WoW Forever Has the Same Problem as Old School RuneScape

Overview

The video argues that World of Warcraft Forever is Blizzard’s attempt to deliver “Classic Plus”—a permanent, continuously updated version of vanilla WoW—and that its design goals closely mirror the long-running approach used by Old School RuneScape (OSRS).

Main points and analysis

What “Forever” is trying to be

• Begins from vanilla WoW and keeps the level cap at 60 (at least initially, and for the foreseeable future).
• Rather than cycling through expansions that obsolete prior content, Blizzard plans to expand Azeroth over time with:
  • new zones, quests, dungeons, raids, battlegrounds
  • new talents, professions, progression systems
  • additional ways to advance
• The presenter frames this as a major philosophical shift away from retail WoW’s model of leaving content behind.

Why it resembles OSRS so closely

• OSRS doesn’t replace the entire game with expansions; instead, new content is released across the entire game lifecycle.
• The creator argues that OSRS’s model is effectively what Forever is attempting: add content without abandoning the original world/experience.

How OSRS avoids power creep (and what Blizzard would need to replicate)

• A core OSRS problem is “reward space”: after years of updates, what rewards can still matter?
• OSRS mitigates this by making gear situational rather than universally best, such as:
  • weapons that excel against specific enemy types (e.g., dragon/demon-themed setups)
  • gear that performs differently depending on weaknesses and elemental interactions
• The presenter claims Blizzard is describing similar logic for Forever—items/gear that are better for certain enemies/biomes—allowing multiple situational “best in slot” options instead of one permanent winner.

Why vertical progression still matters

• The video rejects the notion that OSRS is purely horizontal; power creep exists, but often through upgrades rather than total replacement.
• A key example is that OSRS gear progression can create new uses for older items—for instance, older armor components may be needed to obtain upgrades—so older content doesn’t instantly become irrelevant.

The central challenge for Forever: preventing obsolete raid/gear tiers

• WoW is built around raid tiers that strengthen every cycle.
• If Forever simply adds higher-tier raids indefinitely, it recreates retail’s “treadmill,” making older raids obsolete.
• The presenter believes Blizzard hasn’t fully demonstrated how it will prevent this, though Blizzard claims it will use controlled power increases.
• Suggested approaches include:
  • new items that require materials from older raids/dungeons
  • old raid gear becoming part of upgrade paths
  • older encounters retaining unique relevance to future bosses
  • systems that drive players to revisit and consume older resources

Trust and community control may be the biggest deciding factor

• The video argues Forever’s success may depend less on gear math and more on whether Blizzard can maintain player trust over the long term.
• OSRS is credited with building trust through:
  • major-update polling
  • a transparent relationship with players
  • evolving “slowly, publicly, and with constant community involvement”
• The presenter notes Blizzard has historically been “bad” at trust, and that Forever would require thousands of ongoing decisions—so players must believe Blizzard understands what should be preserved.
• The video suggests Blizzard may need an OSRS-like mechanism (not necessarily an identical vote threshold) to ensure updates consistently align with what players expect from “old” WoW.

Final assessment

The presenter concludes that Forever is a promising start, especially philosophically (protecting Azeroth and continuing vanilla-like development). However, the “hard part comes later”: sustaining the model without breaking what originally motivated players to try Classic—and doing so will require careful design and genuine trust-building.

Presenters / contributors

• Single presenter/commentator (the video is narrated by one person; no other contributors are identified in the provided subtitles).