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.
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.
Posted by: Timothy Burke | Nov 23, 2004 at 09:31
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?
Posted by: greglas | Nov 23, 2004 at 09:54
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.
Posted by: Marshall Astor | Nov 23, 2004 at 09:58
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.
Posted by: Dmitri Williams | Nov 23, 2004 at 11:16
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.
Posted by: Bart Simon | Nov 23, 2004 at 11:27
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...)
Posted by: Timothy Burke | Nov 23, 2004 at 11:28
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.
Posted by: Scott McMillin | Nov 23, 2004 at 12:18
>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.
Posted by: duckilama | Nov 23, 2004 at 12:57
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?
Posted by: Fred L | Nov 23, 2004 at 13:09
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
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Nov 23, 2004 at 13:13
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.
Posted by: Bart Pursel | Nov 23, 2004 at 13:45
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
Posted by: Flatfingers | Nov 23, 2004 at 15:22
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?
Posted by: Mike Rozak | Nov 23, 2004 at 16:13
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.
Posted by: Ubiq | Nov 23, 2004 at 16:51
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
Posted by: Chris Brown | Nov 23, 2004 at 17:23
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
Posted by: Bruce Woodcock | Nov 23, 2004 at 18:56
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.
Posted by: Scott McMillin | Nov 23, 2004 at 19:00
1 Million, Eh? Good job we don't have 19 fingers...
Posted by: Jim Purbrick | Nov 23, 2004 at 19:12
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.
Posted by: mike | Nov 23, 2004 at 19:26
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.
Posted by: Timothy Burke | Nov 23, 2004 at 22:17
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.
Posted by: Mark Asher | Nov 23, 2004 at 22:45
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.
Posted by: Abalieno | Nov 23, 2004 at 23:40
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
Posted by: Guy Welch | Nov 24, 2004 at 00:56
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.
Posted by: Abalieno | Nov 24, 2004 at 01:03
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).
Posted by: will dieterich | Nov 24, 2004 at 03:08
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.
Posted by: Sulka | Nov 24, 2004 at 03:10
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 :)
Posted by: Lee Delarm | Nov 24, 2004 at 08:46
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).
Posted by: Greg Boyd | Nov 24, 2004 at 08:48
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.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Nov 24, 2004 at 09:09
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.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Nov 24, 2004 at 11:42
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.
Posted by: Ubiq | Nov 24, 2004 at 11:53
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.
Posted by: Timothy Burke | Nov 24, 2004 at 11:58
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.
Posted by: Timothy Burke | Nov 24, 2004 at 16:18
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. :/
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Nov 24, 2004 at 19:13
A shot of the queue screen.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Nov 24, 2004 at 19:23
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.
Posted by: Mike Darga | Nov 24, 2004 at 20:23
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.
Posted by: Mike Darga | Nov 24, 2004 at 20:32
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
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Nov 24, 2004 at 23:37
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.
Posted by: Samantha LeCraft | Nov 25, 2004 at 03:01
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.
Posted by: Abalieno | Nov 25, 2004 at 04:24
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
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 25, 2004 at 06:46
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.
Posted by: Tobold | Nov 25, 2004 at 08:37
>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
Posted by: Bruce Woodcock | Nov 25, 2004 at 17:35
Tobold> There is an impressive growth in the total number of MMORPG players
I think you mean accounts.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Nov 25, 2004 at 20:00
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.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Nov 25, 2004 at 20:11
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.
Posted by: Damion Schubert | Nov 26, 2004 at 00:48
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
Posted by: Bruce Woodcock | Nov 26, 2004 at 05:18
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.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Nov 26, 2004 at 06:57
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.
Posted by: Timothy Burke | Nov 26, 2004 at 11:54
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?
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Nov 26, 2004 at 12:30
Comments from Shigeru Miyamoto suggest that the Nintendo DS will be bringing millions of players online, because, "online gaming will reach the mainstream within three to four years, and Nintendo will be moving in that direction as a result". What's more, they're working on the technology with Square Enix (the Final Fantasy people).
