360 and PS2. Really though, the 360.

Or Blizzard could just port WoW to the 360/Wii/PS3 and bolt on a FFXI-type console-happy UI. Going by the flexibility of the existing WoW UI and the generally lower WoW system requirements (thinking more of the Wii here), it wouldn't be outside the bounds of possibility.

[HaemishM]

Entertainment companies unseat WoW? No. Really they won't, because they lack a tremendous amount of focus when compared to Blizzard.

Blizzard has 1, only one game they are working on (at least until they announce their next MMOG, World of Starcraft), and that's all they are doing. They've tried to create another game at the same time (Ghost) and it's fucked. Their entire goal in life is making Vivendi Games not bleed from its anus. Meanwhile, Sony, Disney, and all the entertainment companies cannot or would not drop everything the fuck else to make Little Mermain Online. They just wouldn't. It's not in their business philosophy. They are about diversification, not "make one thing and make it well." That's one of the keys to Blizzard's success, its single-minded, single-gamed focus, and that's part and parcel of the "when it's done" design philosophy. No one else, and I mean, NO ONE with the IP has that kind of focus. Blizzard is a perfect storm of an MMOG dev company.

And another thing, why is everyone so damn sure Bioware is going to turn out a massively fantastic MMOG? Don't get me wrong, Bioware has done some damn good games, but the good part about their games is not the part they need to make good MMOG's. Baldur's Gate, NWN, KotOR and Jade Empire all have fantastic stories but their game systems, the play systems are really derivatives of a game system they did not originate, the D&D system. Baldur's Gate and NWN were interpretations of that system, and KotOR and Jade Empire were both built off the underlying principles of that system. And frankly, that very system is what we already have in MMOG's and are already sick of. It's WoW with different tweakings. The things Bioware does really well, engrossing stories, do not make for good MMOG's. Good MMOG's have good underlying game mechanics and the D&D philosophy is tired. It's DIKU.

Maybe Mass Effect will convince me otherwise, but I'm not seeing it yet. I'll certainly give them better chances than say SOE/Sigil or Tulga Games, but I'm not ready to crown them champions yet.

[Scadente]

Baldur's Gate, NWN, KotOR and Jade Empire all have fantastic stories...

So you claim that "you're and orphan destined for greatness", in three BIG games is a fantastic story? Mediocre at best. It's the same shit in new wrappings. I dropped my XBOX controller to the floor and broke my Jade Empire disc once I heard the word; "ORPHAN". I'd played this, so should I trudge through some half-assed game-mechanics just to do for the third time? Only difference being a new setting, with even more smoke and mirrors. I think not.

Their stories aren't fantastic, they regurgitate the same stuff with the same stereotypes over and over and over again. Sure, they might be the best we got in games, but then games only have poor stories. When the biggest games out there can only muster way-sub-par Halo-novel writers like Eric Nylund I cringe so hard that I fall to the floor and die.

[HaemishM]

I didn't say they were literature, but they were decent skeletons to hang game actions on. The orphan thing is a bit of a narrative crutch, but it's effective enough.

[Yoru]

But that's just me. I imagine FPS gamers don't want a gimped-FPS game but rather a massive version of what they're already playing. I didn't actually get a chance to drive Huxley at E3, but it looked like that comes closer. Meanwhile, TR, like PS, felt like a game more appropriate for an RPGer looking for some more twitchy action but not wanting real FPS (like me).

I got a few minutes with Huxley at E3. It was basically just like playing a hybrid of UT (footsoldiery) and Battlefield (vehicles). You didn't really feel the 'massive' like you could with Planetside if you got into a big base siege, but that could've been due to the limited nature of the test. However, the fighting areas in the map I played wouldn't accomodate a very large (>40) number of players too well, I think.

[WindupAtheist]

WoW will start to churn and get old soon. In fact it will show very soon after The Burning Crusade release.
And will be beaten by Warhammer Online in late 2008.

You are smoking motherfucking crack.  Everything "big game" of an era, from UO to EQ to Lineage, has gone five or six years before peaking in subscriptions and then beginning to downslide.  In 2008 it's entirely possible that WoW will be on it's second expansion and still growing at well over ten million subscriptions.

