WoW Street Date Announced

OneMadOgre writes "Ready or not, here it comes. Blizzard has announced that the World of Warcraft will be released to NA/AU/NZ on November 23, 2004."

Comments

Open Beta is going to be awefully short then!

[Razman]

Looks like Open beta is going to be fairly short, as it is still be be announced according to the world of warcraft website.

Re:Open Beta is going to be awefully short then!

[glowimperial]

Yeah, but it looks lke folks might get to keep their open beta characters.

Re:Open Beta is going to be awefully short then!

[cowscows]

Yeah, this open beta isn't really a beta in that it's not meant to test anything. It's really like a demo. A few weeks to get us hooked so we'll all go buy it when it hits the shelves. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Introduction Cutscene!

[antdude]

WOW!

Blue's News has links for the awesome introduction cutscene (DivX from World of Warcraft game. Also, FileShack (registration required; free or subscription required) has it. It is about 46.5 MB; AVI; 2 minutes and 49 seconds long).

Apple has this introduction cutscene in QuickTime format (non-saveable) as well.

The introduction was almost like watching The Lords of the Rings movies. Amazing! I can't wait for the free open beta! :)

Re:Introduction Cutscene!

[UWC]

I mean dwarves? Elves? Jeez, gimme a break...

I find it immensely amusing that this comment was moderated "Troll."

November 23rd!

[Aggrazel]

They're releasing it on the 41st annaversary of Doctor Who!? HA! They will fail utterly, everyone is going to be watching hours of Doctor Who marathons and won't even think about playing a silly video game! ...

I'll ... go ... sulk in my geek corner now.

Not Yet Ready

[HeavensTrash]

I've been in the closed beta for some time, and seeing this announcement earlier today made me cringe. There are TONS of things yet unimplemented and I don't see them being put in by the 19 day release. For example:

Paladin/Hunter talents haven't been put in the game yet. Other classes have had talents for a while and have had time to test/rebalance... Pally/Hunter will be thrown in and then instantly nerfed at retail because of no time for testing.

Warlock pets aren't finalized yet.

Battlegrounds aren't in whatsoever.

Hero classes have yet to be put in as well, and blizzard won't give any information on them.

Racial traits aren't in yet

No raid content yet.

Tradeskills aren't complete yet

Horde lacks quests and content, especially high level content

Numerous quests still missing rewards/are bugged

I was upset to hear Closed Beta had ended as soon as it did - Honestly Vivendi is rushing this one out the door to compete with EQ2. Blizzard usually takes their time in games and are notoriously late, but... Guess it's gonna be just like every other MMORPG where the first 6 months are a paid beta test.

All that aside though, WOW in it's current form is STILL the best MMORPG out there. Crazy

Re:$15/month?

[Rallion]

Plus $50 for the game to start with... I can't play this game enough to justify the cost. Looks like they are taking their cues from the cable companies.

Actually, they're taking cues from their players, and from other similar games.

If everybody played WoW, well, it wouldn't work -- the servers couldn't function at release-quality if they did. The goal isn't to get as many people as possible, it's to make the most money possible.

Not too impressed actually

[Alcimedes]

I played the Beta for a while. It was fun for about the first week. Then, the grind started to get to me.

I know a lot of people seem to like this type of game, but really the fact is I don't want to feel like I'm working while I'm playing a video game, and to me most MMPORG's feel like work, not play.

That, and the PVP aspect of it felt very broken. The classes had serious balance issues, and level was almost everything. (i know, it was beta, maybe it will get better but i'd be surprised).

Dunno, but after playing games like Vendetta for a while, I see less of a reason to the WoW angle. Vendetta does something that every game should aspire to. The better skilled player wins the battles, not the highest level player. A very low level play can clean up against much higher level unskilled players, which is how it should be.

Guess I just don't have to time to dedicate to get to be one of those highest level characters running around, and I'd rather not get my ass handed to me just because someone doesn't have a job and can put 10 hours a day into a game.

Re:Not too impressed actually

[Richard Whittaker]

The better skilled player wins the battles, not the highest level player.

That's the difference between an online game and an online role playing game. In an RPG the player (that's a real person) takes on the role of a character - it's the characters skill and level - NOT THE PLAYERS - that is supposed to determine how good the character is at things (fighting, for example).

Remember:
Player : the actual person playing the game, this person doesn't necessarily actually know how to shoot a gun, fight in melee combat, pilot a spaceship, etc.
Character : The in game "person" that the player controls. This should be considered a completely seperate persona that is not necessarily related to the player in any way. A single player can "posses" multiple characters, who may actually have opposing agendas, goals, etc.

That's why it's called a role playing game.

Perhaps this kind of game (RPG) just isn't for you - many people hate them and want their own skill to make the difference, but thats not how an RPG is supposed to work - the characters skill is everything. In an RPG, the way a players skill comes into play is in knowing how to make use of the characters skills in any given situation.