Why WoW won.

There was a discussion about EQ2's UI on the FoH's forums and it made me think that too often people tend to completely ignore the most obvious things. While they tend to consider what is instead absolutely irrelevant.

So here why WoW racked up millions of subscribers worldwide and why it dwarfed every other mmorpg:

First Postulate on Mmorpgs Subscriptions: If you suddenly double the minimum hardware requirements, then even your potential subscribers base is HALVED (if not worst, considering the scaling).

There, I said it. WoW's success is for the biggest part contained in that line. No need for thousands and thousands of pages and design researches. Just one fucking line.

Hello? Accessibility barriers. The GREAT MAJORITY of people on the internet have computers that SUCK. This is why browser-based games are popular. Not because they are "casual" games, but because they embrace a MUCH BIGGER potential subscribers base.

Crappy internet connection, instable, badly configured system, old drivers, conflicts, incompatibilities. All these are the NORM for PCs. Not everyone is a geek who assembles his computer, runs benchmarks, reads hardware reviews and figures out obscure quirks in the Bios of the motherboard. This is also why the consoles are much more popular. Not everyone has the patience and dedication to swallow that. In particular after having spent considerable amounts of money for that hardware and STILL managing to see games running like crap.

WoW broke the market in three moves:
1- Low hardware requirements, wider compatibility (here)
2- It launched EVERYWHERE, localized and with a good support (here)
3- Game design all focused to simplify a genre and make it accessible/usable (here)

WoW became so popular because it lowered the accessibility barriers. BOTH from the hardware requirements perspective AND the game design. It's accessible. Its engine is the best out there. It runs more smoothly and without incompatibilities compared to any other mmorpg, old or new. And in nearly all the cases IT EVEN LOOKS SO MUCH BETTER.

Seamless world, smooth framerates with tenths of players on screen each with particle effects and perfect animations, no jerky LOD, impressive environments and clip plane, beautifully painted textures, consistent art direction throughout the game.

Not only it is a charming experience because it runs great and doesn't stutters or crashes all the time, but it even looks great.

And here we come to that discussion about EQ2's interface:

--
I don't know if it's a Nvidia vs Ati issue but the UI simply eats a lot of resources. I use the standard EQ2 UI + maps here and I can be in a zone with 30+ FPS or another with 15 or so, the UI still eats up significantly processing power.

Arguably WoW has the most powerful and flexible UI out there, but where it really shinies is in the fact that it takes nearly zero resources. I can have the barely needed on display or I can open hundreds of buttons, windows, features and energy bars and the game maintains roughly the same amount of frames per second.

It's obvious that it's a matter of how the UI in EQ2 and WoW are engineered at a basic level and rendered on screen. It's surely not a matter of "optimizations".

The point is that in other games the UI really does not impact the framerate. In EQ2 it does sensibly. Now it could even get optimized but the fact that it takes resources will hardly change if it's not recoded at a very basic level, I suspect.

And don't bring up the "focus to support hardware for the years ahead". Slowing down the game just because people have more powerful hardware is not an argument. If I'm buying new hardware it's because I want new possibilities supported, not so that I can swallow horrible engines.

If your hardware requirements are high, then the game better demonstrate that the slowdown is worth it (and it usually never is). Instead of just an excuse for a crappy engine.

--
EQ2's engine is already heavy enough without the UI slowing it down even further. One thing is about supporting better graphic possibilities and advanced engines, another is having high hardware requirements because the engine is not so great. Here the competition is stronger because these things CAN be easily compared.

The same applies to Vanguard. If it looks like crap, then better run *very smoothly*. Because noone swallows extremely demanding engines AND overall deluding graphic quality.

Which is also why I have that terrible nightmare.

Re: Why WoW won.

THANK you. This is one proverbial "elephant in the room" that game developers and publishers have been ignoring, or at least dismissive of. Make the game intuitive and accessible (as you say with hardware requirements and the UI), and polish the gameplay for a good first impression and they will come.

But no, the publishers see the costs rising higher and higher during game production and eventually they snap and say "ship it, I don't fucking care what you're bitching about - this shit is costing me money." The folks funding production don't play their own games - they play for 10 minutes (maybe), consider that "fun enough" and call it a day.

So that's why there's so much hand-waving about the "awesome graphics (that run like shit)" and the number of polygons that the game can push versus the subjective part called "gameplay."

Re: Why WoW won.

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the teeming masses that played D2, WC, SC, etc.
It was entirely due to the simplified gameplay and low requirements!

I don't think anyone is dismissive of your statement, I just think it is so completely obvious that it doesn't bear repeating ad nauseum. Yes, part of WoW's (or Runescape's) success is due to accessibility and streamlined experience. It will also be part of its unraveling if in the expansion we have PVP performance similar to Tarren Mill / Southshore, with zero foot view radius and sudden popping in of 50+ enemies. That optimization is frankly impractical, and Blizzard already has a penchant for shoving people into instances.

Besides that, the market in general was/is in a rut. Nothing out there even competed with the amount of game you get out of WoW at such a minimum sys requirement level. Let's talk about how accesible WoW is post-60...

Accessibility simply encompasses more than you're giving credit to: graphic consistency, clearly cut and unique races and areas, built in strife rather than player instigated strife, railed questing with big blinking lights "go here next!," Dungeon Crawl Lite[tm], ease of soloability no matter which class you are, offline auctionhouses, tradeskill lite now with no failures! and a nice and cheap, endless supply of cash for in game currency in case you were ever too bored, lazy or decadent to gather it yourself.

Just because you open the door to more people via lax hardware requirements doesn't mean they're going to come in.

Re: Why WoW won.

Whoops! For clarification sake, my point was that I would weight #3 in your trinity of accesibility as far more than a third. The first two are limiters, #3 is the enabler.

Re: Why WoW won.

They are not really in order of importance.

If you actually look at the links you can see that the third point is the one I consider the most relevant and the one I discussed first.

It's obvious that without that third point the other two wouldn't exist.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.