The problem doesn't start or end with Morhaime

[Remember_Nostalrius]

Something to keep in mind, the problem is less Morhaime's own attitude about this particular thing but something that's endemic in tech in general these days. It's this attitude that the developers in general know better than the end user, because they have "the big picture" in the form of user statistics and focus groups. They let these factors become what drives development over the actual expressed needs of end users, and when confronted about it like Morhaime was, react angrily.

I don't know where it quite begins, but I think one of the highest-profile examples of this attitude is Apple, who have been notorious for decades for often making changes to their hardware and software that inconveniences their end users in order to simplify it or make it cheaper to manufacture, from when they removed the floppy disk drive on the iMac, to breaking legacy compatibility in their OS for graphics designers, or today with the rumored removal of audio jacks from the iPhone. Granted, some of these changes were in anticipation of advances in the market (i.e. the floppy drive) and were borne out. But as a tech giant, Apple's size and clout tempt other tech companies to imitate them, often without understanding the underlying reasoning behind Apple's decisions.

We see no better example of this than the debacle of Windows 8. Microsoft's attempt to reinvent itself as a mobile-focused company backfired completely when it became apparent to the end user that laptops and desktops were being ignored or hobbled in the equation, from the removal of the Start Menu to the replacement of solid, highly functional and flexible desktop applications with full-screen, simplified Metro apps. The backlash was so severe that Microsoft was forced to fall back and regroup in making Windows 10, begrudgingly re-adding a Start Menu, but one should note that this Windows 10 version is, ultimately, just a slightly reformulated version of the menu from Windows 8, and still, fundamentally, a Metro app. Amidst all this backlash, the common refrain from Microsoft's most zealous fans was that Microsoft knew better, that user statistics "proved" the Start Menu was obsolete.

Microsoft then stuck its foot in it again with the Xbox One debacle, initially insisting that the device would always be on, always connected, come with a mandatory Kinect webcamera and motion sensor, and not support backward compatibility in any form. Although this time consumer outrage successfully forced them to change their plans ahead of the Xbox One's launch, it showed how glaringly out of touch Microsoft was with its end users. An infamous twitter exchange by one of their social media interns, Adam Orth, with a friend, heaping scorn on customers that might not have reliable access to high-speed internet, poured fuel on the fire.

In the end, if we could even change Morhaime's mind, it would not make in itself the difference we really need, which is an attitude shift in the tech sector in general.

[Momoh]

calm down

[Remember_Nostalrius]

Care to point out where I'm hysterical? If anything, that's my point - everyone is eager to point blame at Morhaime but the problem is hardly limited to him. People need to step back and consider the larger, historical picture in technology and gaming and what it all means, rather than single him out as a scapegoat and try to bombard him into oblivion.

[Lokrosh]

In the end, if we could even change Morhaime's mind, it would not make in itself the difference we really need, which is an attitude shift in the tech sector in general.

We're not trying to change the entire sector, we're trying to make legacy servers happen.

[Remember_Nostalrius]

In the end, if we could even change Morhaime's mind, it would not make in itself the difference we really need, which is an attitude shift in the tech sector in general.

We're not trying to change the entire sector, we're trying to make legacy servers happen.

Then shutdowns like this will keep happening. Let's say you succeed at making legacy servers happen, and Blizzard puts one up; what happens then? It gets shut down the hot minute it appears to be losing money or users, because those statistics are Blizzard's bottom line and drive its policy-making.

[Mird]

It seems to be not exclusively tech and gaming problem tendency, but common foundation - sellout - collapse cycle.

Founders usually enjoy the business itself, but the only goal of shareholders is to maximize short term profit margins at any cost. And any cost includes full collapse in long term.

[wampuskitty]

I think the experience that Runescape had is what we're hoping for.

Blizzard ain't a charity either and we need to accept that if they do set up vanilla and it does bomb, then it will be taken down.

[Remember_Nostalrius]

That isn't the way it has to be. Companies like Mojang have already set the pattern for setting up paying users with a centrally-administrated account that is used to log in and play on player-run and supported private servers. This, not Blizzard-run servers, is what we should be asking for.

[Lokrosh]

That isn't the way it has to be. Companies like Mojang have already set the pattern for setting up paying users with a centrally-administrated account that is used to log in and play on player-run and supported private servers. This, not Blizzard-run servers, is what we should be asking for.

I agree with what you said about the changes in tech industry and i've been complaining to everyone i know for years about how it's ruining gaming, but as much as i appreciate your ideas, i think we should really focus on getting a version of vanilla wow going. I'm certain it will attract enough people for it to be succesful. Let's win this battle first and then later concentrate on fighting the war.

[Vaulken]

Care to point out where I'm hysterical? If anything, that's my point - everyone is eager to point blame at Morhaime but the problem is hardly limited to him. People need to step back and consider the larger, historical picture in technology and gaming and what it all means, rather than single him out as a scapegoat and try to bombard him into oblivion.

You're right, it's a systemic problem that needs to change, I have studied why cold data can be extremely harmful when when not vetted properly. This change will happen, especially with Netflix trouncing other companies by not letting the data guide them but inform them for investigation (highly successful, not flawless yet though).

But slow down dude, one battle at a time, heck one step at a time.

If you want to understand why so many companies fail at this, it's because you need data + empathy to investigate systemic causes of problems, and we all know business people tend to lack empathy that can give them lots of short term gains to appear successful. As it unfolds you can see how big decisions weighing in on a lot of data can just crumble when the decision maker knows as much about the peoples emotional experience as the computer does.

When I ran research on this my subjects always latched on to the last thing that ticked them off while in a state of frustration and heightened excitement, the anger only made it more difficult to discern what was going on. Once you're tilted it's game over as they say, and so what may seem hyperbolic is just the start of trail you need to follow, the data can tell you the where, but not the what, nor the why.

For example I had subjects play the Ocarina of Time (who had never touched it or the franchise before), in the first dungeon many got stuck on the lower part of the dungeon close to the boss. It's a series of rooms that form a loop till you burn a web in the ground to unlock a path to the boss (none of these rooms lock you inside). Now as it happens the subjects would constantly go back and forth through all the rooms meticulously, the frustration started to lead to carelessness and eventually they would get low on health and the pinging sound would start. This exponentially raised the tension and sent them off the rails when they would die trying to figure out the puzzle.

What they thought was their problem: the pinging sound on low health. Turning the sound off; they remained frustrated. The true source of frustration: not knowing if they were in the right room and being attacked trying to figure that out while experimenting. The data would tell us that they needed more clues, but all previous rooms with similar mechanics had these tell tale signs, the players would say the sound was the problem, neither of these would lead to a satisfying solution. But watching what was going on did. Future subjects were simply told not to leave the room, frustration went down, completion & satisfaction rates went up, but attachment went down, after all it was meant to be the crowning achievement of the dungeon, locking them in the room makes the puzzle significantly easier and too similar to previous installments meant to build up to it.

The data and player were technically not wrong, but in review they were clues to systemic problems not scopes on the problem itself and without the empathy to analyse the data AND the player, you can see how binary decisions always fail.

In the future this could just mean that less empathetic business people are aware of their flawed thinking and hire people who understand how to sift through this work properly, as of right now if the business heads aren't empathetic it just trickles down.