Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Free Content vs Paid Content

I think there should be a section about the free and paid content in this game; for instance, Blizzard frequently releases free content, such as in patch 3.3 where they added the dungeon finder tool and the Ice Crown Citidel - and they infrequently release paid content, such as Wrath of the Lich King and the new vanity pets one can purchase in their on-line store. I would start this section myself, but I'm not sure what the focus of the sub-section should be, or if I need to cite sources for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartholomewklick (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It would need sources, though wp:SELFPUB would allow using Blizzard's own site. It would also need to be very tight, we can wind up with an article drowned in detail, and it is hard to say what is too little, enough, too much, and drowning. :) - Sinneed 21:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

World of Warcraft in the Yahoo Groups directory

Hello I would like to know if I may have permission to add the following information to the "External Links" section of the WoW Wikipedia article:

• World of Warcraft in the Yahoo Groups! Directory

IchbenIchben (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that would not be a suitable external link, as it would not add to the encylopedia article. Thank you for your efforts and contributions all the same! --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical details missing

This articles is lacking some statistics. How many servers are there? How many people are online at the same time, on average? RedNifre (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that will improve an encyclopedia article. I don't oppose strongly, but... why?- Sinneed 14:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately information like this becomes outdated very quickly, and it is simply difficult to verify. We can count the number of servers, sure, but average people online is currently only measured by players themselves, and fansites, who do not use the most accurate of methods. I don't think Blizzard has released any specific figures. Additionally, if we were to list numbers of servers, I would phrase it as "Number of realms", as it can be argued that each realm consists of several servers, and that there are separate cross-realm battleground servers, and so forth, which may become confusing. --Taelus (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the number of average players online at any given time would be hard to calculate, Blizzard has set up the world of warcraft and divided it into different servers or "reamls" for load balancing, these "realms" are actually virtual server nested inside of another server called a "battlegroup" for player vs. player reasons, then then thoes battle groups are on a physical server or "Host" as it would be called in the IT world, and they are in the the "Farms" which are the location in which multiple host servers are located. With a system this complex only blizzard would have an accurate estimate. Blizzard has however provided the number of subscribers on multiple milestone occasions.

CompTIA A+

Koman90 (Talk), A CompTIA A+ Certified IT Technitian

20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

technical and in-game terms

Although great improvement has been made, i still feel the article is kinda written from an "in-World" perspective or whatever this is called. In the past this was expressed by a too detailed description of the in-game world from an in-game view, now i feel it is expressed by an extensive use of terms a normal non-computer game playing person will hardly understand and that are not explained in the article and one has to look up first to even get a basic understanding of what the article is talking about, like:

"MMORPG, Warcraft universe, avatar, NPC, realm, PvP, PvE, quests, roleplay, RP, RP-PVP, class, race, questing, quest chain, resources, objects, locations, characters, talents, skills, abilities, Professions, guilds, guild name, identity, guild bank, dues, rested bonus system, experience points, death, ghost, wisp, graveyard, fraction, battleground, token, honor, Kalimdor, Eastern Kingdoms, outland, northland, dungeon, dungeon-based raid challenges, creatures, environment, raids, ECTS, hybrid CD, API implementation, Wine, Cedega" etc. etc.

I am not even halfway through, but i am allready becoming tired of all those "technical" and in-game terms... --Hoerth (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like an upper level mathematics article needs you to read the lower level articles to understand the exact meaning, so too does an article about the gameplay of a video game require you to read the articles which are linked for you. --Izno (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the whole point of having wikilinks. I use Wikipedia all the time as a resource, I'm not just a contributor, and I often have to click on wikilinks in an article in order to understand everything. Those links are one of the big differences between this encyclopedia and one on paper. -- Atama頭 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New info for "Sale of virtual goods in the real world"

I am not currently a wikipedia member, so I cannot make this addition because the article is semi-protected, but one must absolutely be made to the section titled "Sale of virtual goods in the real world".

