WoW Expansion Sells 2.4 Million, New MMOG Planned

Computer and Videogames is reporting that 2.4 Million copies of Burning Crusade were sold on the first day of retail sales. Those numbers are just for North American and the EU, too, which totally discounts any sales the box may have had in Asian markets. Even without our eastern brethren, that number pretty much destroys every other launch-day sales number for a PC game. Meanwhile, the same gent that teased us with the next StarCraft game has tossed out this bone as well: Blizzard's next MMOG 'won't be another WoW'. From the article: "'When we announce our next MMORPG it's not going to be another WOW--we're not a company that tends to tread the same ground,' he told British film magazine Empire. 'It'll be something innovative and new that really brings entertainment to another level.' American Blizzard reps declined to expand on Bassat's comments, although the fact that the company began hiring real-time strategy developers last summer might offer a clue." So ... another Blizzard MMOG. Huh.

Comments

Suckered me in

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been staying away from WoW but with the expansion, my friend managed to sucker me in and I now have a lvl 10 Shaman Draenei with a decent name. So Blizzard got me too!

Oh, and FROSTY PISS?

Re:Suckered me in

[Cyraan]

At least you've admitted it, thats the first step.

Re:Suckered me in

[0xABADC0DA]

Next is belief in a higher power, say Hakkar the Soulflayer or C'Thun.

Innovative

[0racle]

"'When we announce our next MMORPG it's not going to be another WOW--we're not a company that tends to tread the same ground,' he told British film magazine Empire. 'It'll be something innovative and new that really brings entertainment to another level.'

Innovative. Not like when they released Warcraft 2 then 3 then a MMO based on Warcraft. It will be new, innovative just like the last time they got innovative.

It will be Universe of Starcraft. New and innovative, never been done before.

Re:Innovative

[fishybell]

You're missing the real innovation: One company taking in vast amounts of money from two MMO games. It's brilliant!

Re:Innovative

[Gothic_Walrus]

I'd say taking a franchise from RTS to MMORPG requires at least some innovation. Innovation doesn't necessarily require an entirely new setting; if the mechanics and the game itself change significantly (as did Warcraft), that could be enough on its own.w

Besides, "MMO" doesn't entail the same thing as "MMORPG." If Blizzard were to release a Starcraft MMORPG, I suspect that it would cannibalize subscribers from WoW more than it would bring in new players. Since we don't know anything yet, why not have a little bit of faith?

Re:Innovative

[CarnivoreMan]

Innovative. Not like when they released Warcraft 2 then 3 then a MMO based on Warcraft. It will be new, innovative just like the last time they got innovative.

There was a Warcraft 1 as well... ya know, just FYI. =)
.. but anyway, each of those games were innovative(Actually I cant really comment on WC1 vs WC2. I dont know WC1 worth beans). They each take place in the same universe and follow a storyline, but still, the changes from one to the next were not trivial.

Re:Innovative

[neoform]

You forgot to point out their expansions..

This $50 expansion is basically a big patch for their game. Look at what they added.. basically they fixed a bunch of problems with the game, does that warrant $50?

Re:Innovative

[warmgun]

Innovative. Not like when they released Warcraft 2 then 3 then a MMO based on Warcraft.

That's like saying there was no innovation from Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario World to Super Mario 64. Have you even played the Warcraft games? From 2 to 3 there was a major leap in the mechanics of the RTS. From 3 to WoW was a complete change of genre!

Re:Innovative

[HaloZero]

This $50 expansion is basically a big patch for their game. Look at what they added.. basically they fixed a bunch of problems with the game, does that warrant $50?

You know nothing. They've added an entire new world, two new races, new professions, extended the existing professions, as well as having fixed a host of issues (and introducing entirely another set!). Of course, the game is not without it's flaws (and deep ones, at that), but Blizzard has actually done a very good job with this expansion. It isn't just more of the same old shit.

Re:Innovative

[TobyWong]

So let me get this straight. Any time a company uses content from their library of IP in a new product that has already seen the light of the marketplace, that product is automatically "non-innovative"?

