The Golden 1M: Please Welcome the Next Candidate, World of Warcraft

The benchmark for US virtual worlds comes from Asia, where worlds with more than a million subscribers are common. Two years ago, anyone working in this area would have picked three or more forthcoming titles as candidates for the first to reach this level. Some of those candidates have failed even to cover their development costs; others are probably profitable; but none has reached the Golden 1M. The MMORPG glut, now more than a year old, certainly played a role. Another factor is the failure of US demand to ramp up as quickly as it has in Korea, Japan, and especially China. True, the space as a whole continues to expand, judging from the most recent numbers. But we still await the first American superstar.

The next candidate launched today. World of Warcraft held an open beta two weeks ago and attracted 500,000 testers before  shutting down the sign-up system. [Edit: They have launched with 42 servers.][Edit: 71 servers as of 7pm EST 11/24.][Edit: 88 as of 8pm EST 11/25]. Exit polls suggest that more than 30 percent of the US population plans to skip work or school today [Edit: I'm kidding!]. Azeroth, are you The One?

[Update: Samantha LeCraft points us to first-day data: 250,000 box sales, 200,000 accounts, 100,000 simultaneous users.]

I'd also point out some interesting strategic design moves bundled into WoW:

1. Forget graphical detail, focus on graphical quality and performance. Much of WoW looks like a fairy tale - beautiful rather than realistic. Fantasy takes fewer polygons. The screen image flows incredibly smoothly.

2. Work hard on the first 30 minutes: This is the golden time for any game. In WoW, there's no moment of "wha---??" You have things to do, immediately.

3. Interface matters. I've never used a more intuitive HCI system in a MMOG. It's just so easy.

4. Embrace the casual user. Casual players have little time but represent a huge population. In WoW, any character class can log in, get things done, and log out, without having to interact with anyone. Perhaps that seems to be a violation of the multiplayer game standard, which is to force interactions by making it impossible to do anything without friends. I rather think there's more to be gained by accepting some player independence than lost by downplaying direct interdependence. There's indirect interdependence, for example - markets. I, for one, am much more inclined to make some friends in WoW than some other place, because it seems the world will not frustrate my desire to act on my own. It doesn't hurt that experience points are gained at a higher rate when you've taken a break from the game for awhile. Many worlds should copy that policy - it not only rewards casual players, but it's also good for the human spirit.

5. Story is entertainment. WoW is doing more for Quests than is the norm in the industry. The quest system is flawless, mechanically. We will see if the stories are engaging. My own experience since alpha has been that you often don't even realize you are leveling up, because your mind is focused on the storyline you're completing. Finish the quest, kill a few mobs, bingo - there's your level. Sheer grinding to get ahead is not as necessary.

Comments

[Timothy Burke]

I still think the story is mostly of MMOGs cannibalizing each other's subscriber base, not of expansion. EQ2 and WoW seem to me to aim precisely at that: incremental improvements to existing models, designed to get people to shift preferences. Final Fantasy, SWG and City of Heroes seem to me to be the only MMOGs that have, for divergent reasons, brought new players to the table (and probably in the case of SWG, driven them away again).

I don't think WoW is going to get to a million. My best guess, once the dust settles and the initial phase is over? Somewhere around 400k to 500k subscribers. Which is great in terms of this market. To get over a million in the US market is going to take a revolutionary design *and* a revolutionary subscription model *and* innovations in delivery of service, I think.

[greglas]

Ted> My own experience since alpha has been that you often don't even realize you are leveling up, because your mind is focused on the storyline you're completing.

I guess there was the standard wipe before launch? How far did you get, Ted? Could you top out any of the classes?

Tim> My best guess, once the dust settles and the initial phase is over? Somewhere around 400k to 500k subscribers.

Oracle: But you already know what I'm going to tell you.

WoW: I'm not the One.

Oracle: Sorry kiddo. You got the gift, but it looks like they're waiting for something.

WoW: What?

Oracle: I dunno. Probably something not so derivative of the fantasy genre... MMOTetris maybe? Grand Theft Norrath? Anything bundled with Longhorn -- who knows?

[Marshall Astor]

I think that WoW will be bringing new folks into the MMO market, in addition to cannibalising some of its competitors subscribers. The buzz amongst players and observers in the MMO world leading up to this season's releases is that WoW the game they are looking for, at this time. Both JTL and EQ2 seem to be mild letdowns or disappointments for a signifigant portion of their target audiences. I think this is more of a case of player demand for content/quality outstripping the development cycle's ability to deliver, than a case of poor/failed design. WoW has incredible buzz coming out of its Beta phase (with some griping occuring mainly in the PvP area of the game, which needs some attention and love), but we will see how long it holds that buzz in an increasingly mecurial and picky MMO market.

