Brad speaks on the casual player debate again....

Mkopec1 · 08-31-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

I've posted several times in the past over the whole casual vs core vs raid issue -- if you haven't read those posts, please try to.

Now, I'm going to go somewhere I don't like going, and that's being critical of a competitor (or at lesat, what could be construed that way -- I certainly have nothing but respect for the guys at Blizzard, and I also truly think that, based on what WoW was meant to do, that it's a great game).

Blizzard targetted more casual gamers, and one of the ways they did this was to design the game with very fast character advancement. Looking at their success, this most certainly worked (although this is one of several factors, all of which IMHO were brilliant planning on their part assuming the business model I think they were going after).

Along with very quick leveling, they also knew they had to make a lot of content because that content would be devoured quickly, even by more casual games.

The question is, how long did they mean for the average player to subscribe? What if they were looking at things more from a single player perspective, that people will quit after some time, and then buy the next expansion even if that means there is a gap?

It works with single player games. You finish the game and if it was good and the game did well, you look forward to buying the expansion or sequel and in the meantime play other new gams that are coming out.

I don't know how MMOG players will react, though. I think a lot of people want to keep playing contiguously with new content being added at a decent frequency. Sure, the power gamers always run out of content too early, but the priority is to expand the game not too often, nor too late, and to keep your core playerbase happy.

Or at least this is what we tried to do with EQ, and what most MMOGs have done.

This all leads to just how quickly advancement should be. The easy answer is a sweet spot between tedious and too easy and quick. The difficulty lies in the fact that that sweet spot varies depending on the player. This is why I think it's so important to identify your target audience and then stick to your guns. You can't please everyone all of the time, but I do think you can keep most of your players relatively happy.

With WoW I really see a different approach. I don't know if it's a big concern on their end if some percentage of gamers are running out of content. One could even argue that if someone quits before they are too attached to an MMOG, they leave much happier and much more likely to buy your next product. Conversely, many who leave an MMOG after several years don't leave so happy because regardless of what made them finally leave, they still feel an attachment to the game because of how long they played it. If this is true, than I don't see why many WoW players wouldn't just move on to another game for a while and then buy the expansion whenever it comes out.

Again, this is speculation, and it's also not criticism. How to make a game for the more casual player has been a problem MMOG developers have been faced with for quite some time. Many of the retention mechanisms that work with core and hard core gamers seem to turn off some casuals. It's a bit of a catch-22. So time will tell if Blizzard's different strategy is a good one. Certainly they deserve credit for reaching out to so many people and growing this gamespace immensely. They are also, to my knowledge, the first to bridge the gap between the West and Asia. MMOG developers on both sides of the pond have been struggling with how to design a game that is appealing in both regions. We've failed. The Koreans have failed. But now look at Blizzard... they're even getting a foothold into China.

Obviously, we're not making WoW and nor did we have similar goals and a similar business plan when it comes to Vanguard. Some people call WoW and EQ-clone, but look carefully at the differences that do exist. I think they're very key.

We feel that our target audience wants a more challenging game, and one that will keep them interested for months and years. Jeff's quote also indicates that this is also moreso the type of game that we personally want to play (although I know for a fact that he had a blast leveling up to max in WoW (and CoH for that matter)).

Now comes the controversial stuff, if I've not already gone past that line in the sand.

How does the developer design a game to keep people around for months and years. I will tell you as fact, even though we've been accused otherwise, we don't put in time sinks and boring grinds just to frustrate people but still somehow keep them around. Nobody here, both personally and professionaly, wants to frustrate people, much less implement mechanics or content just to annoy.

The solution is to make the journey through the levels fun. It shouldn't feel like a treadmill. You shouldn't feel you have to grind, or have no choice but to grind. But that's much easier said than done. I think we have some great ideas and so far, at least for myself, I don't feel a treadmill or grind at all. But then I'm not everybody, and I know that. This is why we've comitted to having casual, group and raid content, even though we are open about Vaguard being more challenging relative to most recently released MMOGs.

One of the big things is content. The faster the character advances, the faster content is devoured. I've heard accounts from several people that they only saw some major dungeons in WoW a couple of times before they out leveled the area. That said, I think they put a lot of effort into making sure there was a lot of content and rewards, compensating pretty well for the quicker advancement.

