It’s a while this topic isn’t discussed and I take the occasion from a discussion on a forum (the GMG thread again) to bring this up again.

We are also close to the anniversary of the great analysis on “levels” that Raph wrote a year ago, and the long discussion that sprang from it. This was also tied to my further analysis (this is how MMORPGs die) that also led to the comments here below.

—

I do believe that Blizzard has focused on retention AND new player influx more then any other company really has, but thats saying a lot because they’ve also designed their game around new players vs. veterans.

At all.

Let’s be honest. WoW has an unexpected player retention but this is due to two main reasons:

1- WoW is “king of the hill”, and that fact alone assures a good retention and constant influx of new players. And this fact won’t change till WoW won’t have a serious competitor (and it won’t happen anytime soon).
2- The good retention the game still has is NOT due to what Blizzard did from release till today, but the great work on the “accessibility” that was done BEFORE release.

For example something that I repeat from *years* is that a soloable game usually ages better in the longer term as it can depend less on the presence of other players at the lower levels.

But despite WoW has a very good retention, it is still a clone of a model that is PREDESTINED to a decline. This is a rule.

A game world based on THAT model can die more or less slowly, but the fact that it WILL die is assured.

—
In particular I want to underline that “point 1” doesn’t depend on WoW’s game design worth, but just on a moment of the market.

While “point 2” is surely a WoW’s quality. Today the importance of soloable content is widely accepted everywhere, but it is often misinterpreted on its real meaning. Soloable content IS NOT important because there are players who prefer to play alone and that preference should be respected. That’s irrelevant, the least important aspect that is often seen as the main one.

The importance of soloable content doesn’t depend on a “preference”, but on the side-effects that forced grouping brings. The problem isn’t that some players dislike grouping, the problem is that EVERY player dislikes, for example, to sit LFG for a long period of time because he cannot progress in the game without a group. And maybe he has to sit LFG for a long time WITH a group because they cannot find an healer (and this is an example of a problem of game design that I did try to solve *radically* on this website with concrete ideas). The players don’t refuse force grouping, but they just don’t accept to have some time available only to see it wasted because they depend on other players. What is “punishing” and that was rewarded in soloable games that eliminated it, is the *dependence*.

So, if you could design a game where forced grouping can happen without side-effects, then you can also have a game with forced grouping that is largely successful. Today we have learnt that the solution isn’t forced grouping, but “favored” grouping. Where “favored” doesn’t mean that you put better incentives on grouping (like an exp bonus), but that you give the players better tools so that they can meet and play together more easily, with less burdens. For example by giving players the possibility to summon their friends (that WoW does with a warlock ability), or by giving them better LFG tools (that WoW still lacks today). Or by working on “permeable barriers” + “gated content”.

The key is removing the barriers, instead of building new ones.

And even in all these cases it is still a matter of “accessibility”. That’s the keyword of WoW’s success. That’s the word that defines WoW’s success. It is often mistaken as “polish”, but polish is important only in the measure it makes the game more accessible.

For example an interface is usually considered good when it is intuitive and simple to use. We can assume that a well polished interface IS intuitive and simple to use, but the “polish” is not the relevant trait. Because what really *matters* is the accessibility of that interface.

MMORPGs in general, but also MUDs, had a LONG story of user UNfriendly-ness. That’s the habit that WoW broke and that’s the real major key in WoW’s success.

The rest are a myriad of details, all with their own importance but also all subordinate to the “accessibility”.

P.S.
Also notice that this thing about the “accessibility” isn’t just my own fixation. There are games out there who made the accessibility their MAIN marketing strategy. Think for example to Guild Wars and their major decision to not require a credit card. This is again a case that falls in the field of accessibility.

There are aspects of the accessibility that are external to the game. Like this case about the credit card or the hardware requirements. But there are also aspects internal to the game and that are competence of game design, some of which I considered in the link above about permeable barriers.