One of the issues hitting the MMO market is that the solid base of MMO players is getting very savvy about the products, companies and development processes involved, and this is giving them a jaded perspective. MMO's function entirely different than regular games in that they have to maintain subscriber interest over time, and cannot rely upon initial sales to bouy the success of the product, in the eyes of the parent.

Example: SWG had good intitial sales, but was never able to build a subscriber base large enough to justify the development funding and resources that could have repaired the damage done at release, and given the strong growth during its first year that it really needed.

I don't see it hitting 1 million soon, however, and I think that that is a poor ruler for success. Of course, if I am wrong and it hits 1 million, then kudos to Blizzar. I would put my money on it sitting comfortably above 500K for a period of time, and if the playerbase and market take a liking to it, it will grow from there. Also if it does very well at launch, it may get a second Christmas subscriber boost from the good PR and word of mouth.

[Dmitri Williams]

1M. Them's big words. But them's also the kind of results that get mass media attention. In a way, it's too bad that the buzz will be lessened by the big launches of San Andreas, Halo 2 and Half Life 2. If this had launched in a less-crowded field, more people would have learned about MMOs.

Can anyone speak to subscription and/or retention patterns in past launches? If a game has X at beta, is a month of retail then X + something, X, or X - something?

As for long-term, predictions of growth or decline seem tougher. I tried the beta as well and found it to be a solid and accessible game. I don't know about getting new players in the loop, though. That name appeals to the already-converted and may scare off some new folks. World of What? Speaking of "The One," you wouldn't expect people who didn't see The Matrix to play a Matrix game. I expect something similar here.

In game, what struck me as different in terms of player retention was the ease of hitting the level cap. I played L2 for about 6 months and made it about halfway up a very grinding (read: masochistic) totem pole, whereas this game looks like I'd have capped two characters easily in that timespan. As such it looks like it's more about the dynamics of the end game, PvP and two big armies than it is about leveling (i.e. at high levels it's Warcraft 3 with more players). So my from-the-hip guess is that its long-term retention will depend more on the appeal of its high-end content than other games.

[Bart Simon]

I dunno, I dunno... Has there been anything substantive written on the character of solo play in MP online games? I guess one attraction is the ability to have a quicky (but I can get this more cheaply with so many far more impressive games designed for solo)... no it must be about being able to hang out with others without having to engage with them. Like just being in a crowd - a feeling of belonging and social connection without the direct engagement. Maybe we need to revisit the bowling alone thesis in light of this desire. Is it really about being in a social game without having to engage with anyone?

More than likely its about having the whole cake... an intense social experience, a hanging out experience (watching the flow of dialog perhaps - looking in on a pretty combat scene) and a solo play experience. It should all be there an subject to your whim. That combined with a truely compelling narrative - maybe even some practical use of more complex literary tropes and you've got your million.

[Timothy Burke]

Definitely the launch timing is a mistake, in my mind. It's one thing to rush to Xmas if you're a single-player game, or have a non-subscription multiplayer game. If you're a subscription-based game, you're looking for people to commit past the purchase of box, and so past a gift-oriented season as well. There are so many games commanding the attention of gamers at the moment, with more to come in the next few weeks, that even some players who might give WoW or EQ2 a whirl in a quieter time might look to something else at the moment.

(Says the guy who played Vampire: Bloodlines and HL2 last night and will probably play Pirates! later this week rather than WoW or CoH...)

[Scott McMillin]

Completely agree with Ted. Now that I've experienced the early game from both EQ2 and WoW (levels 1-10) there's just no comparison: the WoW experience far outshines EQ2 (and having just done my 6th CoH early game with a Defender I would say it outshines CoH as well, but not by too much).

The EQ2 experience was frustrating on many levels. The HCI feels haphazard (not to mention ugly). I did customize it to the point where I could use it, but WoW's interface out of the box is far more intuitive and useful. And while the Isle of Refuge was relatively straightforward, the experience in Qeynos was filled with lots of time spent zoning and trying to find different NPCs using EQ2s inadequate Quest Journal. (I've got two avatars level 10+ now) On the whole pretty frustrating. Heroic opportunities and, to a lesser extent, the new crafting system, are the only marginally interesting aspects to what seems to be EQ with better graphics and modern MMO conveniences.

WoW on other hand was a breeze. I was never at a loss. You really can follow this smooth, unbroken chain from NPC to quest to exploring new areas to NPC to quest and time just pass by and you're 10th level before you know it (no zoning -- there is only zoning to dungeon instances). On top of this, the experience is different depending on what race you are and your starting area. Snowy mountains (Dwarves/Gnomes), lush forests (Elves), English countryside (Humans), American plains (Tauren), American southwest/mesa (Orc/Troll), and lovecraftian forest (Undead). Through the stress test and open beta I tried each race (except undead) and thoroughly enjoyed the early game for each. Sure the quests are similar, but they're also very specific to the culture of each race -- you really do begin to learn the mythology of your race through many of those early quests.

