Blizzard's MMOG Plans

[Volourn]

Karka cares.

[karka]

:D

[angshuman]

First off, the major difference between Guild Wars and MMORPG's is the servers.    You are technically in a large graphical chat room in Guild Wars, and all combat is handled with instances.  It's a much simpler way of handling a multiplayer game, and hence the server and admin costs are kept to a minimum.  It is much more similiar to Diablo than WoW.

 

Secondly, monthly costs for MMORPG's have been explained ad nauseum on these boards.  If you still don't get the economic model behind it, then you are just looking for reasons to dislike these types of games.  Also, WoW has yet to release a single expansion.  They have over 100 servers running with admin teams, GM's, and testers, as well as programmers and artists churning out new content every month.  They would either be broke, or not be able to offer this support, without a monthly fee.

 

Now Everquest 2, on the other hand, does seem to milk its customers.  But then again, the content they release is for the nutcases that play 10 hours a day, so the cost per hour is probably pretty good for the gamer.

Let's not even mention EQ2. That shoddy piece of code doesn't even deserve a mention in a discussion involving quality products like WoW and GW.

 

As you mentioned, the reasoning behind monthly costs for "true" MMORPGs has been discussed extensively on these forums, so there's no point getting into it. I actually do appreciate the fact that maintenance costs will be much higher in a WoW-style MMO. My intention was not to spark the age-old topic.

 

However, as a consumer, I like the Guild Wars payment model. I do not like the WoW payment model and I don't believe I will ever pay monthly fees for a game. I am quite satisfied with GW's 8-12 man missions, and I feel that the improvement in gameplay experience from a WoW-style interaction is not worth all that money. That's all there is to it.

[Hurlshort]

I'd be surprised to see Blizzard tackle a new MMO anytime soon. I imagine if they did, it would still be in development for 4-5 years. Also, World of Diablo seems a bit silly, since the fantasy setting is pretty well covered with WoW. Starcraft might be a better target for an MMO because there have been very few succesful sci-fi games in this genre.

 

Still, I'm guessing we will see Diablo 3 run more like Guild Wars than WoW.

[Volourn]

"Let's not even mention EQ2. That shoddy piece of code doesn't even deserve a mention in a discussion involving quality products like WoW and GW. "

 

Meh. EQ2's code is as close to perfect as a game can get. Very, very few bugs.

[thepixiesrock]

You mean, Lost Vikings: Ghost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ha, yeah right! I highly doubt they would be able to get Patrick Swayze.

[Jumjalum]

But think of the pottery subgames!

[angshuman]

Meh. EQ2's code is as close to perfect as a game can get. Very, very few bugs.

The graphics engine is very inefficient. The system requirements are immense, but it looks horrible. It has a graphics setting that only "future" cards could run at the time it was released. This was quite true, but the inability of contemporary cards to run it came not from fantastic-looking visuals but from an underoptimized graphics engine.

 

IMO the artwork was also terrible, but that's a subjective issue.

[kumquatq3]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152718.html

 

rumor = Teh dead

[karka]

Good for Blizzard fans.

[Volourn]

"The graphics engine is very inefficient. The system requirements are immense, but it looks horrible. It has a graphics setting that only "future" cards could run at the time it was released. This was quite true, but the inability of contemporary cards to run it came not from fantastic-looking visuals but from an underoptimized graphics engine."

 

We simply disagree.

[Hurlshort]

"The graphics engine is very inefficient. The system requirements are immense, but it looks horrible. It has a graphics setting that only "future" cards could run at the time it was released. This was quite true, but the inability of contemporary cards to run it came not from fantastic-looking visuals but from an underoptimized graphics engine."

 

We simply disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, the real problem I see with EQ2 is the lack of a cohesive artistic vision. There are some parts of Norrath that look stunning, particularly the rushing rivers and fountains. But you can really see how the game went through different development teams when it was being made. I think the expansions are much better looking overall.

 

EQ2 also has a rather complex amount of graphical variables. I think I spent at least a few hours trying different settings before I was happy with the graphics.

 

The griffons have to be the ugliest thing in EQ2. Seriously, it looks like you are riding a cardboard cutout.

[Dhruin]

However, as a consumer, I like the Guild Wars payment model. I do not like the WoW payment model and I don't believe I will ever pay monthly fees for a game. I am quite satisfied with GW's 8-12 man missions, and I feel that the improvement in gameplay experience from a WoW-style interaction is not worth all that money. That's all there is to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which is fair enough.

 

You'd have to acknowledge the market sees it differently. WoW sales > GW. WoW sales > any other PC game since it's launch (that I am aware of).

 

Bear in mind that GW's aggressive expansion pack release schedule (or whatever you want to call their standalone additions) is intended as a direct replacement for subscription revenue. I'm not criticising ArenaNet and this model offers a welcome choice, but they are simply trying to pull regular, ongoing revenue in a different way.

