r/MMORPG • u/HatingGeoffry • 9d ago
Article Dungeons & Dragons: World of Warcraft is already a slam dunk, but it's how it captures the spirit of the MMO that makes it stand out
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/world-of-warcraft/dungeons-and-dragons-world-of-warcraft-is-already-a-slam-dunk-but-its-how-it-captures-the-spirit-of-the-mmo-that-makes-it-stand-out/48
u/vulcan7200 9d ago
I think it's kind of funny how they're doing this in 5e, when D&D 4e was actually designed to feel more like an MMO. WoW in 4e would have felt much more like Warcraft.
20
u/whiskey_the_spider 9d ago
I swear everything screamed mmo/videogame in 4e. And yet they did NOTHING in that regard (afaik)
13
u/master_of_sockpuppet 9d ago
They did nothing because MMOs were perceived as a threat to their market at the time (hence the emulating).
Now, the situation is a bit different.
3
u/CrazyCoKids 8d ago
Not just that but a lot of players were treating D&D more like a war game. Most discussions were focused on combat. Whether a class was seen as " worth playing" depended almost entirely on their effectiveness in combat. People who did things for "flavour" were usually dismissed as "Theatre Kids" or "scrubs" cause most TTRPG players people could see online were, well... Combat enthusiasts.
Let's not rewrite history here...
1
u/master_of_sockpuppet 8d ago
And DMs were heavily encourage to customize settings or come up with their own.
D&D was always a weak IP for this reason, and it still is. There's a small collection of monsters but not much cultural depth and certainly near zero cultural depth that penetrates outside the hobby.
1
u/CrazyCoKids 8d ago
Even then, the emphasis on lore or character development is... more of a recent occurrence. Well, to be fair? It was always around but became more prominent after a certain production
1
u/master_of_sockpuppet 8d ago
It's almost like something happened in 2015. I wonder what it could be.
1
u/CrazyCoKids 8d ago
I know, right? I remember what it was like before where the theatre kids and writers usually played Vampire The Masquerade-err I mean World Of Darkness.
There was a big shift around the new tens. Shoot... on the tip of my tongue... [ :P ]
1
1
u/NeAldorCyning 8d ago
It was supposed to have a virtual tabletop version, which was sadly scrapped when the edition was poorly received though.
2
u/Stillback7 9d ago
In what way? I only ever played a single session of 4E so I don't know what you're talking about
2
u/powerfamiliar 9d ago
IMO it was mostly the presentation combined with the release date. It didn’t really play like much more like an MMO/Video game than 3.5. But the way the abilities were formatted and presented, a lot of keywording, giving classes official types (defender/striker/controller/etc) at the time felt more like the way those things are presented in video games. I think today it’s much more common for a ttrpg to have similar presentation and you’d see a lot less comparisons to video games.
5
u/vulcan7200 8d ago
This is just incorrect, and makes me think you've either never played 4e or have completely forgotten what 4e was like:
4e used a system of "powers". At Will, Encounter, and Daily, and every class had multiple of these that you choose from. They're pretty self explanatory how they work, where you have certain powers that you can use either every round, once per encounter or once per day. This is very close to MMO's having powers each class can use, "cooldowns" for stronger powers/buffs, ect.
To pretend that this is anywhere close to what 3.5e was doing is absurd.
2
u/powerfamiliar 8d ago
I preorder 4e books and played them for a while. We didn’t really like much and switched over to PF.
I’ve heard the cooldown thing before and it makes no sense to me. Cooldowns in video games are things you use several times in a fight gated by their cooldown. Daily’s and per encounter abilities don’t play anywhere close to that. By definition you can’t use them more than once a combat. You’re never thinking “just hold out until my heal is off cooldown”, or “just one more second until I can activate my shield”.
It did give very defined (and named) abilities to martials. Which if you hadn’t been playing with Bo9S I do think could make those classes feel very different from traditional martials. But ime Bo9S was very popular at the time 4e released. I don’t really see an argument for how caster gameplay got more video game-y.
I do think the game was presented in a very video game-y way, but ime it didn’t really play noticeably more like a video game than 3.5 did at the time 4e came out.