Visually WoW was gorgeous and the radically different starting areas just a feast for the eyes. EQ2 is pretty, but I haven't yet had the feeling of wanting to explore to new areas just to see what it will look like. So far nothing unexpected in EQ2. Granted I can't turn the graphics all the way up on EQ2 (and I have a 3.4ghz with a Geforce 6600GT) while I can with WoW.

For me a good measure of how strong the WoW experience was, was the fact that even after playing the early games for almost each race, I am still looking forward to playing the release.

I've been tinkering with writing an article discussing the HCI and visual design differences between EQ2 and WoW. Blizzard has such strong and consistent visual design and branding, they are a tough act to challenge and nowhere are their strengths more apparent than in the comparison between the EQ2 and WoW worlds.

[duckilama]

>Definitely the launch timing is a mistake, in my mind. It's one thing to rush to Xmas if you're a single-player game, or have a non-subscription multiplayer game.

I don't feel WoW is rushed. I only got into the open beta last week, and only got to play 2 nights, but it is solid. The client is solid, and has _no memory leaks_ as I inadvertently left it running for around 12 hours and all was well, response/performance-wise. I saw no lag, even in the rather crowded newbie areas, aside from the well-known inventory/loot lag issue. No character or mob warping, no stuttering, no rubberbanding.

It's ready. It's more ready than any MMOG I've seen launched, though I missed out on City of Heroes, so I can't compare to that.

I swore off MMOGs about 2 years ago, but this one grabbed both me and the wife. Never played the Warcraft RTSes, but I recently read a Silmarrilion-esque history of warcraft. It's good.

I'm not trying to be a cheerleader, but WoW is not "rushed for the XMas season". It really is ready to launch.

[Fred L]

I really do not want to start one of those endless debate so i'll be quick. the first 10-15 level of wow are really only about really boring fedexquest getthere kill n mon get back cash xp.later in the game more inovative content is found (tombraider like component for exemple)but in a really small percentage, making a causual group with player you encounter in the spawn zone become also an advised requirement past lvl 15-20. I'am there for having hard time finding any real "new" in this game. besise the game it self being the "new" thing on the shelfs.
wow a well polished linear CRPG with optional 5 players mode...
question is is there any/many contenders?

[Brian 'Psychochild' Green]

I wish the Blizzard team all the best. As most experienced developers know, the real development work is just beginning.

But, someone wake me when the honeymoon is over, hmm? Perhaps then we can have a substantive discussion without the gushing superlatives.

Have fun,

-Brian

[Bart Pursel]

I got into both the FilePlanet stress test beta, then the open beta for WoW. I got an undead warrior to about lvl 15 in 2-3 days of sporadic playing. It took me a little while to get the interface down, but that's basically b/c i've been playing nothing but FPS games for close to a year. Once the interface was mastered, the game really started to flow for me. The quests begin in your immediate area, then start to force you out of your comfort zone and into more challenging areas. By the time you feel comfortable with your surroundings, you get a quest that leads you to a whole new area (for the Undead, this was Undercity i believe). After going from small town to small town, I found myself exploring a huge area of ruins, and followed another player into a little corridor. Next thing i knew, I was in a HUGE, sprawling, underground city, with NPCs and players all over the place. The first step out of that elevator contraption, and my jaw hit the floor.

I do think WoW will provide everything to the MMOGers. Soloing, PvP, groups, grinds, story...no matter how you want to play the game, you're able to.

[Flatfingers]

Dmitri Williams> "what struck me as different in terms of player retention was the ease of hitting the level cap"

More and more it's looking like the "RPG" part is being squeezed out of MMORPGs.

Each new MMORPG seems to make leveling up easier; each new MMORPG seems designed to get players into the "high-end game" quicker.

Isn't the ultimate end of this path the elimination of levels altogether?

Here's an idea for The One: Excise the RPG part completely -- just let everyone start out with all the maximum-capability skills they want. Maybe the number of skills you can know at any one moment is limited, but there's no cost to swap one skill for another other than a few minutes of time.

It's a skill-based game (as opposed to a free-form "you create it" game), but there's no leveling up, no grinding -- nothing but "high-level game," baby.

Is this really where we're headed? Is this really what people want?

--Flatfingers

[Mike Rozak]

With EQII and WoW coming out at the same time, they're obviously splitting the population of "users looking to change their MMORPG" up between them. (How evenly, time will tell.)

