Who DOES Blizzard need to fear?

[stray]

Betcha the "must fuck around in single-player for a while" requirement vanishes within the first six months.

It's not "for a while". It's 20 levels (out of 80, I think). The beginning part of Conan is basically a short RPG. Not an MMO tutorial. Besides that, I think the entire class choosing process is built around it. If that's the case, it'd be hard to rework.

Secondly, who would want to choose an online, foozle oriented experience over a character oriented, story based one?

Thirdly, it's a smart way for Funcom to get people attached to their characters, and lure them to the rest of the game. Why would they want to sacrifice that?

Also, you don't need to do the offline part with any character after your first.

Do you get a free /20 too? That'd be nice.

[damijin]

My only issue with the conan single player thing is that a lot of us mmo veterans belong to guilds who move to new games as a whole. If that single player thing takes a long time it's going to be a lot of this conversation on vent:

"Hey I just talked to the old man at the village... what part are you at?"

"I just got on the boat, now they're telling me to kill some pirates."

"Oh, dude, I did that like 2 hours ago."

"Oh wow, I'm really falling be-"

"HAY GUYZ I JUST GOT TO THE VILLAGE WHO DO I TALK TO?"

"eh..."



As you can see, everyone other than the first 3 people will be listening to the fastest path through the 20 level pre-game rather than actually playing it.

But for people who dont hang out on ventrilo all day like I do, I suppose that's not much of a problem.

[stray]

The majority of people don't hang out on ventrilo all day, but yeah......It's a problem. Hopefully, having 2 or 3 hour differences won't be some deathblow to uberguild endgame coordination.

Oh wait, wtf am I saying?

Bring on the deathblow. Fuck it.

[WindupAtheist]

People aren't going to want to buy an MMO and then spend the first couple days playing a tacked on single-player RPG.  Bet you a "Yes server, I did the single-player shit and chose class X.  Also I farmed as much money as your sanity checks would let me." crack appears within the first month.

[caladein]

My only issue with the conan single player thing is that a lot of us mmo veterans belong to guilds who move to new games as a whole. If that single player thing takes a long time it's going to be a lot of this conversation on vent:

...

But for people who dont hang out on ventrilo all day like I do, I suppose that's not much of a problem.

Eh... that reminds me of when Oblivion came out, or more recently FF12. Don't see too much of a problem there, was kind of fun actually.

A semi-decent analogy for the bad possibility is when I got a few of my guildmates to play EVE. Apart from the tutorial being soul-crushing, it was basically "how to speed through this without really figuring anything out". Not very productive.

[Slyfeind]

Secondly, who would want to choose an online, foozle oriented experience over a character oriented, story based one?

Me me me!

I hate story and characterization, and I like to chat with people within the first minute of logging on to a game. With over 100 MMOs that let me do that, AOC won't be getting my money...unless the first 20 levels happen in an hour or two. Does anyone know how long the first 20 levels take? Because I like Conan and I like Funcom, and I hate single player RPGs.

[Venkman]

Trade and community happens in the massive-multiplayer portions of pre-20 Conan. It's the required-MMO/PvP stuff that kicks in thereafter. Think GW public space with single-player instances for 25% of your levels.

I can't really play the numbers game. I learned my lesson through being way off on WoW and CoH.

Secondly, who would want to choose an online, foozle oriented experience over a character oriented, story based one?

WoW? Sure there's a story there, but few care. The game is character oriented, but advancement is through foozles.

I honestly can't see why the game has such a massive subscription retention

Because in your search for a way to measure how qualitatively measure MMOGs, you continue to refuse to account for how popularity and business success spawn emulation. "Good" is often defined by success and popularity.

[WindupAtheist]

Trade and community happens in the massive-multiplayer portions of pre-20 Conan. It's the required-MMO/PvP stuff that kicks in thereafter. Think GW public space with single-player instances for 25% of your levels.

That's different from what I thought, but still just as gay in it's own special way.  I'm no fan of forced grouping, but not being able to group at all for the first twenty levels?  Are they charging me a monthly fee while I'm doing this shit?

[stray]

WoW? Sure there's a story there, but few care. The game is character oriented, but advancement is through foozles.

WoW is no way to tell whether people care or not. It has good lore, but practically no story at all. Few care because only a few quests warrant that kind of attention. Even the worst single player adventure/rpg games are better at this.

Hell, even I bypass "story" and quests in WoW as much as possible (i.e. I'm optimal grinding spot oriented).