 

@Karka, when you say "old-fashioned", what about the old CompuServe titles like the original Pool of Radiance. What was it...$4 / hour?

[Azarkon]

The graphics engine is very inefficient. The system requirements are immense, but it looks horrible. It has a graphics setting that only "future" cards could run at the time it was released. This was quite true, but the inability of contemporary cards to run it came not from fantastic-looking visuals but from an underoptimized graphics engine.

 

IMO the artwork was also terrible, but that's a subjective issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because we all know the only thing that matters to people on this board are graphics, yes?

 

EQ 2 and WoW are comparable products. Having played both recently, I must say that EQ 2, frankly, is getting better as a MMO while WoW is getting worse. WoW nowadays is all about the raiding game, and coupled with the glacial pace at which the developers update the game, the player base is rapidly getting bored. EQ 2, on the other hand, has tons of content for the non-raiders, and are adding more on a frequent basis. Yes, EQ 2 tends to be more price gouging than WoW due to its reliance on $$$ adventure packs, but then the game doesn't have 6.5 million subscribers but still manages to out-produce Blizzard in terms of content and support. That it costs a bit more is unsurprising.

[karka]

@Karka, when you say "old-fashioned", what about the old CompuServe titles like the original Pool of Radiance.  What was it...$4 / hour?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not that old "

[Plano Skywalker]

right, Guild Wars is selling you the storyline (at least it has a storyline) and doing it via individual shrinkwraps.

 

if you don't care about story progression, you can (at least in theory) keep playing the old chapters.

[Hurlshort]

right, Guild Wars is selling you the storyline (at least it has a storyline) and doing it via individual shrinkwraps.

 

if you don't care about story progression, you can (at least in theory) keep playing the old chapters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bleh, the GW storyline did absolutely nothing for me. That's totally a subject of opinion. I prefer the comedic quests of WoW and the solvable books of EQ2. Or if I really want a story, I'll play a good single player game...just as soon as another one comes out.

[angshuman]

Bleh, the GW storyline did absolutely nothing for me.

I'll have to agree wholeheartedly with that. As much as I've enjoyed the game, the storyline was pretty bad. The overall plot might have had some potential, but the dialogue felt like it was written by a kid. The voice acting was also absolutely abysmal. Fortunately, you can skip cinematics. The excellent gameplay makes up for these shortcomings, but it does leave you with a bitter taste in your mouth.

 

Perhaps due to the abscence of monthly fees, Anet didn't have enough cash left over to hire real voice actors and got their programmers to voice the dialogues they had themselves written. "

[Llyranor]

The only saving grace for GW's story was that cutscene where your pursuers would cheer (or use the cheering animation, anyway <_< ) upon your evading them after cutting down a bridge. That was a nice 'what the crap' moment. Go go limited animation repertoire!

[LostStraw]

A link to the slides used in the presentation. www.sec.gov

 

Slide 19 was probably the one that started the rumor. Though, I wonder if Blizzard could really refuse if Vivendi insisted they make MMORPGs out of their other franchises.

Edited June 16, 2006 by LostStraw

[Calax]

A link to the slides used in the presentation. www.sec.gov

 

Slide 19 was probably the one that started the rumor.  Though, I wonder if Blizzard could really refuse if Vivendi insisted they make MMORPGs out of their other franchises.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what they'd do would be somthing like putting preproduction out then putting the game on infinite hold... thus getting the cash but using it for other projects I bet..

 

 

 

on a side note woohoo! 3000 posts that count!

[Fenghuang]

I think the gaming market would be best if it didn't get any more MMOGs.  There are too many as it is.  I don't see how this is a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree with you completely. It's not like they can ever innovate within this genre anymore, so it might as well just stay how it is. Keep the current ones running, keep the player farms happy, but no more.

[kirottu]

I think the gaming market would be best if it didn't get any more MMOGs.  There are too many as it is.  I don't see how this is a good thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree with you completely. It's not like they can ever innovate within this genre anymore, so it might as well just stay how it is. Keep the current ones running, keep the player farms happy, but no more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with Hades too. No truer words of wisdom have I heard for long time.

[Calax]

are pigs in hell flinging snowballs at eachother yet?

[Lyric Suite]

I think Blizzard isn't creative enough to make new series. Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo....

 

Make a  new Lost Vikings game Blizzard!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Blizzard, you are not creative enough, all those sequels, how about, ANOTHER SEQUEL?"

 

Obviously, Vivendi wants to duplicate WOW's runaway success. But is the big V already pimping out future MMOGs to investors? Apparently not, if a post from a moderator in the Blizzard forums is to be believed. Last night, "Drysc" told a thread of understandably excited WOWers the following: "I believe this was a misquote. We haven't announced any specific development plans beyond the upcoming expansion for World of Warcraft, and we don't have any intentions to focus on only one genre or platform with our future games."

 

Interesting...