Monetization, Social Media, and the Number of Players in Mythic Raids - In Search Of Answers #12

[@Dehrild]

Hey! I sure didn't expect to be featured in one of your videos. I still remember watching the WoW Q&As 'back in the days' and finding your channel recently was a nice surprise. You've quickly joined the short list of people whose videos immediately end up on my 'to watch' playlist regardless of title/thumbnail because the subjects you discuss are right up my alley and I always find your perspective interesting. I'm looking forward to where this channel goes and wish you all the best! PS: 1:01 either works! It was originally used in French and doesn't really have a proper English pronunciation. So either way you got it right.

[@Rockforce80]

Not related to the video topic, but it's nice seeing you do this content and the "Sounds Good, Makes Sense" videos Josh. Gives me a bit of nostalgia to a happier time in my life, back when you were doing videos on the tankspot channel. Can almost fool myself into thinking I'll be ordering a pizza and firing up the gamebreaker stream to watch you, Mike, and Gary hang out and talk about wow.

[@mooninites755]

I'm really glad you pointed out the stagnant cost of videos games in relation to inflation. It's exhausting to hear people complain about DLC and Battle Passes and not also have the self-awareness that part of the problem is gamers (they) don't want to spend more than $60 for a game. I remember paying $60 for LotR: Battle for Middle Earth and thinking that was a big price increase from the base of $50 and that was in 2004. Since then, most games I buy still cost $60. It's hard to find anything these days that has not increased in price over the past 20 years. Although, if a video game company would raise the price point to say $90 with no DLC/Battle Pass I would still be happier. It's kind of this weird in-between where it seems like if they raise prices, people will be unhappy and if they continue this pay-to-play model people will continue to be unhappy

[@Zewinter]

It feels often the lower prices are to get you in or so that they can release nowadays incomplete products. When they released a game back then it didn't feel as buggy or missing content. If the video game industry had higher standards It wouldn't feel so bad to spend money on some games. You used to be able to buy pre-releases without much worry. Nowadays? Yea I don't touch those anymore.

[@keithb6344]

@@Zewinter People dont remember the bad ones. For every great game there was 20 bad ones. People remember the games they had fun playing. Not the one they paid 50 bucks for and beat in 20 minutes, was buggy, couldn't be finished, etc.

[@Zewinter]

@@keithb6344 To some point bad ones were also unapologetically bad, but games that most people played didn't need to be patched day 1. If it was bad it was bad and you played another game.

[@keithb6344]

@@Zewinter They couldn't be patched, but yeah. Playing another game really depended on each person. My family was poor and we didn't have a local place to rent games. So when the game sucked, to play something else, I got to go cut 10 more yards to try again. 😀

[@vtxshiva]

The problem with the cost discussion is that both "sides" of this debate, in typical fashion, tend to ignore or forget certain aspects that are involved with those prices, and even your comment is a reflection of that. Yes... games have staid mostly the same price for 2 decades, but you know what else changed drastically over the last decade or so? Distribution, among many other things. Few to no boxed releases cutting down cost of production and distribution to near 0, fewer middle-men cutting into the profit margins, cost of access to the game being transferred to the user (downloading still takes time, money and bandwidth, and depending on where you live that can still be a consideration even in 2024) etc. For every argument saying prices are too high, there is an argument why that isn't the case. For every argument that says prices are fine, there is an argument why that isn't the case. There are a multitude of factors both small and large, both directly and indirectly related that affects user perception. To imply that the "other side" is wrong because you feel your argument is more solid really just reinforces my point about perception and feel. YOU don't feel the prices are outrageous, because you are looking at it from a particular angle. Others, looking at it from another angle may very well have an issue when looking at other factors influencing their decision. Ultimately, both sides are right and bring forward good reasons for why the price should/shouldn't be higher, what it boils down to REALLY is which side of the scale is "heavier" with stronger/more arguments to swing perception their way.

[@patrick2657]

I think for Mythic raiding 20 players is the right amount changing the size would help briefly but isn't really a real fix. I do think they should add a small amount of flex sizing to Mythic raids maybe unlocking a few weeks after release have the bosses scale slightly between 18-22 players it just makes roster management easier so you don't have to bench players or worry that one raider missing the raid messes up your night.

[@terry9819]

When so few players are interested in doing (mythic) raid content wouldn't a better question be how can we change it so that it appeals to more players instead of designing it for fewer players (i.e. reducing raid size).

[@apolloeosphoros4345]

dude the first game I bought (with my first pay from delivering junk mail) was Ratchet and Clank 3, it was 110 Dollarydoos. That's like $185 now!

[@DarthCheesepizza]

Question- What is it about MMOs that attracts (or keeps) older gamers, people who grew up in the MMO boom, and why is it so hard to get younger gamers into it? It seems like the majority of WoWs community has aged with the game, but I never see young people playing anymore. I wonder sometimes if the genre will eventually fade when my generation quits playing.