This section is about how third parties have tried to sell in-game items such as gold for real money in the real world, and how Blizzard is trying to stop it. There should be a lot of irony to add to this section because recently Blizzard has started to directly sell virtual items that are only available in-game for real money in the real world! They have previously given things, like Zevra mounts or murloc pets, for bringing friends into the game or attending BlizzCon (so they are not direct-sell items, but you get them in other ways). But now, you can get two different in-game-only virtual pets directly from the Blizzard Store for $10.00 a piece: "Li'l K. T." or the "Pandaran Monk" -- ironic because this actually breaks their own license agreement, doesn't it? And they are doing something exactly like what they are trying to stop?

You can find them on the Blizzard web site store at...

http://us.blizzard.com/store/browse.xml?f=c:5,f:1,c:33

...and I really think this should be added because it is so relevant to the issue of others trying to sell in-game items for real money, and so ironic because they are now doing it. Anyone know when they started selling these? I haven't seen them before now. 69.208.12.140 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't items in the game. They can't be used or traded. It might be worth a note, though.- Sinneed 06:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to the companion pets, which ARE in the game. On that point, Blizzard has been very clear that they are staunchly opposed to people using real-world currency to get a leg up in the game, stat-wise. They don't care, for example, and have never cared, about people selling loot cards on eBay, which can be exchanged in-game for items, which are entirely cosmetic. They draw the line at people buying game currency and/or actual equippable items. --King Öomie 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(I'm the person who started this topic) Good point. I didn't know there was a business in cosmetic-only items when I put this up originally. If they are letting them go without any fuss, I guess it's not an issue that they are selling non-combat pets. But I think both points are interesting, and could be included on the page. Thanks for the response! 69.208.12.140 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"He's referring to the companion pets" - I understood and "Those aren't items in the game. They can't be used or traded." remains true. Your statement is much clearer and far more complete.- Sinneed 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OFLC Rating

It says that the OFLC rating is not available - however, as of September 2009 the game's rating is M. Citation - OFLC site listing.
--Varnent (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. And the reference that supposedly shows that WoW has no OLFC rating doesn't even mention WoW by name. And, in fact, it doesn't even say that online games aren't rated, it says that local police aren't enforcing the law for ratings on online games. A big difference. I'm going to change the infobox per the source you've given, I really appreciate the info. -- Atama頭 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

70% Of Trial Players Give Up Before Level Ten

World Of Warcraft: 70% Of Trial Players Give Up Before Level Ten at ve3d.ign.com

Maybe someone who can edit the article can work this in somehow. --173.13.177.205 (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? 99% (made it up) of the world doesn't make it past the "Maybe I should play a computer game?" part of the trial.

Besides, I have created *MANY* trial accounts. 0 turned into real accounts. I created them to play with people who were thinking about coming over, or (whisper it) to make a race/class combination I needed for a quest on my real account. Finally, many people do a bit of trial, say "cool" and go buy the game at their store, as DLing takes FOREVERANDEVER.- Sinneed 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The above is a very good point. Consider also my initial reaction to this topic: "Wait, isn't this number highly skewed because of spammers?" A spammer (who never meant to play the game to begin with) will make a trial account, spam the trade channel, then either drop the account or get banned, then make a new account... lather, rinse, repeat. They probably go through hundreds of accounts in a fairly short time. So don't take that 70% to mean that a full 70% of potential players give up on the game before it gets fun. Kilyle (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to that part, trial accounts cannot use all the features in the game, such as whispering, trade, mail and so on. Blizzard has put a lot of blocks on a trial account in order to stop spammers creating hundreds of free accounts to scam customers with. In regards to the original article, it may have prompted them to make all the changes they have to the starting areas (neutral rather than hostile mobs, in the main). It's certainly made it easier for me to start mage and priest characters and have them live beyond their first birthday, so to speak. Lstanley1979 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But nevertheless, a high number of drop-outs is entirely within expectations. I'd be surprised if the 70% figure varied considerably from the industry norm. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WoW Addiction

I've tried a few times to get you guys to include a Controversy section for this game. I've mentioned that it's known to be addictive, but for some reason (bias?) no one seems to accept any sources verifying it.