Seriously, I don't like WoW either, but quit saying stupid things.

[Morat20]

I didn't say they were literature, but they were decent skeletons to hang game actions on. The orphan thing is a bit of a narrative crutch, but it's effective enough.

Fucking staple of fantasy, is what it is. It's a narrative hook everyone has heard of. That shit becomes a narrative crutch because you can assign a wealth of meaning in a single line -- even if the people reading it are kinda dense.

We all know what happens to orphaned children in stories -- at least if they're the protaganist. They grow up to be bad ass. That's the way it works. The story is what sort of bad-ass they become. It's a peasant-to-King variant, which is so prevelant in myths and literature that you can easily claim Jesus as an example. You can't kick over a culture without finding the myth of social mobility deeply ingrained in it -- not in the West, at least. Eastern cultures might be different, but I'm betting they still have a social mobility myth -- just couched in terms that are culturally unfamiliar in the West.

[DataGod]

As to POTBS:

Schild that was my point, 50k subs yeah sweet spot but I’m going to say they have a stickiness factor much higher, 150-250k subs, those will stay until the lights go out.

As to Darni

Thanks for the link to the book I’m going to pick that up. Also I get what your saying and others, again its long tail thinking vs. old media blockbuster thinking. Even George Lucas recently rejected the notion of making "the blockbuster movie" on 200m, its just not sustainable in media or in games.

So yeah your right and so are others as far as the niche. Someone above blasted runescape and maplestory, 2 accounts and 2 minutes played, that’s because you’re not their target. Its like blasting Myspace and Youtube because you think its users suck, your not their target. Something else out there is appealing to you that you’ll pay for; you’re their target, that’s nichefacation and the long tail, that’s itunes man.

Someone mentioned Raph, he’s very very right not 1/10th right, there’s a massive convergence of the demographic and games space. Grindfest DIKU MMO's are not obsolete in this space their just a niche farther down the tail. You may violently protest that you and your friends are should be catered to that your important and 40m games should be targeted at you, but that’s not the case anymore, its targeted at the Myspace/YouTube/WOW/Digg/iTunes demographic that don’t want an EQ grind cause that’s not the "new shiny" and there’s other stuff to do besides be a gamer shut in, and Rupert Murdoch will make sure they know about it via their SL/Virtual Laguna Beach mobile phone alert......THATS where its going. But this also means more variety, more indeed games, many of which wont meet long time veteran MMO standards and a few of which will be gems, and that’s a good thing for 5 guys who don’t want to go work for SOE, and their paltry 25k users.

So yeah, more access, more open platforms, more tools, more user created content more players. I think a better thread would be "What do veteran MMO players in permanent bitch mode need to fear" and I think the answer to that is nothing, they'll always be MMO's, but they'll also be other things to explore and adapt to...on the other hand some players just fail to adapt...

[Soln]

we should retitle this "Who DOES GOOGLE need to fear?" for all the good it would do

[WindupAtheist]

Myspace/YouTube/WOW/Digg/iTunes demographic that don’t want an EQ grind

I'll believe that shit like this is the future of anything remotely resembling the MMO industry when I fucking see it, because so far this sort of talk seems the domain of MMO developers in panic-mode because WoW has made everyone else utterly obsolete.

[jpark]

Blizzard has 1, only one game they are working on (at least until they announce their next MMOG, World of Starcraft), and that's all they are doing. They've tried to create another game at the same time (Ghost) and it's fucked. Their entire goal in life is making Vivendi Games not bleed from its anus. Meanwhile, Sony, Disney, and all the entertainment companies cannot or would not drop everything the fuck else to make Little Mermain Online. They just wouldn't. It's not in their business philosophy. They are about diversification, not "make one thing and make it well." That's one of the keys to Blizzard's success, its single-minded, single-gamed focus...

I agree.

