Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WoW Helping or Hurting the Industry?

Posted by Zonk on from the that's-a-lot-of-gorrilla dept.

alstor writes "The New York Times has an interesting story about the success of World of Warcraft, and whether it is hurting or helping the gaming industry; this goes along with an earlier post on an article from CNN. From the Times article: 'WoW is now the 800-pound gorilla in the room. I think it also applies to the single-player games. If some kid is paying $15 a month on top of the initial $50 investment and is devoting so many hours a week to it, are they really going to go out and buy the next Need for Speed or whatever? There is a real fear that this game, with its incredible time investment, will really cut into game-buying across the industry.' What is the Slashdot opinion on World of Warcraft's impact on the gaming industry?"

33 of 692 comments (clear)

  1. If Anything it Helps the Hardware Industry by Eyah....TIMMY · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The graphics in WOW are pretty intense and I know many people including myself who bought a new computer just to improve their WOW experience. Also, Blizzard is releasing new content every month or so that requires even more graphics power. So the trend will mostly likely be for subscribers to buy new hardware quite often.

    The interesting thing is that WOW supports MAC very well. Granted the graphics I heard are not as good as on a PC (I don't see a difference). I saw people buy MACs because their main game now was on MAC and they didn't see a need anymore to stay on PC.
    Playing WOW on a 30 inch Apple wide screen LCD is pretty nice :).

    Elnino - Destromath.

    --

    It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
  2. Well by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's always going to be the people NOT playing WoW, and those people are always going to number in the tens of millions. So, no, it's not really going to hurt the industry, unless they become like Hollywood and put out crap.

    --
    Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
  3. Re:I'd have to say... by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not going to feel sorry for EA games, anytime soon. Innovate or get out of the way.

    --
    I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
  4. How many have quit by ironwill96 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think it is an issue because as thousands join, thousands of us quit.

    WoW is a boring game when you get to the higher levels, and it is at it's heart just another game of "grind to spend time".

    In the short term it might have an effect, but in the long-term it will just be a bump in the road.

    --
    "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
    1. Re:How many have quit by Night+Goat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hear that. I've got a 49th level paladin who's been spending a LOT of time at the inn lately because I just don't want to kill that much time playing WoW. At this point, with all the grinding I'm doing, I might as well just play Diablo II. In fact, that is what I've been doing! Why split up the loot when I can keep it all for myself? Now if only they'd make a Diablo 3 with graphics as good as WoW.

  5. Industry's already hurting... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The game industry is already hurting. There's so much lack of innovation in games due to stupid software patents (camera views, etc.)

    As long as this doesn't become the next Evercrack, why should I really care whether or not it's hurting an industry that's hurting itself to begin with? If anything, I'd tend to think Electronic Arts is hurting the industry more because of their exclusive deal with the NFL.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Industry's already hurting... by Superfarstucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry my post was kind of difficult to read... I cleaned it up a bit.

      In terms of enraptured playerbase I believe Warcraft long ago surpassed evequest, in fact the only real contenders, now and in the past for playerbase are perhaps Lineage and its sequel. In North Americ I do not believe any one MMO has ever captured such a large playerbase (1.5 million).

      The scary part is the game isn't particularly good, or challenging, but that tends to be the standard rather than the exception in MMOs. At base the 'grind' to 60 ,which people state is 'fun', exists solely to keep you playing the game longer. All of the content in the game could be played through in a mere fraction of the time it takes to just get to the 'maximum' level. <BR><BR>Have you ever listened to players through a VOIP conference? Most people are either a.) unsatisfied or b.) frustrated with the game and therein lies the addiction to it. All the time you invest getting to the 'maximum' level and the 'best' equipment is superfluous at base because it doesn't really teach you any skills you need to be successful (truth be told, there aren't any aside from some innate ones...). Most of the 'difficult' encounters in the game are a matter of organization and 'surprise' equipment, which leads back to the sole purpose of the game: to keep you playing longer.

      And there are people who will continue playing until there are no new challenges to encounter and then contineu to play even beyond that as they are hooked by the feet to the mindless community they've spent the past year and a half with.

      I think another reason for the popularity of the game is it doesn't take any talent to play the game (like nearly all rpgs, massive or not) and it takes little talent to play the game well (though you're likely to spend a long time attaining said talent as the game works to obfusicate the matters at hand from you).