What happens when The Matrix Online comes out in Jan, then Guild Wars and Mourning (Feb), then Dark & Light (Apr), then Wish (May), then D&D online (Aug), etc.? Not to mention MEO, Imperator, and Tabula Rosa sometime in 2005...

Do new users appear to fill these worlds?

Do the users who are currently rushing into EQII and WoW suddenly rush into the next big VW?

Do software retailers have enough shelf space for any more than a few MMORPGs?

How do the MMORPGs differentiate one another? It seems like players are either pro-EQII and anti-WoW, or vice-versa. This is good for both VWs since they then have a secure player base. Will pro-EQII players also be pro-DnL, causing DnL to suck away EQII players?

Sir Bruce's latest charts show the characteristic product sales curve for many MMORPGs... steep ramp up, a period of sustained sales, and then steady decline after that. Is the time between release and decline going to shorten with all these MMORPGs?

[Ubiq]

Skill-based games so far have proven to not be nearly sticky enough to reach 1 million people - people don't like to be losers, especially don't like paying 10 bucks a month for it, and will leave before the game can hit critical mass.

Ironically, the move towards easy levelling is one of the things that's really causing populations to not have the long-term sustained growth that EQ had back in the day - there's just not enough to keep you emotionally invested. That being said, going back to old-school brutal levelling is a non-starter. Games need to find things to better retain their customers - something that takes the place of brutal levelling, but hopefully makes your players love your game rather than loathe it.

[Chris Brown]

Maybe levels should be removed from the beginning part of the game, then appear as a mid-level mechanic.

Chapter 1, keep the players involved in content for a few weeks of questing and adventuring with advancement based on equipment, area restrictions, faction, or something. Conclude the chapter with some sort of big event.

Chapter 2, level-based advancement

Chapter 3, epic raiding and PvP

[Bruce Woodcock]

From what I've been able to determine, the MMOG market still grows when new entries arrive on the scene. However, I certainly think MMOGs are restraining each-other's growth, particularly within the fantasy genre. UO and EQ1 have been struggling since the Spring of 2001 and shrinking since the fall of 2003. DAoC has been essentially flat for the past year; AC1 has been declining since 2002. Most MMOGs are reaching the bulk of their peak subscribers within the first few months of release, and then are levelling off or falling.

I've gone on record that I don't think WoW will get 500,000 subscribers, but that was before I knew they were having a simultaneous launch in South Korea. If the Koreans embrace it, it's possible, but that seems highly unlikely.

Anyone who is planning on launching a top-tier MMOG in North America should not be relying on more than 200,000 subscribers for their business plan, and they'd better have a backup business plan to sustain the company or product if they only get 20,000 subscribers.

Bruce

[Scott McMillin]

Brian 'Psychochild' Green said:
"But, someone wake me when the honeymoon is over, hmm? Perhaps then we can have a substantive discussion without the gushing superlatives."

--

Does WoW represent the next generation of MMO? No way. Innovative? Not really. Does Blizzard take many of the best aspects of the genre and improve them whilst adding their indisputable penchant for solid gameplay and attention to detail? Definitely. I suppose I should have simply agreed with Ted's 5 points, moved on and not chosen TN as the forum to excogitate on what appears to be a success for Blizzard.

Really my primary point was that both WoW (along with CoH) seem far more accessible to a more casual user both in terms of gameplay and user interface, which must happen if the MMO space is to begin to capture a broader audience. I just introduced CoH to a friend who has never played an MMO (in fact doesn't own a PC) but has always dreamt of being a super hero (who hasn't). I watched as he learned the interface and is now slowly learning the grammar of MMOs -- both the language and rules of engagement (pulling, crowd control, tanks managing aggro, etc). And honestly I couldn't be happier with his progress within CoH. The interface and gameplay have never been an impediment to his enjoyment. He's loving it.

So I see CoH's success and, I'm betting WoW's future success, as pretty good indicators that the industry is slowly moving towards more accessible virtual worlds.

[Jim Purbrick]

1 Million, Eh? Good job we don't have 19 fingers...

[mike]

How much of the even-playing-field, skill-based player base is served by existing manageably-multiplayer games?

There's a good number of people who aren't scared off by Counter-Strike and less worldly Warcrafts, and as a bonus they only have to pay their fifty bucks once and get to skip the level treadmill and play on low-ping local servers.

I'm wary of things that want to last forever and still be good, so the whole player-retention thing seems a red herring to me. A couple trips through WoW to level 60 with my friends and I can happily go on to the next thing; the game hasn't failed me, nor I it.

I can understand why it's desirable, from a developer's point of view (though as a developer it's such a relief to finally be done with a game; the thought of having to keep on babysitting it fills me with dread) but... it's hard to say. If you can make a short-lived but powerful experience that draws players away from long-term but less intense ones, that might be a win.

