My prediction is that it'll limp on for some years after legion even, but it'll keep on bleeding until they eventually pull the plug.

Well let's hope that the future brings innovation in the MMO genre then.

We'll see whether or not the game dies in Legion.

My prediction is that it'll limp on for some years after legion even, but it'll keep on bleeding until they eventually pull the plug.

Well the playerbase IS declining, so by your reasoning the quality is also declining. This is what i've been trying to say.

It peaked at 10 million again exactly because of the hype Blizz created by saying it would be back like the old days. This in fact proves that millions of people prefer that over the new direction the game went in. Also, Blizzard stated a few months ago that they wouldn't be showing subscriber numbers to the press anymore. I'm pretty sure the game is bleeding players, no reason to do this but to protect stocks from dropping because of declining subscriber numbers.

And what I'm trying to say is that there are many other factors that result in the decline, and I've stated them already.

They weren't just hyping about it being like the old days, people judge things by face value and they saw an orc on the cover, not a panda, so they immediately jumped in. It could've just been a rash decision and people realized the game just isn't for them anymore.

I'll say it again: The game is old, the genre is old, the players are old, everything is getting old. The game still has a ton going for it, but no matter what, lost players will stay lost because they have other things to do.

Well let's hope that the future brings innovation in the MMO genre then.

We'll see whether or not the game dies in Legion.

My prediction is that it'll limp on for some years after legion even, but it'll keep on bleeding until they eventually pull the plug.

Game companies focusing solely on profits is never good for the players. Just look at EA with battlefront, or with any of their games tbh (Sim City also comes to mind), or Activision with their CoD iterations. It's just stupid how they so blatantly try to milk these franchises instead of actually making great games. They have the resources for it, but they rather stick to easy cash formulas.

"The game isn't for you anymore". I've also heard this a 1000 times. The fact that the game changed doesn't mean it's actually better. There's a reason Blizzard lost millions of WoW subscribers in the last years. Catering to casuals just because they keep on playing your game never made a game better.

Maybe you've heard it 1000 times because it's true. The game is better in many aspects, and worse in others. People have gotten tired of the game and quit as a result. It's been more casual with MoP, but it still peaked at 10 million right at WoD launch, so people didn't quite just because it was "easy". Maybe if Blizzard hadn't fucked up with their promises, the 10 million would've stayed. Also, MMOs are simply becoming far less popular than they used to be, so people won't really be looking for them as much as they used to.
And I never said Blizzard is focusing solely on profits, but if there's profit to be had in WoW, it means the game is doing okay. With tripleA titles, it's completely different because people buy it once, play for a few hours then quit, while EA and the likes still got their money. WoW is dependent on subscribers, so if the quality is declining, so will the playerbase, and as a result the profits will decrease. See the pattern here?

Well the playerbase IS declining, so by your reasoning the quality is also declining. This is what i've been trying to say.

It peaked at 10 million again exactly because of the hype Blizz created by saying it would be back like the old days. This in fact proves that millions of people prefer that over the new direction the game went in. Also, Blizzard stated a few months ago that they wouldn't be showing subscriber numbers to the press anymore. I'm pretty sure the game is bleeding players, no reason to do this but to protect stocks from dropping because of declining subscriber numbers.

And what I'm trying to say is that there are many other factors that result in the decline, and I've stated them already.

They weren't just hyping about it being like the old days, people judge things by face value and they saw an orc on the cover, not a panda, so they immediately jumped in. It could've just been a rash decision and people realized the game just isn't for them anymore.

I'll say it again: The game is old, the genre is old, the players are old, everything is getting old. The game still has a ton going for it, but no matter what, lost players will stay lost because they have other things to do.

Well let's hope that the future brings innovation in the MMO genre then.

We'll see whether or not the game dies in Legion.

My prediction is that it'll limp on for some years after legion even, but it'll keep on bleeding until they eventually pull the plug.

Too bad, because it was a great game at one point. I think the merger with Activision also changed alot tbh.

If Activision made Blizzard take the wisest business path, then perhaps. Again, if the game isn't for you anymore, it just isn't. It's changed and so has the audience, and that's how it goes. You probably know Preach from youtube? He used to be an extremely hardcore WoW player, but now he has to settle for the lower commitment because he has a job, a wife and a kid or two. He wouldn't be able to play the game the same way if it'd still been like TBC.
I personally still find it to be great, but they have to fix their poor planning with the amount of content per expansion, because that was awful in WoD.

Game companies focusing solely on profits is never good for the players. Just look at EA with battlefront, or with any of their games tbh (Sim City also comes to mind), or Activision with their CoD iterations. It's just stupid how they so blatantly try to milk these franchises instead of actually making great games. They have the resources for it, but they rather stick to easy cash formulas.

"The game isn't for you anymore". I've also heard this a 1000 times. The fact that the game changed doesn't mean it's actually better. There's a reason Blizzard lost millions of WoW subscribers in the last years. Catering to casuals just because they keep on playing your game never made a game better.

