Blizzard had better luck moving away from more challenging PvE and 40 man raids?
I still play WoW, I have nothing against it or anything, but...didn't they have a rather large drop in players since moving away from more challenging content?
What exactly points to Blizzard having more success with the reduction of difficult PvE and raid content? I would think subscriber numbers would be a big one for a game that is subscription based, and that doesn't actually say it's been a success.
And is this not the same blizzard that, in an article a couple years ago, said that they needed to change their development philosophy and the way they release new content because players are able to consume the content at a much faster pace then they were previously, and it was having an impact on how long people stayed subscribed to the game.
The same Blizzard that has said they intend to provide a more challenging experience with the endgame for WoD expansion?
What exactly points to easier content being a bigger success for Blizzard?
Blizzard had better luck moving away from more challenging PvE and 40 man raids?
I still play WoW, I have nothing against it or anything, but...didn't they have a rather large drop in players since moving away from more challenging content?
What exactly points to Blizzard having more success with the reduction of difficult PvE and raid content? I would think subscriber numbers would be a big one for a game that is subscription based, and that doesn't actually say it's been a success.
And is this not the same blizzard that, in an article a couple years ago, said that they needed to change their development philosophy and the way they release new content because players are able to consume the content at a much faster pace then they were previously, and it was having an impact on how long people stayed subscribed to the game.
The same Blizzard that has said they intend to provide a more challenging experience with the endgame for WoD expansion?
What exactly points to easier content being a bigger success for Blizzard?
The truth of the matter is Blizzard saw greatest success when the least amount of people were participating in that group content. Vanilla was their fastest growth period, yet regular raiders were only 2% of the population, and even dungeon participation was far lower than any other expack. Vanilla was not mechanically difficult, it required situational awareness. You could not blindly face pull a pack of mobs and hope to live. It didn't succeed because it was difficult. It succeeded because it was engaging, and because it was a journey. The shortening and simplification of the leveling process(and the devaulation of the journey) and the end game focus on queing for instanced content that people don't enjoy leads to burnout and plays a large part in their ability to maintain subs IMHO.
I think the only reason people do dungeons and raids is because that is all we have had to do for so long that it has become engrained in our minds that we are supposed to be doing them. I honestly don't think people do them strictly for fun. We have them because it is expected that we have them and we do them because often it is the only way to provide meaningful progression for our characters. I would love for a game to change those perceptions and think out of the box when it comes to large group content features. I would love to see a new content type that keeps people in the world and working together. You cannot force people to communicate and build communities. You can only provide them with opportunities to do so and try and remove the roadblocks that discourage the behavior you are trying to nourture. It seems WoW over the years has been putting up more roadblocks than knocking down barriers and providing opportunities, and I think it really shows in the evolution of the community.
I think Wildstar has a good approach as they tend to reward skilled gameplay without requiring everyone to be super skilled to enjoy the game. The true test will be endgame though and having 40 mans is great for the high end, but how much content and progression they will provide other players will be key. If they can manage to engage players of all kinds with content that suits them, having 40 mans will be great for the game even if only a small percentage of players do them.
Originally posted by DMKano EQN will not release in 2014 - so what's the 3rd big MMO of 2014?
Destiny
Anyway, out of the three mentioned EQN has my most interest but as others have said, that isn't coming out in 2014. I'll be trying ESO, we'll see how it goes. Wildstar has no appeal to me at all.
Wildstar looks good for a romp, playing one of this bat****-crazy Chuas for a few nights will be entertaining, but not much beyond that really unless someone wants to raid.
ESO seems alright, exploring the world and the possibility of decent RvR would keep me playing longer than the other two titles. My guild is looking at playing this since we are RvR starved.
Didn't play EQ and have no resulting interest in EQN.
WOW 2.0, DAOC 2.0, and SWG 2.0? That would make for an amazing 2014 if true but I have my doubts.
Wildstar seems to have the clearest identity of what it wants to be and is furthest along in development - I think it will do well initially since it should launch before Warlords of Draenor. But for it to avoid going F2P in the future it's going to have to figure out how to churn out as much content as WoW with likely a much smaller base of subscribers.
EQN has some interesting concepts and looks good but until someone actually gets to play it I think its hard to make any predictions.
And ESO, well the RvR kind of confounds me. I don't see there being much of a demand for it among your average Elder Scrolls player and it feels tacked on. Maybe all the PVE players will leave the game after getting to max level and only the PVP players will be left so they can focus on it. But it just seems like if you're going to make a RvR game you want to have PVP at all levels and not just at endgame.
WOW 2.0, DAOC 2.0, and SWG 2.0? That would make for an amazing 2014 if true but I have my doubts.
Wildstar seems to have the clearest identity of what it wants to be and is furthest along in development - I think it will do well initially since it should launch before Warlords of Draenor. But for it to avoid going F2P in the future it's going to have to figure out how to churn out as much content as WoW with likely a much smaller base of subscribers.
EQN has some interesting concepts and looks good but until someone actually gets to play it I think its hard to make any predictions.