[@jonathanralfkristensen6953]

Hi lore. What are your thoughts about developers discussing potiential features with the community, as opposed to just announcing new features? Im not sure if you are familiar with the factorio Friday facts, but it is basically a weekly blogpost talking about what the developers currently working and, and even just what they internallt are talking about. Example from wow. Blizzard announced Dragonriding for dragonflight. What if they instead at the start of shadowlands (or whenever they started having the idea for it) they made a public post "Hey, we think current flying is problematic because of x, y, and z, and are currently working in this direction to fix it." Even if they end up scrapping the whole idea, i often think this would be much better, and maybe help catch problematic features before alot of development resources have been sunk into it. Curious to hear your thoughts.

[@Neomagam]

Dragonriding is a perfect counterpoint though. The general community response when Dragonriding was announced was that it was stupid and a waste of time and was just ruining the game. Once Dragonflight hit alpha/beta/launch and people could actually try it, most people did a complete 180 and now loved Dragonriding and never wanted to go back to a WoW without it.

[@Raika63]

I feel like I remember there being some similarly priced SNES games as well. I do feel like a lot of AAA games nowadays are made in a way that most people will play through them once and be done - you experience the narrative, and you're good. I really liked stuff like Super Mario World where you had multiple paths and ways you could finish the game, or Sonic 3 (&K) was great as well letting you choose multiple characters that changed how you approached the levels. Both SMW and S3&K had various power ups that changed the rest of your run. Nowadays I play a lot of stuff like Monster Hunter or survival crafting games where the game loop is just fun. I don't really know where I'm going with this other than to say I prefer vampire survivors to elden ring.

[@TE-eq1dc]

Micro transactions have been around forever. Most people think it started with the horse armor. But the 1985 Arcade Game Gauntlet allowed you to put in more quarters to refill your life bar when it was getting low. Not when you’re dead to continue of course but during gameplay.

[@mooninites755]

As far as the reduction of mythic raid sizes; I think that is legitimately the worst thing that Blizzard could do for the raiding scene. It was an absolute disaster when they combined 10 and 25 man lockouts for a lot of niche and fringe specs. Specs like feral druid or shadow priest were instantly rendered obsolete and actually a detriment to the raid team. Sure you still needed Fortitude, but given how powerful Disc priest was, you were just objectively wrong for having your fort provided by a shadow priest and if you doubled-up on priest, it probably meant you were lacking in other areas. A lot of these specs like feral, ele, shadow, etc. already have enough difficulty finding raid slots in a 20 man roster as is. Reducing the mythic raid size from 20 to 16 would only further pinch an already incredibly crowded field for dps slots, not to mention the game has added 3 classes in that time. Expanding the pool of classes and specs while reducing the slots available to them seems like an absolute disaster. Besides that, for the raid teams that do have healthy rosters, you've now just forced them to cut 4 players. Sure, it's not a problem for you when you're experiencing the raid boss, but when you aren't and the raid size is being reduced, I hope you're equally prepared to be a casualty of that system.

[@Zewinter]

Even on Classic 25m raiding still went strong, even in Cataclysm classic when both 10m and 25m are options for the same difficulty. The problem with mythic raiding is not the lockout or the size, if anything 25m for me is more enjoyable than 20m and would be better with more classes/specs than before if your goal is to have a more diverse group composition. The time requirement to be able to raid mythic is probably the worse problem, lot of people that raid don't want to have to pay a "tax" of time just to be able to play the game how they want. We all know that they dislike the ability to raid log on retail and this has split the raiding community between classic and retail because it's just not fun for many people to have to spend as much time in the game just to be able to do what you have the most fun with. This problem is also entwinned with gearing progression not really being a thing on retail too anymore, you don't really farm raid for better gear but specific pieces mostly. I have seen so many players quit mythic because of this and just stop playing wow because they couldn't keep up and you don't want to be affecting negatively your raid because you don't want to put time outside of raids.

[@jpbarry93]

Every time I see someone try to defend 20m mythic, they always inadvertently concede that 20m doesn't work either based on their own criteria. So if no one is happy with the state of things, what are we even doing here? You guys need to be saved from yourselves. The overwhelming majority of players couldn't care less about class representation.

[@Pavo_Constellatio]

To start; my POV is a WoW player who games with an AOTC guild, and gets KSM each season. I do think if 10 man Mythic content were to come back, that my guild would have a team arise which would pursue it-which would not otherwise happen do to a multitude of reasons. However, I think if Blizzard were to separate 20 man raiding from potential 10 man raiding, it could negate some conversation about how each effects the other. One way could be to just make a 10 man (only) raid. Maybe a two boss raid that drops unique items (maybe non-tier, but could be catalyzed). This wouldn’t have to be expansion specific-maybe an event happens in old world which would get people to visit old maps, and they could stop some random threat. Or, maybe make the Mega-dungeon have a 10 or 5 man mode-I have heard good things from my guild mates about: Hard Mode Immortal Dawn of the Infinites-maybe it could just evolve from this. I just feel that making 10 man mythic content could be done with much enthusiasm if it was just made as separate content (or at least not in direct competition with 20 Mythic).

