Can Blizzard Pull Off "Horizontal" Expansion?

The concept of "vertical" vs. "horizontal" expansion is a driving force in game design. Will Blizzard's upcoming Cataclysm finally steer WoW toward horizontal expansion?

A little more than a year ago, we came across a post by Tobold (of the popular Tobold's MMORPG Blog) called "Horizontal expansions to vertical games," in which he explored the differences between "horizontal" and "vertical" expansion in MMOs. His blog was actually inspired by an earlier one by SerialGanker about horizontal expansions, pointing out Blizzard's apparent knack for "invalidating game content that subscribers have spent considerable effort to achieve," as he put it. The video game concept of "horizontal vs. vertical" isn't just about expansions; the notion applies to things like gameplay and progression as well.

In the context of MMO expansions and content though, "vertical expansion" is best described as expansions or game content that further the endgame by increasing a hard power cap (or maximum character level, in World of Warcraft's case). As Tobold pointed out, WoW is a traditionally-accurate example of the vertical expansion model; each of its expansions raised the level cap by 10, and the raid content released in-between always introduced more powerful gear. But for the first time in five years, Blizzard is developing Cataclysm—WoW's next major release—by using horizontal expansion (in part, at least).

You might be wondering what the deal is with "horizontal vs. vertical expansion" in the first place; is one form better than the other? What does it mean for the players? Quite accurately, Tobold offered the card game Magic: The Gathering as an example of horizontal expansion; a player's "power cap" doesn't increase with each expansion. Instead, expansions offer new cards (content) and game mechanics that allow the overall IP to stay fresh and engaging, without rendering prior content obsolete. In fact, players can still use content from the original game just as competitively as that released in any of its 50-plus expansions.

In MMOs, horizontal expansion is a similar model; instead of raising a level/skill cap with more content piled onto the old, it's about adding new content and game mechanics that work in synergy with existing content. Historically, Blizzard—and many other MMO developers—haven't been able to pull off the horizontal model for retail expansion packs. Players want a lot of bang for their buck, and the easiest way to offer that "bang" has usually been to make them more powerful by raising their power cap.

Some MMOs, like EverQuest, were able to pull it off, as well as those prized for their PvP, like Guild Wars, Ultima Online and Dark Age of Camelot. It's much harder to entice players to spend money on a horizontally-modeled expansion for an MMO that's built around its own hard cap and the PvE experience. Games with great PvP, on the other hand, lend themselves to horizontal expansion much better; players are willing to spend cash on an expansion when it offers new and fun ways to compete against each other, even if their "power" isn't technically increased.

While there's plenty of fun to be had with WoW's PvP, it isn't what defines the game. Whether it's the leveling experience or perpetually maxing out your character for harder endgame content, most people come to WoW for its PvE. But in the early years, Blizzard wasn't developing that PvE content in a way that could be easily adapted to horizontal expansion.

The developers began attempting some horizontal expansion by adding things like flying mounts, new classes and new professions to the game, but most of these changes came packaged with the traditional, vertical expansions. Blizzard recently started introducing more drastic changes between retail expansions, like the updated game mechanics and new content we've seen since the "2.4 era." This helped to retro-fit WoW into a game that might better support horizontal expansion, which is what we're about to experience in Cataclysm.

Although Cataclysm will raise the level cap like past expansions, Blizzard is only increasing that cap by five levels this time, instead of 10. This will be WoW's first retail expansion that isn't chiefly relying on the "more power" factor; in true horizontally-modeled spirit, Blizzard is changing the game instead of just piling on more new content.

As most fans already know, the entire Old World will be reshaped by Deathwing's emergence; almost every zone in the game will be physically and graphically changed to reflect the expansion's story. Aside from adding new character races, skills, a new profession and a reworked guild system to WoW, Cataclysm also introduces the ability to use flying mounts in Old Azeroth; a prime example of horizontal expansion.