That would mean it would be impossible to make an innovative game that had any characters/content from existing books, movies, music, etc.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Re:Innovative

[jandrese]

It will be funny if life imitates Penny Arcade.

Re:Innovative

[ajs]

This $50 expansion is basically a big patch for their game.

In fact, you're entirely wrong. The patch itself was released for "free" to the entire playerbase in early December, and fine-tuned before and after (but not on the day of) the release. The expansion only unlocks new content such as the new continent of Outland, 2 new races, lots of new gear and quests, etc.; it patches nothing. Nothing.

The 2.0.1 patch (link to release notes) was released Dec. 5. The 2.0.6 patch was released today. None of that required that you pay for the expansion, and while we, the player-base, whine about every percieved "nerf" that comes along, we have to admit that the game has gotten substantially better, deeper and richer even without the expansion, in the last month.

What we all got without buying an expansion at all:

• Honor System Revamp - A major new way of doing player-vs-player (PVP) that improved on the old system by making it far less "play it or lose it"
  
• New arena PVP instances
  
• A re-tooled UI API that improves security, and thus reduces gold-farming and botting abuses
  
• The full level 1-70 talent system revamp (even though you can't level to 70 without the expansion, you can choose to spend your points on getting level-70-ready talents with the patch)
  
• A massive improvement to pet-classes in the high-end game by giving bonuses from gear to pets as well
  
• A looking-for-group tool that enables a much smoother means of finding others to play with
  
• Support for advanced MacOS graphics features that makes WoW much nicer on Macs
  

Blizzard isn't that other MMO company. They are cold and unresponsive sometimes simply due to the massive number of players, but their overall approach has always been one of giving the community new features and content for their monthly subscription. There's now even more that you can buy, but I think anyone who has played the expansion will have to admit that you get a LOT for your money.

Re:Innovative

[eht]

He truly does know absolutely nothing about Burning Crusade, not even the price, as the MSRP on it is $40 ($39.99).

Re:Innovative

[Endo13]

It will be Universe of Starcraft. New and innovative, never been done before. Shouldn't that be something like "System of Starcraft"?

So, who's up for some SoS?

Re:Innovative

[0xdeadbeef]

It will be Universe of Starcraft. New and innovative, never been done before.

Wrong - Star Wars Galaxies. Shows how much you know.

(Damn fanboys, it's like they think Blizzard redefined the whole genre or something. And that sycophantic praise gets modded "insightful"!)

Re:Innovative

[brkello]

You can create something of the same genre and still have innovation. Even if it is a sequel. But if you don't think WoW is innovative, then you are a moron. It has nothing to do with Warcraft 2 or 3 other than it being in the same universe. Blizzard takes popular genres and adds innovations that make them better. Innovation doesn't have to be Katamari Damacy (which of course has a sequel). People on here whine too much about lack of innovation when they have no idea what they are talking about. You can't expect innovation to keep up from 20 years ago. It was impossible not to innovate then because nothing else existed.

Re:Innovative

[Jesterboy]

I think it may well be a MMO Diablo game; it shares more in common with World of Warcraft than Starcraft does, and it seems that Sci-Fi based MMOs as a whole haven't gone over as well as Fantasy based ones.

Of course, you could be right, it could be a Universe of Starcraft and possibly Planetside-esque. Everquest->WoW, Planetside->UoS; another chance to beat SOE at their own game, no pun intended. ^_^ It would also explain the whole Starcraft:Ghost fiasco; UoS wouldn't look nearly so innovative if that game came out...

Re:Innovative

[Wornstrom]

I agree. I took a couple months off before the expansion, partly due to the growing boredom with the same old content, among other things. This expansion is VERY refreshing, with metric asstons of new content and features. Despite the server crashes... I think there is a lot of juice in this orange they haven't squeezed out yet, and there would be no real logic in releasing another MMO like warcraft, at least until they start seeing a dramatic drop in their subscription base. A starcraft MMO, IMHO would probably be released to coincide with Stargate Worlds

Re:Innovative

[MBGMorden]

Warcraft 1 played much like 2, but with much worse graphics and a clunkier feeling interface. Warcraft 2 also introduced naval units and I think flying units (I know WC2 had flying units but can't remember for sure whether or not WC1 had them).

