Boy Was I Wrong

Way back when I predicted that *World of Warcraft* would fail.  Probably nobody remembers.  And Google failed to index that page of my old blog, so I could just keep mum, and even if somebody did remember would they be able to find the link?  No.  But here I am, coming clean:  way down at the bottom of the page, here http://gamedevleague.blogspot.com/2003_09_28_gamedevleague_archive.html, I say that *World of Warcraft* will weaken the *Warcraft* brand, because people think *Warcraft* means RTS.

So:  how come an *Everquest* RTS tanks but a *Warcraft* MMO goes ballistic?

Two theories.

One:  *Warcraft* doesn't mean RTS to people, it means games with cool art.

Two:  there are places where line extensions work.  An obvious example is politics.  Actors have incredible mindshare and are pretty much unstoppable forces when they turn to politics.  Even though a lot of people say "I'm not going to vote for an actor!  What do they know about politics?"  so many people say "I haven't even heard of this other guy" that the actor wins.  On the other hand, could a politician go into acting?

Likewise, millions of people play Warcraft.  Even if 4 out of 5 of these people say, "I'm not interested in an MMO by these RTS people," the other 1 out of 5 means 500,000 people, which is huge by MMO standards.  But only 400,000 people play Everquest.  If 4 out of 5 of these people say, "I'm not interested in an RTS by these MMO people," then the Everquest RTS does under 100,000 units.

I like that theory.

In other news, I've been catching up reading other people's blogs, and I can't believe I never came across this one before.  He even quotes me!  There's an ego boost.

And finally, *Spider-Man 2* was nominated for "Outstanding Achievement in Gameplay Engineering" by the AIAS.  I am pleased as hell by this.  That's a much, much cooler nomination than the "Best Voice Over" we got from SPIKE TV;  the category is cooler, the organization giving it is cooler, and it's kind of what we were all about - we were really focused on a new kind of game mechanic, made possible by some clever engineering.  Thanks AIAS!

Comments

[mike]

I think there's still time for Starcraft: Ghost to prove or disprove your rule; WoW might be too much of a special case.

I don't know if line extension is such a bad thing for media properties; appearing in multiple forms may well strengthen them. The Pokemon card game and TV show reinforce instead of dilute the Pokemon brand, as each new facet increases the payoff for memorizing the names and properties of a couple hundred fictional creatures.

Congrats on Spider-Man 2! Y'all deserve it.

[Nathan McKenzie]

I was at a lecture given by Henry Jenkins about a year ago where he was talking at length about the Matrix and the Lord of the Rings. He spoke at length about how he thought that IP generating companies were transitioning from the particular character or story or experience being the brand to the world and mythos and art style becoming the focus of brands, because it's so much easier to extend the brand without damaging it when you're not confined to any particular story or character or experience type...

It was interesting. I'm not not sure what I think of that, ultimately, but it was food for thought. That would support your "Warcraft means cool art" hypthothesis, to a degree.

[Maby]

Em, stop me if I'm being daft here, but couldn't the reason the game sold well be because it's a blooming good game?

[Patrick]

I agree -- line extension works in the world of media properties, but you still have to be true to your brand. The WarCraft brand is tied to the real-time strategy genre, but I think that WoW still fits into what WarCraft means: "making war in a fantasy setting". Plus, WoW doesn't present the player with a totally different style of challenges or gameplay. WC3 was mostly about hero management, and WoW is exclusively about managing your hero (AKA character).

I would argue that a WarCraft first-person shooter would not fit into the brand or the player-base. So I'm obviously skeptical about Starcraft: Ghost. That Starcraft brand is currently weaker than the Warcraft brand, it's a PC brand, and the original game's challenges were not about direct unit control, aiming, sniping, sneaking, etc.

But all of this is moot if the game isn't good. :-)

[Robert 'Groby' Blum]

Gotta agree with Maby - it's the quality of the game that sells. It's an extremely well-excercised MMORPG implementation. And that's what brought in a lot of people I know. Many of them never played any of the WarCraft games. (Insane, but true!)

I think it would behoove us all if we spent less time lamenting "line extensions" and "brand dilution" and instead focused on making fun games. Branding without quality is meaningless for our market - at least as long as the price tag stays fixed.

Apart from that - Congrats for your nomination!

[Jay]

And I too agree with everyone! Cast off the shackles of Scott Miller marketrobabble, Jamie. ;) Any man who can utter the phrase "Boy Was I Wrong" has clearly shown himself to be too mentally agile to fall back on such grandstanding flim-flam.

[m to the vizzah]

Interestingly, the first game design for WC3 was more of a Myth-like squad based game about your hero and his merry band. It got more classically Warcraft/RTS-y as time went on.

m.