We are comitted to making the game as fun as possible and for people to enjoy leveling up and not feel like they just need to grind to see the end game. That means a lot of work and also some hopefully innovative ideas. I honesty believe we're pulling it off, though.

But here's my last controversial blab:

Some people simply demand character advancement to be at a certain pace. I don't criticize them at all (although they criticize us, and call other players catasses). I'll be blunt: not sure if Vanguard will be for them, though we'll try nontheless. The term casual gamer can mean so many things. It can mean my grandma who is not really a gamer at all. It can mean someone who loves these games but only has so much time to spend in-game. It can mean people who prefer to solo and don't care as much for grouping. It can mean those who do not enjoy playing a game with others who have more time or comiment and watching them level more quickly, experience more areas, acquire more loot, etc. This latter group demands to experience it all too, just as much as the power gamer does.

Vanguard, as I've said countless times, is primarily targeting the core gamer. We can argue about what that means, but to me it's the people who really enjoyed playing games like EQ, and enjoyed playing them for a long time. some asert that these people no longer exist, and that EQ was only so successful because they had no other choices and perhaps didn't yet realize that they were not really having fun. Obviously, we disagree.

But we are also targeting more casual gamers (and raiders). But not my grandma, and probably not the type of person who simply cannot tolerate watching others achive more quickly than them. Those who prefer to solo, yes, you'll be able to solo or play in smaller groups and still achive. Those who don't have as much time, especially long contiguous chunks of time, Vanguard will hopefully be for you as well. Long epic tasks don't have to be contiguous. They can be broken up. I think MMOGs can do a lot better here.

So that's it. We think we can make a game that is compelling for years without making it seem too much like a treadmill or a grind. will we execute flawlessly? I doubt it, but we've learned a lot, especially identifying mechanics or other situations that are time sinks but really don't add anything to the game. In the past, we've made mistakes in this area. As I've posted before, there are a lot of areas where we had downtime that was excessive and/or unnecessary. There were also situations where people felt compelled to do the more boring thing to advance more quickly instead of what would have been more fun. We VERY much want to avoid this with Vanguard and learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.

I covered a lot. Plase don't hesitate to ask questions, especially if I wasn't clear on something. The danger of making these posts is that they can be misunderstood or taken out of content. Especially, say, when bits and pieces of what I say are posted on other boards whose readers either know very little about Vanguard or nothing. Add to that those who blame me for some of the problems in the past (and some of that blame I deserve). My fear is that they would take some of this stuff the wrong way (and I've seen it happen already).

Not sure what to do there except keep posting and also reaching out to other communities. Some of you already do that and I appreciate it.
__________________
Brad McQuaid
CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
Exec. Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes.

Please discuss....

AngryGerbil · 08-31-2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

So that's it. We think we can make a game that is compelling for years without making it seem too much like a treadmill or a grind.

Good luck with that, let me know how it goes. Hey, if he can do it, that'd be great but a statement like that is still guilty until proven innocent as far as I'm concerned. And what exactly is "too much"? That'll be where I think the hammer may fall for better or for worse. One man's boring grind is another man's "skill".

What I do like however, is his communication regarding his thoughts on this topic and others, even if I don't like or agree with most of them.

Magnum PI · 08-31-2005, 08:49 AM

He's between a rock and a hard place. In the end he HAS to make money for his Series 1 investors or he's fucked. Series 1 investors drop down a LOT of money into a project and if they feel they are not getting their investment's worth, they can make your life a legal nightmare and possibly sell off your phyiscal assets, like your home. He's gotta go primarily where the subscribers money is. Only time will tell who that audience is and he won't discount the casual as they bring in the $$ just like hardcores. He has a lot of people to account to so he's doing the smart thing and keeping his options open.

Getting involved in this endeavor of his is not for the faint at heart. This could either catapault him to the top and he could make out like a bandit or it could ruin him. I don't envy him at this point. He won't know if he has a winner or not until it's released.

FuckYou · 08-31-2005, 08:50 AM

I couldnt help but think that the massive success of WoW has made sigil change directions a little to try and grab some of what they now know exsits: the casusal MMO player market. maybe im wrong, but who knows.