  6. I have not bought by Boap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    any single player games in the last three years but instead have bought a copy of almost every MMORPG game that has come out on the market looking for the next UO. For me the game is secondary to interacting with the people online and as such for me this type of game will always have a special place for me.

  7. It has changed how I buy games by drmike0099 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It has definitely chaned how I buy (or rather, don't buy) new games. Basically WoW is so good, and takes up all of my allotted game time, that whenever a new game comes out I have to really look at whether or not I think it's good enough to get me to play that rather than WoW. There haven't been many that I've purchased since WoW came out, and those have left me disappointed, so now I have an XBox and a PS2 sitting there, unused for months.

    The social aspect is also a big draw, in that I have quite a few friends who are likewise addicted to WoW, so I can log in and chat with them as well. Single-players or XBox Live games just aren't as good at that aspect.

    1. Re:It has changed how I buy games by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's the paradox behind all gaming, isn't it? My gaming friends always have a "queue" of games they need to get to but there's never enough time.

      I'm not much of a gamer these days (I don't even bother with xbox of ps2 except on occassion) but even when I was playing Counterstrike back in the day, all i really needed was one good, addictive game to take up all my free time. I can't imagine having TWO good, addictive games.. there's just not enough time for that.

      I think this existed somewhat before MMO games. MMO probably makes it more scary because of the long term commitment to it. But, like any other game, people will get bored and want something new. That's jsut part of the evolution of the gaming industry that's inherently due to changing hardware, software and technology.

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. no time by ktulus+cry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I never got into WoW because I'm cheap, but I got into Guild Wars... and I've passed on buying at least 3 games that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm a college student, and my gaming time availability is rationed carefully. I can only imagine that it's worse for everyone paying the monthly fee for WoW.

  10. I work for a video game retailer by TekReggard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From my experience in video game retail, I would say it isn't going to be a direct impact from games like World of Warcraft that adjust the buying habits of consumers. The biggest impact will be stores like GameStop, GameCrazy, EBGames, and some of the older stores from the past that have merged with GameStop over the years. Their Trade-In programs, while convenient, are slowly sapping the libraries from players and into retailers warehouses. For example, I recently shipped nearly sixty copies of GTA: III to a warehouse because of an abundant overstock. Considering the store I work in has only been open less than a year, I was quite surprised to see I had 60 copies of overstock for any game.

    Now I know that I'm getting kind of off topic and trade-ins are a completely different tangent, but the trends in buying vs trade-ins are very relevent. Consumers are becoming less and less likely to purchase a NEW game over a Used Game, they are also becoming more and more prone to spending less money out of pocket to pay for something. So I believe we'll see a small impact from subscription games. I mean $15 a month, if someone buys 12 games a year, is only about 3 games per year. Though, as compared, the biggest impact will be from consumers running out of trade in values. It may sound a little far fetched, but I have been seeing a lot more people who are unwilling to pay more than thirty dollars out of their pocket when they have rising gas prices and costs of living to deal with as well. So when someone can trade in three games they already own to pay less than $10 for that spiffy new game they want, they'll do it. The question I pose, though, is what happens when they realize the trade ratio is about 3 to 1, and eventually they either wont have games to trade, or will be stuck paying 30+ dollars per game again.

    1. Re:I work for a video game retailer by Generic+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Consumers are becoming less and less likely to purchase a NEW game over a Used Game... what happens when they realize the trade ratio is about 3 to 1

      The Gamestop near me is right near the local high school. Whenever I stop in, there is almost always at least one kid trading in lots of games. I guess the point it that kids don't value things the way adults would. But after thinking about it awhile and expanding on that, I have to say if somebody is done with a game and won't use it again it holds zero value -- and might as well be used as a trade in. Otherwise it has no use at all for that owner.
      Speaking as someone who used to hoard his games, I finally realized my collection was doing nothing but taking up room in my house. These days my concern is more about when Gamestop either stops accepting or highly devalues trade-ins because they are choking on 60 copies of overstock on every title.

      Back on topic a bit: I think huge hits like WoW will continue to fragment the market and drive many game-makers to the consoles. From what I have read PC game sales have been slipping for years, while consoles have been gaining. If I were a business, I have to think hard about wanting to compete with WoW and The Sims in a limited marketplace, when otherwise there are tens of millions of consoles. Its actually already happening.

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
  11. Itn't hurting me... by gellenburg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I still love Donkey Kong, PacMan, and Space Invaders.

    Plus, why in the hell would I pay $15 just to pay a game that I've already bought?