And, of course, I'm falling into the trap of saying 'all MMORPG players want the same thing' which isn't true of any other genre.

[Timothy Burke]

I don't mean to say WoW is rushed; I simply mean to say that if I were going to launch a MMOG, even or especially a well-designed one, I'd avoid Christmas, because you need your players to jump in with a wholehearted commitment, and at this time in the calendar, you're competing not just against other MMOGs, but against the very best that solo games have to offer.

[Mark Asher]

Are we talking about a million N. American subscribers or million worldwide? I think WoW can do a million worldwide.

I also WoW could be the first MMO to really take a large swipe out of the player bases of existing MMOs. WoW is entertaining and I think players have enough faith in Blizzard to continue to provide a quality product that they can finally let go of some old games.

WoW could really put an immediate cap on the growth of EQ2.

[Abalieno]

Does WoW represent the next generation of MMO? No way. Innovative? Not really. Does Blizzard take many of the best aspects of the genre and improve them whilst adding their indisputable penchant for solid gameplay and attention to detail? Definitely.

My question is why, while Blizzard worked toward this, the other mmorpg companies have kept staying sitted looking with a blank expression?

Yes, it was too easy.

[Guy Welch]

Full disclosure here -- I work for Vivendi Universal Games -- Blizzard's corporate parent. I went to the WOW midnight launch earlier this morning in Orange County and it was absolutely incredible. An estimated 8,000 people were in the parking lot by 11 PM -- many times more than the 500 people that a similar event for WarCraft III attracted in 2002.

This was a launch that was done right -- most of the people I talked with had been part of some portion of the beta and they were there with friends. Many friends...

Check out more comments and 40 pictures from the event online at

http://www.guywilliamwelch.com/blog/2004/11/from-world-of-warcraft-midnight-sale.html

[Abalieno]

Work for Vivendi?

So remember that the the servers collapsing on themselves is also thanks to you and the choice of the local servers.

This was a launch that was done wrong, imho. Ask to the players that are "in queue" up to two hours to play the game.

And the money you'll see are because of Blizzard, while the money you could loose are surely a merit of Vivendi.

[will dieterich]

While WoW had alot of people signing up(some multiple times) that is no indication on who will purchase it, considering that a large chunk of the people who did the free marketing test are the bnet people. Will be interesting to see how many of them will be willing to pay a monthly fee.

The real story about WoW is the way they have the servers configured. Close to 1/2 of them are PvP servers, and they only have 2 RPG servers at release,now have a few more.
From personnal experience the more mature players are interested in the RPG servers primarily so they don't have to deal with l33t speech and 20 variations of people named 'Gandolf'. With that low number of servers they are not expecting that many, since some multi-game guilds were planning to go on them because of fear of the bnet kiddies.
Then for current MMORPG players you always see the 15% people who are interested in PvP, the rest have none or a negative regards for it. So they must be expecting that they will be getting alot of the bnet people who will be populating these servers. Again will they get theses people to pay monthly fees.

As for numbers it will not reach the mark in the US, with the asian market I would not bet on it. While warcraft is big over in south korea, WoW may come off as a game designed for american tastes and do as well as linage and Linage II do over here.

PS Matrix Online died with movies 2 and 3. It is hard to find anyone who is holding out for it.

PPS The real indication of who "won" between WoW and EQ2 will be seen 6-9 months. It will be who can fix the numerous bugs and problems during that time and who can get the people involved into the game enough that they will not go back to thier previous game(s).

[Sulka]

Flatfingers wrote: "More and more it's looking like the "RPG" part is being squeezed out of MMORPGs. Each new MMORPG seems to make leveling up easier; each new MMORPG seems designed to get players into the "high-end game" quicker."

There's another side to that. I used to play Ultima Online a lot and advancing in UO was so tedious I didn't get to try a whole lot of things I would have wanted since all my time was spent leveling the main character.

I still don't have a copy but if WoW makes it easy to level up, I know I'll be trying out a lot more things. Start out as a dwarf, explore and level up so it becomes boring. Try out as an undead next for a completely new experience except you already know the HCI so there's no learning curve. Sounds good to me!

Removing leveling up completely would remove the satisfaction from accomplishment and make the game boring much quicker. I guess an analogy could be a fantasy novel - in stories the heros struggle through the adventure and ultimately slay the dragon. This works as a narrative to gamers but most players expect the struggling part doesn't take more than a couple hundred pages.

Many games have made the mistake of providing five thousand pages worth of personal struggle with the ultimate few pages worth of real conquering. To me that sounds like a bad read.

[Lee Delarm]

Game launch of WoW did seem pretty flawless, but the waiting to join a server thing (pretty new to me for MMORPGs) was kindof annoying, especially when I had to wait up to a half hour to play with my friends who took the day off from work since they were already on when the servers packed up.