The DS has two, Gameboy-type screens (DS=Dual Screen), so we won't be seeing hordes of newbies playing EQ2 as a result. However, we may well see them in something that could qualify as a virtual world, and it might conceivably break the West's million-player barrier.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 27, 2004 at 06:24
I think there is a problem with the current paradigm of MMORPGs, that comes both from the perspective of the players and the developers. It bugs me every time I hear it: "End-Game".
I first got hooked to Massively multiplayer games with UO, and I remember when I first read about it the whole charm was that it was a virtual world. I also remember the F.A.Q. having a question: "How do I win", to which they replied that there was no Winning or Losing, since it was a virtual world where your character would literally live. I played UO for 5 years, and have tried many other MMORPGs, but disliked them all. All I see nowadays is people obsessed with reaching the top of a levelling treadmill, searching for content at the end-game...
Here are four things I loved about UO that are not present in most of the new MMORPGs (and some are now missing even from UO too after the recent expansions)...
1. Skill-based system: I liked this because you get a much higher level of customizeablity with your character than a level. Also, "levelling" up is more interesting.
2. Reaching Grandmaster status in skills was just the beggining of the game, at least for me. It was then that you could get good at PvP, go into guild wars (and we´d make up some pretty neat wars, with storylines and everything), besides being able to go into the hardest dungeons...
3. PvP depended on player skills (to some extent) besides character skills. Granted UO had a problem where Lag influenced pvp a lot, but even so, one grandmaster warrior could be infinitely better pvp fighter than another grandmaster warrior if the player knew what he was doing. Heck, you´d have people who´d build a reputation as good pvpers, and thats pretty hard in other games where pvp is just about your character´s skills.
4. UO was open ended for player content... I used to roleplay as an elf, even though there were no official elves in the game. others could roleplay as orcs...others would create a guild that acted as a specific town´s council, with mayors and all...all this sparked by the players. I dunno, SWG attempts this, but i dont see it achieving it at the same level.
I think that an alternative for a level system should be adopted, or the system should be improved. Levels are too restrictive and scare away casual players. Level grinding is boring. If they made the process of gaining "levels" fun, if they made the entire play experience FUN, intriguing, engaging, then the obsession with reaching the top wouldnt be what drives the game.
-ricky
Posted by: ricky | Nov 27, 2004 at 16:13
Alternatives to levels... it would be great if you could do away with levels altogether.. or just hide them...
perhaps just saying a "self appreciation" of your skills? Like the char cheet would show that it thought itself "hopeless, ok, good, excellent etc" at a particular skill... which might be modified by other skill levels or statistice/reputation :)
powergaming == death for RP :(
Posted by: Cenn | Nov 27, 2004 at 18:32
>perhaps just saying a "self appreciation" of your skills?
What I really want to see is a system similar to "Puzzle Pirates" applied to a "Serious" mmorpg. In PP, combat, for instance, is determined by puzzle playing, which is something that takes thinking on the part of the player and is also something that improves with time.
Well, the game tells you your skill level by dividing into Experience and Reputation. The more times you play, and win, you gain experience (For instance, the game calls you a novice swordsman or an expert swordsman). Its accurate because you, as a player, ACTUALLY improve as you play, naturally. Then there is reputation, which is determined by winning (or losing) against players with more (or less) reputation (a guy with a high reputation who loses against someone with a low reputation loses a lot of reputation, while the opponent gains, etc).
So when you see someone with a title saying that he is a famous swordsman, its because he has beaten many of the lands greatest swordsmen. And if it says he is experienced, its because he really is. The skill level reflects the player level...
I just wish the whole skill using / fighting were more interactive, yet without going in the direction of twitch gaming. Interactivity through logic as in puzzle pirates is great, but its hard to think of an immersive way to implement that in a "serious" mmog. Tabletop RPGs use dices because you dont have an alternative on the tabletop. Why do computer rpgs and mmogs have to depend on the same artifices?
-ricky
Posted by: ricky | Nov 27, 2004 at 19:33
ricky wrote, "Here are four things I loved about UO that are not present in most of the new MMORPGs (and some are now missing even from UO too after the recent expansions)..."