[Venkman]

WoW has good lore and good story, it just isn't integrated into the game play well. That is the case with every MMOG I've played. They're getting better, but mostly because of the appropriate use of instancing (can't change the game world for decisions made by players? You can change it at least for them).

I say a critical mass of people don't care not because of WoW. Blizzard succeeded in attracting more people to MMOGs, but almost two years later, those people here now are effectively liking what we liked half a decade ago in EQ. The story didn't matter much there either. It's about character growth and foozles, and as long as the story doesn't get in the way, it's optional.

This is actually why I like the virtual-worldy stuff too. Those games let players make their own stories, even if many don't realize they're doing so. For every vendor put up, every shingle hung, every house built and every business venture or inter-faction war waged, players are creating their own histories alongside playing a game. It's only those that document this that are called storytellers. The rest though are all storymakers.

That does happen in WoW too. Emergent behavior truly shows the passion people have for such a linear and constricting space. But it's more poignant in games with far more accountability, even if so fewer players are playing them :)

[Scadente]

Compleatly agree Darniaq. I really like the the whole Deadmines lore, down to the Stockades (craptastic instance tho). It wasn't amazing in any way, but it was on par with most single-player adventure games. The Scarlet Crusade stuff is cool aswell, same goes for all of Blackrock Mountain. The "problem" is just that it's poorly implemented, like you said, I had to engage myself to get engaged in the storyline; and that's not always an easy feat.

I'm starting to get my eyes up for EVE, as reading the EVE forums here is really exciting and I got a 50day gamecard lying around. Once I get a connection that's not proxyied to death I'll be on EVE. But from the little I've seen from it; it didn't really look very inviting, it was sort of like booting up Maya 3D for the first time... HELP!!!! Whereas WoW grabbed me by the nuts and pulled me in with it's vivid colors and cute characters. I'm just hoping that EVE is a tough, but good buy, a unsharpened diamond of sorts that you have to engage yourself in.

But I'm hoping the rewards might be greater, the only thing stopping me is the fact that it seems like such a big time-investment, but I might be wrong :)

[Venkman]

Eve is a great game to self-pace. You can literally do nothing and advance your character skills, or you could log in 10 hours a day and mine, fight, trade, whatever. Whereas each WoW instance is going to take X hours, and you know that going in, Eve mostly doesn't have specific duration requirements outside of those self-created (or if you go the dedicated PvE mission route).

The UI is due a major overhaul sometime early next year when they take full advantage of DirectX10 and Vista. Not sure what stage it's at now. But yea, it looks like it was made in another country. Convention be damned. Once you get into it though, you realize some of the reasons they did what they did. But it's still not intuitive really.

But then again, WoW wouldn't be intuitive much either if not for a few years of MMORPGs and RPGs trying different things and seeing what stuck :)

[Furiously]

So - I just wanted to point out something...

I've been playing D&D online. And looking at LOTR's online screenshots, I had an interesting observation, it's using the same engine.

[Falconeer]

I've been playing D&D online. And looking at LOTR's online screenshots, I had an interesting observation, it's using the same engine.

Mh.. good news or bad news for Lotro? I'd say whateva news.

[Cheddar]

So - I just wanted to point out something...

I've been playing D&D online. And looking at LOTR's online screenshots, I had an interesting observation, it's using the same engine.

Reminds me of the AC2 engine, though cannot say why 

[stray]

They're both based on a tweaked AC2 engine.

[Venkman]

And Engine to me is less important than style. Can't speak for LoTRO, but I did think AC2 at least had promise. Bright cheery promise, not the mud-slung grungy "reality", say, EQ2 tried to achieve.

I don't want real when being real means I don't want to be there (queue Matrix too).

[Nebu]

And Engine to me is less important than style. Can't speak for LoTRO, but I did think AC2 at least had promise. Bright cheery promise, not the mud-slung grungy "reality", say, EQ2 tried to achieve.

I don't want real when being real means I don't want to be there (queue Matrix too).

Funny... I prefer "realistic" to "stylized".  I found WoW almost unbearable to play and felt similarly about AC and AC2 due to their cartoonish appearance. 

Just goes to show that it takes a lot of different tastes to make a world this big.

[stray]

EQ2 just looks like shit. It's not a problem of being realistic. Half Life 2 and Assassin's Creed are realistic, but for whatever reason, they look far more inviting than EQ2.

[DataGod]

 Someone mentioned earlier: Why aren't subscriptions a good indicator of a games popularity?