    I see another bubble about to burst here.

  12. MMOGs by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Canceled my EVE Online accounts this weekend. Both accounts represent hundreds of hours of... something. Not sure if its work or play, but its a hell of a lot of time. Past MMOG engagements include DAOC and PlanetSide. Both equally large time sinks, PlanetSide being the most fun until they ruined it.

    I'm done with MMOG. I appear to have the ability to quit these things cold-turkey after sufficient suffering. I know others can't.

    Downloaded Wolfenstein, Enemy Territory. The bugs apparent in the 1.x releases are gone. There are plenty of very active servers. No exp bar to watch; you're uber the instant you start playing. Log off and you're done. Only way it becomes a time sink is when you attempt to develop content.

    There you go; living proof MMOGs won't ruin the non-MMOG market.

    No, you can't have my stuff.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  13. Yes, this shall pass by miketo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The gaming industry will continue to exist. What won't exist are the current software houses, not because of WoW but because it's the nature of the beast. Ten years ago Sierra, Dynamix, Interplay, and others were the kings of the gaming hill. Now, they're just fond memories.

    In the online community Everquest is fading, DAoC is fading, even City of Heroes is fading. All the supposed "hot! hot!" games enjoy popularity for a while then fade away. WoW will do this too.

    As for the original question, WoW has little or nothing to do with the revenue streams flowing into other game developers. The purported "fear" of WoW cutting into game-buying is the sound of marketers quaking (pun not intended) because they promised management and shareholders 15-20% revenue increases based on publication of such scintillating games as "50 Cent: Bulletproof", and the revenue flow is just not happening. WoW is a convenient scapegoat.

    As others have said, good games, not good marketing, draws the dollars. The recording industry is learning a similar lesson, as is Hollywood. It just happens to be gaming's turn.

  14. Re:A WoW killer will emerge eventually. by koniosis · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Eventually, someone will make a WoW-killer in the MMORPG arena. It may take a few years, but it'll happen.


    They call it GuildWars ;)
    --
    I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did :(
  15. The low end vs. the high end by feardiagh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The amazing thing that I have seen in WoW is the difference between the graphics on a low end machine (my gf has an old dell P3 800MHz) and the high end machines (I have a brand new machine I put together for BF2, complete with 2 gigs of ram and that nice 500 dollar graphics card I've always wanted). It looks good on her machine, and even runs well. On my machine it is one of the prettiest games I've ever seen. They don't go for realism, they go for effect. And they do it very successfully. The fact that it runs on both machines is great as well. And it even runs on my Mac (something which Blizzard has been smart enough to do for every release they've done).

  16. How about some innovation please? thx by cpu_fusion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A couple of thoughts ....

    The folks at Sony (Raph, etc.) are responsible for their own problems with EQ2. They rushed to get that game out the door as close as they could to WoW, even though WoW was much farther along in testing. If they hadn't made hasty decisions in order to try to contain the "virtually" certain EQ exodus to WoW, and instead had invested that time on producing a truly innovative game, they could have won back mindshare from WoW when it hit its inevitable "fallout" with players: the (similarly rushed) launch of "battlegrounds".

    Now I'm not saying WoW wasn't rushed too, .. solid PvP should have been there at day 1 ..., (hey it is Warcraft right?), ... but EQ2 was chucked out the door similar to Star Wars Galaxies. Sony is more worried about keeping the subscription teat lactating than producing something revolutionary and polished. (Of course, one need merely look to other genres like the movie and music biz to know that very few of the big names are doing more than churning out crap these days.)

    Now, on the topic of WoW, I played it to the "uber" end of the game, as I did with EQ for many years, so I know what I'm saying when I say that WoW was a rather big disappointment for me. I've been playing MUDs since 1990, and writing them since 1992, so I feel I have a good idea with what has been done and what remains to be done in this repackaged world of distributed MUDs with 3d graphics and perty textures. In short, WoW was disappointing in its inability to deliver a good mechanism for player-created content.

    So basically WoW delivers an experience of "EQ like it should have been" (gosh I thought that a lot playing the game), but it was hardly revolutionary. Once you've explored the content in these games, it is up to you to make the content, or simply to get used to doing the same thing again and again. Its not so easy to build games "on the game", and the games that are there just become a treadmill for the powerlevelers. (E.g. battlegrounds "flag cap" trading.)