I also managed to get booted for some reason during a zone cross and had a 600 person wait instead of being able to log right back in, which in turn led me to play some other games instead of make my computer sit there idly for the 1+ hour it would've taken to get back on.

Other than that, it's pretty nice, especially once you get out of the newbie areas which were chock full of people and not enough quest spawns :)

[Greg Boyd]

I don't know about 1M, but folks are lined up, literally, to get on to some servers.

I skipped out of work at lunch yesterday to go grab a few character names for myself and everything looked normal. When I came back after 8:00 EST, there were waits between 300-800 people lined up on some of the servers (RP and PvP).

[Edward Castronova]

I'm shocked that people complain about the queue system. The underlying situation is that thousands of people on every server are Level 1. That means they all are going to spending time in the newbie areas. That means those areas are going to provide crappy play. In the past, all anyone did was open the doors. For the user, that meant clicking and re-clicking on the 'enter world' button, but nothing would happen and no information would be given, and this would go on for hours. Then you got in and suffered incredible lag, low frame rates, getting booted, and zone crashes. And all of this, despite be an unavoidable consequence of the technological situation, would go on without any information at all from the company.

Now look how enlightened Blizzard's system is in comparison. The server checks it own health. When newbie zones are crowded, it keeps new people out. But it doesn't do this randomly or in a failure mode. Rather, it keeps track of everyone's place in line first come, first served. Fair! It even tries to tell you how long before your time will come. Informative! Load the game, check your spot in the queue, grab a book, do some work.

I find this to be an incredibly customer-friendly way to approach an unavoidably crowded situation.

[Edward Castronova]

Just to be clear: I'm not really responding to the complaints here. Rather I've been trolling the boards and there's an ungodly number of "WoW WORST LAUNCH EVAR!!!" posts.

[Ubiq]

Game launch of WoW did seem pretty flawless, but the waiting to join a server thing (pretty new to me for MMORPGs) was kindof annoying, especially when I had to wait up to a half hour to play with my friends who took the day off from work since they were already on when the servers packed up.

Almost every game has a 'wait in queue' feature for it's login server and/or patcher. We usually implement it on Day 3-4, when we realize that no one can log into our swamped game/login server. WoW showed unusual foresight in implementing this feature before launch.

In almost all cases, the need for queueing fades as player's play patterns change. At casual glance, it appears that WoW's problems will lessen once they have fewer players at the character creation stage.

[Timothy Burke]

I think CoH had a better way to handle this particular issue: make the newbie zone instanced and then give the immediate post-newbies two different zones to go to. I don't know how I feel about instancing in general but if there is ANY time to do it, it's with the newbie zone.

It may be better than the alternative, but queueing for 1-3 hours to play is pretty frustrating nontheless. Especially for people who are Blizzard fans who haven't played a MMOG before, which I suspect are some of the semi-illiterate shriekers posting "WOR3T LAUNCH EVAR" posts on the official forums. They don't have the perspective of having seen meltdown launches like SWG or AO, so all they know is they want to play and they can't.

The other thing I keep wondering is why someone doesn't try the strategy that Toontown uses, where everyone can switch to every server whenver they want. So when you want to do certain things, you move to the most crowded server, and when you want to do other things, you move to a less crowded one. You could even auto-shunt people off a server to a less crowded one, which would be no problem at all if you could message your buddies and tell them to meet you there. I understand why SWG can't, for example, which has to do with the complexity of its database architecture, but surely not every other MMOG has the same issues or set-up.

Judging from the number of servers and other anecdotal evidence, I'd say that WoW hitting 350k-500k US subscribers is looking highly plausible at this point.

[Timothy Burke]

Well, it's not the worst launch evar, but after spending the last two hours just trying to get to the point where I could get in a queue to get in the game, I'm not putting it in the winner's circle, either. It appears that the world servers are down, but what's interesting is that the server population screens don't show it--you only find out after waiting through a very slow character-creation and server login procedure.

[Edward Castronova]

I pre-ordered at amazon but stupidly clicked "free super-saver shipping." I'll be getting my box sometime next month. Well, by then the queues should be gone anyways. :/

[Edward Castronova]

A shot of the queue screen.

[Mike Darga]

Re: 1M subscribers

Has anyone done any work on finding out the approximate number of unique players that comprise the current mmo market? Obviously it's a lot less than you'd get if you just added up all the characters from all games/muds, because of the large overlap between games and the ability to create multiple characters. The reason I ask is I think it might be more informative to think of these numbers as a fraction of market share rather than pure numbers. Comparing any of our games to Lineage has always seemed a bit like comparing salaries without considering whether you live in Pittsburgh or Los Angeles. Their player base is just so much bigger than ours.