Overall though, WC1 wasn't that bad. I got the Warcraft 1 demo version on a huge CD I bought with all sorts of sample games (I loved when I first got a CD drive and could buy shareware CD's with hundreds of demos for $10. For a kid whose only online access was a 2400 BAUD modem connection to a BBS a CD full o' stuff is a God send :)). Liked that demo so much I decided to go to the store and buy the full version, but when I got there I noticed that Warcraft II was already out and wasn't much more expensive, so I got it instead. Many years later, after the expansion, Starcraft, WC3, and now WoW, I'm still a Blizzard addict . . .

Re:Innovative

[neoform]

"It isn't just more of the same old shit."

So you're saying WoW is "old shit"?

Re:Innovative

[neoform]

That's cool then, I was reading about it and all I saw as being new in the game was a few updates.. good to know..

I made those comments based on the fact that (I own every blizzard game dating back to warcraft 1) their "expansions" are almost always the same thing: new levels and 2 new characters..

warcraft2: the dark portal
starcraft: brood wars
diablo 2: Lord of Destruction

are all prime examples of this. I was under the impression that this WoW expansion was just that. Then again, a new world is quite a bit of work..

Re:Innovative

[Orozco]

Oh no! Your sarcasm detector is broken! Better fix it before you read any more Internets. ;)

Re:Innovative

[KDR_11k]

Not until they add Chaos Space Marines.

Re:Innovative

[NeutronCowboy]

Uh? All they did was take the Warcraft setting, slap on Diablo 2 mechanics, put up a persistent world, and presto - Wow! There was zero innovation in Wow. Though that was rarely Blizzard's claim to fame. Their strength is in very polished, very well thought out game mechanics with oodles of built-in variety.

Re:Innovative

[SilentChris]

Damn fanboys, it's like they think Blizzard redefined the whole genre or something.

They only made the genre accessible to millions, polished it to a sheen and made it feasible for a player to spend hundreds of hours in game and still have new experiences (instead of killing the same spawn over and over again). No, that's not "redefining" by any stretch of the imagination -- no sir.

Re:Innovative

[tknd]

I've played many blizzard games and from what I have experienced, they aren't experts in innovation. What they are are experts in perfection of existing ideas for a majority of people. Every genre they have touched with successful games has already had someone else beat them to the idea first. The only difference is blizzard tends to get it right for the target market (most people) they want to capture.

I have heard nothing good about wow except that it has great PvE until level 60. After that, people have told me that it becomes the most glorified PvE treadmill ever. Many mmo players will say that prior to wow, mmorpgs already had treadmills in place. The only difference is blizzard managed to make a great game from 1-60, just long enough to sucker people into ignoring the treadmill at the end. Other mmos didn't hide this fact in the very beginning (the treadmill starts at level 1) so people get bored and give up. Was blizzard the first? I doubt it, I've seen EQ and the great efforts required to get anywhere in that game. The only problem was every mmo that tried to implement the treadmill did it poorly (too blatant, or too obvious up front for the newbie).

Sure, I'll give em that they do innovate in smaller areas of gameplay (interface, controls, slight game mechanics changes, etc...) but something totally new for a genre? No. Show me something like Spore or a Wii and I'll call blizzard innovative. That doesn't mean that they can't be successful or have good products, in fact, I think they make very good products. But I wouldn't call them innovative in terms of gaming innovation.

Re:Innovative

[UnknownSoldier]

WC2 didn't have 2 new characters. It introduced the concept of "Heroes."

It's a little known fact, but Blizzard never did the expansion for Warcraft 2. It was done by the (now) defunct Cyberlore. If you check the back of the box, you can see a tiny company logo.

