NYT on WoW's success

[Krug]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/arts/design/06worl.html?8hpib

Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment wanted to make a big splash in the video game world back in March when it introduced Matrix Online, a massively multiplayer online game based on the once-hot film franchise. The game made a big splash all right, like a belly flop.

Over its first three months the game signed up fewer than 50,000 subscribers, a pittance, so in June Warner cut bait and agreed to sell the game to Sony. Last month Matrix Online was downsized from nine virtual "realms" to three, because users were having a hard time finding one another in the game's vast digital ghost town.

The troubles of Matrix Online were partly of Warner's own making; many players and critics agree that the game is a mediocre experience. But the online market used to make room for mediocre games. Now, the broader phenomenon is that so many contenders, including Matrix Online, simply cannot stand up to the overwhelming popularity of online gaming's new leviathan: World of Warcraft, made by Blizzard Entertainment, based in Irvine, Calif.

With its finely polished, subtly humorous rendition of fantasy gaming - complete with mages, orcs, dragons and demons - World of Warcraft has become such a runaway success that it is now prompting a debate about whether it is helping the overall industry by bringing millions of new players into subscription-based online gaming or hurting the sector by diverting so many dollars and players from other titles.

 

[mattcolville]

Wow what a badly...argued? Reasoned? Article. WoW is so successful it harms the industry?

 

[Jupp]

Wow what a badly...argued? Reasoned? Article. WoW is so successful it harms the industry?

you know....if one thinks about it the argument is not as unreasonable as one might think at first....

 

[BiggusGeekus]

you know....if one thinks about it the argument is not as unreasonable as one might think at first....

It's like saying if D&D became spectacularly popular White Wolf would tank. It assumes a finite market when it's showing market expansion. Matrix Online simply isn't that great a game.

 

[jasamcarl]

And really, even if it did reduce the number of viable mmorpgs on the market, is that really harming the industry? Clearly if many chose to shift, WoW gives them something those failed or failing games couldn't.

To be fair to the nyt, though, they didn't argue for that pov, but simply repeated the self-serving claims of a number of industry insiders. And it is atleast nominally arguable, if far-fetched.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

If it's drawing people away from other games, those other games must not be very good. That is the only lesson to be learned.

 

[Dark Jezter]

If it's drawing people away from other games, those other games must not be very good. That is the only lesson to be learned.

Exactly.

I've seen several Everquest 2 players gripe that the only reason everybody plays World of Warcraft is because "Blizzard has a built-in audience" or "The game reviewers are all Blizzard fanboys."

Um, no. The reason World of Warcraft is such a smash success is because it's a damn good game. I've sampled several MMORPGs, and WoW was the first one that I've ever liked enough to purchase a subscription. I've also had discussions with many people who have subscribed to a variety of MMORPGs over the years (Everquest 1 & 2, Star Wars Galaxies, Anarchy Online, etc), and virtually all of them have told me that WoW is easily their favorite.

This isn't to say that you're wrong if WoW isn't your cup of tea, but acting like World of Warcraft is hurting the industry because it's too popular or that the only reason it's popular is because Blizzard made it is just absurd and smacks of envy.

 

[Krug]

I guess it's the same argument as Harry Potter... that the books are so successful it's keeping folks from reading other books.

 

[Jarrod]

I would buy a slightly modified version of the argument:

That WoW is so popular that it hurts other genres of computer gaming.

That being, the game publishing houses look at MMORPGS (since Ultima Online, really, not just WoW) and see the swimming pools full of cash that they can generate. Seriously, subscription gaming? So resources are pulled away from other areas to generate more MMORPGS.

Now, is it the publisher's fault for chasing the money? Heck no. I just wish that the Ultima games were still being done (well, except for 8 and 9... eeh), that the Wing Commanders had continued, that Temple of Elemental Evil was getting a sequel....

 

[nethervoid]

The fault lies in the fact that the newest gen of MMORPGs are being produced by corporations instead of gamers. Blizzard is not from that crowd. Warner Bros and Sony? What do they know about video games? To make a successful video game, you must make video games your core competancy. You must also NOT let the corporate mucky-mucks, who don't play video games, make decisions about your video game.

It's really not that difficult.

Besides, there are a lot of old-schoolers out there who think WoW is a piece of crap. Sure it's making a butt-load of money, but it's really not a great game. Basically, it's an adrenalized EQ 1. Nothing new there. Probably the only new major feature EQ 1 doesn't have is the realm warfare, which, to be honest, isn't impressive at all. Especially if you pair it against games like Shadowbane or Planetside. I doubt many people play WoW solely for the PvP.

So while I give it props for being a block-buster (which you have to admit has a lot to do with drawing in the bliz fans), it's really not a huge deal on the MMORPG timeline. It's, basically, a polished version of what's already been done. In my opinion, UO is still bigger on the MMORPG timeline.

Bottomline: MO sucks. EQ2 sucks. 'Insert newest MMORPG produced by a super-corp here' sucks. Hopefully corporations learn.