And ESO, well the RvR kind of confounds me. I don't see there being much of a demand for it among your average Elder Scrolls player and it feels tacked on. Maybe all the PVE players will leave the game after getting to max level and only the PVP players will be left so they can focus on it. But it just seems like if you're going to make a RvR game you want to have PVP at all levels and not just at endgame.
You can go to the pvp zone at like level 12. I don't understand what you mean by "endgame pvp". You can pretty much start pvping after leaving the starter zone.
I'd like to know how Blizzard did far better by reducing raid difficulty and player size. The game continued to climb in popularity thru WoTLK and the original 25 man raid content in that expansion was relatively difficult. Cata and Panda with Raid FInder EZ mode have done nothing but make content a single pass thru and then who cares. Since these changes the population comes back each expansion, sees the content, and bails 3 weeks later because they have seen what there is to see.
Other recent titles have completely avoided raids. If Wildstar implements entertaining and challenging end game content, its success or failure will determine whether or not this was the correct path. By making content challenging you also extend its life. Without some barriers to overcome thru teamwork, people are melting thru content in a couple dozen days. I attribute this to the quick stagnation of most modern themeparks.
The journey has to be fun, challenging and provide a sense of progression. There used to be such an anomaly in MMOs. Now its run thru everything in solo mode, jump in a dungeon/raid finder, run content once and un-sub. If players see a goal as difficult to achieve, many will rise up to challenge and seek it out.
Further, I postulate that World of Warcraft could only happen once. It was a combination of great animations, fun combat, a world full of character and vibrant colors. But most importantly there was an expanding pool of video game players that made WoW so successful. This latest generation has started to drop the " Eeww you play video games..what a nerd." stigmata. I've known athletes, executives, and all types of people to experiment with WoW and other video games in the last 5-7 years. That just wasn't the case even 15 years ago.
So..
Can we not get over WoW and not continue to expect a game needs 1 million+ subs to be good.
If a game is fun to play and keeps people engaged with challenging, well thought out content, people will sub.
Or else, MMOs will morph into Dayz and Star Citizen .
Blizzard had better luck moving away from more challenging PvE and 40 man raids?
I still play WoW, I have nothing against it or anything, but...didn't they have a rather large drop in players since moving away from more challenging content?
What exactly points to Blizzard having more success with the reduction of difficult PvE and raid content? I would think subscriber numbers would be a big one for a game that is subscription based, and that doesn't actually say it's been a success.
And is this not the same blizzard that, in an article a couple years ago, said that they needed to change their development philosophy and the way they release new content because players are able to consume the content at a much faster pace then they were previously, and it was having an impact on how long people stayed subscribed to the game.
The same Blizzard that has said they intend to provide a more challenging experience with the endgame for WoD expansion?
What exactly points to easier content being a bigger success for Blizzard?
The truth of the matter is Blizzard saw greatest success when the least amount of people were participating in that group content. Vanilla was their fastest growth period, yet regular raiders were only 2% of the population, and even dungeon participation was far lower than any other expack. Vanilla was not mechanically difficult, it required situational awareness. You could not blindly face pull a pack of mobs and hope to live. It didn't succeed because it was difficult. It succeeded because it was engaging, and because it was a journey. The shortening and simplification of the leveling process(and the devaulation of the journey) and the end game focus on queing for instanced content that people don't enjoy leads to burnout and plays a large part in their ability to maintain subs IMHO.
I think the only reason people do dungeons and raids is because that is all we have had to do for so long that it has become engrained in our minds that we are supposed to be doing them. I honestly don't think people do them strictly for fun. We have them because it is expected that we have them and we do them because often it is the only way to provide meaningful progression for our characters. I would love for a game to change those perceptions and think out of the box when it comes to large group content features. I would love to see a new content type that keeps people in the world and working together. You cannot force people to communicate and build communities. You can only provide them with opportunities to do so and try and remove the roadblocks that discourage the behavior you are trying to nourture. It seems WoW over the years has been putting up more roadblocks than knocking down barriers and providing opportunities, and I think it really shows in the evolution of the community.
I think Wildstar has a good approach as they tend to reward skilled gameplay without requiring everyone to be super skilled to enjoy the game. The true test will be endgame though and having 40 mans is great for the high end, but how much content and progression they will provide other players will be key. If they can manage to engage players of all kinds with content that suits them, having 40 mans will be great for the game even if only a small percentage of players do them.
That 2% number you are throwing around was the number of people that had completed early Core and Crusader raid content, not that were trying it, or gearing up for it. Guilds were built to help people obtain gear. Once Epics started getting thrown at people in random pugs for little effort, that began the decline of the guilds, which the raid finder effectively ended.
Now enter Raid Finder. Or as I like to call it: Guild Slayer. Not only could people gear up for raids with much less effort, now, raids were made easy too. So no reason at all to form communities and build and establish guilds.
Then to boost guild participation, they setup the guild reward system. Which essentially had people in guilds with the most perks simply to capitalize on the guild rewards. There was still no reason to form community.
The last 3-4 years has seen the largest online gaming community in history utterly collapse. All during periods where content was made more and more accessible. And you think making WoW easier, improved its success?