Jim DuBois and Jesse King were the lead designers; I'll have to ask them who came up with, and who decided what new things went into the expansion.

Cheers

Re:Innovative

[Bilestoad]

Yeah, those who can do, those who can't whine about how it wasn't original and anyone could have done it.

Re:Innovative

[obeythefist]

You make some good points - but I suggest to you that innovation, while necessary and fraught with high risks (many, many innovations are duds), it cannot happen and is not as important as evolution is.

Are you so convinced there is some kind of magic new gameplay out there we've never thought about before? Here's an example - the Wii isn't new, Virtual Reality arcade games 10 years ago had the same motion control, the Wii is evolutionary, they were the first to do it *right*. The only revolutions I can remember that are worth mentioning: FPS, RTS, MUDs, 2D Shooters, TBS, flight simulators. Everything else is an *evolution* of those things. Not innovative, they just took existing ideas and made them better. Even FPS is tenuous in there - while it's a wildly successful format and ID software were the first to jump in, it's just an evolution of the 2D shooter (look at wolfenstein and the magic-spellcaster game before that, they're radial 2D shooters ala "commando" represented with mapped textures in 3D).

But we have FPS because the 2D shooter was evolved by ID software into wolfenstein then Doom, then Quake (first fully 3D FPS I believe?). Was that innovation or evolution? Was descent an innovative revolution or an evolution? It was a flight sim inside a 3D maze. Turn based games are just a computerised version of boardgames. MMORPGs are just MUDs crossed with FPS games, pretty much. Sure you zoom out to third person most of the time, but there's effectively no difference apart from POV between FPS and TPS anyway, it's a no brainer.

This is obviously a semantics problem. You seem to believe that if a product is evolutionary, even if it is successful, that it is not innovative. I beg to differ. I believe the only successful innovation is totally dependant on a good evolution from an existing model. WoW is innovative and evolutionary. The innovation is in the overall game design mix. It's the first casual gamer friendly MMORPG. It's the first mass-market appealing MMORPG. These were all deliberate design decisions. Even though the list of similarities for WoW and other MMORPGs is much larger than the list of differences, it is innovatively evolved.

Re:Innovative

[TempeTerra]

Dammit. I was totally going to say the same thing. The reason Blizzard succeeds is that they can take a good idea and execute it well, as opposed to something like SWG or any of the several Diablo wannabees which were good ideas executed badly.

But I don't see how Blizzard will make a MMO that's unlike WoW - they're out of proven gameplay mechanisms to steal from their other franchises. I'm not saying they can't - but it will have to be something new this time, not an excellent re-hash of their old ideas.

Re:Innovative

[Krakhan]

Actually, the original Warcraft 2 game had Heroes in them too. The expansion pack basically just introduced a new campaign for the Humans and Orcs, with new Heroes.

Re:Innovative

[GuyWithLag]

My experience contradicts yours. I have a WoW account upgraded to TBC, and I cannot even log on from a non-TBC installation (correctly patched to the latest version). Further, after installing TBC all the 2.0.x patches are being applied, even the humongous 200+MB 2.0.1...

Re:Innovative

[pasamio]

What I don't get about WoW is the fact that people complain that they can't level up any more and that the game is restrictive. In fact I had one friend tell me thats why they wanted TBC, so they can progress from Lvl60. I don't really see the fun in playing the game until you get to a point and can then progress no further, it reminds me of the single player worlds - once you're at the end all you can do is play with friends to help them get to the top. But in any case I'd be more interested in the fact that it appears that the 'patch' was given out for free (presumably to make everything nice and compatible) whilst the 'content update' was charged. I find this strange not only coming from EVE as my primary MMO but after seeing this on the WoW website:

Why isn't World of Warcraft free?
World of Warcraft will require a fee to play. This fee will be used to support the costs associated with the high-quality levels of service, support, and ongoing content creation that we are planning for World of Warcraft.