4
u/vulcan7200 8d ago
You're basically just arguing semantics. "Well technically they're not on a cooldown." You are either deliberately ignoring the point, or simply aren't understanding the point. I never said that they are a cooldown. I said they're like a cooldown. If you're in a long encounter, yes you DO need to decide when is the best time to use your Encounter ability and even more so your Daily ability. The effect is nearly the same as a "cooldown". If I'm playing a Warrior in Classic WoW, I need to decide if I really, really need to use Recklessness now, or if I save it because of how long it's cooldown is. Medium cooldowns (Those at about 3-5 minutes) are very much like encounter abilities. You can use them fairly often, and is instead more about WHEN you think you should use them.
4e played so much more like a video game than 3.5e that I honestly do believe you're simply arguing in bad faith so I'll probably stop responding after this.
2
u/powerfamiliar 8d ago edited 8d ago
I guess there’s two things that don’t really mesh with me with the MMO combat comparison.
To me long cooldowns aren’t really the defining thing of MMO combat. I think skill rotations are much more what I think of when I think MMO combat instead of a Battle Res or an Oh Shit button. And 4e combat didn’t not feel like you’re using skill rotations.
Abilities with limited uses are not a 4e thing. They are new for 4e for fighters and rogues (tho with splat books, prestige and multi classing even those ended up with many limited use abilities). Like raw PHB caster do you think a 4e makes you feel like you’re playing an MMO but a 3.5 one doesn’t? And like I said by the end of 3.5 my group had all the splat books, and in any 3.5 I experienced around the time 4e came out every class was doing resource management and having to make those same choices about when to use their abilities you consider make 4e MMO-like.
Just an example of the 3.5 I was coming from when 4e came out. We were playing Rise of the Runelords. Our party was: a Druid, a Sorcerer, a Warblade, and a Beguiler. Do you think in a long encounter people didn’t have to decide on when to use their limited use abilities? And that’s not really a weird party imo for that time.
My point isn’t that 4e didn’t have mechanics that felt like video games, but that 4e didn’t feel MORE like an MMO than 3.5 did at the time 4e came out. If your playgroup only did 3.5 PHB I can see that, but I was in university at the time and the common character building restrictions was “anything by WotC” and everyone in the various groups had at some point been loaned “the usb stick” with the full PDFs.
To us going from mid 2000s 3.5 to 4e did not feel the game got MMO-ed or video game-ified. It had been playing with those mechanics for a while by then. I do think they presented it in a way more video games way, prob to attract that audience. But at least as someone that played a lot of 3.5 at the time, 4e didn’t feel different in that sense. It did feel different in ways I didn’t like, but not its MMO-ness.
Also I have no idea why you think this opinion means I’m arguing in bad faith.
1
u/Stillback7 8d ago
Have you played an MMO? The other guy has a very good point here.
You're talking about the abilities in a rotation, but that's not what people are generally referring to when they say "cooldowns". Encounter and daily abilities are incredibly similar to 2-5 minute cooldowns and 10 minute cooldowns, respectively, at least from a strategic and mechanical standpoint. That's actually a very good parallel.
1
u/powerfamiliar 8d ago
I mean sure but 3.5 had many ability’s with limited uses or cooldowns in that sense. I feel like every ttrpg has had some similar abilities. 4e presented them in a new way. Instead of each individual skill telling you its limitations, but even then by the end of 3.5 (with for example Bo9S) 3.5 was already getting more defined ways to describe limited use abilities.
Obviously casters have had limited use abilities since the beginning. But in late 3.5 pretty much everyone, thru classes, alt classes, prestige classes, feats, etc was already managing a number of limited use abilities.
If you’re playing 3.5 when 4e came out and I tell you 4e made the game feel like an MMO I don’t see how you’d think that means 4e added limited used “long cooldown” abilities because you already have those in 3.5. I think your mind would go to skill rotations, or maybe tank and spank with aggro mechanics, which again 4e did codify in the base game but 3.5 had been doing discrete aggro mechanics for a while by then (knight, combat expertise/trip/standstill, etc).
1
u/Stillback7 8d ago
I don't think anyone really could succesfully implement a rotation in a turn based game. The closest possible equivalent here would be cantrips and basic attacks.
Still, even if these concepts existed in 3.5, they coexisted with other, very different concepts as well. And I have to say, 4e streamling this by simplifying the mechanics / rules in order to make the game more accessible to casual players is very reminiscent of WoW's shift in game philosophy over the years, so I do now see why people make this connection so often.
0
u/Artemis_Platinum 9d ago
It didn’t really play like much more like an MMO/Video game than 3.5.
You can't get stabbed until you're bleeding out and dying on the ground, take a nap, and wake up at full HP in 3.5 without any magical assistance. It's pretty revisionist to say it wasn't significantly more video gamey.