There is another point here too - which I have mentioned several times  with little traction on these boards:  product evolution.  Blizzard built their world - thematically and in terms of powers and races - through several RTS games.  The code does not overlapp - but those products allowed them to progressively build a world.  The subsequent addtitions of Tauren and night elves in their RTS gave them time to explore and test new powers, story lines and graphical motiffs that would characterize each race.

It is interesting that the reverse progression was a flop:  When EQ was released as an RTS it was a disaster.  Yes the coding challenges are very different - but it says something else - EQ never had a clear vision of its world that could be distilled into an RTS.  WOW does.

The next MMORPG killer will likely be one of the successfull single player RPGs today or an RTS :)

[stray]

Myspace/YouTube/WOW/Digg/iTunes demographic that don’t want an EQ grind

I'll believe that shit like this is the future of anything remotely resembling the MMO industry when I fucking see it, because so far this sort of talk seems the domain of MMO developers in panic-mode because WoW has made everyone else utterly obsolete.

Massive virtual communities have always been the main goal of mmo's. Not online RPG's, and not even games necessarily. They're about the landscape, not the vehicles that drive on them.

[Daeven]

Blizzard is Rome at it's height.  It rules the world.  No one can compete with it, everyone is it's bitch.  No crazy market paradigm shift or clever competitor will ever defeat it.  No ultra-quality persistent FPS with RMT is going to come along like a Great White Hope to unseat the reigning Diku.  Anyone with enough money to make that game is going to be too risk-averse to actually do so, and will instead make a pale but safe WoW wannabe game.

The only way it can ever fall is if it gets content, fat, and decadent.  And while that's bound to happen eventually, it's not likely to take place for a very long time.  Like I said, kneel before Zod.

Well. That;s it then. Time to start a new project: Visagoths Online!  Sack and Burn Rome like is 399!

[Trippy]

In the long term, arrogance and a dilution of talent. The talent loss has actually been going on for a while now. WC3 was worse than Starcraft for example, because they added D&D-style crap like hunting MOBs to what was supposed to be a skill-based competitive game.

In Your Opinion.

Heroes were an interesting evolution in RTS design. Creeping, however, is stupid beyond belief.

[Daeven]

I didn't say they were literature, but they were decent skeletons to hang game actions on. The orphan thing is a bit of a narrative crutch, but it's effective enough.

Do you know WHY they keep regurgitating the same storyline over and over you ignorant slut?

Look! It's IronBeardAxeHolm, land of the Dwarves!

versus

Ixorania, land of the Sing-nu.

Which game do you think the huddled masses will flock to?

This is the exact same reason why Planescape: Torment didn't sell as well as Baldur's Gate.

[WindupAtheist]

Massive virtual communities have always been the main goal of mmo's. Not online RPG's, and not even games necessarily. They're about the landscape, not the vehicles that drive on them.

Who gives a shit about virtual communities?  We're talking about Blizzard, and Blizzard makes games.  If Raph or whoever runs off to go make the next Myspace, he isn't cleverly plotting to outfox Blizzard by broadening his view.  He's fucking off to an area of development Blizzard doesn't give a shit about.  He's effectively admitting he's been run out of the MMOG genre.

EDIT:  And he probably wasn't pooh-poohing this whole "game" thing back in the early days of SWG development, when it was supposed to be the million-plus subscription game that would take the genre mainstream.

[Nebu]

Who gives a shit about virtual communities?  We're talking about Blizzard, and Blizzard makes games. 

I must be some kind of moron then, because I was of the opinion that WoW was a huge virtual community.  One that reached pop-icon proportions. 

[tazelbain]

Seriously, I don't like WoW either, but quit saying stupid things.

You should take your own advice.

[Falconeer]

WoW will start to churn and get old soon. In fact it will show very soon after The Burning Crusade release.
And will be beaten by Warhammer Online in late 2008.

You are smoking motherfucking crack.  Everything "big game" of an era, from UO to EQ to Lineage, has gone five or six years before peaking in subscriptions and then beginning to downslide.  In 2008 it's entirely possible that WoW will be on it's second expansion and still growing at well over ten million subscriptions.

Seriously, I don't like WoW either, but quit saying stupid things.

