Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard's World of Warcraft Beta Goes Live
craenor writes "Perhaps the most anticipated entry into the increasingly crowded PC MMORPG market, Blizzard's World of Warcraft, has just reached the live Beta stage, for those select players lucky enough to be picked. In a distinct change from the existing trend in Beta tests, they are not going to require NDAs for participating players, and everyone will have read access to the official Beta forums while testing takes place." The WoW site includes a basic game FAQ for beginners, and BitTorrent is now live as Blizzard's Beta distribution method of choice, as the mentioned earlier on Slashdot Games.
My favorite Vaporware vanished in thin air !!
r.
Hooray! Another reason for me to camp in the basement of my parents house!
...among geeks, is WoW the most anticipated MMORPG, but the most anticipated MMO among the general populace was Star Wars: Galaxies, and we all know how that turned out. But, then again, Lucasarts and Sony are pretty hit-or-miss, but Blizzard has a flawless record. Still, beware the overhyped crap.
And already, some idiot is auctioning off his beta test account...
Ebay auction
What are you talking about? WoW is an RPG, not an RTS. It has nothing in common with the mechanics of the original warcraft games. To be clear: You dont order groups of units around, you play a single character at a time.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
...Is precisely the reason why the best thing to do whenever a game like this is released is to wait a few months before buying it. In addition to the advantage of seeing how the hype meshes with reality, there's the added advantage of having the later version patches available. Let other people find the bugs for you. The prestige one gets as an early adopter just isn't worth the monetary price or less-refined level of quality that comes with it (IMO).
Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.
The gryphon riding looks really cool. Another thing that seems rather inventive is the death system, where upon your death you become a ghost and wander/go resurrect yourself. That seems interesting to me, and it'll be fun to see mountain giants from UNDER their nose, rather than from DOWN their nose. It seems to look good, I'll have to get the game before I can tell any more really.
This is bad, bad news. Now the game is one day closer to being finished which means it's one day closer to when I can buy it, which means it's one day closer to the day I won't be able to leave my computer ever again.
Blizzard game are like the purest of drugs. I got hooked on WarCraft I by a free demo in the store (the first one is always free) and I've been a junkie ever since.
My lowest moment ever was turning down sex with my girlfriend the first week that Warcraft III came out because I didn't want to step away from the game. I fear it will be even worse with World of Warcraft. : (
-Colin
Can we have a -1, Completely Misinformed mod option?
Over them suing bnetd?
Well, I guess posting all those snippy comments on Slashdot really showed them who was boss. So now it's back to the usual fawning at their feet, is it?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Since I was playing in Alpha I can give everyone a bit of insight as to what WoW is like. First off Blizzard has done a simply wonderful job. The game runs smoothly and if the server crashes, which it may occasionally, its back up in no time. The game play stretches from the familiar, where it has been perfected, to the brand new, to the silly (fishing). The graphics are wonderful and go more for style than realism, which is appropriate to Warcraft. The feedback mechanisms are streamlined, the download process is excellent (if long). The game holds you by the hand a bit much, but other than that I can't really complain. There will be a simply massive amount of info coming out in the next few days from Alpha testers freed of NDA's. So check out the shots and descriptions and see for yourself. Its a great game. Period. -Ian
Yes, this is usually how it's done. It would be unmanagable with a million beta testers.
Blizzard themselves admitted this problem though and said it was because they had anticipated more players to go single player first. (remember it was released when analog modems were still most common) Instead, an overwhelming amount of players went online.
They won't have this problem this time around, since they know everyone will play online from the start and should be able to dimension the server capacity easier.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Anyone noticed Guild Wars?
:-) The gallery is all unretouched graphics with interesting lightning effects making some people think they were post-processed.
Developed by ex-Blizzard employees, and in the same spirit as Battle.net in terms of a free multiplayer service. New extra features can be bought (this is how the MMOG is financed), but they won't be necessary to play with those who have them.
It has pretty graphics too.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Here is a positive review from an alpha tester.
Once brought back to life, you can go back to your corpse and grab your stuff, assuming someone else hasn't looted it.
I was a "hardcore" mode Diablo II addict (in HC mode, you only get one life to live and when you die, that's it--you lose everytihng and you're level one again). I'd go for days w/ minimal food and rest--it was insane. Anyway, that's beside the point--I never had more fun with a game. It was the first time a modern game went beyond a FPS shooter game (ie, instant action), while combining a persistent character, while causing you to exhibit real survival-like behavior. When I played for those hours--and days straight--I was having *tons* of fun and laughs constantly and consistently...
So many of these games these days have you sit there for hours w/o even raising your heartbeat--I don't understand how people let themselves play them! In Diablo II hardcore, I'd stand up after a few hours of play and feel like I just had a two hour-long workout (and I'm shape, before you jump on that one).
Looking back, there wasn't a *single* hour or loss of a character where I didn't have hoots of fun. What other games (and/or game formats) can boast that? Sure, some of the deaths were painful and sad at the equipment I lost, but that's what real battle and gaming is--it goes beyond fun and enters the realm of glory.
Glory isn't something that you can save to file, accumulate from killing a high xp monster a hundred times using hours of free time, or get from nice equipment. It's when you and a couple others that you've been fighting alongside with rush in a room where the outcome is unknown and is also for keeps--you get one and only one chance. And when you fought off the odds, the glory was yours. And when you didn't, and fought to the end, the glory was still yours. I bowed down--and fell in love--with a game that could let your experience that.
G-Force music visualization
Blizzard just gets a little 'governmental' for lack of a better term.
They didnt like the free battle net software because
1. they couldn't control the gaming experience/viruses downloaded through it, etc.