Here's a website for kicking WoW addiction: http://www.wowdetox.com/

And another: http://www.wowaholics.org/

Guide to kicking it: http://www.wikihow.com/Break-a-World-of-Warcraft-Addiction

Here's one of the people that have let themselves be driven to violence by WoW addiction: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100213/ARTICLE/100219887/-1/NEWSSITEMAP?tc=ar

Some parents suing Blizzard over WoW addiction: http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000997068547/

Here's a study that found it to be more addictive than cocaine: http://www.switched.com/2009/02/27/study-world-of-warcraft-as-addictive-as-cocaine/

CNN story on WoW addiction: http://www.wow.com/2008/02/09/cnn-points-out-wow-addiction/

I could literally do this all day. There are hundreds and hundreds of webpages that address the issue, so it's kind of sadly amusing that here it's treated like a myth that can't be verified.

I've got a bet going with my friends over whether or not you all will delete my comments and send me a nastily worded warning, like you did last time.

Let's see if you disappoint. West Asunder (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a controversy section has been addressed repeatedly. Interested editors may find this in the talk page or its archives. Criticism/Controversy sections are not generally a good idea... they relegate the negative to a single spot, like a pariah. Consider if we only put the negative in the article, with a section titled "Positive comment". That said, I still believe that the potential for abuse of the game, as with any other MMO or other game (how many young athletes are disabled or killed because of their drive to win, be the hero?) has been censored from the article.

Internet addiction video game addiction would probably be good places to start. If there are published WoW articles in wp:reliable sources about it being addictive, well cited there, I would probably support a small summary and See also here. A quick look at those articles will show, however, intense professional dispute over whether or not there is such a thing as addiction to gaming at all.

To use your phrase, let's see if you disappoint. I'll look forward to your additions there... but must tell you that the only one of those appears to be a wp:RS This one mentions WoW... but then says of the interviewee, Smith: "According to Smith, compulsive gaming may be masking other underlying problems such as anxiety, depression or low self-esteem." - thus, people with problems may become addicted to things. Collecting stamps. Counting birds. Lining up the cans on supermarket shelves as they shop. Picking up trash on the street to the exclusion of eating. This refers to a study done by an anti-gaming organization. Amazing, an anti-gaming organization that finds gaming is bad for you. *gasp* This would be like Nintendo saying that using the Wii Fit is good for you. Well it may be (my informal data would back that up... wp:OR). But they aren't a reliable source for this information.- Sinneed 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well put. West Asunder (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What, no drama? Y'all have disappointed me. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason that game addiction isn't mentioned in this article is the same reason why the danger of alcohol abuse isn't mentioned at the Budweiser article. Sure, people can be addicted to WoW, just as they can be addicted to any game (I came close to an addiction one summer to Dragon Warrior IV when I played it obsessively, true story). There is nothing that makes WoW players more prone to addiction than any other game, so mentioning it here is redundant. The only reason why WoW is even mentioned in any reliable source that I've seen presented is due to its prominence. It's one of the best known games currently (for both good and ill). When a reliable source can be found that actually shows how WoW itself is particularly addictive, with unique qualities that present it as more dangerous than other games, then not only would I not object to including it in this article, I would argue strongly for its inclusion. -- Atama頭 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So we shouldn't mention game addiction because there is no reason why WoW SHOULD be more addictive? Personally, I think the fact that there are many reliable sources in favour of the idea that WoW is addictive than there are ones for, say, Zelda. Just a question - precisely how many South Park episodes deal with Zelda addiction versus those that deal with WoW addiction? One less? Gotcha. Being addicted to WoW is different than addiction to a different brand of alcohol - the brand isn't exponentially different from any other brand. It's roughly as addictive, same concept, same results. But how much more addictive WoW is versus other MMOs can be seen by the fact that WoW [and Everquest] happen to be DESCRIBED as addictive far more often than other games. No one needs to establish that World of Warcraft has qualities that make it more addictive, it just needs to establish in RS that it is addictive. Your demand for RS goes above and beyond what anyone needs to find.

1. In a 2005 Tom's Games interview, Dr. Maressa Orzack estimated that 40% of the players of World of Warcraft (an MMORPG) were addicted, but she did not indicate a source for the estimate.[13] She may have derived the estimate from the informal survey managed by Nick Yee at the The Daedalus Project,[14] who notes that caution should be exercised when interpreting this data.[15]
2. In Pure Pwnage, Jeremy becomes addicted to World of Warcraft and plays it continuously for 6 days before passing out and being taken to a mental hospital. He explains his character in the game to a psychologist, who appears to believe that Jeremy is psychotic.