Slick Willey · 08-31-2005, 08:50 AM

Vanguard is everything for everyone? Well, except for those as he puts "who cannot stand to watch others progress and achieve at a faster pace than them."

Seriously? This all sounds great in theory. Let's see how it translates into the actual game come the date it goes live.

Longer-levelling curves that make for a long, enjoyable "journey" and are not reduced to a "grind" sound great, but also very difficult to accomplish. I'll be eager to see if he can pull it off.

Bizanich · 08-31-2005, 08:52 AM

I'm happy that he posts so much and seems to honestly like the genre. That being said, the man needs to learn thesis statement, supporting arguments/paragraphs, and conclusion!

It was a good catharsis, though.

I think it's best summed up as players have e-peens, be they PvP or PvE. These e-peens can grow to massive sizes. They want to be able to feel like they achieved something in the game that not everyone can do.

i.e., they want to feel unique in a world of thousands.

At the same time, others know they won't be bleeding edge like the uber guild of the year or what not, but don't want to feel like they're denied from EVER achieving it.

That's one helluva balancing act.

Dynalisia · 08-31-2005, 08:58 AM

This game will be perfect for me and I'm looking forward to it. However, I'm currently not convinced that Brad can be succesful *enough* with this game, sad as it may be.

Hoping to be proven wrong...

Dynalisia · 08-31-2005, 09:02 AM

This game will be perfect for me and I'm looking forward to it. However, I'm currently not convinced that Brad can be succesful *enough* with this game, sad as it may be.

Hoping to be proven wrong...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bizanich

I think it's best summed up as players have e-peens, be they PvP or PvE. These e-peens can grow to massive sizes. They want to be able to feel like they achieved something in the game that not everyone can do.

i.e., they want to feel unique in a world of thousands.

At the same time, others know they won't be bleeding edge like the uber guild of the year or what not, but don't want to feel like they're denied from EVER achieving it.

That's one helluva balancing act.

EQ did that to my satisfaction, so I hope Brad can do it with Vanguard. I don't want to feel unique, but I do want to feel exceptionally well hung compared to others when I've put in the time and effort. If I put in the time and effort and others put in even more time and effort and are as a result, more well endowed than me, then that's my problem. I'll either step my game up or try to manage the peen size I have.

I just want a clear schizm in power between people that play very strictly organized and people that play on arbitrary whims.

Cybsled · 08-31-2005, 09:07 AM

What he is describing results in the same problem WoW faces: Content.

In order for the leveling process to not feel like a treadmill, there has to be enough quests, tasks, etc....otherwise the game turns into "well, I've done all quests and tasks...now all I have left is to grind crap".

You are stuck in a dungeon for a longer period of time. How is this acheived? Slower leveling? Then the dungeon isnt enjoyed for being a good dungeon or a crawl, it is sought out because it has a couple nice rooms to slaughter mobs in and maybe nice loot. You get the same EQ syndrome: Dungeon X is ignored, Dungeon Y is over crowded because it has the "best" stuff. The cutting edge hardcore avoid the overcamping, but the vast majority of people behind the leveling curb all soon find themselves fighting over whatever resources are available. Non-instanced dungeons might make some people happy in the pants, but the sad truth is the only people who liked the overcamped dungeons of EQ were the people who liked the convience of being able to walk down to disco or juggs and never get aggro'd.

You can slow advancement by forcing grouping, but then you get issues where players get frustrated with the game because they feel they cannot meaningfully advance if they don't get the optimal group.

The best option, in the end, will end up having to be something similar to WoW in terms of progression. The trick is making it last alot longer.

Surlok TP · 08-31-2005, 09:10 AM

I read this and I see EQ all over again.

I have up to 8 hours day to spend on a game now,however having raided for msot of my EQ experience I no longer wish to pursue that path.So am I a casual gamer?