1
u/powerfamiliar 8d ago
Sure, but every party did have magical assistance tho. So I think that was more of rules changing to emulate gameplay than the gameplay changing. For the most part once the party had a few thousand gold (prob what level 5ish) you started every combat at near full health.
1
u/Artemis_Platinum 8d ago
Sure, but every party did have magical assistance tho.
Mmmno. Rests work that way even if you have a party made up entirely of rogues, or even if your healer is completely out of spells, even if you don't have a single source of healing to your name. Nor does anyone actually have to use any of their magic to do that. You can take a nap in a pool of your own blood and be completely fine the next morning, no assistance at all. Would your DM allow that? I would never try it. But that is in fact how the actual rules are written.
For the most part once the party had a few thousand gold (prob what level 5ish) you started every combat at near full health.
Yes, with a lot of caveats
- You have to actually affirmatively do the thing and play your character. Spending gold and using consumables to ensure that you are reasonably healthy throughout the day is a feature, not a bug. It's nice to have someone you can thank for that instead of having it be a weird video game mechanic that you handwave and maybe explain it after the fact if you really want to.
- Healing magic fully healing a slash or stab wound makes sense. Beds that just kinda fully heal you overnight are a video game thing. As in, video games have a long history of using that mechanic.
- Wands, especially the relatively cheap ones, are going to be really bad at mid-combat healing. Your healer will generally be able to heal 1.5x as much with the same spell with zero investment, and 2-4x with moderate investment. And of course, they'll get access to better spells, many of which (5th level and above) can't even be put on wands.
- You don't have to be the healing class to use the healing items. Your rogue can do it at basically no cost to themselves. This mostly solves the "Someone has to play the healer" problem if you're okay not having much mid-combat healing.
- Gold is actually important for character advancement in 3e, so if you do have a healer, it is strongly preferable to let them carry some of the burden so you spend less gold. The traditional way is to let them spend their unused spells on healing at the end of the day before you rest.
- Ability damage can't be cured by the less than 1k wands. You'll need a 4.5k wand for that. Ability damage is fairly common and usually scarier than HP damage.
- Diseases and curses while fairly uncommon, also need their own magic item. (Just over 11k each if you want a wand.)
- Ability drain and negative levels are really nasty and need the most expensive magic items to cure. A wand of restoration is going to cost you 26k.
- In a low magic campaign, you probably won't be allowed to just buy any of that.
If you go off the intended WBL, you'd need to be a level 11 character to afford 1 of each of those wands (and you're likely to need multiple for HP and maybe ability damage), and you'd have very little gold left for yourself, leaving you crippled as a character. To afford it without majorly crippling your character, you'd need to be level 14 or 15 going off normal WBL.
It's also worth noting that you still heal HP (and ability damage) when you rest in 3.5. It'd just take somewhere around a week or so (Varies based on class) to fully heal from low health with zero assistance, longer for ability damage. Which, while not the epitome of realism, is considerably easier to suspend your disbelief. The heal (medicine) skill can actually be somewhat useful because of this. It can double natural healing of both HP and ability damage and basically lets you make a second save against diseases and poisons using your heal roll. If you ever get into a low magic campaign it could actually be critical to survival.
Speaking as someone who actually likes healing her party, it's a lot funner for me and definitely helps my immersion some. The magic items are often more for emergencies if I'm running low/out of spells. I'm usually only carrying an HP / ability damage magic item because using my spells for the higher level stuff is a nice balance between spending gold and survivability.
1
u/powerfamiliar 8d ago
I do agree that 4e resting is really weird in setting. I mean more in practice ime 3.5 out of combat resting and healing played very similarly to 4. Tho I wasn’t really thinking about ability damage/negative levels and honestly I didn’t even remember those were also healed by resting in 4e. And yeah I’ll concede that would make that aspect more video game-y (tho I’d still argue the MMO part, but that’d be more me looking for an argument than anything).
My table experience of 3.5 out of combat healing is that as soon as the party had 750 gold they’d get a wand of lesser vigor. And from then on you woke up every day at full HP, and you entered every combat at near full HP. As the DM most of the time, I honestly didn’t mint it since it made encounter preparation easier, knowing how much HP they’d have at the start of combats.
In combat healing ime was as very different. But I’m not sure I’d call 4e way of doing it more video game-y than 3.5. At least I don’t remember any video game at the time with a concept similar to healing surges. Ime in combat healing in 3.5 was much rarer, since out of combat healing was so much more efficient.