Two excerpts on Video game addiction mention WoW. The fact of the matter is that WoW is more reported as an addictive video game than Warhammer or Hellgate: London or Anarchy Online. WoW doesn't have to have a reason for why everyone uses it as a poster child for video game addiction, and EverQuest didn't either. But there's a good reason why Everquest was described as Evercrack, because it was the most popular MMORPG and, logically, the most addictive. I can't count the number of stories I've read about EverQuest addiction, including an EQ addiction-related suicide. Can I have any good reason why 40% of the players being addicted isn't mentioned in this article anywhere? And why the only mention of it being addictive is an award for it? Yeah, that doesn't reak of POV. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

When you make statements like, "it was the most popular MMORPG and, logically, the most addictive", you're engaging in original research. My "demand for RS" is per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's not POV to ask for that, and in regards to my POV, I think it would be awesome if someone did find real research that points to WoW being a specifically addictive game, more than any other game. It would make this a more interesting article, for certain. -- Atama頭 17:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's my observations of reliable sources and facts. My bad that I didn't find the references to establish this common sense. But at what point is "40% of the WoW community is addicted" from the Video game addiction article not "finding a reference?" I don't need to be told that I'm engaging in original research; I didn't take information and formulate an opinion, I took "many reliable sources and articles made about the game's addictive qualities". The comment that a controversy section is not appropriate does not sit well with many articles that do controversy sections, such as Doom (video game) and Grand Theft Auto, neither of which feature the section for reasons that other games/series do not also share. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Orzack isn't a reliable source, even in the text you cite it's admitted that she has nothing to back up her claims. Personally, I'm not totally opposed to a section talking about how the alleged addiction of WoW has been discussed in the media, as long as we keep it accurate and don't let it delve into speculation. Your piecing together of information from reliable sources to draw your own conclusion, per "common sense", is synthesis and is considered original research. But portraying the addiction controversy in an appropriate section wouldn't be something I'd object to. Others might claim WP:UNDUE, and such information was in this article before and was removed so I don't know if it will stay, but personally I think that as long as it's not given too much weight it would be okay.

Just a note, controversy sections themselves are discouraged, see WP:STRUCTURE. It's considered best practice and much more in keeping with WP:NPOV to include controversies and criticisms within the narrative itself rather than segregating them into their own sections. -- Atama頭 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