In an earlier story, ZAM speculated about the impact that Cataclysm will have on WoW's long-term sustainability; we suggested it's as close to a sequel (or a "WoW v2.0") as we will ever get—and that it might prove to be the expansion that extends the game's lifespan by another five years. But Tobold and many other community members shared a similar notion more than a year ago, before Cataclysm was even a rumor. Is this a testament to the uncanny insight players have when it comes to their favorite MMOs, or a sign that there might actually be something to this whole "horizontal expansion" style of gameplay?

Comments

Post CommentRoot Thread
What blizz needs to do
# Nov 25 2009 at 10:49 AM Rating: Default
2 posts
What I would like to see Blizz do to keep me interested, and this is just the opinion of one lowly user, is quit focusing on the high end raid content and give a little to the solo players. Personally I can't spend 6+ hr's a night playing wow raiding naxx or ulludar (sp?) just to get the great gear. What I can do is work on long quest chains, a little bit here and there, over time . Or gather mats and skill up tradeskills to craft things. None of which equal the drops from raids. So no matter that I spend my 15 dollars a month, unless I quit working for a living, in which case blizz doesn't get their money, or find sombody to support me and let me play WOW all night, I don't have a chance at the great gear. If they are talking horizontal expansion how about a little of that? BOP tradeskill items that equal epic raiding gear that dont require you farming 25 man instances for weeks on end to get the mats. Or quest lines that are soloable or duoable that may be 20 or 30 quest lines long but end up with some epic gear. I don't mind working for stuff but I want it to be worth something when I get there. Right now if it's not raid it's not anything. When you're locked out of content because you don't play enough to get the gear needed for the content something is definately wrong
What blizz needs to do
# Nov 25 2009 at 12:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
132 posts
I understand where you're coming from, but there has to be SOME reward for the people that take the time to learn and defeat those major end-game areas. That will always be the best gear in the game, and the rest will have to settle for having the second-best. That's how the gear creep works in this game... run normal instances to get your base gear that lets you run heroics. Run your heroics, get your emblems, run the daily H, get your emblems, that gives you the gear necessary to face the end-game content.

Now where I would like to see raid content change is the continuous difficulty creep. The (very) vocal minority that are out there with every add-on imaginable, that have number crunched every last thing in the game to the "ultimate" build that all raid members have to be running, constantly whine that they need more of a challenge in the end game. When Bliz listens to them, it makes that end-game content that much more inaccessible to the rest of the player base. I can understand content not being geared towards a warrior that wants to specialize in a gun, but there is no reason that a character with different professions or 5 points different from the "prime" build should not be considered a viable character in a raid. 3rd party programs should NOT be mandatory for raiding.
What blizz needs to do
# Nov 25 2009 at 11:47 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
**
267 posts
Hence the current situation where people think I'm bonkers for playing a hunter that's not surv (cause everyone knows that's the best spec) and a warlock that's not destro (cause everyone knows that's the best spec). Some people get far too caught up in 'you must have this gear and this spec and be using this canned rotation. Nothing wrong with just having fun playing the game. Especially if you're still compatetive compared to the obsessive ones who can't think for themselves and base everything about their characters off websites.
____________________________
Trollbane server:
Alliance 80s - Ilya, Dawnchanter, Teonum, Muranum
Horde 80 - Ereyd


What blizz needs to do
# Nov 26 2009 at 5:50 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
77 posts
i play a marksman hunter and can still out dps an equally geared surv hunter sometimes...in cataclysm they are fixing the whole "this is the best spec now DO IT" thing with the talent revamp
What blizz needs to do
# Nov 26 2009 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
132 posts
But they can't. There will always be ONE build combination of spec, talent points and professions that is the optimal build. I wish they could fix it, but they don't have the time to dedicate to the task like the power-game number crunchers do.

The fact that they have yet to be able to balance builds without constant nerfing over the last 5 years shows that they probably won't be able to balance it this try either.
What blizz needs to do
# Nov 26 2009 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
77 posts
but talents are now going to be much more focussed on changing your play style ie giving you new abilities (chimera shot) rather than boosting your abilities or stats so that should improve it slightly and since they ARE overhauling it entirely they will have much more time to balance it all out so we will see
Post Comment

Free account required to post

You must log in or create an account to post messages.