So you can only draw conclusions about MMO's market based on nine years of previous experiences?
Bear in mind that of those 5 millions only a raw 10% are former MMO players, meaning people who cared enough about videogames and online ones to play more of them even before WoW. The remaining 90% still have to pass the test of time.
This whole market is less than 10 years old so it's not so predictable as you want to think.
I could be wrong but we will see.
I'll admit I said something stupid on December 2008.
Until then my opinion is worth as much crap as yours.

And by the way, in late 2008 WoW will be 4 years old.

[Jayce]

So you can only draw conclusions about MMO's market based on nine years of previous experiences?
Bear in mind that of those 5 millions only a raw 10% are former MMO players, meaning people who cared enough about videogames and online ones to play more of them even before WoW. The remaining 90% still have to pass the test of time.
This whole market is less than 10 years old so it's not so predictable as you want to think.
I could be wrong but we will see.
I'll admit I said something stupid on December 2008.
Until then my opinion is worth as much crap as yours.

And by the way, in late 2008 WoW will be 4 years old.

This whole "predicting the future" thing is notoriously difficult and error-prone in general.  Do remember though, that Blizzard is no Johnny-come-lately, and no stranger to success either.  Starcraft (for example) is still taking up shelf space 9 years (if my math is right) after its release, in an industry where shelf space is at a premium and usually measured in weeks if not days.  That seemingly did not go to their heads, since they followed up with WoW, which sold a few copies, I am told.

I hate to sound like a fanboi, but the above are pretty much facts.

[Nija]

I hate to sound like a fanboi, but the above are pretty much facts.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy with a MULE avatar.

[Falconeer]

This whole "predicting the future" thing is notoriously difficult and error-prone in general.  Do remember though, that Blizzard is no Johnny-come-lately, and no stranger to success either.  Starcraft (for example) is still taking up shelf space 9 years (if my math is right) after its release, in an industry where shelf space is at a premium and usually measured in weeks if not days.  That seemingly did not go to their heads, since they followed up with WoW, which sold a few copies, I am told.

I hate to sound like a fanboi, but the above are pretty much facts.

Of course, you are right. But that was the topic after all: let's play together to "predict the future". What wll happen and when, and why?
Too easy to say: "WoW will rule for the next lots of years." How many is "lots"? What will actually surpass is, given that sooner or later it will happen no matter what?
The above one is my guess. Maybe right, almost certainly wrong. We'll see.

[Arthur_Parker]

Blizzard's biggest problem will be supplying enough Burning Crusade boxes.

[Falconeer]

Blizzard's biggest problem will be supplying enough Burning Crusade boxes.

I am sure about that.
I just think that 6 million people will burn out that Crusade pretty soon. 12 months, maybe 18. It will keep them busy for the whole 2007 and part of 2008.
Then what?
The carrot of another long delayed expansion? With a 4 - 6 year old graphical engine?
Fine. Then I'll be SO wrong.

[Merusk]

Yeah it's not like anyone plays Starcraft, or Diablo anymore, the engines are so old and crappy.  Psh.. not like you can find boxes for those crappy-ass 8 & 6 year old games out there anywhere for them to play, even if they wanted to. 

[Jayce]

Yeah it's not like anyone plays Starcraft, or Diablo anymore, the engines are so old and crappy.  Psh.. not like you can find boxes for those crappy-ass 8 & 6 year old games out there anywhere for them to play, even if they wanted to. 

Are you being sarcastic? I see Starcraft in every store I go to, from EB to Target to Best Buy.  I don't remember seeing Diablo anymore but I am pretty sure I saw D2.

And if they are on the shelves, in this business you can be sure it's not out of charity.

[Arthur_Parker]

I thought everyone was being sarcastic, just based on the thread title.

[Falconeer]

People, we are not talking about WoW going out of business.
Just about its subscriptions being surpassed by other games.

UO is launching its 10 year edition shortly, and that's way longer life than Diablo or Starcraft (both subscripritions free).
That doesn't mean UO still leads the market it once owned.

Anyway, I see your point. I am not so certain or sure about what I "predicted". It's just *a* point of view.