Maybe you've heard it 1000 times because it's true. The game is better in many aspects, and worse in others. People have gotten tired of the game and quit as a result. It's been more casual with MoP, but it still peaked at 10 million right at WoD launch, so people didn't quite just because it was "easy". Maybe if Blizzard hadn't fucked up with their promises, the 10 million would've stayed. Also, MMOs are simply becoming far less popular than they used to be, so people won't really be looking for them as much as they used to.
And I never said Blizzard is focusing solely on profits, but if there's profit to be had in WoW, it means the game is doing okay. With tripleA titles, it's completely different because people buy it once, play for a few hours then quit, while EA and the likes still got their money. WoW is dependent on subscribers, so if the quality is declining, so will the playerbase, and as a result the profits will decrease. See the pattern here?

Well the playerbase IS declining, so by your reasoning the quality is also declining. This is what i've been trying to say.

It peaked at 10 million again exactly because of the hype Blizz created by saying it would be back like the old days. This in fact proves that millions of people prefer that over the new direction the game went in. Also, Blizzard stated a few months ago that they wouldn't be showing subscriber numbers to the press anymore. I'm pretty sure the game is bleeding players, no reason to do this but to protect stocks from dropping because of declining subscriber numbers.

And what I'm trying to say is that there are many other factors that result in the decline, and I've stated them already.

They weren't just hyping about it being like the old days, people judge things by face value and they saw an orc on the cover, not a panda, so they immediately jumped in. It could've just been a rash decision and people realized the game just isn't for them anymore.

I'll say it again: The game is old, the genre is old, the players are old, everything is getting old. The game still has a ton going for it, but no matter what, lost players will stay lost because they have other things to do.

Well let's hope that the future brings innovation in the MMO genre then.

We'll see whether or not the game dies in Legion.

My prediction is that it'll limp on for some years after legion even, but it'll keep on bleeding until they eventually pull the plug.

And don't expect more replies from me for the time being, as I'm tired as shit and need to sleep for now.

whaaa, pfft no

There's still a line between writing what you believe is right, and wanting people to hear out about what you have to say. Some things have to be said and viewed from a neutral standpoint regardless of one's own opinion for people not to dismiss it completely. It's one thing that separates good article writers from bad ones.

You can say what you want about whatever subject, but ultimately it comes down to what you really want: To hook people and make them hear you out and have a calm, neutral discussion, which can include subjective viewpoints, or just write a wall of text which will be dismissed because the attitude leaves a sour taste in people's mouths and makes them not wanting to bother.

And don't expect more replies from me for the time being, as I'm tired as shit and need to sleep for now.

>>#123, I agree to an extent, of course, emotion is certainly part of what makes us human, but (and this reminds me of (kolberg's theory on morality) it seems that most people do not see past basic emotion. it's been found that most people never really pass the first "level" of morality, which is "fear of punishment" or otherwise "because we were told it was so". Something called "Higher moral reasoning" is thought to exist, I believe I am using it in my examples or others I can think of.

If what studies have found are indeed true, it supports the notion that most people make emotional, and often terrible decisions, because they aren't thinking about the big picture.

When you make a choice for the greater good for example, you usually do so because you DO feel emotion, you DO care, you DO want what's best. I'm not saying emotion is useless, I'm just saying that it needs to take the backseat as opposed to the other way around, because the tough decisions need to be made. Nobody is saying it's easy, but it is "right". Or as right as you can get.

I'd say partly the reason why emotions have become such a sensitive part of our lives now compared to before is because the world is generally safer to live in, so when looking at it from a relative standpoint, anybody who's been living safely their whole life and has some sense of empathy would want others to live the same life they do. Nothing bad happened to them, so why should anything bad happen to others, they might think.

Sometimes people just want the sense of moral relief instead of what's more efficient. Spending resources on keeping dying elderly people alive so their relatives can see them just a bit longer, or if there'd be a hypothetical case where you could save someone who's elderly and risk dying yourself. Quite a few would genuinely consider it as they'd feel morally correct to just risk their own life to save someone else's. In a general sense, it isn't logical to sacrifice someone who's young and energetic for someone who's retired, but sometimes the most satisfacting option is to just have the feeling that you did the right thing, even if it's stupid.

Now, whether or not that's good differs from person to person, but I'd say there's no objective answer. Emotions are a huge part of who we are, so they should be considered as something more than something that's keeping us down.

Also, if you want actual discussion instead of the "edgy" spam replies, please try to seem less pretentious and "enlightened" next time. Just get your point across and see what it sparks up, without making your point of view seem factual, if you even have to state it.

There's still a line between writing what you believe is right, and wanting people to hear out about what you have to say. Some things have to be said and viewed from a neutral standpoint regardless of one's own opinion for people not to dismiss it completely. It's one thing that separates good article writers from bad ones.

You can say what you want about whatever subject, but ultimately it comes down to what you really want: To hook people and make them hear you out and have a calm, neutral discussion, which can include subjective viewpoints, or just write a wall of text which will be dismissed because the attitude leaves a sour taste in people's mouths and makes them not wanting to bother.

And don't expect more replies from me for the time being, as I'm tired as shit and need to sleep for now.