The market has spoken and does not prefer this design. My own game, Meridian 59 uses a skill-based system like UO does/did, but this type of system is much more complex than the traditional level/class-based systems. It's easier to jump into the game and know the difference between a Fighter and a Rogue is, and to know that you need 1000 xp to get to the next level.
It's like a lot of issues in computer science, there's a trade off between power and simplicity. The market has said it wants the simplicity of level/class-based games instead of the power of creating your own character in a skill-based system. If WoW does indeed hit that mythical million, you can all but kiss skill-based systems goodbye. We won't see a good skill-based system implemented for a long while afterwards in a "mass-market" type game.
My thoughts,
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Nov 28, 2004 at 05:36
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).
Lets not forget that you're not only seperating them from their characters (and few players are attached to their characters after one night of work), but also from their social connnections. Many found themselves unable to log into where they agreed to meet their guild, and didn't know where to go. Others had helpful friends and allies guide them as newbies, and found themselves alone again.
Posted by: Damion 'Ubiq' Schubert | Nov 28, 2004 at 14:47
Alternatives to levels... it would be great if you could do away with levels altogether.. or just hide them... perhaps just saying a "self appreciation" of your skills? Like the char cheet would show that it thought itself "hopeless, ok, good, excellent etc" at a particular skill... which might be modified by other skill levels or statistice/reputation :)
Hiding stats doesn't reduce player's obsession with stats - it increases it. If player's don't know which 'Very Fast' weapon is better, they'll endlessly trial and error to mathematically figure it out. If players haven't moved up from 'good' to 'excellent' in what they think is fast enough, they'll call your CSRs and complain that your game is bugged.
Players who have built their characters confident that they are as good as they can be can proceed to get to the real meat of the game, whether that be PvP, Roleplaying or even levelling to infinity.
Posted by: Damion 'Ubiq' Schubert | Nov 28, 2004 at 15:00
Brian 'Psychochild' Green wrote: The market has spoken and does not prefer this design. My own game, Meridian 59 uses a skill-based system like UO does/did, but this type of system is much more complex than the traditional level/class-based systems. It's easier to jump into the game and know the difference between a Fighter and a Rogue is, and to know that you need 1000 xp to get to the next level.
I suspect that as virtual worlds become more mass market, they will have to simplify (and shorten in length). This means that skills, complex combat, etc. will be relegated to niche markets.
For example: Risk is a mass-market wargame. The mechanics in Risk are infinitely simpler than a wargame, and the games are much shorter too.
I haven't played WoW (it's not available here yet), but I recall someone lamenting how easy it was to level up compared to the good-ole-days. I suspect this is a result of catering to a more mass-market audience too.
McDonalds is mass-market food... It's designed to be cheap, easy to order (choose one out of 6 value-meals), and to have a taste (bland) that offends no-one. I don't think WoW is a McWorld, but McWorlds are coming. (Some of the new Asian VW's seem to be closer fits.)
Posted by: Mike Rozak | Nov 29, 2004 at 01:16
But that's obvious. A roleplayer doesn't need any form of math to have a good experience because everything else is just an obstacle that kills the potential.
It's obvious that you cannot hide the math in a game that is focused on math. The story changes if the game is focused on something else. It's not how it "appears", it's about what is the content.
You can roleplay all you want in a game like WoW but you will never kill a mob with your words, nor you'll win a PvP battle in that way. So, till the game is based on those mechanics, the players will chase them. It's simply natural.
That's what the game offers and that's what the players use.
Posted by: Abalieno | Nov 29, 2004 at 01:20
Psychochild> If WoW does indeed hit that mythical million, you can all but kiss skill-based systems goodbye. We won't see a good skill-based system implemented for a long while afterwards in a "mass-market" type game.
Which would be good for all the small niche-games as they would get a competitive advantage. Right?
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Nov 29, 2004 at 16:52
"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."
I think you'd have to instance the entire gameworld or continent in WoW. It's seamless, other than the instanced dungeons. CoH is comprised of zones.
There were some significant potholes this past week, but the game is playing a lot better now. No lag and the queues are either short or non-existent. I think Blizzard did most things right with this game. It's terrific. I really do wonder what kind of impact it will have on existing games? It might really take a good-sized bite out of the competition. I think the buzz will continue to suck people away from other games.
