No, it dosn't.

Your "hard figures" are a company rep who dosn't even have access to the database to tell how many accounts have lvl 60's.

I am looking for a PUBLIC source of the figures I have. I suspect that the ones I have were gathered from a tap into a...popular...UI upgrade, but I can't prove that either.

WoW is an anomily in the marketplace. Which is why neither Sony or NCSoft are spending time trying to build a direct competitor. *shrugs*

Right, so because the guy couldn't spout off exact numbers in an interview at GenConwhen he didn't have access to the database, everything he's saying is invalid? Fantastic standards there, Crick.

The numbers you have are from a UI add-on tap? Yeah that's just as reliable, I'm sure. If anything that just tells you how many people thought the UI was a piece of shit and dumped it.

Yeah, it's an anomoly, but it's one from which lessons can be learned. Dismissing it because it says things about games that developers don't want to hear is typicaly short-sighted of the industry.

If he's going to spout figures, then he needs to have the correct ones, yea. How is this a hard concept?

And there are lot of things to learn from WoW. Mostly negative lessons, as usual. The success of WoW is based on the reputation of Blizzard when compared to other games. Yes, it's still popular because a lot of people consider it a good game, but the initial box sales were hype driven. That's not something easy - or really, possible - to duplicate.

LoTR. Maybe. What other franchise?

(And Merusk, a POPULAR UI mod).

You don't think EQ2 was intended as a direct competitor? Particularly considering that they just happened to launch it a week before WoW, or that they changed it after launch to make it more solo-friendly, or that IIRC they've announced that they're adding PvP?

Seems to me Sony is spending a lot of time trying to build a direct competitor - they're just not being very successful at it.

Hmph, reputation has some part to play, but reputation also doesn't come out of nowhere. The game is simply very well designed in Blizzard's usual fashion.. not an anomaly at all.

I haven't bothered with WoW so I can't say with any authority whether or not it is well designed. Assuming that you are correct, however...

You don't think a well designed MMO is anomalous? It's been my experience that the history of the industry is money hats in spite of countless awe inspiringly stupid decisions.

This is how I see it!

It's always been obvious through looking at previous MMO's, that total disasters have never been caused by failing to adhere to a particular 'vision' or 'philosophy'. Instead, most 'disaster-MMOs' are caused by fundamental flaws in design- buggy or non-existant content, unfinished zones, unstable servers, unentertaining gameplay, etc. If the core game was good, the MMO would be alright.

One could surmise (the best you can do in this field) that an MMO designed relatively well on every level, regardless of its 'aim', would be successful. In my opinion, therefore, WoW is not an anomaly; there simply hadn't been a good example before. WoW fully embraced the idea of success through meticulously well-designed core gameplay, and with their reputation, made a killing.

If a decision is stupid it's not awe inspiring. Or, at least, it was badly executed.

If there's hype about something that goes wrong it's just because the hype was coming from a superficial public.

Right now Vanguard is hyped, but this doesn't mean that it will be great. In fact I'm between those who believe it's not.

Vanguard could have some awe inspiring ideas. But they are ideas that I'm ready to criticize. If one day Vanguard fails because its ideas are bad I won't accept someone saying that the game was awe inspiring but, still, failed. It was just superficial.

It's all about the difference between following the hype and be 'yet another goon', or try to dig a bit more and figure out NOT JUST what worked and what didn't.

But figure out WHY.

The success of a mmorpg depends on reasons and not just on a lucky dice roll.

Yeah, but the question is, how are they divining those numbers? Any way outside of keeping track of actual names of players ignores people like myself who dumped all but a few UI mods (Including Cosmos and CTRaid) after Blizz incorporated the functions I acually used into their own interface. At launch +4 months I had like 30 mods I was using various parts of Right now I have 3. (Auctioneer, damage calc, and stancesets) It also ignores anyone who has downloaded them once and just continues to update the version themselves instead of re-downloading it.

Numbers from a UI mod are more suspect than a guy at a convention answering a question off the cuff. Or could you provide me with exact numbers on the amount of pens in your desk when I caught you at the local bar? Giving an approximate number when asked for one instead of a bullshit answer like "I don't have exact numbers, let me get back to you" isn't a crime. Hell, that answer would have been spun into OMG BLizzard is failing, look they won't answer questions! by anti-zealots.

Sorry WoW pissed in your professional cheerios. The attitude that all it can teach you are 'bad things' is a poor one and only underscores your pettiness on an answer given without access to exact numbers at that moment.

Yep. And that cuts the other way with me.

I was never a SC fan (TA!), but I *was* a Diablo series fan until Blizzard decided that the sewer that is B.net was compulsory.

And Merusk, okay, the figures may be suspect. What OTHER figures do you suggest I use? Provide plz.

Plus, you seem to think I I'm saying WoW isn't doing well or something. It is. Fine, great. What it has to teach is largely unrelated to that, because it's main success factors are NOT repeatable.

That's actually an assumption on your part.

I imagine that most of it's success factors are, at least in part, repeatable and it is my belief that the Blizzard name wasn't quite the 600lb gorilla you seem think it was. Saying, well they succeeded because they are Blizzard and have a huge worldwide following, doesn't fit. If it was all about branding then FFXI should have crushed all comers, more people have played Final Fantasy than any almost other game, units sold are 60 million (source: wikipedia), dwarfing Blizzards sales of the Warcrafts, Diablos, and Starcraft combined by a factor of three or four.

A lot of what Wow teaches is related to it's success, otherwise why pay any more attention to it than any other game? It's also complete bullshit to say you couldn't repeat Wow's success, that's like going back in time 5 years and saying no-one will repeat EQ's success, er wrong.

