WoW: a GOOD monopoly?

[EqualNOpposite]

MEGAPOST

While your assumptions about Monopolies are generally accurate they do not take into account the type of media we are dealing with. Now, WoW's main competitors are other MMOs so you are correct on those points.

However, their secondary competitors are all other video games. Media such as video games are a type of entertainment and entertainment required time to enjoy. People have limited time so they must choose what to do with it. If Blizz stopped improving WoW most players would lose interest. They would stop playing due to boredom and pick up some other game. Thus it requires Blizz to continue improving it, even though they have a clear monopoly atm. They have to put as much, if not more, effort into maintaining their position on top as they did to achieve said position.

So your counterpoint is that Blizzard has moved from considering other MMO's as competition to considering other games PERIOD as competition? Makes sense.

Of course, the Logical Conclusion is that WoW, if continued to improve above all other games, will eventually become some kind of genre-defying ubergame that trounces all others EVER. (I'm not objecting to your point, I just find that thought funny.)

WOW dominates the market, but that does not mean they have a monopoly. A monopoly only occurs when there is NO other competition. In the MMO market there are at least dozens of other games vying for your 15 dollars a month. The reason wow is in such a position of success is because they continue to change and continue to improve.

While it is technically true that WoW is not a TOTAL monopoly, the effect that the dominance of the game has on the MMO market is still undeniable. Gamestop is not totally dominant of the game retail market, yet they clearly have a monopoly on it.

So...why isn't that happening? Why is Blizzard still improving WoW, even though they have no competitive reason to do so?

No competitive reason? MMOs always bring new features to the table, do you really think that a lot of people would still play it if it'd be in the state of the original, vanilla version? They have to upgrade their shit othwerwise people lose interest. The only thing is, they've succeeded so far.

Lack of improvement and WoW would get stale and cause a massive subscriber breakdown.

In fact, YES. I know many people who have left WoW BECAUSE it was changed from vanilla. That's beside the point, however.

You make a strong point. Are you saying that the reason that Blizzard is doing so much is solely to maintain player interest? Makes sense, but it seems like overkill to me to release 3 expansions for the game just to do that.

On the other hand, I wouldn't object to a fourth for the same purpose...

Blizzard update and improve their game because they would lose those millions of subscribers quite quickly and lose their "monopoly". Also your whole post had nothing to do with your title, I can't find any correlation between a monopoly being good and your post.

Sorry, let me clarify.

What I'm trying to argue is that WoW seems to be a monopoly that, contrary to the traditional economic idea, doesn't result in product quality decay or stagnation. This, I propose, is an example of a seemingly contradictory idea: a monopoly that is GOOD for the industry it is in.

Because it's not a monopoly. There is more than one maker of MMOs, and there are other MMOs out there, and others are being made all the time. If Blizzard doesn't innovate, they will lose customers.

Having the most popular product does not mean you have a monopoly. This is a flawed question.

I refer you to my reply to Coasty4. Total market domination makes a monopoly, bot not having this does not UNMAKE a monopoly. ex: Gamestop, and in the diamond industry, Debeers, last i checked.

Because constantly improving the game nets them more subscriptions. It's good publicity.

I don't think so. I may just be unaware, but I don't think the MMO market has grown that much in recent years. My conclusion is that anyone who WOULD play MMO's at this point DOES play MMO's.

because they want to stay as the dominant mmo.

on top of that its not really a monopoly since other people still can and have made mmo's such as eve. a real monopoly is that of silk by the venetians in the 1600's i believe where they controlled the only route for silk from china thus no one else was physically able to get a large trade in silk.

so its not really aa monopoly more of a dominant product

..And that makes three...okay, maybe my definition of 'monopoly' departs a bit from the public definition. However, even if we swap 'monopoly' for 'domiant MMO' or somesuch grammatical ninja'ing, the argument still stands. As the dominant product in the market, WoW is secure in their marketshare. So why are they spending so much effort on imporoving it if they don't have to?

I could rant about WoW, but will opt to keep this objectively related instead.

Before I get to the main idea, I want to state my credentials as an MMO player.

Usually, a monopoly has a detrimental effect on the quality of the product involved. While the domination of WoW does make it exceedingly difficult for other MMO's to get their foot in the door, I have NEVER heard anyone in the game industry (again, call me out on this) say WoW is losing or lacks quality and needs to be displaced as the chief MMO because of it.

I did a case study of MMOs, and tried a variety of them to see how they worked, what sort of population the servers had, or what schemes the developer created to rope the player in.

