Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-06-2009 @ 4:35PM
Bigfish said...
You can't really BEAT WoW. Not in under a year. Aside from a lack of a clear cut victory condition, there's nothing that is building up anticipation to the point of even holding a candle to Warcraft.
Now, if we're talking initial sales, or subscription growth rates, something MIGHT have a chance, but no one is going to surpass 11.5 million subscriptions in the space of 12 months, and honestly, I don't expect it to happen until Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 come out.
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 5:33PM
Candina@WH said...
A reasonable arguement, 'what defines beating WoW?'
I would submit that a WoW killer:
1.) Must, at a minimum follow, preferably exceed, WoWs user base growth. At 6, 12, 18, and 24 months it must have as many or more users as WoW did at the same time.
2.) It must give me a 'this is amazing!' moment. WoW didn't, in the early day (WoW Year 1), but the interface, content and cooperative play eventually won me over. (you know that moment, when instances became MORE FUN than soloing, that moment ;-) ).
3.) It has to slow Blizzards growth, at worst, at best it has to canibalize WoWs player base.
If a game can achieve those goals it is a WoW killer.
The current batch of pretenders will be lucky to still be online at 36 months post launch (except maybe WAR and LOTR).
Especially with the current economic conditions. I expect that peoples purchasing of new games, and especially new games requiring monthly subscriptions, will take a dip in 2009.
Still, I'd rather have WoW than cable, for what it's worth.