Thats the problem I have with the particular term,as most people,and certainly on this board,view casual as a non raider.That's become the defenition,even though there are plenty of people who don't play casually at all in the time sense of the word,which has somehow become lost in all this raider non raider nonsense.I can accept that I won't have Molten Core gear or whatever in WoW because I don't want to have my time in a game governed by a guild anymore.That doesn't mean I am a casual player though,I have as much if not more time to play than a Raid player does.The so called "high end" updates are not designed for me though,they are designed for people who have the time and use it to raid.There is very little design for people who have the time but do not want to raid.I think there is a great deal of WoW players who fall into this category.Many of which I assume didn't raid in EQ either though,which explains why so many are so content with doing ubrs 80 million times,where I did it maybe 5 and stopped going altogether,foregoing any gear I had not recieved yet from there out of disinterest.Simply put; a game that only focuses on multi group or Raid group encounters as high end,or end game content,is not going to retain the current definition of "casual" player.

I don't think that a player who has the time should be able to aquire raid lead gear through alternate paths,as obviously the effort to obtain gear with 40 people is quite different than that required by one person regardless if it takes more time for the singular or not.I think though that game companies and especially Sigil here seem to have the point of view that this is possible without pissing off a portion of your playerbase,I don't think it is.

Obtaining say pvp gear in WoW that is comparative to raid gear isn't a solution to this as it has already been proven that it's certainly not the type of thing you can obtain on a singular level.To that end the only game that has really been able to keep a singular player with an obscene amount of time to play,yet not raid,is EQ.But it was the very reasons that people often cite as negative in EQ's world that allowed this,IE AA's,grinding,camping etc.I don't see how a game can be rewarding at the high end for a non raider with time without following EQ's path.At least not from a content consumption point of view,and especially so in a game that has decided to not make use of an instance system(which I fully support).

Frax · 08-31-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuckYou

I couldnt help but think that the massive success of WoW has made sigil change directions a little to try and grab some of what they now know exsits: the casusal MMO player market. maybe im wrong, but who knows.

Not a bad thing if true, IMHO. More revenue should mean that Sigil would have more ability to create enough content for both. EQ has managed (other than the loot disparity complaints) to keep most groups happy for years, so it is possible in one manner or another. They also; and this is unconfirmed rumor from the vanguard forums; are the developer for the Marvel Universe MMO. That would lead me to believe that their prime investor, which almost certainly is M$, has faith in them.

Xaen · 08-31-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybsled

The best option, in the end, will end up having to be something similar to WoW in terms of progression. The trick is making it last alot longer.

Having mobs constantly kick your ass might be a good start with that. Or at least a challenge of some sort. Red mobs in WoW should have been undercon, IMO. But thats just me. You could still solo them, but it took some effort and some downtime depending what you fought.

ElGallo · 08-31-2005, 09:24 AM

Utterly meaningless hot air. "Every game can only make so much content, we are going to water down all our content with treadmills so it takes you longer to use up all our content than it does to use up all WoW's content because we'll make you do Wailing Caverns 87 times over. But for some magic magic reason I can't specify, it won't feel like a watered down treadmill at all. Really. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Zorlac · 08-31-2005, 09:26 AM

/tinfoil hat on

This is how I read it:
(1) Micro$oft is not stupid nor blind. They see what big cash cow WoW is. They pretty much want Sigil to mimic it. It's Microsoft's business plan: copy the best technology and then kill it. They won't change that just because it's a video game.
(2) Sigil probably wants to get more subscribers and they are looking to appeal to the casual gamer yet same time want to put out a "hardcore" game. IMO, not gonna happen.
(3) Vanguard will be "softened" to appeal to the casual gamer. Just like EQ2 was. Just like WoW is.
(4) Money will talk, investors won't invest into something that won't appeal to as much people as they want, WoW is no longer "another online game". Casual gaming, not just MMOG, is a huge and growing business. It would be a stupid move to close the door on casuals. Shadowbane is perfect example of this failure. UO server Siege Perilious is another. The myriad of changes in original EQ (instancing, killing the retarded XP curve, etc) are other examples.

/tinfoil hat off

I am willing to bet that Sigil will promiss a "hardcore" game but it won't be one. Just like Blizzard promissed "the game starts at 60". Just like every other MMOG company who promissed heaven and delivered not much!

nyx · 08-31-2005, 09:42 AM

Wow take the tinfoil hats off folks.

Brad has always, since the very beginning, stated he was after the core gamers.

I think he keeps posting this stuff to remind everyone, because people tend to color this game into the corner, maybe because it is not as soft and easy as WoW (or so we imagine).