She is a clinical psychologist who studies addiction to video games for a living; that she studies it tells us that it is worth mentioning. Jack Thompson isn't a reliable source on video game violence, but we mention his stance on it. Regardless, the issue is a lack of controversy mentioned rather than a controversy section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to give it a shot, go for it. I promise not to do any knee-jerk reverts or anything. -- Atama頭 18:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Atama in that we don't mention alcoholism in the Budweiser article, so why should it be mentioned here? But I also see that World of Warcraft is the most visible title right now in terms of video game addiction, and that studies produced may single it out. I think it can be worked into a paragraph here, acting as a lead into the video game addiction article - maybe as a sub heading in the Reception section. The section should not be entitled "Controversy" either - it's video game addiction which is controversial, not WoW. An article doesn't need a "controversy" section, in the way it doesn't need a "drama" section - there's plenty of controversial issues in the security concerns and virtual goods sections already. - hahnchen 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than titling the section "controversy" it should be called "addiction issues" or something more specific. Otherwise, I think a section like that is perfectly merited. We're not working for Blizzard and there's no reason to keep controversial yet well-researched issues out of the article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not well-researched at all. In fact, I haven't seen a single study presented regarding WoW addiction. We have one doctor giving an opinion in an interview, and we have one person who conducted an informal survey. That's the totality of the research we have on the matter. I've acknowledged that the controversy might merit some inclusion, but don't pretend there's some non-existent research that confirms it. -- Atama頭 20:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What in the world could the doctor give instead? It's not like there exists research to say "well, these 40% are definitely addicted." I doubt she went "Well, I'm just going to assume that 40% of WoW players are addicted to it." I'm going to assume that she gave her professional opinion [a big leap away from just an opinion] based on research, since she does study, for a living, video game addiction. And why would you suggest that the research is non-existent? We may not have provided much so far in this discussion, but when I see popular searches on Google - such as "World of Warcraft addiction", "World of Warcraft addiction stories", "World of Warcraft addiction deaths", "World of Warcraft addiction recovery", etc., it sounds a lot less far fetched than you make it out to be. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the research is non-existent because I've had this same conversation 3 or 4 times already on this talk page, and even the most strident proponents of the WoW addiction theory, even people who seem to have a real chip on their shoulder to get the info in the article (I don't think you do, by the way) can't come up with anything. Really, the only data that has ever come up was Yee's informal poll, and as noted above Yee himself warns people not to rely on that data. -- Atama頭 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) One could always simply go to Google Scholar and type in "warcraft addiction" and then evaluate the sources there rather than parsing one doctor's statement or other wikipedia articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not formatting this and doing it wrong, I'm a little pressed for time right now and just want to thrown in my 2 cents. There is an inconstancy in the logic used by The New Age Retro Hippie. He states that, "Being addicted to WoW is different than addiction to a different brand of alcohol - the brand isn't exponentially different from any other brand. It's roughly as addictive, same concept, same results." So that means if 40% of people who drink are alcoholics (just made that up to make my point), and 80% who drink alcohol drink Budweiser, it is not significant that 40% of people who drink Budweiser are alcoholics (or in other words you cant say Budweiser is more addictive even though the majority of alcoholics will drink budwiesder). But then he goes and says that because 40% of people who play wow may be addicted (or are addicted if prof. opinion = fact) WoW is more addictive then other games without knowing what the 'base' rate of gaming addiction is or the proportion of gamers who play wow? It doesn't add up. Also, if anyone wants to edit this and move it to make the convo. flow better please feel free to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.159.31 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent based on a hypothetical situation. If 80% of alchoholics primarily drank Budweiser, there would be an investigation as to what they're adding to it. But that statistic is completely made up. In reality, alcoholism is alcoholism is alcoholism. I'm not sure how it makes sense to say "Yeah, but your analogy stops working when I invent hypothetical scenarios". --King Öomie 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you misread what I typed. I did not say %80 of alcoholics drink Budweiser, I said %80 of all people who drink alcohol drink Budweiser. Meaning that 40% of that 80% are alcoholics and 40% of the 20% who do not drink Budweiser are alcoholics, the proportion is the same meaning there is no statistical significance to the statistic "40% of people who drink Budweiser are addicted to alcohol". So when he says "Being addicted to WoW is different than addiction to a different brand of alcohol" he is saying that somehow he knows WoW is more addicting because its WoW without knowing how many people are addicted to games in general or what proportion of the gaming community plays WoW, both of which you would need know to make any sense of the statistic '40% of people who play WoW are addicted'. I used the large example statistics to point out that even if 99% of the people who use any sort of product may be addicted to it it doesn't tell you anything about the addictiveness of the particular brand of product. So if you see how you can make a claim about the addictiveness of WoW without any data about the addictiveness of any other game or gaming in general please share it with me. And again, to be clear, I was pointing out that you need to be able to compare the proportions of different brands to make a claim about their addictiveness and that he (or she maybe) had no problem doing it with WoW but did with Budweiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.159.31 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation. Until someone does an actual study (as in, something more than looking at numbers and saying "Well, that result makes for the most interesting paper"), she has no standing to talk about anything other than what she thinks. You can't look at a blind statistic and say with any certainty "Oh, this is why". Are more people addicted to WoW because it's so popular? Or is it more popular because more people are addicted to it? Numbers don't answer that. A real study does, with real people being observed, a control group, etc etc. --King Öomie 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna take my first hint that she would have had information on video game addiction because she runs studies on video game addiction. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the first hit you should take is that if there were any validity to her statement it would be in a published (and peer reviewed) article and not just her opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.25.136 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WoW addiction - random subsection for ease of editing

Or...researcher runs studies on video game addiction because researcher believes it exists and is bad. Science really does work this way: Have an idea, test it, defend it (career +) or come up with new idea (career -) or refine it (career +/- depends on spin/luck/credibility/etc.), repeat without rinsing.- Sinneed 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC) (edit to add) and no I am not claiming that the traditional model of experiment...theory...test...theory...test (repeat) doesn't happen. This is all pointed toward figuring out whether we can reasonably cover WoW addiction here. I maintain that we can, simply because of the press coverage... not because it is more prevalent than with other games, but simply because the press covers it.