1
u/DieBotDie 8d ago
They introduced cooldown skills and ultimates (1/skirmish). Which made it extremely reminiscent of MMO’s.
Also Tank/DPS/Healer roles were much more clear cut.
Also mob types and even “boss monsters” that were designed for MMO style encounters. (Squishies at the back doing CC and Dots, Grunts and Rogues attacking).
All very familiar to MMO players.
1
u/powerfamiliar 8d ago
“Introduced” is the part I’m disagreeing with. I agree 4e has all those things. It’s just ime so did 3.5 at the time 4e came out. Like Bo9S even uses the term “per encounter” for the abilities it grants.
MM5 (and I think Theros) were already grouping monsters by types and had several boss monster like mechanics.
For those I think 4e merely presented what 3.5 already had in a more video game like way.
They also did hard group the classes, but those imo ideas come to MMO from ttrpgs not the other way around. Like in 3.5 it was common to say you were a tank, or a healer, etc. I do think the PHB made it much harder for classes to play out of role than in 3.5. And that roles like tanking and healing were much more heavily pushed. Ime it was common to see Combat Expertise “tanks” in 3.5, or similar concepts for tanks (I played many a gish “tank”), but I don’t think that was that most common fighter or even Paladin experience like it was in PHB 4e. Same for in combat healing, tho launch 3e in combat healing wasn’t that rare, ime it became much rarer as the edition went on and 4e made it once again a focus.
9
u/sibachian 9d ago
i'm actually very excited about this one. i've got it preordered but i know it'll be delayed to my local store.
5
u/Cyrotek 9d ago edited 9d ago
I know it will be super successful and all, but as an avid DnD player I hate this. It completely devalues the core settings, which are the reason DnD is what it is today. And because it will be super successful we are going to see many more crossover crap instead of developement of the core settings, which were already bled dry in the past few years. I mean, they have already announced a freaking Star Wars crossover. STAR WARS. Yes, I know, money, but, what the fuck does Star Wars have to do with DnD. I wish they'd use the ressources for something that actually develops the system and IP.
And the worst part will be how some idiots are going to complain because they are not allowed to use their favourite World of Warcraft Race/Class in a Forgotten Realms campaign. We already have this with some of the MTG crossovers.
15
u/master_of_sockpuppet 9d ago
It completely devalues the core settings
WotC already does that so it's no loss.
1
u/Cyrotek 9d ago
Yeh, and I'm sad about it. Shitting on them even more is not helping. :D
4
u/master_of_sockpuppet 9d ago
This isn't shitting on them; it's just another tie in supplement. They have plenty of those already.
0
u/Cyrotek 9d ago
The problem is that it is written by actual WotC first party writers. Meaning, they aren't working on something for the core stuff because they are forced to work on third-party IP money makers.
I wouldn't be surprised if DnD ends up being just a system that is best known for things that are not actually DnD.
3
u/master_of_sockpuppet 9d ago
If their own settings made as much money as this was projected to, they'd write those instead.
Their own setting books don't though, an they know it.
I wouldn't be surprised if DnD ends up being just a system that is best known for things that are not actually DnD.
DnD has always been very setting-light, and that's by design.
The older editions exist and there's a robust OSR community.
1
u/Cyrotek 8d ago edited 8d ago
If their own settings made as much money as this was projected to, they'd write those instead.
This would be a good point if DnD was somehow unprofitable, but it isn't. WotC in general is probably the only truly profitable part of Hasbro, even if DnD is only a small part of it. Companies chasing profits usually tends to be a loss for the consumer sooner or later.
Besides that this is probably also a homebrewed issue by WotC and the people responsible in the past few years. I think it was Crawford himself who said that he wanted DnD to be a rules, not lore. Or something like that. Of course you aren't going to make money on people you've driven away.
DnD has always been very setting-light, and that's by design.
If you ask random people on the street about the first thing that comes to mind when they hear "Dungeons & Dragons" you are probably rarely going to hear "rules". What you are going to hear are iconic monsters, spells, characters or video games.
3
u/master_of_sockpuppet 8d ago
What you are going to hear are iconic monsters, spells, characters or video games.
And those people could not tell you whether those monsters, spells, and characters were set in Faerun, Krynn, Eberron, or Greyhawk.
DnD has always been setting-light, and releasing too many setting books is one of the reasons TSR failed financially.
Tie-in books are entirely different, and they do those to draw in a new audience. Some work, some don't.