I'm sorry Mr Bitton and jbombard please provide some evidence .
Blizzard had better luck moving away from more challenging PvE and 40 man raids?
I still play WoW, I have nothing against it or anything, but...didn't they have a rather large drop in players since moving away from more challenging content?
What exactly points to Blizzard having more success with the reduction of difficult PvE and raid content? I would think subscriber numbers would be a big one for a game that is subscription based, and that doesn't actually say it's been a success.
And is this not the same blizzard that, in an article a couple years ago, said that they needed to change their development philosophy and the way they release new content because players are able to consume the content at a much faster pace then they were previously, and it was having an impact on how long people stayed subscribed to the game.
The same Blizzard that has said they intend to provide a more challenging experience with the endgame for WoD expansion?
What exactly points to easier content being a bigger success for Blizzard?
The truth of the matter is Blizzard saw greatest success when the least amount of people were participating in that group content. Vanilla was their fastest growth period, yet regular raiders were only 2% of the population, and even dungeon participation was far lower than any other expack. Vanilla was not mechanically difficult, it required situational awareness. You could not blindly face pull a pack of mobs and hope to live. It didn't succeed because it was difficult. It succeeded because it was engaging, and because it was a journey. The shortening and simplification of the leveling process(and the devaulation of the journey) and the end game focus on queing for instanced content that people don't enjoy leads to burnout and plays a large part in their ability to maintain subs IMHO.
I think the only reason people do dungeons and raids is because that is all we have had to do for so long that it has become engrained in our minds that we are supposed to be doing them. I honestly don't think people do them strictly for fun. We have them because it is expected that we have them and we do them because often it is the only way to provide meaningful progression for our characters. I would love for a game to change those perceptions and think out of the box when it comes to large group content features. I would love to see a new content type that keeps people in the world and working together. You cannot force people to communicate and build communities. You can only provide them with opportunities to do so and try and remove the roadblocks that discourage the behavior you are trying to nourture. It seems WoW over the years has been putting up more roadblocks than knocking down barriers and providing opportunities, and I think it really shows in the evolution of the community.
I think Wildstar has a good approach as they tend to reward skilled gameplay without requiring everyone to be super skilled to enjoy the game. The true test will be endgame though and having 40 mans is great for the high end, but how much content and progression they will provide other players will be key. If they can manage to engage players of all kinds with content that suits them, having 40 mans will be great for the game even if only a small percentage of players do them.
That 2% number you are throwing around was the number of people that had completed early Core and Crusader raid content, not that were trying it, or gearing up for it. Guilds were built to help people obtain gear. Once Epics started getting thrown at people in random pugs for little effort, that began the decline of the guilds, which the raid finder effectively ended.
Now enter Raid Finder. Or as I like to call it: Guild Slayer. Not only could people gear up for raids with much less effort, now, raids were made easy too. So no reason at all to form communities and build and establish guilds.
Then to boost guild participation, they setup the guild reward system. Which essentially had people in guilds with the most perks simply to capitalize on the guild rewards. There was still no reason to form community.
The last 3-4 years has seen the largest online gaming community in history utterly collapse. All during periods where content was made more and more accessible. And you think making WoW easier, improved its success?
I'm sorry Mr Bitton and jbombard please provide some evidence .
2% was the number that got thrown around on the official forums back in vanilla. While the number was likely higher if you include people that have ever been in any raid once or occasionally filled a pug spot but that isn't the number I am concerned with. I am talking about the number of organized raiders that raided on a regular schedule, and my experience matches up with those numbers but is anecdotal. The exact number isn't really important the fact that raiding was such a teeny tiny part of the game is what is important.
Also I think you are misinterpreting what I said. I am most certainly not saying easier is better. I am saying the game was better when raiding was an activity that only a very select few people participated in. The difficulty is something that can be argued about for days, and frankly is irrelevant. However I think there is a place in a game for exclusive, hard content enjoyed only by a select few people that provide rewards that allow players to distinguish themselves. However, this is not why the game was immensely successful. It was because despite raiding being an exclusive activity there was more than enough content in the game that provided a meaningful journey to the player. The downfall of the game isn't because raiding has become easier, it is because raiding has become the focus of the game. Raiding became more accessible and easy because it was made the focus of the game. Personally I think if they still managed to provide a meaningful journey and end game to players without trying to shoehorn everyone into raiding you would be looking at much higher sub numbers today.
If a game is fun to play and keeps people engaged with challenging, well thought out content, people will sub.
They will sub until they run out of content. Which will happen in any new game. It's not possible to produce content as quickly as it gets consumed, and as a percentage of the total MMO population, very few people not religiously dedicated to WoW are going to pay a monthly fee just to participate in endgame. Especially the necessarily limited endgame in a brand new MMO without almost a decade worth of expansion content.
Which isn't to say subs are bad. Going with a box purchase + required sub at the start of a game is a good way to milk your initial player base until they have finished the starting content and start to leave, but these days every smart developer is following that up with a Freemium conversion.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
If a game is fun to play and keeps people engaged with challenging, well thought out content, people will sub.