If you spend an awful lot of money, have a lot of content and an extremely enjoyable, polished casual friendly game with good design decisions, you could repeat it. Blizzard didn't start with a good reputation they made it by releasing good games.

Vanguard isn't going to reach wow numbers because they seem to be focusing on player retention rather than making the gameplay good. That's grind design not fun design.



He guessed 15-20%, given that the figures will change constantly, there are 5 different languages in the account databases and he actually works for the company, I would say his guess is likely to be fairly accurate.

I don't see how any ui mod will let you know that more people than normal are cancelling and moving to other games, which is what you suggested.

I'm also real curious how you expect there to be public data available for WoW accounts when any figures would have to come from Blizzard, while at the same time you don't believe figures they do release.

I have a theory about catasses. The player base which are labeled as "catasses" and really want a really slow progressive game is much smaller than statistics suggest. The first MMORPG you pick up is always the best, I mean the formula is still the same as 10 years ago, and so it's quite natural that it's best the first time around.

My first "real" experience with MMORPGs was Anarchy Online back in the days when it was HORRIBLY slow, you can't really compare the old Anarchy Online to todays version. It was on the magnitude of Lineage 2, which I'm sure most of you know is pretty got damn slow. Anyway, I was really enjoying my self, even if progression came extremly slow. Even today I think Anarchy Online is one of the absolutely best games out there. Thing is all these people who played UO back in the days says UO is the best, those who lost their virginity to EQ says EQ, heck I even know people who lost their virginity to SWG and even dare to say that SWG is the best. When Lineage 2 was around the corner some of my mates through other none MMORPGs picked it up to try out open beta, and sure enough they got addicted and bought the game.

When WoW came I naturaly gave it a shot. Sure enough it was a VERY solid and well made MMORPG, but still the same old formula. Fun for a pretty long time, but no where close to the fun I had with AO.

I think Vanguard will go really bad if they're aiming at catasses. Because if my theory holds any truth, WoW has already picked up most of those 1st timers which wanted to give MMORPGs a shot.

There's more to it than that though. The Scale of success is an important factor.

For example, WoW has already drawn in many times more players that EQ ever had combined. Even if WoW's retention is a fraction of EQs, it'll still have drawn in greater sheer revenue and profit than EQ ever did.

Blizzard would be more than delighted to have another game come out and we se (conceptually) Diablo Online, the MMO land just as WoW's number really start to drift and capatalize on that. The overall annual profits of WoW dwarf EQ's best years combined.

Gotta keep this all in perspective. Rettntion is great, but it's not the really dominant determining factor in overall success.

Murgos, there is a critical mass of dedicated fans. There are a VERY few communities which have that without emotional baggage (i.e. Trek's seen as being for nerds, and is unlikely to be a runaway success because of that). Blizzard had that critical mass, and leaveraged relatively casual-friendly gameplay off that to attract masses of subscribers.

How is that especially repeatable?


Arthur_Parker, WHAT figures? He gave a vague number. That's not a figure. And I said that WoW's success is not repeatable. I didn't say that it won't be supparsed in subs or anything. I'm sure there WILL be other hits, but trying to repeat the methods of WoW's success is a waste of cash. And a MASSIVE financial risk.

Will there be bigger MMO's? Yes. Will any of the MMO's currently in development be bigger? No, imo.

Um, well, casual/solo friendly play is highly repeatable. That's just a silly comment. And i would suggest given LoTR's widespread theatrical success that is carries less 'emotional' baggage (wtf is that anyway? afraid VOGUE or GQ is going to find out what game you play?) than WoW does.

Sorry Mr. Crick, you make claims about retention with 0 data to back it up and your theories on market differentiation are pretty unsophisticated. Let's wait and see i guess.

EDIT: In an equally scientific survey many more friends of mine have left DAoC, SWG and SB for WoW than the other way around.

*shrug* I thought I gave fairly compelling evidence as to why your 'critical mass of dedicated fans' probably isn't as important as you think it is. You can believe otherwise but I'm just trying to show that there is a distinction between what you believe to be true and what is true.

Anyway I disagree with your premise that no MMOG will ever duplicate WoW's success. You probably should stop talking in absolute terms.

I think options are great. McQuaid is going to serve us a new twist on something we've all had before. For many of us, even the smell makes us want to throw up in our mouths. But having the option there is nice. I also have a loose respect for the guy, he's not out to make the most successful, accessible, player friendly game, he's out to make the game he thinks is cool. Some people are really going to like it.

No MMO will ever duplicate their tactics for success. With the POSSIBLE single exception of LoTR. Which I seriously doubt.

OTHER means to success? Even THAT much success? Yea.

Stop putting words in my mouth.


And squirrel? The casual play part is of course repeatable. The droolin fanchimp factor..isn't. As for my thoughts on the market, it's a VERY badly unstudied area. Considering applying to do a postgrad degree in that stuff.

Mr. Crick - this is impossible to prove, i'd love to see your 'data'. Unless you have access to these users financial records you have no idea if the subs leaving WoW are the subs joining other games. In other words you're mistaking correlation for causality. Noob. It gets even less possible to substantiate your claim that WoW players are mostly first time MMOG players. Please share whatever you can, i'd love to see your numbers.

Complexity? No, you don't need complex models always. Basic scientific methodology? Ya, that generally helps if you want to be believed anywhere but your own kitchen. But whatever floats your boat!

(HINT: When Mom quits WoW because her favourite NE won't cyber anymore and that frees up $$ for dad to play DAoC = Correlation. -1 WoW/+1 DAoC.

When Johnny gets sick of WoW because the PvP suxxors and resubs to DAoC = Causality. -1 WoW/+1 DAoC.)