[@mooninites755]

@@jpbarry93 I did not at all "concede that 20 man doesn't work". I actually think it works great and is the best format for mythic raiding. I would leave 20 man unchanged. You're entire comment is ridiculously presumptuous about what 'the other side' thinks and/or wants. > "You guys need to be saved from yourselves." - well thank god we have you here to be our savior? Lmao the fucking arrogance of this comment. > "The overwhelming majority of players couldn't care less about class representation" - I think that's really easy to say when you play a spec that wouldn't be affected. I'm sure you would care if you were suddenly told that you're losing your raid spot or need to reroll to a class you don't enjoy as much just to maintain your raid spot.

[@DeadnCold]

Question for you. We have had two different experimental Classic Seasons now. Mastery and Discovery. Assuming they continue doing new Seasons, should they keep them strictly in the Classic Era game, or should they move on to other expansions? And what would be the best way they could implement that sort of seasonal content in a game version with 70/80/90 levels?

[@mooninites755]

Check out episode #4 of In Search of Answers from about two months ago, he touches on it there.

[@Sykretts]

The upsides of scaling Mythic down are more than the downsides. A lot of the WoW influencers underestimate the roster boss. The numbers tier on tier speak for themselves. Fewer and Fewer mid to late level mythic kills because a lot of mythic guilds just fall apart or don't even start a tier. In the year 2023 alone, I was part of 8 mythic guilds that disbanded due to roster issues. And i'm just 1 player, exposed to such a large amount of unsustainability, imagine it scaled up to multiple servers. The "challenge" of 20man content is not worth the gatekeeping that happens due to roster issues. It hasn't been since mythic was introduced. Hate to break it to people, but outside the RWF, there really is no prestige, if so few people even play the mode. The same couple hundred mythic guilds play every tier, while most others just dissolve. It's an unhealthy and unsustainable model for wow raiding, and it's directly leading to the shift of players from Raiding to full time M+. I have no hope of them changing the size though because worryingly everyone of influence who can actually make that decision has never openly acknowledged the roster boss and the dwindling numbers in mythic mode. First step to an improvement is acknowledging the error afterall.

[@MichaelWilliams-ph7nn]

Wow, this will sound strange, but man it's cool to hear your voice again. I was a Tank spot/Marmot fan from the beginning. Do you wish you could go back to the easier times. I still listen to Mike B. What's sad with AAA is the way they are now trying to take away your property in ref. to digital content, hell even video. Also it seem now more effort is placed on micro transaction i.e. shops for content that should be awarded for efforts in game, not purchased.

[@enderwiggin-e2y]

Lore. Does your hairstylist just thin out your hair? Real question.

[@briepunkrose]

first

[@MongoIndyleo]

I've been thinking a lot about Quality vs Quality in not just games but all media in general lately. People hated WoD, largely because it didn't have much content. Legion was loved and had a ton of content. Opinions of BfA continue to rise and while its content came slower, it actually had quite a bit of content. Shadowlands didn't have a ton of content and it came slowly and it is very maligned. Dragonflight had a bunch of content, some of it good and some of it meh, but people appreciated all the content and they were disappointed when it was announced that there was no 10.3. Game of Thrones was well-liked in the beginning for a myriad of reasons, but something you will hear about it pretty often is that people appreciated how much time they took to make sure everything was adequately shown. Yet these are the seasons with the lowest production value. Then when you talk about the later seasons of GoT, a common complaint you will hear is that people feel as though everything happened too quickly. This is despite these seasons having the highest production value. Sticking with GoT for a bit longer, it's a bonafide meme that George Martin will never finish ASOIAF which people are endlessly frustrated by, but they also really appreciate the other works that George has put out about the world of Westeros. I'll also mention Fire Emblem briefly. Basically, the FE series was always one that had very frequent entries and in the last half decade or so, the series is at its slowest release pace ever. And the community is very much not happy about this. That is all to say that it seems to me that people want as much content as they can get. They still have standards, of course. They don't want slop. But people seem to forgive the odd bad chapter of ASOIAF or the bad WoW patch as long as the vast majority of the content is solid. When people get mad is when there is just no content or there is bad content. This is all very interesting me because people will almost always say they want quality over quantity. They say they want just a few games a year that they absolutely love and they would rather have a delayed game that is perfect rather than a non-delayed game with some bugs. But in my opinion, people don't actually act that way. The whole stated preference vs revealed preference thing. Do you have thoughts on this? Do you think that creatives should aim more for "lots of good content" or "less content, but amazing content" ? Do you think people actually prefer the latter over the former?