• Proposal (sorry, I know this is a repeat) - A small section, perhaps "Gaming overuse", with SAs for gaming addiction, internet addiction, computer gaming addiction. Introduction stating (edit add) that while the press covers computer gaming addiction, there is no current diagnosis that computer game addiction/IA even exist. Statement that WoW has the highest subscription, and is mentioned in articles about gaming overuse.- Sinneed 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC) - edited - Sinneed 15:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand...I am swayed by the "alcoholism isn't mentioned in the beer brand articles" argument, and we know that alcoholism exists.- Sinneed

http://www.ocregister.com/news/game-208290-wow-addiction.html - potential source from notes at another article.- Sinneed 16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

An excellent source, good find. And how does Orzack go from 40% to 5-7%? Again, I think she's just throwing out hypothetical numbers, which is why you have to be careful about not misrepresenting sources. I still haven't seen anything that singles out WoW as an addictive game, the article at the very least implies that WoW is no more addictive than any other MMO, and mentions 5 other games as being similarly addictive (only 2 of which were MMORPGs, oddly enough).

A case can certainly be made that the way MMORPGs are built, that they're more prone to addiction, and Orzack does a great job of explaining why. WoW is designed so no one can win, Orzack said. The lure of new adventures and accomplishing quests or missions with a group of people keeps competitors coming back. Of course, that description fits every MMORPG ever released, WoW is nothing special in that regard. -- Atama頭 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's the most popular. If WoW receives direct accusations, then it's directly relevant. The statement does not have to be only relevant to the subject. The other games aren't accused of being addictive because they're not as popular, and they are not the game that people are playing. Should Modern Warfare 2 not mention criticisms of violence because other games are arguably more violent? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, and it doesn't. It would be absurd to include criticisms that a violent game is violent. What criticisms it does include are fairly specific and relevant, and the only real complaint about violence is the portrayal of a massacre at a Russian airport, which is a unique aspect of the game. In fact, look at this very lengthy article: Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. There is no mention of anyone saying that the game is generally too violent. You've done a fair job of invalidating your point with that example. -- Atama頭 20:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I guess the separate article devoted to the controversies of Modern Warfare 2, including its ultra-violence, helps your example. "Modern Warfare 2 also received significant criticism from UK religious leaders on BBC One during a segment which discussed whether violent video games were dangerous to society. Fazan Mohammed of the British Muslim Forum compared the game to the works of Joseph Goebbels, commenting that while people called it merely entertainment, Goebbels himself said that his films did more to psyche the German people up for war than Hitler's speeches did and as a result, calling it entertainment was not enough justification." That speaks directly to criticizing it for its violence. It's clearly not the only violent game. The fact of the matter is that we only have to verify that WoW was criticized for its addictive nature; at no point is it our job to second guess a source and argue that it applies to multiple games in the genre. Wikipedia is about verifiable information, not necessarily true information. We can verify that reliable sources have discussed, specifically, WoW's addictive nature, so there is nothing wrong with acknowledging this in the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to a brief mention of the fact that WoW has had criticisms about being addictive, just as all MMORPGs do, taking into account WP:UNDUE and avoiding original research (especially synthesis). Those are the main problems we've had in the past with the subject. Keep in mind that the idea that video game addiction even exists is a controversial one.

Personally, I believe that it does exist, and that MMORPGs are more prone to it than any other game by their very nature. Logically, WoW's success would suggest that those same properties that make MMORPGs so addictive would be even stronger in a game that's able to draw in so many subscribers. But this is all original research on my part. It's weird sometimes to work to keep out info from an article that I personally believe, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 21:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)