Answer:
Sub numbers are a good indicator of a games popularity when there is a decent selection of games on the market, in fact currently, there are not a decent selection of games on the market. Sub numbers are a bad indicator when there are fewer offerings on the market, meaning people settle for what they're comfortable playing.

Churn (number of subs added and lost) comes into play as a good indicator in almost every instance, but mores when the market is rather flat (as it is now). Because that means if a games losing subs in a flat market theyre doing a shitty job of retaining people without options to play other games.

"The fact is, for the next 3 years, there looks to be less than shiny shit coming out for MMOs.  Who can create something good?"

The fact is 2006 saw few if any new MMO releases worth a shit, in 2007 there are scheduled to be released at least 1 (and sometimes two) well financed games A QUARTER that have been in development 2-3+ years.

Im not sure how you quantify "shiny shit" comming out over the next 3 years. But rest assured there is some SS comming out.

A few people brought up concerns about the WOW players leaving to try new stuff. This brings up a few areas actually:

1. Will new MMO players who've played WOW tolerate anything less polished?

I think this depends on burnout rates, which IMHO are pretty high atm, even for new players and most certainly many of them are looking at more gear dependant kinds and thinking: OK  we need to try something else....

Also how well developed is the game and how much grind? How polished? Quest system? Unique combat?

So this is why Im a fairly big fan of PoTBS, and this is why IMO its going to do well, they aren't trying to be WOW, they're trying to be innovative with an entirely new theme for Mo's and from what Ive seen they're doing a good job of integrating things that are interesting to: Casual gamers, PVP'ers, and crafting/economy types.

2. What about veteran MMO players currently playing WOW?

My observations:

1. Your seeing increased sub numbers in EVE because of veteran gamer drift off of WOW, EVE has PVP for the PVP'er as well.

1a. Lots of Vet's like the PVP system, but just as many complain about not having an avatar....

2. Vets  see the writing on the wall with the grind/mudflation in BC in WOW, in fact the absolute worst thing Blizzard could have done was release an expansion right when vanguard was launching, given the choice of 6 months of grinding or trying a new game with your guild......even if its a new grindy game, Im going to the new game. The fact that they changed the date to coincide with and drown out Vanguards release lets me know theyre worried about sub drift

A lot of people around here hate Vanguard, and I admittedly did based on the grind premise, but I looked it over objectively and they do have a ton of feature sets in there, enough to be sticky and retian 60-100k subs easily. Whats more, after looking at cartoon bullshit low pixelated characters for 2 years who dosnt want some realism back?


So yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with the 9 million for WOW, in 2007 theyll lose traction and retention in thier playerbase, it might not be a net loss but itll flatten theyre advancement. Dont look for another 2 million added in 1 year, they aint getting it.

As to why WAR is going to do well? WAR is going to do well because its WOW for PVP'ers, and theres a whole lot of PVP'ers sick of how bad WOW PVP is....WOW is PVE done right, and PVP done half assed backwards wrong.

As a gamer if theres a choice between 14.99 a month x 12 months, or trying the 5 new MMO's on the market in 2007 in the hopes I find something worth playing for another 2-4 years Im buying those 5 new games and trying them.......

Thats what Blizzard fears in 2007.....

[Jayce]

Someone mentioned earlier: Why aren't subscriptions a good indicator of a games popularity?


Answer:
Sub numbers are a good indicator of a games popularity when there is a decent selection of games on the market, in fact currently, there are not a decent selection of games on the market. Sub numbers are a bad indicator when there are fewer offerings on the market, meaning people settle for what they're comfortable playing.

What is "a decent number" of games?  Is there a cutoff in # of subs (now niche it is), whether it's for pay, whether it's web-based, text-based, graphics based, game or world?

Also, I think that if there is nothing good out, most people (ie, the casuals) simply don't play any game.  Your logic seems to imply that everyone plays some game, and if there is nothing out, they just settle for a bad one.  I'm not buyin.

[Cheddar]

<lots of words>

The fact is we will not see many people who leave WoW turning to other MMOs.  We have not seen it yet, and will not see it in the future.  The people being drawn in are not masochist nor enthusiasts like we are.  They expect to be babied, they expect shiny elf tits, and they expect little things in WoW's game mechanics like "Death without consequence."  Has anyone done a total number comparison for the last few years as far as MMO's, not counting WoW's numbers?  Have we seen a percentage increase due to WoW coming out?  I seriously doubt it, and doubt we will in the future.

[shiznitz]

I disagree. The new EQ2 expansion will get some WoWers. It won't be enough to hurt WoW at all, but even 30k new EQ2 subs will be a huge win for that game. That said, those in my guild who left EQ2 for WoW about a year ago are not talking about coming back to EQ2 for Echoes of Faydwer so maybe I am completely dreaming.