Again I repeat, he has always stated this game has been for the core gamer. Core gamer being, the person in the middle, who wants to be as uber as the uber-folks but cannot because of time/energy or guild, but plays more then the casuals. That means, there needs to be a bit of everything in the spectrum, some casual, and some hardcore, in order to create the ideal playing space of the core gamer.

Nothing has changed.

08-31-2005, 08:49 AM	#3 (permalink)
Magnum PI Closing in on Makata Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: USA Posts: 1,180 -28 Internets	He's between a rock and a hard place. In the end he HAS to make money for his Series 1 investors or he's fucked. Series 1 investors drop down a LOT of money into a project and if they feel they are not getting their investment's worth, they can make your life a legal nightmare and possibly sell off your phyiscal assets, like your home. He's gotta go primarily where the subscribers money is. Only time will tell who that audience is and he won't discount the casual as they bring in the $$ just like hardcores. He has a lot of people to account to so he's doing the smart thing and keeping his options open. Getting involved in this endeavor of his is not for the faint at heart. This could either catapault him to the top and he could make out like a bandit or it could ruin him. I don't envy him at this point. He won't know if he has a winner or not until it's released. __________________ Last edited by Magnum PI : 08-31-2005 at 08:58 AM.

08-31-2005, 09:07 AM	#9 (permalink)
Cybsled Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,215 +14 Internets	What he is describing results in the same problem WoW faces: Content. In order for the leveling process to not feel like a treadmill, there has to be enough quests, tasks, etc....otherwise the game turns into "well, I've done all quests and tasks...now all I have left is to grind crap". You are stuck in a dungeon for a longer period of time. How is this acheived? Slower leveling? Then the dungeon isnt enjoyed for being a good dungeon or a crawl, it is sought out because it has a couple nice rooms to slaughter mobs in and maybe nice loot. You get the same EQ syndrome: Dungeon X is ignored, Dungeon Y is over crowded because it has the "best" stuff. The cutting edge hardcore avoid the overcamping, but the vast majority of people behind the leveling curb all soon find themselves fighting over whatever resources are available. Non-instanced dungeons might make some people happy in the pants, but the sad truth is the only people who liked the overcamped dungeons of EQ were the people who liked the convience of being able to walk down to disco or juggs and never get aggro'd. You can slow advancement by forcing grouping, but then you get issues where players get frustrated with the game because they feel they cannot meaningfully advance if they don't get the optimal group. The best option, in the end, will end up having to be something similar to WoW in terms of progression. The trick is making it last alot longer. __________________ Training the citizens of Norrath from 1999-2003!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

08-31-2005, 08:50 AM	#5 (permalink)
Slick Willey Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 761 +1 Internets	Vanguard is everything for everyone? Well, except for those as he puts "who cannot stand to watch others progress and achieve at a faster pace than them." Seriously? This all sounds great in theory. Let's see how it translates into the actual game come the date it goes live. Longer-levelling curves that make for a long, enjoyable "journey" and are not reduced to a "grind" sound great, but also very difficult to accomplish. I'll be eager to see if he can pull it off.

08-31-2005, 08:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
Bizanich Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,570 -2 Internets	I'm happy that he posts so much and seems to honestly like the genre. That being said, the man needs to learn thesis statement, supporting arguments/paragraphs, and conclusion! It was a good catharsis, though. I think it's best summed up as players have e-peens, be they PvP or PvE. These e-peens can grow to massive sizes. They want to be able to feel like they achieved something in the game that not everyone can do. i.e., they want to feel unique in a world of thousands. At the same time, others know they won't be bleeding edge like the uber guild of the year or what not, but don't want to feel like they're denied from EVER achieving it. That's one helluva balancing act.

08-31-2005, 08:58 AM	#7 (permalink)
Dynalisia Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The land of sunshine Posts: 1,480 -4 Internets	This game will be perfect for me and I'm looking forward to it. However, I'm currently not convinced that Brad can be succesful enough with this game, sad as it may be. Hoping to be proven wrong...