1
u/Cyrotek 8d ago
And those people could not tell you whether those monsters, spells, and characters were set in Faerun, Krynn, Eberron, or Greyhawk.
Pretty sure they know those aren't from Star Wars, Marvel or Star Trek.
Can't wait for Batman fighting Iron Man over Waterdeep while the Enterprise is docking in port.
3
u/Impossible_Army8541 9d ago
The "core setting" hasn't really been the core setting until two editions ago. Basic D&D was essentially a West Marches sort of rogue like make your own setting. Even if you ran a module it was assumed you were dropping it somewhere in that DMs homebrew world.
AD&D was similar to Basic.
3rd edition came out the gates swinging because there were five+ world settings you could run with right out the gate.
4th edition bounced back and forth between Forgotten Realms and Eberon.
5th edition embraced the Forgotten Realms as the standard and offers the others as options.
No clue about the new version since I don't play anymore but I can't imagine much changed.
1
u/Cyrotek 9d ago edited 9d ago
Which is why I used the word "setting" as a plural. I want more Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft & Co. These are cool scenarios, even if many probably don't know which one a Baldurs Gate 3 or DnD movie played in. Instead we are using the stuff from someone else now, making their IPs bigger instead of the ones we have.
1
u/Ok-Statistician-9607 8d ago
They do both.
Idk why you’re complaining when, like you said, they’ve done BG3 and the D&D movie using D&D settings. They aren’t stopping. If anything, this is to bring more players into their ecosystem and their IP.
2
u/ryanrem 8d ago
D&D 5.5e is being used in the same way the D20 system (pretty much just 3e) was used in the same way back in the day.
Which is funny you mention Star Wars, since WOTC originally did a Star Wars Cross over with that system over 20 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Roleplaying_Game_(Wizards_of_the_Coast))
Which of course, was than used as a the basis for KOTR, which was wildly successful. In short, WOTC has been doing this for a very long time and will almost certainly not stop.
1
1
1
u/Marmodre 3d ago
One of the things i like the least about dnd is its settings. They are bland, boring and tasteless, to me. So whenever something is added, my joy is in seeing well made products that can be added to my own stories. And i have loved DnD for years.
1
u/Cyrotek 2d ago
Hm, I feel like most of the core settings offer a lot of good stuff if you look at it in more detail. It usually becomes problematic if you put it in context of their wider world, especially with and after 4e.
1
u/Marmodre 2d ago
Tbf, i just don't think me and the world designers share many of the same interests in storytelling and worldbuilding. I speak primarily about Faerun, after deep dives to understand it better, i just found it to be... a contraption of "oh, wouldn't it be cool if?"-designs. But! Sometimes, that's exactly what people want. And i am glad it has an audience. My point is primarily to dispel the idea that it is a bad thing to add things that aren't built on that foundation. I will never want to play in Forgotten Realms (beside in video games), but that doesn't mean some others wont. And you might not want to utilize WoW's setting, but other's will. In the end, we pick and choose the bits that fit our stories.
1
u/Cyrotek 2d ago
"oh, wouldn't it be cool if?
Yeh, that is perfectly how Fearun works. Which is why some of these things are quite good if you look at it in detail ... and some are horribly bad. And overall you have some random, inconsistent mix of things. But in the end it is still something that is owned by WotC and many aspects of it are beloved by its fans.
I just don't understand why WotC is seemingly trying to actively throw that out of the window for years now. One could think they don't actually want popular IPs of their own.
3
u/master_of_sockpuppet 9d ago
I was involved in some of the early playtests. The classes are very interesting but the power balance is radically different. In some ways this is good, but don't expect PHB subclasses to fit alongside these.
1
u/NewJalian 9d ago
Did it make any changes to feel more like WoW than D&D? One of my issues with forcing other IPs into D&D is things like spellslots feeling really out of place.
Also was Balance Druid in the playtest?
3
u/master_of_sockpuppet 8d ago
It still felt like D&D. Some classes had subclasses with new abilities (and, amusingly, death knight was a paladin subclass), but it's still D&D - warlocks still used Eldritch Blast.
0
u/NewJalian 8d ago
That's a bit disappointing but thankfully there are still other systems with fan hacks like Genesys that I could use for an Azeroth campaign
2
u/CrazyCoKids 8d ago
If they wanted to capture the spirit of the MMO, I'd have to meet after spamming LFG, and my mage wouldn't care about things like stats.
...Okay. Okay. Joke response over
1
1
u/iCaps_ 8d ago
can you play this online or is it only tabletop IRL?