    Now, I realize that many people will never hit the top levels of these games, and they may enjoy the journey, never "see it all" or even come close, and certainly try the game from the shoes of multiple classes. More power to them. Personally, I think I'd find that boring after awhile too. After all, there is only so much variety the game can deliver with their quest and combat engines.

    Now back to what remains to be done... I think that's clear to me. Way back in the days of Diku and LPMUD, when players got to a certain point in the game they became "gods" or "wizards" and contributed content. With LPMUD (or MudOS) and some other dynamic engines, players could actually contribute code! (And yes as a Java developer for the last 10 years I know damn well about the inherent security risks and how to mitigate them.)

    I want a fantasy (or scifi, or spy, or whatever) MMORPG that lets me contribute content and code to a dynamic world. I guarantee you a game like that will be innovative because the players will make it that way. And there are ways to keep balance, manage exploits, etc.; if you don't think so, go and look at the text MUDs that have been dealing with this for 15+ years. This is not just another "oh gosh he wants dynamic content, its too hard to do!" post -- like I said, go look at the numerous text MUDs that have been working on these issues for a decade or more. (And yes, I am personally working on my own solutions to these problems, "for the good of open source" (tm). Links to sourceforge project in my profile when I put it there).

    Now before anyone links "Second Life" and such, let me remind you that those "games" are hollow in not having the cool backstory and "out of the box" content that something like WoW delivers. You need both, really, and I think running around buying jet packs and clothes in second life sounds as exciting as playing Sims Online, and we've seen how that is going.

  17. I much prefer Guild Wars... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...I bought it just recently, already at lvl 11 of 20 max. Hitting max isn't the goal. What I like about it is the co-op with my friends. You can't be a one man tank, I could easily be beaten up by a group of level 3-4 monsters. And for the strong monsters, you *need* the cooperation.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:I much prefer Guild Wars... by darrylo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      And for the strong monsters, you *need* the cooperation.

      Definitely. On the "Thunderhead Keep" mission, going solo (with NPC henchmen) is NOT an option. Near the end of this mission, you're in a fort with two open gates, and two sets of catapults. Several groups of monsters attack the fortress, and you've got to defend it (actually, your goal is to keep a certain NPC King alive, and kill a nasty monster boss, but it basically amounts to defending the fort). Two groups of players have got to defend the two gates, two other players must man the catapults (one for each gate), and two other (player) monks have got to heal the players at the gates (well, the monks aren't strictly necessary, but they make this difficult mission much easier). You just can't do this mission without close co-operation (whereas many/most missions can be done solely with NPCs).

      Guild Wars rules! ;-)

  18. WoW vs. Software Piracy by Kormac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the real question is will the success of WoW affect the piracy rate of games? =)

    There's no way to play on Blizzard's servers without paying the monthly fee, and I know quite a few WoW players where WoW was one of their few legitimate purchases in a LONG time... and since they've started, they haven't bothered downloading any other "gamez"

    Kormac

  19. Re:Huge market by lotrtrotk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People will get hooked if it's "free".

    I think I'd change this to read...
    People will get hooked if it's "good"

    But maybe that's the reason game companies wont make the switch. With a subscription system, the game has to actually be GOOD to get people to keep paying past the initial month. While with the traditional payment method, as long as it's marketed well, people will buy it. Once they've coughed up the cash, it doesn't make a difference whether they like it or not. The company has already made its money.

    So for that reason, I'd love to see more games go with subscription payments. It would push the companies to make games actually BE more fun instead of making them LOOK more fun.

  20. Re:Huge market by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With games, they could really ditch the whole distribution chain and give the game away as a download. Maybe $5 if people actually want a CD. Also, selling prepaid subscriptions with the game at a reduced price could bring in some initial dollars.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  21. Re:WoW is a massive timesink by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I want a game where I can play a few hours a week, and still get something out of it. Things just take too long in the high level game in WoW!"

    Try Counter Strike. It also can be a time sink but it is easier for it not to be. With each round resetting every 3-5 min it's easy to hop in for half hour or so and have a lot of fun.
    Not like WoW where you can spend that much time just trying to get to where the action is. Run run run. Get to the port. No boat. Dang, just missed it. Wait 5 min. Fish. Dang, fishing without beer is boring. Ride the boat, run run run. Hop on griffon. fly fly fly. run some more. Now the fun can start 20 min later. Boring.

  22. It's definitely changed how I play by RocketScientist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got WoW last November.