They will sub until they run out of content. Which will happen in any new game. It's not possible to produce content as quickly as it gets consumed, and as a percentage of the total MMO population, very few people not religiously dedicated to WoW are going to pay a monthly fee just to participate in endgame. Especially the necessarily limited endgame in a brand new MMO without almost a decade worth of expansion content.
Which isn't to say subs are bad. Going with a box purchase + required sub at the start of a game is a good way to milk your initial player base until they have finished the starting content and start to leave, but these days every smart developer is following that up with a Freemium conversion.
It is a value proposition. If they think their $15 is providing them with enough value they will stay subscribed. If they don't they will leave. When developers take your $15 a month and sit on their asses of course people will leave. If a game is providing frequent updates people have more visibility as to where their money is going. Obviously if the game sucks bowls and is boring as hell people aren't going to play it and certainly aren't going to pay to play it, that is true regardless of how the game is monetized. Yet even if there is still plenty to do in the game people generally don't like to feel cheated, and paying $15 a month for nothing can do that.
I have serious doubts about WS's market appeal. I don't think Sci-Fi translates well into an MMO without first person shooter combat. Honestly I expect about the same market penetration as TERA, which might be much less than what they're shooting for.
I think TESO will make one large pile of cash at release, and then either skyrocket or tumble. I think it depends largely on reaction from console players, which I can't even guess.
EQN, no opinion. I haven't seen enough about it.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
It is a value proposition. If they think their $15 is providing them with enough value they will stay subscribed. If they don't they will leave. When developers take your $15 a month and sit on their asses of course people will leave. If a game is providing frequent updates people have more visibility as to where their money is going. Obviously if the game sucks bowls and is boring as hell people aren't going to play it and certainly aren't going to pay to play it, that is true regardless of how the game is monetized. Yet even if there is still plenty to do in the game people generally don't like to feel cheated, and paying $15 a month for nothing can do that.
And the thing people need to remember, especially those who like to try to use WoW as an example of how subs can be viable in the long term, is that substantially higher value is required for the average player to think a game is worth $15 a month than was required ten years ago, or five, or even two or three. Back when every major MMO was exclusively sub-based, it was a question of paying fifteen a month, or not playing any MMO. Even if all that was left to do in the game of your choice was repeat old content, there wasn't any real alternative if you were a true MMO junkie. But the combination of almost every game offering a free option and there being tons of games in the market now with content you haven't seen yet and can go play rather than simply staying put in your current game, this leads to a reality where no rational developer can expect to keep a substantial percentage of it's player base long term without adopting a Freemium model at some point after launch.
Even if people think a company is doing the absolute best it can at providing quality content updates quickly, most still aren't going to pay every month when they can go pay for some game they haven't finished yet instead, and come back later after enough time has passed for there to be a substantial amount of new content. But if there is a free option, people will check back a lot more frequently to see what they are missing, and as a result those who are willing to re-sub periodically will do so sooner, and more often, because they don't have to drop that money just to find out whether it's worth it to drop the money. Subscriptions aren't dead, and probably never will be. But games that rely *exclusively* on subscriptions? Except for launch window revenue grabs (which could last up to a year, depending on how strong a game starts out) their time is done, the market has evolved away from them.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
It is a value proposition. If they think their $15 is providing them with enough value they will stay subscribed. If they don't they will leave. When developers take your $15 a month and sit on their asses of course people will leave. If a game is providing frequent updates people have more visibility as to where their money is going. Obviously if the game sucks bowls and is boring as hell people aren't going to play it and certainly aren't going to pay to play it, that is true regardless of how the game is monetized. Yet even if there is still plenty to do in the game people generally don't like to feel cheated, and paying $15 a month for nothing can do that.
And the thing people need to remember, especially those who like to try to use WoW as an example of how subs can be viable in the long term, is that substantially higher value is required for the average player to think a game is worth $15 a month than was required ten years ago, or five, or even two or three. Back when every major MMO was exclusively sub-based, it was a question of paying fifteen a month, or not playing any MMO. Even if all that was left to do in the game of your choice was repeat old content, there wasn't any real alternative if you were a true MMO junkie. But the combination of almost every game offering a free option and there being tons of games in the market now with content you haven't seen yet and can go play rather than simply staying put in your current game, this leads to a reality where no rational developer can expect to keep a substantial percentage of it's player base long term without adopting a Freemium model at some point after launch.
Even if people think a company is doing the absolute best it can at providing quality content updates quickly, most still aren't going to pay every month when they can go pay for some game they haven't finished yet instead, and come back later after enough time has passed for there to be a substantial amount of new content. But if there is a free option, people will check back a lot more frequently to see what they are missing, and as a result those who are willing to re-sub periodically will do so sooner, and more often, because they don't have to drop that money just to find out whether it's worth it to drop the money. Subscriptions aren't dead, and probably never will be. But games that rely *exclusively* on subscriptions? Except for launch window revenue grabs (which could last up to a year, depending on how strong a game starts out) their time is done, the market has evolved away from them.