What's the approximate percent of our current US player base that WoW would have to win over in order to break the 1M mark domestically?

Re: WoW drawing new players into the market

A lot of attention has been drawn to the fact that WoW is simplified as far as HCI is concerned, more user-friendly, etc. We have to remember, though, that it's only simplified to those of us that are used to the daunting complexity that comes with muds and rpgs. Unfortunately, someone that has never played one of these games might still find it pretty intimidating out of context.

I suppose it's not a big deal if you think that they're going for existing Blizzard fans, who have a certain level of comfort with these layers of complexity. It does seem like the fact that it is more user-friendly is hard to market to anyone that hasn't played enough of this type of game to at least have an idea of what they normally dislike about them.

Re: Player retention from beta

I think there is certainly an argument that people that signed up for the quick stresstest/open beta are the type that might just be along for a free ride. However, all of the people I know from the longer beta are sticking around, which impresses me. It especially impresses me since the PvE content and level grind is short enough that anyone that was in the beta and played regularly has maxed out at least one character, and many have maxed 2 or more.

I would have thought that passing through the "content" so quickly would be something that resulted in a lot of attrition between beta and retail, especially since the game was so polished early on that it was pretty close to playing the final game in many respects. Apparently, though, the process of leveling is enjoyable enough that just going through it another time with another character race/class is something that people look forward to it rather than start looking for another game when faced with a character wipe.

The other thing that might be affecting my beta testing friends' decision to buy the game is the fact that they've all ended up in guilds during the beta. Since the PvE content is comparitively short and sweet, there's a big focus on grouping up and joining guild PvP. This really makes me think the decision to pour tons of design effort into a fun/short beginning game is the right choice. The players are willing to go through the game again as a different class and race (because it actually does give them different content beyond just having different quest items). They're also willing to stick around because they get to the end-game when they're still enthusiastic, and end up finding a guild early on that cements their attachment to the game.

Re: transformation and ebaying

This speaks really well for variety of play through the sense of transformation that was mentioned in the Ragnorok thread. I predict that WoW players will create new characters of other races the same way that some games might let the player remort or pick up another profession.

This might have interesting effects on ebaying as well. Do you think that having an easily reachable level cap and an emphasis on guilds and PvP in the endgame is enough to drive down the sale of characters? I don't think might only work in the case of a game that only allowed one character per account. For WoW I'm sure ebaying will still be prominent, but the emphasis will be on selling a group of maxed-out characters on one account, rather than just one primary character.

[Mike Darga]

Damn typos.

What I meant to say in that last paragraph is that I do think having a short grind could limit character sales, but only if accounts can only have one character at a time.

---------
Edward, that link is strangely hypnotic =)

I think the queuing system is a neccessary evil, and smart of them to keep people out and keep the experience fun rather than let everyone in, hammering the servers and ruining the gameplay in the process.

Now, if it turns out that the problem persists and they don't put up some new servers in a big hurry, then I will agree that they have shot themselves in the foot.

[Brian 'Psychochild' Green]

Ted wrote, "I'm shocked that people complain about the queue system."

Newbie. ;) Once a game launches, people will bitch about *everything*. There's a very typical cycle that modern online games go through. People are always enthusiastic during Beta. Launch changes things. For some people, the honeymoon begins (see my previous comment). For others, reality sets in and it can get ugly when something gets between them and their entertainment.

Sounds like something I should write about in my new blog....

Have fun,

-Brian

[Samantha LeCraft]

http://www.blizzard.com/press/042427.shtml

I'm not about to make any predictions on how well WoW will do over the long term, but Blizzard has issued a press release stating their numbers from Day One: 200,000 accounts created and 250,000 boxes sold. They say both numbers are records for MMO launches, so at the very least, it puts them in a good position to break more records. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the one million concurrent subscribers benchmark is one of them.

[Abalieno]

One million WON'T happen, come on. If they'll break that record they'll do worldwide when both Korea and Europe will launch, but not NA alone.

The current results are still impressive and they could lead to around 400k NA subscribers after the Christmas (and directly beat EQ1 records and so every other american mmorpg to date) which is exactly what I predicted months ago.

[Richard Bartle]

Edward Castronova>Rather, it keeps track of everyone's place in line first come, first served. Fair!

It's only fair because people haven't figured out a way to sell each other queue places yet...

Richard

[Tobold]

Flatfingers wrote: Each new MMORPG seems to make leveling up easier; each new MMORPG seems designed to get players into the "high-end game" quicker.

Well observed, but wrong conclusion. We are not heading for a level-less game, it seems people like levels. It is just that Everquest set a too high standard for leveling, over 1,000 hours to reach the highest level. And this high standard was seriously limiting the appeal of MMORPG, so we are moving towards the sweet spot, the optimum number of hours a game should take.

