The NY Times and WOW
Thanks to DQ reader Steven Boucher for a link to an article in the New York times titled "Conqueror in a War of Virtual Worlds." Here's the link (registration required):http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/arts/design/06worl.html?pagewanted=1.
The article itself has a few interesting nuggets. The first is that while World of Warcraft has over four million subscribers, Everquest II has 450,000-500,000.
Talk about a turnkey ass-kicking. Man! I
The second interesting bit is that everyone is now blaming WOW for the problems of their own shitty games. Look at this:
The troubles of Matrix Online were partly of Warner's own making; many players and critics agree that the game is a mediocre experience. But the online market used to make room for mediocre games. Now, the broader phenomenon is that so many contenders, including Matrix Online, simply cannot stand up to the overwhelming popularity of online gaming's new leviathan: World of Warcraft, made by Blizzard Entertainment, based in Irvine, Calif.
What? We did? I don't remember that. I remember online games being compared to the best in class, and at any point in history, the games that were considered poor compared to their peers failed. I don't think there was ever any room for mediocre game. What's happened now, though, is that World of Warcraft is apparently so polished and so well-done that it's changed the composition of the tiers--instead of multiple online titles in the top tier, there's just WOW.
I guess everyone else is going to have to improve their games. Good.
Here's the best part of the article, though--a classic quote by research analyst Michael Pachter. If you ever wanted conclusive proof of how absolutely clueless Wall Street still is about gaming and it's cultural role in the future, just check this out:
"I don't think there are four million people in the world who really want to play online games every month," said Michael Pachter, a research analyst for Wedbush Morgan, a securities firm. "World of Warcraft is such an exception. I frankly think it's the buzz factor, and eventually it will come back to the mean, maybe a million subscribers."
"It may continue to grow in China," Mr. Pachter added, "but not in Europe or the U.S. We don't need the imaginary outlet to feel a sense of accomplishment here. It just doesn't work in the U.S. It just doesn't make any sense."
Dude, there are already over four million people who play online games every month. I guarantee there are over ten million people worldwide right now who play fee-based online games (he somehow forgot Korea). In five years, that number will be over twenty million. Within five years (at most), a single game will have over ten million players. Party like it's 1999, Mr. Pachter, because that's apparently where your office is located.
If I ever get a research report from Wedbush Morgan after reading this spectacular gaffe, I know where it's going. It's the same place I put the coffee grounds and banana peels.
<< Home