Subscription based games provide developers with steady revenue they can put back into the game. With a subscription game the pressure is on providing content and value to the players. With a F2P or freemium game the focus shifts to making money. The loss of that pressure to constantly push out new content and value can make things easier on developers but it can also be somewhat of a trap and can lead to prioritizing things that aren't good for the long term game in exchange for short term revenue. That doesn't mean they will, it just means they have to be careful. A good developer that makes a good game will succeed regardless of the model they choose. As a player I like that the subscription model because it does put pressure on the developer to constantly provide value. The numbers that show their is more than a big enough market to support subscription based games.
Also subscription games allow developers to focus resources on the players who are paying for the game. F2P/freemium games have lots of players but revenue is not stable and only around 40% of those players ever spend any money at all. When we are talking about players that make regular monthly transactions that number becomes much much smaller. To maintain similar revenue as a subscription they need vastly more players. That means they need many times the overhead and have to support a lot more players and that comes with a cost. It can also cause a lot more work to be needed stopping bots and exploiters. While F2P players would like nothing more to make it sound like F2P is a pure win situation for the developer it just isn't so. It is a tradeoff. Sometimes that tradeoff pays off, sometimes it doesn't. If a company can maintain their subs numbers and provide value and fun to their players, there is no reason to switch models. If a game failed to provide value as a sub game, I don't think I would be interested in playing it as a free game for any length of time and the company likely wouldn't get any money from me.
There is absolutely no chance ESO or Wildstar will manage as sub titles.
Wildstar is a very good WOW clone. Best comparable with Allods. It brings lot of great mechanics along with some bad (zones no open world). But this is just not enough to warrant subscriptionin 2014.
ESO should be B2P if its want any chance with its single player fanbase.
The results will be that ESO will not be able to return its investment and posibly even move to f2p will not help. And Wildstar is probably designed for move to f2p along the way. Cleverly will profit a lot from this.
EQN will probably be launched q4 2015 earliest. And EQL q4 2014.
Wildstar is not a WoW clone. Its an MMO - so it has some things in common. But far less then say FFXIV - now that is a WoW clone. So was SWTOR.
The big edge that Wildstar has (and EQ:N and ESO may have) Is the ENGINE. This means not only is combat more 'visceral' for lack of a better word. They can create content faster - and produce better content in less time.
It's funny that MMO players get so caught up in the well it plays like so and so. You know what - Mass Effect 3 played kinda like Deus Ex - which played kinda like Dishonored. And that kinda reminded me of Bioshock infinite - which was kinda like fallout 3 etc etc.
Technology actually makes a difference. People will play a better version of the same thing. It's taken a while - and GW2 is the first sign we have had of this.. But its looking less and less likely that Blizzard can pull their engine through to the next decade of dominance. Once some of the players get a taste of what these new titles can do - I think they will be popular.
Also FWIW WoW has really gained customers with their new easier approach. That was merely an attempt to match more modern demographics. It didn't gorw the genre 1 bit. Dungeon Finder is passable - but LFR is a total failure in my view.
From those three I have the least interest in WS. But that doesn't predict anything about the success of Wildstar of course. Anyway, looking at the game and that it has the image of a WoW2.0 they probably would have fared better with a F2P/Freemium approach imho.
ESO I am not sure about. I don't think it will be a total flop (unless there are big performance issues with mass pvp e.g. or lots of bugs) but it won't be the next MMO hit either. They will do o.k. I guess with a few hundred thousand subscribers at best over time. Probably going F2P or Freemium in the long run.
Regarding EQN I share the same thougths as OP more or less. It really looks like a new technology prototype and it doesn't remind me at all of Everquest as a franchise. It's really nice that SOE tries something new here concerning technology but on the other hand new technologies implicate also new risks. At least it will enrich the MMO genre which is a good thing. Wouldn't bet on a 2014 release though. Looking at EQN as an Everquest game just disappoints me.
These are the big three? I disagree... Wildstar is in the list but im thinking Star Citizen sits above them all with Citadel of Sorcery taking third place. I dont see EQN or ESo doing well as they are both WoW clones.
As it has been said before EQN really isnt offering anything cutting edge and those who have already been inside of ESO stated clearly that it was a reskinned WoW.
I will go against the grain and say it: The game with the longest and the most engaging leveling content will succeed.
When did WoW have the most cohesive player base: Vanilla and TBC. When MMO's in general start to fall apart? When you could level to max character in a couple of days. (Catalysm, SWTOR, GW2, NWO...any recent MMO actually)
That, and the option to have at least one type of rich end-game content (either Raids or RvR), will make these games become a serious player on MMO market. No way that MMORPG can stay fresh for long enough if you jump into endgame in 2 weeks from launch.
Comments
Blizzard had better luck moving away from more challenging PvE and 40 man raids?
I still play WoW, I have nothing against it or anything, but...didn't they have a rather large drop in players since moving away from more challenging content?
What exactly points to Blizzard having more success with the reduction of difficult PvE and raid content? I would think subscriber numbers would be a big one for a game that is subscription based, and that doesn't actually say it's been a success.