2. they couldn't advertise for their games and other stuff inside of it.
The downloading software portion does not directly bring in any money, so they might as well use torrent. Not to mention if you used blizzards torrent you know it first involves downloading their torrent program, which is another place they can put advertisements...
They only want it if they can control it.
I for one was never at war with them, they create awesome games.
People need to stop thinking of Slashdot as one big collective with the same thoughts and goals. Its a website full of unique people, they think differently.
Some of them are upset over bnetd, others couldn't care less.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Oh, please. Most games companies would quite happily sell their proverbial grandmother's kideneys or daughters into slavery rather than do the right thing. Blizzard, however, is an exception.
Time after time, Blizzard has chosen to let a product launch date slide rather than release an incomplete or buggy game. And time after time, when those products have finally been finished they've turned out to be masterpieces.
Can you name one bad game that Blizzard has made? Can you name another developer that has released three games that have free online multiplayer play that are as popular as Warcraft III, Diablo II and Starcraft? Heck, Starcraft is almost six years old now and Blizzard still supports it! There are even people playing the first Diablo online at Battle.net and how old is that game now?
Blizzard objected to bnetd because it allowed people to play online without CD key verification (ie, without needing to buy a copy of the games concerned). When you consider that the initial purchase of those games (and the almost unnoticeable banner ads on Battle.net whilst you chat) are the only source of income that Blizzard has, it's hardly surprising that they weren't too keen on an online service that directly threatened their existance.
If Blizzard has big $ signs permanently on its collective mind as you suggest then perhaps you can explain why it lets people play its games online for free rather than charging a single penny for the privelege?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
you may remember them as the company that used the DMCA to kill bnetd and tried to kill freecraft?
Unlike MMORPGs, Blizzard only has the sale of their games to provide revenue. They provide BattleNet free of charge, and it is superb. While bNetd was great and all, it DID make it so people didn't have to buy their game and have a unique cd-key. Having played D2 for a couple of months now (and getting thoroughly addicted to online play on BattleNet), I'm certainly in Blizzard's corner...their games are superb and people should pay what they're worth.
Could the bnet thing been handled better? I dunno, I didn't hear all the inside info, but I seriously doubt that Blizzard wants to release their cd-key algorithm, and since that's the only way I can see them being happy with bnet, I don't see another way they could have handled it.
--trb
While I never played on Bnet.d, I have to disagree with you about there being no other reason to play on it. Blizzard servers may not be strained now, but when I was playing Diablo II lag was sometimes a real problem, especially for playing hard-core (once you're dead, your character is dead).
As previously mentioned, there are plenty of reasons other than not owning the game to want to play on non-Blizzard servers. A chance for reduced lag is one. Having different standards of acceptable behavior is another. Also, having a smaller pool of players makes meeting people online more likely. Moreover, if this is hosted for a local ISP, you are more likely to meet people in your area.
The comparison of BNet.d writers/users with virus writers is unfounded; a better comparison would be with the writers/users of no-CD hacks or software. Some people may use them for pirating, but many others use them for convenience. Given current hard drive sizes, there is no reason to require a CD or even DVD to be in the drive to play a game or use software. It adds only slightly to the security against pirating, and removing it is a convenience to the end user. (Requiring the CD be in the drive, but providing no copy protection on the CD, which I've often seen, is silly; real pirates will just copy the CD and the rest of your users will be inconvenienced.)
Another major thing you've missed about "improving the game experience" is that Blizzard was changing the balancing with each patch, which made a few of my friend's characters impotent (excessive concentration in skills that were nerfed with a patch). I don't know whether each patch was reverse engineered or not, but I assume that each server running Bnet.d had the choice of whether to implement a new patch.
Also, from the ISP's point of view, every player they could get on local Bnet.d servers was less external bandwidth they had to pay for. I don't think Diablo II was that bandwidth intensive, but it probably didn't hurt.
Here's a link to an alpha tester's report. It's a VERY long read but it's also a really, really GREAT read. If you're interested at all in what WoW is and isn't as it starts beta, this is must read material.
2 6
http://www.graffe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155
The "heros" aspect was newish, but I think it detracted from the game, really. If I want to play an RPG I'll play an RPG.
What bothers me is that after all these years of RTS games they still don't have the improvements I was looking for after playing my first. Specifically, ways to avoid micromanagement. I want
- User definable attack priority lists. I want to be able to tell each unit, or unit type, or group what priority to assign to which enemy types.
- User alterable aggression levels.
- The ability to set the level at which my damaged units will retreat and get healing.
- User definable "response zones" so that I can establish a rapid reaction force and order it to aid any attacked unit inside its response zone, or to ignore attacks in certain areas.
- The ability to order units with special attacks to bloody use the damn attacks so I don't have to fricking micromanage each damn unit's special attack. WC3 at least gave you the ability to set *some* specials to work automatically, but it wasn't very specific. I'd like to be able to order my special units to use X amount of their mana/energy/whatever for defense, Y for offense, and Z for support. Again, on either an individual basis, a unit type basis, or a group basis.
None of this requires true AI, none of this is impossible for today's programmers. Some of what I want existed in the game Dark Reign (aggression levels, for example). Why has the actual mechanic of playing RTS games been left unimproved since day one? If I want a game where I have to be twitchy I'll play an FPS game. I don't want to micromanage anything. That isn't strategy.I figure that its much more important in a *strategy* game to set proper "standing orders" than it is to individually tell each and every grunt specifically what to attack. The commander should be thinking about the big picture, where to expand, what unit mix to use, the broad strokes of the attack, where to put forward staging areas, where to place support units (repair bays, etc), not focusing on individual units.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
If it would EVER get finished, the Star Wars Combine is what you've described.