Look at successful single-player RPGs on different platforms, be in Final Fantasy I to X-2, Baldurs Gate 1 & 2, or a Zelda game. You can usually finish these in less than 100 hours. Baldurs Gate 2 was considered huge, because with all sub-quests it could take 200 hours to finish. And that seems to be the amount of hours the average player is willing to invest before reaching the end game. If he then wants to play more, he can always start over.

About subscription numbers, I wonder where this pessimism is coming from, on a page that links to Sir Bruce. Simple exercise: Go to Sir Bruces site, download his Excel spreadsheet, and make a new graph, which adds up all the players of all the games. There is an impressive growth in the total number of MMORPG players, and WoW will add to this growth, being highly accessible to new players. Of course there is always some canibalization, people switching games, but the general trend is far from a stagnant total.

[Bruce Woodcock]

>About subscription numbers, I wonder where this
>pessimism is coming from, on a page that links
>to Sir Bruce. Simple exercise: Go to Sir Bruces
>site, download his Excel spreadsheet, and make a
>new graph, which adds up all the players of all
>the games. There is an impressive growth in the
>total number of MMORPG players, and WoW will add
>to this growth, being highly accessible to new
>players. Of course there is always some
>canibalization, people switching games, but the
>general trend is far from a stagnant total.

Unfortunately it's not exactly that easy, since I have empty cells, and I've been testing multiple complicated formula for creating column totals by using the last filled-in cell for a row if it's missing. Anyway, now that I've got a handle on it, I'm planning on adding such charts to my work in the near future.

With the next version I'll slot WoW in at 200K (unless they keep going up); for comparison, the number I've been told for EQ2 is 150K. However, SOE hasn't put out a press release yet.

Bruce

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

Tobold> There is an impressive growth in the total number of MMORPG players

I think you mean accounts.

[Edward Castronova]

Blizzard today announced they have 88 servers now. That's more than double the original 42. Does anyone have any idea how much this costs up front? Is it just equipment and bandwidth, or do you have to hire significant numbers of people to staff these things? Practically speaking, is this in itself some kind of achievement, to throw on 46 servers in two days? Having no experience, I am not sure whether this is noteworthy or not.

[Damion Schubert]

The equipment and bandwidth costs will depend on their implementation, of course. Are they running on pentiums or SGI powerhouses? Obviously, the former is cheaper and easier to do on a moment's notice.

Hiring people takes time. They will most likely have to hire more, but you have to find, interview, train, etc the new guys. That being said, as your population grows, personnel costs per customer drop - you're sharing your CS, QA and dev team costs across more customers, even though all of those teams may well be bigger for the success.

[Bruce Woodcock]

My guess is they either had some servers "standing by", or at least had an architecture designed in advance to be ready to plug in more servers than they originally had, in order to do it in 1-2 days. So, I'm more impressed from the standpoint of planning than the fact they were able to implement any change quickly.

Bruce

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

Castronova> Practically speaking, is this in itself some kind of achievement, to throw on 46 servers in two days?

If they planned for it then it just involves mirroring a disk, setting an ID, plug and play, possibly uploading router-configurations... If they didn't plan for it, then it certainly is notable. Given the history of these systems.

[Timothy Burke]

I may try to work up a longer post about this issue, but one thing that strikes me overwhelmingly is how much all previous MMOGs are "training" players to reproduce the same suite of behaviors. People on the server I entered Wednesday night were absolutely frantic because the servers they'd levelled up on Tuesday night were unavailable to them (everyone was pretty clear that some of the server closures were designed to force people to develop characters on the new servers just coming on line). In one sense, there seemed to be no reason why there was the absolute imperative to level as rapidly as possible--but then think about the power-law distributions of wealth and gameworld status that we've seen in MMOGs like UO, EQ and SWG. Getting there first ensures the most favorable levelling curves (because you take advantage of exploits before the devs can eliminate them), the most favorable access to the gameworld's economic resources, and so on--and that advantage reproduces itself permanently in any game that has a meaningful economy. Even when a game doesn't have that kind of accumulative structure, like CoH, some players still follow the same imperatives until they've been around long enough to realize that it doesn't matter so much. It took weeks before a lot of the fast levellers in CoH woke up, smelled the coffee and took the time to enjoy making alts and doing various missions.

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

Timothy Burke> In one sense, there seemed to be no reason why there was the absolute imperative to level as rapidly as possible

Well, the basic premise of the threadmill (the illusion) is that the game is going to be much more fun next level, but it sounds rather normal to be angry if you don't get access to:

1. what you paid for
2. what you hve waited a year for
3. your friends from yesterday
4. the character you have bonded with

Are you sure the levels are the real issue?