And is this not the same blizzard that, in an article a couple years ago, said that they needed to change their development philosophy and the way they release new content because players are able to consume the content at a much faster pace then they were previously, and it was having an impact on how long people stayed subscribed to the game.
The same Blizzard that has said they intend to provide a more challenging experience with the endgame for WoD expansion?
What exactly points to easier content being a bigger success for Blizzard?
The truth of the matter is Blizzard saw greatest success when the least amount of people were participating in that group content. Vanilla was their fastest growth period, yet regular raiders were only 2% of the population, and even dungeon participation was far lower than any other expack. Vanilla was not mechanically difficult, it required situational awareness. You could not blindly face pull a pack of mobs and hope to live. It didn't succeed because it was difficult. It succeeded because it was engaging, and because it was a journey. The shortening and simplification of the leveling process(and the devaulation of the journey) and the end game focus on queing for instanced content that people don't enjoy leads to burnout and plays a large part in their ability to maintain subs IMHO.
I think the only reason people do dungeons and raids is because that is all we have had to do for so long that it has become engrained in our minds that we are supposed to be doing them. I honestly don't think people do them strictly for fun. We have them because it is expected that we have them and we do them because often it is the only way to provide meaningful progression for our characters. I would love for a game to change those perceptions and think out of the box when it comes to large group content features. I would love to see a new content type that keeps people in the world and working together. You cannot force people to communicate and build communities. You can only provide them with opportunities to do so and try and remove the roadblocks that discourage the behavior you are trying to nourture. It seems WoW over the years has been putting up more roadblocks than knocking down barriers and providing opportunities, and I think it really shows in the evolution of the community.
I think Wildstar has a good approach as they tend to reward skilled gameplay without requiring everyone to be super skilled to enjoy the game. The true test will be endgame though and having 40 mans is great for the high end, but how much content and progression they will provide other players will be key. If they can manage to engage players of all kinds with content that suits them, having 40 mans will be great for the game even if only a small percentage of players do them.
Destiny
Anyway, out of the three mentioned EQN has my most interest but as others have said, that isn't coming out in 2014. I'll be trying ESO, we'll see how it goes. Wildstar has no appeal to me at all.
Wildstar looks good for a romp, playing one of this bat****-crazy Chuas for a few nights will be entertaining, but not much beyond that really unless someone wants to raid.
ESO seems alright, exploring the world and the possibility of decent RvR would keep me playing longer than the other two titles. My guild is looking at playing this since we are RvR starved.
Didn't play EQ and have no resulting interest in EQN.
WOW 2.0, DAOC 2.0, and SWG 2.0? That would make for an amazing 2014 if true but I have my doubts.
Wildstar seems to have the clearest identity of what it wants to be and is furthest along in development - I think it will do well initially since it should launch before Warlords of Draenor. But for it to avoid going F2P in the future it's going to have to figure out how to churn out as much content as WoW with likely a much smaller base of subscribers.
EQN has some interesting concepts and looks good but until someone actually gets to play it I think its hard to make any predictions.
And ESO, well the RvR kind of confounds me. I don't see there being much of a demand for it among your average Elder Scrolls player and it feels tacked on. Maybe all the PVE players will leave the game after getting to max level and only the PVP players will be left so they can focus on it. But it just seems like if you're going to make a RvR game you want to have PVP at all levels and not just at endgame.
You can go to the pvp zone at like level 12. I don't understand what you mean by "endgame pvp". You can pretty much start pvping after leaving the starter zone.
Wildstar - successful and well made theme-park suffering from silly graphics and constant WoW comparisons.
TESO - for many big disappointment. For me - predictable mediocre MMO
EQ: Next - not sure yet what to expect, but among those 3 EQN has my biggest attention.
I'd like to know how Blizzard did far better by reducing raid difficulty and player size. The game continued to climb in popularity thru WoTLK and the original 25 man raid content in that expansion was relatively difficult. Cata and Panda with Raid FInder EZ mode have done nothing but make content a single pass thru and then who cares. Since these changes the population comes back each expansion, sees the content, and bails 3 weeks later because they have seen what there is to see.
Other recent titles have completely avoided raids. If Wildstar implements entertaining and challenging end game content, its success or failure will determine whether or not this was the correct path. By making content challenging you also extend its life. Without some barriers to overcome thru teamwork, people are melting thru content in a couple dozen days. I attribute this to the quick stagnation of most modern themeparks.
The journey has to be fun, challenging and provide a sense of progression. There used to be such an anomaly in MMOs. Now its run thru everything in solo mode, jump in a dungeon/raid finder, run content once and un-sub. If players see a goal as difficult to achieve, many will rise up to challenge and seek it out.
Further, I postulate that World of Warcraft could only happen once. It was a combination of great animations, fun combat, a world full of character and vibrant colors. But most importantly there was an expanding pool of video game players that made WoW so successful. This latest generation has started to drop the " Eeww you play video games..what a nerd." stigmata. I've known athletes, executives, and all types of people to experiment with WoW and other video games in the last 5-7 years. That just wasn't the case even 15 years ago.