08-31-2005, 09:10 AM	#10 (permalink)
Surlok TP Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver BC Posts: 1,584 +9 Internets	I read this and I see EQ all over again. I have up to 8 hours day to spend on a game now,however having raided for msot of my EQ experience I no longer wish to pursue that path.So am I a casual gamer? Thats the problem I have with the particular term,as most people,and certainly on this board,view casual as a non raider.That's become the defenition,even though there are plenty of people who don't play casually at all in the time sense of the word,which has somehow become lost in all this raider non raider nonsense.I can accept that I won't have Molten Core gear or whatever in WoW because I don't want to have my time in a game governed by a guild anymore.That doesn't mean I am a casual player though,I have as much if not more time to play than a Raid player does.The so called "high end" updates are not designed for me though,they are designed for people who have the time and use it to raid.There is very little design for people who have the time but do not want to raid.I think there is a great deal of WoW players who fall into this category.Many of which I assume didn't raid in EQ either though,which explains why so many are so content with doing ubrs 80 million times,where I did it maybe 5 and stopped going altogether,foregoing any gear I had not recieved yet from there out of disinterest.Simply put; a game that only focuses on multi group or Raid group encounters as high end,or end game content,is not going to retain the current definition of "casual" player. I don't think that a player who has the time should be able to aquire raid lead gear through alternate paths,as obviously the effort to obtain gear with 40 people is quite different than that required by one person regardless if it takes more time for the singular or not.I think though that game companies and especially Sigil here seem to have the point of view that this is possible without pissing off a portion of your playerbase,I don't think it is. Obtaining say pvp gear in WoW that is comparative to raid gear isn't a solution to this as it has already been proven that it's certainly not the type of thing you can obtain on a singular level.To that end the only game that has really been able to keep a singular player with an obscene amount of time to play,yet not raid,is EQ.But it was the very reasons that people often cite as negative in EQ's world that allowed this,IE AA's,grinding,camping etc.I don't see how a game can be rewarding at the high end for a non raider with time without following EQ's path.At least not from a content consumption point of view,and especially so in a game that has decided to not make use of an instance system(which I fully support).

08-31-2005, 09:24 AM	#13 (permalink)
ElGallo Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 165 +0 Internets	Utterly meaningless hot air. "Every game can only make so much content, we are going to water down all our content with treadmills so it takes you longer to use up all our content than it does to use up all WoW's content because we'll make you do Wailing Caverns 87 times over. But for some magic magic reason I can't specify, it won't feel like a watered down treadmill at all. Really. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

08-31-2005, 09:26 AM	#14 (permalink)
Zorlac Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 293 +0 Internets	/tinfoil hat on This is how I read it: (1) Micro$oft is not stupid nor blind. They see what big cash cow WoW is. They pretty much want Sigil to mimic it. It's Microsoft's business plan: copy the best technology and then kill it. They won't change that just because it's a video game. (2) Sigil probably wants to get more subscribers and they are looking to appeal to the casual gamer yet same time want to put out a "hardcore" game. IMO, not gonna happen. (3) Vanguard will be "softened" to appeal to the casual gamer. Just like EQ2 was. Just like WoW is. (4) Money will talk, investors won't invest into something that won't appeal to as much people as they want, WoW is no longer "another online game". Casual gaming, not just MMOG, is a huge and growing business. It would be a stupid move to close the door on casuals. Shadowbane is perfect example of this failure. UO server Siege Perilious is another. The myriad of changes in original EQ (instancing, killing the retarded XP curve, etc) are other examples. /tinfoil hat off I am willing to bet that Sigil will promiss a "hardcore" game but it won't be one. Just like Blizzard promissed "the game starts at 60". Just like every other MMOG company who promissed heaven and delivered not much!

08-31-2005, 09:42 AM	#15 (permalink)
nyx Victorian Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 283 +0 Internets	Wow take the tinfoil hats off folks. Brad has always, since the very beginning, stated he was after the core gamers. I think he keeps posting this stuff to remind everyone, because people tend to color this game into the corner, maybe because it is not as soft and easy as WoW (or so we imagine). Again I repeat, he has always stated this game has been for the core gamer. Core gamer being, the person in the middle, who wants to be as uber as the uber-folks but cannot because of time/energy or guild, but plays more then the casuals. That means, there needs to be a bit of everything in the spectrum, some casual, and some hardcore, in order to create the ideal playing space of the core gamer. Nothing has changed.