As to skill-based games, D&D Online has real-time combat in the works. I also think someone will take another shot at a shooter MMO. Planetside's great, but it doesn't feel like a character development game and it isn't different enough from the shooters you can play for free. Neocron - never played it. Endless Ages - something of a miracle in that it's a working MMO with lots of features made by guys in a garage more or less.
It might be id. Carmack has said he's interested in creating a virtual world like the one in Snow Crash.
Posted by: Mark Asher | Nov 29, 2004 at 18:36
They did. ~80 times. :)
Posted by: Jeff Freeman | Nov 29, 2004 at 19:39
Maybe not in the US alone, but after playing WoW and looking at the traction it is getting internationally, I think it has a very good chance at the 1M mark globally.
Also see: The9 commits $74m for WoW
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Nov 29, 2004 at 22:33
The9 is going public in the US, so they'll have around a $65m investment war chest! Shanda stock is up to 40s from 15s already. Could be a good investment too.
Wow will hit 1m in China alone and perhaps 2m globally. Concurrent users would be in in 500k range.
And a FYI, IGE have a nice office in Hong Kong. Corporate tax rate there is only 16%.
Posted by: magicback | Nov 30, 2004 at 10:41
Within a week of the game's release, several characters have come close to reaching the maximum level. Blizzard has emphasized World of Warcraft's end-game content. Could it really be true that there's finally a mainstream MMORPG without a huge leveling treadmill?
There's a list of character rankings up at http://www.maxmeout.com/
(The character level is currently capped at 60.)
Posted by: Something's rank | Nov 30, 2004 at 10:58
I think it may more be that there's finally a mainstream MMORPG that realises power levellers will always cut through levels quickly, and it's better for everyone else to make the journey fun.
It's a breath of fresh air to have a game in which I don't watch the exp bar to know when I can next have fun.
Posted by: Byron Ellacott | Nov 30, 2004 at 20:21
I'm not an MMO addict, I actually tried only DAOC about a year ago and I was very disapointed. I have co-workers and friends who tried most MMO and whenever they explained me how they worked/played I was never excited!
But since one of my co-worker entered the WoW beta, I ansked him thundreds of question about the gameplay and I was never disapointed. The way Blizzard deal with all the aspect of the game are very appealing to me.
I am a 28 years old guy with a 9 months daughter. And WoW gives me everything. WoW has the TRUE potential to get casual gmar like me into MMO.
Posted by: LEKO | Dec 01, 2004 at 11:18
WoW sells 240,000 units in one day; over 350,000 units for entire Thanksgiving weekend:
http://www.blizzard.com/press/041201.shtml
No launch in Korea or Europe yet, though.
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce Woodcock | Dec 02, 2004 at 08:30
I hope I am not repeating what anyone else said, but with respect to 1M, Blizzard has said that they will throttle growth by limiting numbers of boxed sets as they grow tne number of servers. This was in the press release about sales on the community site. At the 350K sales mark, the release said they were nearly sold out, quoting the release:
"As the additional servers are brought online and proven stable, additional copies of World of Warcraft will be made available at retail. Blizzard will announce the availability of those additional games as soon as they are on shelves."
So it might be a while before there are 1 million copies even available to buy, and you need a boxed copy to set up a new account.
Henry
Posted by: Henry Lowood | Dec 09, 2004 at 14:35
LEKO>WoW has the TRUE potential to get casual gmar like me into MMO.
You can't be all that casual if you read Terra Nova!
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Dec 09, 2004 at 17:16
Interesting to read some of these comments now that WoW has reached (and surpassed) its 1M subscriber milestone.
Posted by: Peter Freese | Mar 18, 2005 at 14:43
I just deleted WoW from my drive.
why?
reasons.
1. RAM incompatibilty. They just seem to be wanting to do something "optimal" with my RAM where i have to take out a stick just to get it to not crash. Perhaps there is a bad memory location on one of my DIMMS, but no other game seems to care (hl2, CoH, EQ2, Planetside, SWG...)
Is WOW just so ExTrEaM that my that it achieves greatness that my mear mortal ram can handle?
2. boring quests. Just as boring as any other MMO quest...actually CoH's task forces are cool and suprising.