So..
Can we not get over WoW and not continue to expect a game needs 1 million+ subs to be good.
If a game is fun to play and keeps people engaged with challenging, well thought out content, people will sub.
Or else, MMOs will morph into Dayz and Star Citizen
.
That 2% number you are throwing around was the number of people that had completed early Core and Crusader raid content, not that were trying it, or gearing up for it. Guilds were built to help people obtain gear. Once Epics started getting thrown at people in random pugs for little effort, that began the decline of the guilds, which the raid finder effectively ended.
Now enter Raid Finder. Or as I like to call it: Guild Slayer. Not only could people gear up for raids with much less effort, now, raids were made easy too. So no reason at all to form communities and build and establish guilds.
Then to boost guild participation, they setup the guild reward system. Which essentially had people in guilds with the most perks simply to capitalize on the guild rewards. There was still no reason to form community.
The last 3-4 years has seen the largest online gaming community in history utterly collapse. All during periods where content was made more and more accessible. And you think making WoW easier, improved its success?
I'm sorry Mr Bitton and jbombard please provide some evidence
.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
2% was the number that got thrown around on the official forums back in vanilla. While the number was likely higher if you include people that have ever been in any raid once or occasionally filled a pug spot but that isn't the number I am concerned with. I am talking about the number of organized raiders that raided on a regular schedule, and my experience matches up with those numbers but is anecdotal. The exact number isn't really important the fact that raiding was such a teeny tiny part of the game is what is important.
Also I think you are misinterpreting what I said. I am most certainly not saying easier is better. I am saying the game was better when raiding was an activity that only a very select few people participated in. The difficulty is something that can be argued about for days, and frankly is irrelevant. However I think there is a place in a game for exclusive, hard content enjoyed only by a select few people that provide rewards that allow players to distinguish themselves. However, this is not why the game was immensely successful. It was because despite raiding being an exclusive activity there was more than enough content in the game that provided a meaningful journey to the player. The downfall of the game isn't because raiding has become easier, it is because raiding has become the focus of the game. Raiding became more accessible and easy because it was made the focus of the game. Personally I think if they still managed to provide a meaningful journey and end game to players without trying to shoehorn everyone into raiding you would be looking at much higher sub numbers today.
They will sub until they run out of content. Which will happen in any new game. It's not possible to produce content as quickly as it gets consumed, and as a percentage of the total MMO population, very few people not religiously dedicated to WoW are going to pay a monthly fee just to participate in endgame. Especially the necessarily limited endgame in a brand new MMO without almost a decade worth of expansion content.
Which isn't to say subs are bad. Going with a box purchase + required sub at the start of a game is a good way to milk your initial player base until they have finished the starting content and start to leave, but these days every smart developer is following that up with a Freemium conversion.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
It is a value proposition. If they think their $15 is providing them with enough value they will stay subscribed. If they don't they will leave. When developers take your $15 a month and sit on their asses of course people will leave. If a game is providing frequent updates people have more visibility as to where their money is going. Obviously if the game sucks bowls and is boring as hell people aren't going to play it and certainly aren't going to pay to play it, that is true regardless of how the game is monetized. Yet even if there is still plenty to do in the game people generally don't like to feel cheated, and paying $15 a month for nothing can do that.
I have serious doubts about WS's market appeal. I don't think Sci-Fi translates well into an MMO without first person shooter combat. Honestly I expect about the same market penetration as TERA, which might be much less than what they're shooting for.
I think TESO will make one large pile of cash at release, and then either skyrocket or tumble. I think it depends largely on reaction from console players, which I can't even guess.
EQN, no opinion. I haven't seen enough about it.
And the thing people need to remember, especially those who like to try to use WoW as an example of how subs can be viable in the long term, is that substantially higher value is required for the average player to think a game is worth $15 a month than was required ten years ago, or five, or even two or three. Back when every major MMO was exclusively sub-based, it was a question of paying fifteen a month, or not playing any MMO. Even if all that was left to do in the game of your choice was repeat old content, there wasn't any real alternative if you were a true MMO junkie. But the combination of almost every game offering a free option and there being tons of games in the market now with content you haven't seen yet and can go play rather than simply staying put in your current game, this leads to a reality where no rational developer can expect to keep a substantial percentage of it's player base long term without adopting a Freemium model at some point after launch.
Even if people think a company is doing the absolute best it can at providing quality content updates quickly, most still aren't going to pay every month when they can go pay for some game they haven't finished yet instead, and come back later after enough time has passed for there to be a substantial amount of new content. But if there is a free option, people will check back a lot more frequently to see what they are missing, and as a result those who are willing to re-sub periodically will do so sooner, and more often, because they don't have to drop that money just to find out whether it's worth it to drop the money. Subscriptions aren't dead, and probably never will be. But games that rely *exclusively* on subscriptions? Except for launch window revenue grabs (which could last up to a year, depending on how strong a game starts out) their time is done, the market has evolved away from them.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Subscription based games provide developers with steady revenue they can put back into the game. With a subscription game the pressure is on providing content and value to the players. With a F2P or freemium game the focus shifts to making money. The loss of that pressure to constantly push out new content and value can make things easier on developers but it can also be somewhat of a trap and can lead to prioritizing things that aren't good for the long term game in exchange for short term revenue. That doesn't mean they will, it just means they have to be careful. A good developer that makes a good game will succeed regardless of the model they choose. As a player I like that the subscription model because it does put pressure on the developer to constantly provide value. The numbers that show their is more than a big enough market to support subscription based games.