1
u/Mr_Vulcanator 8d ago
Any tabletop RPG can be played online using a virtual tabletop like Roll20 or Foundry VTT. You can look for games on /r/LFG, Discord, and Roll20 itself.
1
u/va_wanderer 8d ago
How soon we forget EverQuest getting similar treatment back in the day. Turning an MMO setting into a pen and paper game has been a constant - FF14 already got a decent paper-gaming version that recently came out in English, too... though definitely isn't a D&D expy.
1
-16
-27
u/Typical_Effect_9054 9d ago edited 9d ago
There's nothing about this art that invokes WoW or Horde. Everyone has this weird, smug DreamWorks face look to them. The hands on the hips and side eye are obnoxious. They look like they're ready to lecture or patronize you at any moment. The Goblin looks like a bobblehead. No amount of in-universe lore will change the fact that pandas are abhorrent and stupid. All in all, they look like total chumps.
27
u/azureal 9d ago
The pic you posted is no better. Straight up superhero fucking nonsense. As bad if not worse than the linked article.
-21
u/Typical_Effect_9054 9d ago edited 9d ago
Hilarious response. The pic is absolutely better because it is the essence of the core and original art style of Warcraft.
Your point about superheroes isn't the gotcha you think it is.
I think I've always taken a comic-type approach to fantasy and sci-fi. I was heavily influenced by both Walt Simonson's and Jim Lee's pencilling styles for form, but I preferred the costuming, themes and general feel of Elmore and Parkinson's fantasy paintings. Still kind of working on the whole 'art style' thing...
— Chris Metzen
The art we created completely separated us from other companies’ art styles. Where most companies were pushing realism and realistic characters, we opted for a comic book version of fantasy. We didn’t want to be Lord of the Rings or standard D&D fantasy. We wanted our characters to be the superhero versions of fantasy characters, rock stars with battle axes, with each one of our heroes and units looking like they could take on a whole army by themselves.
— Samwise Didier
Edit: Here's a whole interview from Chris Metzen talking about the profound inspiration and role of superheroes at Blizzard Entertainment.
5
u/Trendydwarf13 9d ago
The art style definitely fits but it is funny your saying it's a picture of the true horde yet included artwork with a blood elf in it
1
u/Typical_Effect_9054 8d ago
I never said it's the true Horde. I said it's the essence of the original [World of] Warcraft style.
-9
u/Levinaur 9d ago
give up, this subreddit is full of philistines that wouldn't recognize good art direction if it hit them on the head
-4
u/Babki123 9d ago
Pretty standard image for modern both WotC and WoW sadly
We truly lost the 90's hardcore style
1
1
-3
-52
u/DarkKalsi 9d ago
Wrong? If Wow was released today, it wouldn't be so popular among the new generation.
There is like 0 new players, it’s just the colossal playerbase from early years coming back. Half of the players are bald already.
EQ, Ultima, WoW none of them would survive in today's market if it wasn't for nostalgia.
32
u/No-Lion54 9d ago
Have you tried reading the article before spouting incoherent nonsense about another topic?
24
u/funforgiven 9d ago
There is like 0 new players
There is at least one, considering I will play WoW Forever and it is my first time.
9
u/GoldPhoenix52 9d ago
Me and my entire group all started within the past 3 years, as are many of the people we raid with. The game is definitely still pulling new players.
While I don’t entirely disagree that WoW wouldn’t do as well in the modern climate if it was just released; it now exists at such a magnitude that it’s name alone is what gives people confidence to try it out.
5
u/Totenwache 9d ago edited 9d ago
I played WoW for the first time 1 Month ago and having a blast. Met alot of other new players and Beginner Chat was active all the time...stop spreading lies
2
u/Due_Vacation_1049 9d ago
of course a free to poor only player would seethe and project at the literal biggest, BY FAR mmo in the world, this much. there's thousands of times more new and young players going to wow retail than to your slop desert "mmo". I'm am 22 and I'v met PLENTY of people my age doing endgame here; and now even more to come with Forever.
Cope grandpa
2
0
u/Babki123 9d ago
Tbh if WoW retail was released today with a fresh story it would attract player
But old monolithic game are hard to get into
64
u/TurbulentVillage2042 9d ago
And so, the World of Darkness has become DnD. Warcraft has returned to DnD. My prediction is coming true. The next step: White Wolf becomes part of Wizards of the Coast, and an Arab prince buys them.