As funny as this is going to sound, WoW was by far the most stable...and the most bland.
To claim that the game has "improved" upon itself even in recent history is laughable; a well-crafted facade. The game didn't really improve; it just expanded the level cap.

This isn't a bad thing for the game however; it's that sort of predictable stability combined with a sense of scope that makes it so addictive. If you were to change that, people would stop playing.

In fact, Cataclysm did just that to my friend (a very long-time player of the game).

WoW is successful because it is the least overwhelming, most newbie-friendly MMO out there.
It's the most accessible.

As a monopoly, well, you can't really fight it. The only thing that can kill WoW is Blizzard.
They aren't going to change that winning formula for accessibility, while at the same time they don't have to. Most other MMO developers out there make the mistake of trying to copy WoW without scaling their game to this sort of accessibility.

And when another MMO out there tries to add complicated depth to their game (which, despite the massive amount of stats and skills, WoW is actually fairly shallow) it comes back to bite them on the ass.

The only successful MMO I've seen out there that requires complicated player interactions is EVE Online.

TLDR: Other MMOs fail to break the monopoly because WoW is already established, and made so even a complete idiot can make it to end-game content with enough grind.

So...WoW is the best because it's easiest? You have a point... I did find WoW easier to pick up than most of the other MMO's I've played. But riddle me this: if accessibility=quality, then what the hell is EVE still doing around? Unrelated to the main topic, I know, but seems like a good question.

To add to the discussion somewhat:
Speaking hypothetically, if WoW actually was a Monopoly, it would not be a good thing anymore than if Halo were to grab a monopoly on FPSs even if it began to come out with streams of new maps and weapons, it wouldn't be much consolation to people who prefer to play Half-Life or CoD.
WoW may continue to add or to update, but that means nothing to you if you don't like WoW to begin with. Despite what many people against the genre think, MMOs vary greatly from game to game, and this would mean you have no options. You couldn't just shrug and go play EVE or Aion or what have you, it would be WoW or nothing.
As a fan of MMORPGs, I would probably ditch the entire genre if WoW was my only real option, as would many people. While I don't think it is impossible for a Monopoly to be a good thing, this would certainly not be the case.

Another good point. I suppose it is arguable that WoW only dominates its own subgenre within the MMO market. But can the conclusion be drawn from that that the overwhelming majority of MMO gamers prefer action-fantasy-thingy or whatever WoW is? And if so, does that mean that games that don't fit that genre, like EVE, will always be smaller than WoW or whatever takes its place?

Er, wow. Uh, reply overkill? I Wish I could respond to all of you, but it would probably break my browser or something.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It's refined the stats and the gameplay to the point where it's much more engaging and fun than it ever was at launch. The quest lines are more streamlined, the addition of phasing makes a player feel like they actually have impact on a world (and in the EQ-style of games, this is HUGE), and you no longer need to sign your life away to play it.

Instead of pounding out a long response (like I had). I'll just concede the point entirely.
It has improved.

If grinding your brains out brings you happiness. Then be happy.

However, WoW has done nothing but bring me personal grief; no matter how rational my reasoning, I find myself unable to argue beyond my bias.

It ruined a great deal gaming for me, and for that, I can never forgive.

MEGAPOST

So...WoW is the best because it's easiest? You have a point... I did find WoW easier to pick up than most of the other MMO's I've played. But riddle me this: if accessibility=quality, then what the hell is EVE still doing around? Unrelated to the main topic, I know, but seems like a good question.

EVE Online is an oddity. Definitely an exception among the sea of cheap/failed MMOs.
Keep in mind that there are a terribly large number of MMOs in the Asian market that we simply don't ever see or hear about. There are MMORPGs based on the game of golf for crying out loud.

There are many arguments one could make for EVE, but I'll just break it down to the simpler theories.

1) EVE has a firmly established social-playerbase. They got in before WoW took over the rest of the market.

2) New Players can actually achieve their goals (there are many MMOs out there that actively enable other players to OPPRESS the newbies. I am not joking. Dofus is a prime example.)
As competitive as EVE is, you can actually make progress at a fairly steady rate.

3) EVE isn't directly competing with WoW...in terms of presentation
-EVE plays very VERY differently from WoW. Remember what I said about Accessibility? EVE is the opposite. But this actually works in its favor for once, because its target audience are people who want something more complicated than WoW; not just another WoW clone.
Keeping mind that EVE Online is still absolutely dwarfed by WoW. Perhaps it's a matter of population distribution.

 

[Jkudo]

Blizzard improves on WoW because there might come a day when they have to do something to vastly improve to keep customers from their competition - however, by then it might be too late, so they are simply being proactive.