[Nebu]

I'd argue that that reason we don't see any crossover (people leaving WoW for other games) is largely due to the fact that WoW is the best PvE MMOG available.  I've seen a few people come from WoW to DAoC for the PvP appeal, but that's about it.  The bottom line is that there's isn't a reason to play anything else atm if PvE is your thing.  WoW does PvE MMOG's better than any available alternative. 

Perhaps the next release wave of MMOG's may attract a few players from WoW.  I doubt they'll stay long once they realize that it's a rehash of what they've already experienced.  Warhammer is about the only title offering WoW gamers anything new... unless they're into pain and suffering, then there's Vanguard.   

[Cheddar]

I disagree. The new EQ2 expansion will get some WoWers. It won't be enough to hurt WoW at all, but even 30k new EQ2 subs will be a huge win for that game. That said, those in my guild who left EQ2 for WoW about a year ago are not talking about coming back to EQ2 for Echoes of Faydwer so maybe I am completely dreaming.

But these are not the OMGWOWSUCK'EMIN numbers people keep speculating about. 

[Venkman]

I'd argue that that reason we don't see any crossover (people leaving WoW for other games) is largely due to the fact that WoW is the best PvE MMOG available.  I've seen a few people come from WoW to DAoC for the PvP appeal, but that's about it.  The bottom line is that there's isn't a reason to play anything else atm if PvE is your thing.  WoW does PvE MMOG's better than any available alternative. 

I agree with this.

• Even games many years older lack the self-consistency and polish of WoW. It's hard to go from WoW to, say, EQ1, fourth engine or not.
• Even putting aside graphics, most games simply dispense rewards at a far slower pace comparatively. There are people who call WoW a grind. For faction farming? Yea, maybe. For gaining XP? Holycrapnofukingway. Young whippersnappers don't know how good they've got it.
  
• The games are just different. The lack of game jumping en masse is in part due to just how broad an array of titles there are out there. Many jumpers stick to the sorts of games they like.

I see a trickle down from WoW to every MMO, but that's mostly people who are looking for something different.

Prior to WoW, retention was estimated to average 6 months. After, people saw an average of 14 months. Of course, that average was announced 14 months after WoW was launched, so is largely irrelevant. I don't know what the average is today.

[Cheddar]

I'd argue that that reason we don't see any crossover (people leaving WoW for other games) is largely due to the fact that WoW is the best PvE MMOG available.  I've seen a few people come from WoW to DAoC for the PvP appeal, but that's about it.  The bottom line is that there's isn't a reason to play anything else atm if PvE is your thing.  WoW does PvE MMOG's better than any available alternative. 

I agree with this.

• Even games many years older lack the self-consistency and polish of WoW. It's hard to go from WoW to, say, EQ1, fourth engine or not.
• Even putting aside graphics, most games simply dispense rewards at a far slower pace comparatively. There are people who call WoW a grind. For faction farming? Yea, maybe. For gaining XP? Holycrapnofukingway. Young whippersnappers don't know how good they've got it.
  
• The games are just different. The lack of game jumping en masse is in part due to just how broad an array of titles there are out there. Many jumpers stick to the sorts of games they like.

I see a trickle down from WoW to every MMO, but that's mostly people who are looking for something different.

Prior to WoW, retention was estimated to average 6 months. After, people saw an average of 14 months. Of course, that average was announced 14 months after WoW was launched, so is largely irrelevant. I don't know what the average is today.

And how many people trickled from UO, AC, EQ, etc to WoW?  A lot.

[WindupAtheist]

Yep, yep, all those WoW players are going to finally get bored and boost some other game via migration any minute now.  Yep.  They're going to get tired of those "cartoony" graphics at any moment.  It's only a matter of time until people flock to the sort of stupid, ugly, broken shit that WoW is generally hailed for sweeping aside.  Vanguard is sure to be a success.

 

[ajax34i]

Perhaps the next release wave of MMOG's may attract a few players from WoW.  I doubt they'll stay long once they realize that it's a rehash of what they've already experienced. 

I disagree.  WoW is a social game too, and I'm done with the actual game content, and I'm staying on only cause my friends are there and I can chat with them, and still do things with them, even if it's old.  A rehash of the WoW game mechanics, but with new graphics, would be just great, as it would allow us to go through the whole "experience things together" all over again, with new things instead of content we've seen already.