3. boring grinding. yes the world is large and beautiful...but why cant I at buy a cheap donkey or something. It is like the only dealerships in WoW sell ferrari and maserati. No honda civics for us lowly lvl 1's. Hell even the mass transit is a bit expensive...and only works if you prove yourself and run a gauntlet of death to the other connector first. So run run run, I can pretend I am the gingerbread man. EQ and SWG was this way. Grinding is proportional to the size of the world and the distance between quests. I guess in a nutshell what irks me is the lack of speedy transportation in some of these MMO games. hey in CoH you can teleport, run super fast, jump super high, and fly fast from point A to B. Sure is nice to be a super hero...not some pathetic mythical creature having to snail run from one quest to another.
2. My lvl 50 friend wont play with me because i am lvl 1. Oh yes he created a lvl 1 character to hang with me...but that ended pretty soon as his urges to play with his lvl 50 character erased his memories of my existance. Hmmm wait a sec, in CoH lvl 50 characters can play with lvl 1 characters with sidekicking and exemplaring. HEY! this CoH's game is sounding kinda cool!
3. I cant log in until 12 pm and ONLY if the server isnt crashed. What good is it if I cant play the game half the time because either the server is down or the authentication server is down, or there is a new mega patch download (because wow has no sense in regards to streaming patches), or the servers are working but insanely overwhelmed. Hmmmm, I have only seen one or two server crashes in CoH in the past year. and I never have problem logging in.
4. 50 players together makes a great run time desktop image with a 5 sec per frame refresh rate. Even with a good broadband connection and 750 mb of Usable ram and a decent video card that gives no trouble for games such as hl2 or SWG..or.....COH..hey I've been to a halloween dance party on CoH with about a hundred players all dancing around and shooting off thier heal auras and with no lag.
5. Just as clunky and over crowded of an interface as any of the other MMO games. simplest and most enjoyable HUDS in my opinon have been Planetside and CoH's.
6. physical caracter customization is just lame for a game of this magnitude...you can choose between 20 different face skins for a race and change the color of thier hair and hair style. HOW BORING.
7. Concept flaws...since when do zombies have peaceful, functional societies and towns?!? How the hell does eating anything but dead flesh help me....how does drinking water help me. How the hell can i DIE! I can understand perhaps a downtime for having to repiece my body together but DIE! I AM ALREADY DEAD FOR C-SAKE!
Hell they have taverns and healers and the taverns have pretty pictures on the walls and a warm fireplace and i can get a drink and get drunk. WHY THE HELL ARE THE HUMANS AT WAR WITH THESE PEACE LOVING ZOMBIES! Ie: there is no real feeling of being evil on the bad guy side. City of Villans is going to make being a bad guy FUN. Though i dont plan on getting City Of Villans immediately. I enjoy being a HERO.
8. The servers need account pop locks BAD. no need to further elaborate on this issue. 90% of my fustration with the game has it's foundation based on this simple problem. I would still be playing the game today probably if it wasnt for all the problems that are happing to WOW because of this simple solvable issue.
with all the bugs and fustrations and server downtime this game just is not worth the time investment in caracter creation. Thus it goes to the recycle bin WITH and "empty recycle bin" for good riddance.
shall i say something nice about WOW.
hmm.
1. It's got Items (hint hint CoH, the crey pistol is not enough)
2. wow has some funny character dance animations.
funny to watch two gnomes do the bump and grind.
3. no xp loss on death.. but this is offset by the fact that you have to spend time running back to your body or take a monitary hit if you decide to rez immediatly. for me time=money=xp, they are all the same, force me to pay money and you might as well be giving me xp debt....they are all tricks to grind your time away. OOPS sorry i started talking about the bad stuff again.
4. you can pick flowers up in the game.
Posted by: dorian | Mar 25, 2005 at 13:07
Well there you have it:
http://www.blizzard.com/press/050829-wow.shtml
Posted by: Dmitri Williams | Aug 29, 2005 at 20:19
In regards to WoW....Lets just say it is an "ALEX" eXperience that I have Mastered.
Posted by: Chris Camilli | Jun 11, 2006 at 15:52