The % of improvement in WoW however, is smaller than the % of improvement in new, competing products year by year, and eventually someone will catch up, this is just inevitable.

I expect either Rift: Planes of Telara or The Secret World to at least take a big bite out of the WoW pie. TERA, SW:ToR, probably not, Guild Wars 2 maybe - but definitely Rift: Planes of Telara and The Secret World...

The Secret World is a winner....
I know nothing of Rift except that it exist, guild wars gets a massive amount of hype along with SW:ToR(will probably sell fairly well). WoW is king right now, for a reason. I've actually never played because the fantasy setting usually doesn't appeal to me, but nothing gets that popular for no reason, but nothing is on top forever.
As long as developers still try to compete, no game's position is certain.
Once again...The Secret World is a winner....

 

[EqualNOpposite]

MEGAsnip

EVE Online is an oddity. Definitely an exception among the sea of cheap/failed MMOs.
Keep in mind that there are a terribly large number of MMOs in the Asian market that we simply don't ever see or hear about. There are MMORPGs based on the game of golf for crying out loud.

There are many arguments one could make for EVE, but I'll just break it down to the simpler theories.

1) EVE has a firmly established social-playerbase. They got in before WoW took over the rest of the market.

2) New Players can actually achieve their goals (there are many MMOs out there that actively enable other players to OPPRESS the newbies. I am not joking. Dofus is a prime example.)
As competitive as EVE is, you can actually make progress at a fairly steady rate.

3) EVE isn't directly competing with WoW...in terms of presentation
-EVE plays very VERY differently from WoW. Remember what I said about Accessibility? EVE is the opposite. But this actually works in its favor for once, because its target audience are people who want something more complicated than WoW; not just another WoW clone.
Keeping mind that EVE Online is still absolutely dwarfed by WoW. Perhaps it's a matter of population distribution.

(just in regards to EVE now) I won't argue against any of your points except #2. I don't understand how EVE prevents newbie oppression. If a newbie wanders outside high-security systems, he's scrap, and if a pirate decides to sacrifice a ship and possibly a clone to troll a newbie, there's nothing preventing him from doing so besides sacrificing a handful of ISK. I will agree that steady progress is possible regardless of piracy or trolling, but I don't see what about EVE's approach sets this above other games besides it's wall-like difficulty curve.

 

[Atmos Duality]

(just in regards to EVE now) I won't argue against any of your points except #2. I don't understand how EVE prevents newbie oppression. If a newbie wanders outside high-security systems, he's scrap, and if a pirate decides to sacrifice a ship and possibly a clone to troll a newbie, there's nothing preventing him from doing so besides sacrificing a handful of ISK. I will agree that steady progress is possible regardless of piracy or trolling, but I don't see what about EVE's approach sets this above other games besides it's wall-like difficulty curve.

Those aren't strictly points; they're theories. I already know they're shaky.
I honestly have no idea exactly why EVE Online thrives while others crash and burn.

#2...well. As I understand it, your character can continue to gain skills when you log off. Offline progress of any sort is still progress.
Do correct me if I'm wrong though; I have not tried EVE in a long time (though apparently there is a corporation playerbase at my college. I'll ask them).

EDIT: The website isn't displaying his response on my end for some reason. Oh wells.

No, that's right. You can start learning a skill, and to do so takes a set amount of time, which passes regardless of whether you are online. But this doesn't answer my question, which is: how does EVE discourage ganking above another MMO?

It doesn't discourage ganking; in fact, I surmise that ganking is the main draw of the game (based on the responses around here, apparently losing several thousand dollars in real money to a game is "cool").

The important distinction here is that despite the ganking, the player won't be locked completely out of the game. In Dofus (for example) a guild can set up these creatures called Ordinators that in turn can tax players who fight battles in their zone. They steal item drops, exp, money, and resource collections.

Furthermore, the Open PvP is not level-capped, and it's not consensual (this went online, and I quit after being unable to move three screens IN TOWN without getting killed and sent back to the respawn point).

In EVE Online, the PvP is the focus of the game, rather than a detriment.

Argue against #2 if you want. It's merely a theory, and an incorrect one from the sounds of things.

 

[EqualNOpposite]

snip

#2...well. As I understand it, your character can continue to gain skills when you log off. Offline progress of any sort is still progress.
Do correct me if I'm wrong though; I have not tried EVE in a long time (though apparently there is a corporation playerbase at my college. I'll ask them).

No, that's right. You can start learning a skill, and to do so takes a set amount of time, which passes regardless of whether you are online. But this doesn't answer my question, which is: how does EVE discourage ganking above another MMO?