Also subscription games allow developers to focus resources on the players who are paying for the game. F2P/freemium games have lots of players but revenue is not stable and only around 40% of those players ever spend any money at all. When we are talking about players that make regular monthly transactions that number becomes much much smaller. To maintain similar revenue as a subscription they need vastly more players. That means they need many times the overhead and have to support a lot more players and that comes with a cost. It can also cause a lot more work to be needed stopping bots and exploiters. While F2P players would like nothing more to make it sound like F2P is a pure win situation for the developer it just isn't so. It is a tradeoff. Sometimes that tradeoff pays off, sometimes it doesn't. If a company can maintain their subs numbers and provide value and fun to their players, there is no reason to switch models. If a game failed to provide value as a sub game, I don't think I would be interested in playing it as a free game for any length of time and the company likely wouldn't get any money from me.
There is absolutely no chance ESO or Wildstar will manage as sub titles.
Wildstar is a very good WOW clone. Best comparable with Allods. It brings lot of great mechanics along with some bad (zones no open world). But this is just not enough to warrant subscriptionin 2014.
ESO should be B2P if its want any chance with its single player fanbase.
The results will be that ESO will not be able to return its investment and posibly even move to f2p will not help. And Wildstar is probably designed for move to f2p along the way. Cleverly will profit a lot from this.
EQN will probably be launched q4 2015 earliest. And EQL q4 2014.
So no need to reflect on thisright now.
Best surprise mmo of 2014 will be Starbound.
Wildstar is not a WoW clone. Its an MMO - so it has some things in common. But far less then say FFXIV - now that is a WoW clone. So was SWTOR.
The big edge that Wildstar has (and EQ:N and ESO may have) Is the ENGINE. This means not only is combat more 'visceral' for lack of a better word. They can create content faster - and produce better content in less time.
It's funny that MMO players get so caught up in the well it plays like so and so. You know what - Mass Effect 3 played kinda like Deus Ex - which played kinda like Dishonored. And that kinda reminded me of Bioshock infinite - which was kinda like fallout 3 etc etc.
Technology actually makes a difference. People will play a better version of the same thing. It's taken a while - and GW2 is the first sign we have had of this.. But its looking less and less likely that Blizzard can pull their engine through to the next decade of dominance. Once some of the players get a taste of what these new titles can do - I think they will be popular.
Also FWIW WoW has really gained customers with their new easier approach. That was merely an attempt to match more modern demographics. It didn't gorw the genre 1 bit. Dungeon Finder is passable - but LFR is a total failure in my view.
From those three I have the least interest in WS. But that doesn't predict anything about the success of Wildstar of course. Anyway, looking at the game and that it has the image of a WoW2.0 they probably would have fared better with a F2P/Freemium approach imho.
ESO I am not sure about. I don't think it will be a total flop (unless there are big performance issues with mass pvp e.g. or lots of bugs) but it won't be the next MMO hit either. They will do o.k. I guess with a few hundred thousand subscribers at best over time. Probably going F2P or Freemium in the long run.
Regarding EQN I share the same thougths as OP more or less. It really looks like a new technology prototype and it doesn't remind me at all of Everquest as a franchise. It's really nice that SOE tries something new here concerning technology but on the other hand new technologies implicate also new risks. At least it will enrich the MMO genre which is a good thing. Wouldn't bet on a 2014 release though. Looking at EQN as an Everquest game just disappoints me.
These are the big three? I disagree... Wildstar is in the list but im thinking Star Citizen sits above them all with Citadel of Sorcery taking third place. I dont see EQN or ESo doing well as they are both WoW clones.
As it has been said before EQN really isnt offering anything cutting edge and those who have already been inside of ESO stated clearly that it was a reskinned WoW.
Played: UO, LotR, WoW, SWG, DDO, AoC, EVE, Warhammer, TF2, EQ2, SWTOR, TSW, CSS, KF, L4D, AoW, WoT
Playing: The Secret World until Citadel of Sorcery goes into Alpha testing.
Tired of: Linear quest games, dailies, and dumbed down games
Anticipating:Citadel of Sorcery
I will go against the grain and say it: The game with the longest and the most engaging leveling content will succeed.
When did WoW have the most cohesive player base: Vanilla and TBC. When MMO's in general start to fall apart? When you could level to max character in a couple of days. (Catalysm, SWTOR, GW2, NWO...any recent MMO actually)
That, and the option to have at least one type of rich end-game content (either Raids or RvR), will make these games become a serious player on MMO market. No way that MMORPG can stay fresh for long enough if you jump into endgame in 2 weeks from launch.