I think WoW's subscriptions will continue to rise for quite some time.  All they have to do is add new zones, not neccessarily harder or higher tier, but just new things for all the communities of friends that have formed there to experience together.

The other games, I have no clue.  Some of my friends were talking about trying Vanguard out.  I know it's crap, and I've mentioned this to them, but I'll try it if they do.  If it's so crappy that it warrants me leaving my friends, then I'll stop playing, but otherwise I'll suffer some if it means continued social entertainment.

[shiznitz]

I never used to play MMORPGs with Teamspeak or Vent, but now our guild uses a Vent server for EQ2 for just casual playing. Our guild is small and only a bunch of us use it, but it makes it more social. I had played with some of these people for 5 years and never heard their voice or known their real name.

[DataGod]

@Cheddar

"And how many people trickled from UO, AC, EQ, etc to WoW?  A lot."

My point exactly, and how many will trickle away? A lot."

@Darniaq

I'd say retention and churn are directly proportionate to the number of releases currently taking place in the market, youve seen an extended retention in WOW because...well answer this:

How many Major MMO's (not indies) have launched since WOW was released? (last 2 years)

@WindUp

In large guilds (100+) there are typically boards where they plan migration, or plan small groups to check out and evaluate new game relleases, or have internal discussions about beta's they are testing. If a large part of the guild migrates youll see 80% of the members typically migrating.

Further how many vet gamers hated wows graphics on initially playing that game, how many of them would like to get back to more detailed graphics. Again how many new mmo players of WOW have only ever seen the "cartoon" graphics in an MMO, what do you think thier initial response will be to more detailed graphic rendering that matches consoles?

Ajax34i comments are a good example of the points I'm trying to make.

So no I dont think WOW's dying anytime soon, I do think theyll see some churn due to new games, and my point is 07 brings an end to the MMO release drought we've seen since WOW got released....

[Venkman]

And how many people trickled from UO, AC, EQ, etc to WoW? A lot.

Of course. But work the numbers: EQ at it's peak had only around 525k subscribers. UO around 215k, AC maybe broke 125k if lucky. WoW hit the total of all three of those in the space of 8 weeks (maybe 7). The amount of people that trickled into WoW from back when the genre was assumed to just be three games (because M59 was on hiatus and others were closing), which includes myself, is not nearly as much as the people who have come since. And when I say "since", I mean late 2003/early 2004 when new people were beginning to come into these games due to the rise in media coverage and broadband-equipped households.

I'd say retention and churn are directly proportionate to the number of releases currently taking place in the market, youve seen an extended retention in WOW because...well answer this:

How many Major MMO's (not indies) have launched since WOW was released? (last 2 years)

I agree with this. And looking forward, the expected release of comparable experience, as in those games trying to target a WoW/EQ player, is really not that much more than it has been. We average maybe a handful of these big budget diku-inspired games a year, if that.

But this is why I also keep watching the other MMOs out and coming. There's scores of them. They just have no appeal to the WoW/EQ/diku crowd (even if the games share similarities). It's mostly because those games are either imports that can't gain traction for the stigma of grind or legit-RMT, or because they target cutty-pasty crafters or tween/teen players.

All this really proves is that there's many sub-categories to MMOs, with sub-groups getting targeted to the exclusion of others. Very VERY few games try to target "the MMO player", partly because that doesn't exist and partly because of the geometrically skyrocketing costs associated with widening the net being cast.

[Trouble]

I understand theory, basically that there have been no options since WoW has released. I suppose it has some value, but there HAVE been games released. Lots of smaller games, one notably being D&D. There are games coming out in 2007, but none of them seem to be shaping up to be blockbusters. They all seem to be the type of game that hitting 300k subs would be a huge success. While the quantity may be higher than it has been the last couple years, it still just seems like more of the same, and therefore I have no reason to expect we'll see any extraordinary amounts of migration.

[damijin]

It saddens me deeply when I hear WoW players who are "in the know", who do check out MMO websites, and do keep up to date on the latest releases -- and the only thing that they think might be mildly better than WoW is WAR. And that's just because it's being touted as WoW+1 in it's alpha nobody-really-knows-anything-yet stage.

[stray]

It saddens me deeply when I hear WoW players who are "in the know", who do check out MMO websites, and do keep up to date on the latest releases -- and the only thing that they think might be mildly better than WoW is WAR. And that's just because it's being touted as WoW+1 in it's alpha nobody-really-knows-anything-yet stage.

Agreed.

[edit] Besides all that, I think WAR will hurt Guild Wars more than it hurts WoW.