    I haven't purchased another game since. I reinstalled and played HalfLife 2 for awhile, but that's about it. I've only played WoW. I have two characters (level 50 druid, level 60 warlock) with more time /played than I'd care to admit. It's saved me a lot of money. I've been cooking more and therefore eating better (eating out takes more time than cooking a good meal typically does) and spending less. All in all, WoW is saving me a lot of money.

    Will I switch games? Probably not. I've got a time investement in WoW. I've got a social investment in my guild. Heck, I found out a guildie was local to me and appropriate for a job and got him hired for our helpdesk because I knew he was a straightforward easy to work with person based on my WoW experiences with him.

    Will I play a single player game again? I've got a PSP for when I'm on the road. So, not bloody likely. I'm looking forward to an expansion, the next patch, and getting my hunter leveled up on a PvP server.

    I'm playing WoW right now on my PC while I read this on my Mac Mini.

    Am I typical? Dunno, hit the reply button and tell me.

  23. Re:I'd have to say... by Chasuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Time was when EA actualy produced innovative games. In fact, they were one of the most innovative game companies of all time, back when Bill Budge and Trip Hawkins were still household names. Now they are just re-packagers of other people's shit.

    --
    Neopets - the best free game on the Int
  24. Re:30 hrs a week by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh yeah, and also me and my roommate would normally have already started playing Madden '06 but thanks to WoW we can't even be bothered to buy it...

  25. No New Games Since WoW by ZebadiahC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I havent purchased any new games in the past 6 months simply because I have spent my limited gaming time on WoW and don't have the time to try new games. (havent seen anything that great anyhow.)

    And three more cheers for Blizzard and their continued support for the Mac Platform!

  26. Re:I'd have to say... by CloudsSpaz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You have to realize though (and I know the WoW lovers are going to explode here, but it's true), WoW isn't really innovative at all.

    For an MMORPG, WoW's pretty much the same basic stuff that's been around since [before] Everquest. It's not really new or innovative in any way.

    It's polished certainly (what Blizzard game isn't), but truth be told, Blizzard pulled one of EA's biggest tricks out of the hat with WoW. That is, they applied an already hugely popular franchise (Warcraft) to a routine genre. And heck, even a lot of the main features of the game, such as spells and items, are heavily borrowed from Blizzard's previous games themselves (War III and Diablo II specifically).

    That's not to say it's a bad game. It most certainly isn't, as the sales prove. But the only thing Blizzard is doing that differently from EA (and companies like that) is that they're taking time and care to actually polish their titles. But new and innovative? Not really.

  27. Re:Dunno about WoW... by Arker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You don't need a license to use something you've bought.

    You need a license to copy, modify, and distribute it outside of fair-use.

    Bnetd's use of the programs was clearly use, they were NOT copying and distributing the copyrighted material (which isn't even available or released) they were simply running the binaries they bought, determining how to interoperate with them, and building THEIR OWN server software to interoperate with those binaries.

    So they had no need of a license, and the terms of any license that might have been offered to them doesn't matter, they didn't need any license to do this.

    The TOS you refer to are the Terms of Service for battlenet. Bnetd didn't use battlenet, so those terms don't matter either.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  28. Blizzard a victim of their own success in the past by mirni · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having been in the past an addicted player of Starcraft for years, I thought I'd add my two cents.

    I never bought any other game for two or so years. I didn't even feel the urge to try anything new. That game was so good that I spent hours on hours on it. Week after week. For months. Always lingering between 'chobo' and 'gosu', as the strategies of the game evolved, it never ceased being interesting.

    Was that good for Blizzard? No. Because I wasn't the only one. They could see the devotion millions (literally) of people showed and they couldn't tap on it. I bet they had really gone crazy. OK, they published an extension, everybody got it, but that was that. And it's a thing that just won't die. (And even Warcraft III, "well, you know, it's OK, but it's not Starcraft." That was a major blow.) Not as popular after its original release (it has been 7 years or so, after all), it still has a strong following. People are asking for Starcraft 2, but only casually.

    The new model is good. It's good, because it means that a good game will not only sell more units, but it will also generate revenue for a longer time per unit. Profit is not longer a function of a units, but of units by time. Think profit squared, for a really engaging game.

    If they figure out a way to give us Starcraft 2 without our thinking they're ripping us off charging for what was free at Battle.net, I'd expect it any day now. But it's not easy, that's a concept better suited to WoW and the likes.

    As I said, just the 2 cents of a former addict.

    -m-