For those interested, I sourced it from the General FAQ: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/general.ht ml

I've asked people what the ongoing content creation has been so far and I've been told a reconfiguration of the Merit system (multiple times), Talents a few times and around about 10 new dungeons. I can see TBC as a major content update but I wonder why everyone is so happily accepting that is being charged for?

As an example of the contrary, EVE has no real upper skill limit (estimates on training _every_ skill in EVE amount to the years) and also has free content updates for a lower monthly fee. In fact Revelations, the last content update, did similar to TBC in a way: they added a whole new set of items, new skills (I'm told these are akin to talents), new abilities within the game (you can now salvage things and do invention as well (an extension of manufacturing)). If you're more interested in what free content updates there have been (and theres been 5 of them since the games release in May 2003) you can check out the EVE Website: http://www.eve-online.com/features/

I guess a space MMO isn't what people want, thats great, but when they go to WoW I wonder. You're paying more consistently to get what seems like lower service (no idling when you have large numbers of servers plus wait times to join) and you get charged for major content updates. Did I miss something?

Re:Innovative

[aikouka]

That's because only the Burning Crusade install contains elements found in Outlands, Azuremyst Isle and Quel'Thalas. These were not included in the Burning Crusade content patch as you could not access any of them without BC anyway.

Although the exact opposite works, you can play a non-BC account on a BC installation, because all the components required exist.

Re:Innovative

[Anonymous Coward]

(I know WC2 had flying units but can't remember for sure whether or not WC1 had them).

It didn't because Dune didn't, and WarCraft was nothing but a Dune rip-off.

Re:Innovative

[Anonymous Coward]

"It isn't just more of the same old shit."

Yes it fucking is. ADDICT ALERT!

Re:Innovative

[Dog-Cow]

Does EVE release a free content update that is 50% of the size of the original game?

Re:Innovative

[murdocj]

Let's see, they did a great RTS, then an RTS with 3 well balanced yet completely different sides, then a hero-based RTS, then an MMO. And did them all brilliantly. Yeah, sure sounds like they don't know how to innovate.

Re:Innovative

[geminidomino]

Considering the release date of Diablo II... Yes. Yes, it is.

Re:Innovative

[geminidomino]

made it feasible for a player to spend hundreds of hours in game and still have new experiences (instead of killing the same spawn over and over again). Yeah, that would totally suck, if the endgame was nothing but running the same crappy dungeons over and over again to trick out your gear by killing the one monster that drops it...

Oh wait... But at least they made it so you could only try once a week and needed 39 other addicted saps to go with you!!

Re:Innovative

[ajs]

My experience contradicts yours. I have a WoW account upgraded to TBC, and I cannot even log on from a non-TBC installation (correctly patched to the latest version). There's something wrong with your machine. I got TBC 24 hours after it was released, and I was able to log in fine.

Further, after installing TBC all the 2.0.x patches are being applied, even the humongous 200+MB 2.0.1... Yes, of course they are. The TBC disks were pressed before those patches were released, so they update your old installation OR the TBC-updated installation. That, however, does not contradict anything I said. You got the patches regardless of TBC being released, and you got them even if you didn't update to TBC. You also got all of the other benefits including PVP and talent features.

You also got many new instances since the initial release of WoW without ever buying an expansion.

Overall, there's a lot to complain about (in a game this large with millions of players min/maxing everything into the ground, that's unavoidable), but this is, by far, the best MMO I've seen, and much of that is due to quality of execution more than code.

Re:Innovative

[ajs]

I think you are mis-reading a lot of this. When you say "a reconfiguration of the Merit system (multiple times), Talents a few times and around about 10 new dungeons," you triviallize a lot of very complex work.

Some of those 10 dungeons you talk about are essentially stand-alone games that keep guilds of hundreds of players busy for months. Some of them are so large that you are given special mounts to explore them, and they dramatically changed the power-levels and lore of the game.

Treading the same ground?

[Samus]

we're not a company that tends to tread the same ground

This from the company that brought us Diablo, Diablo 2, Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Starcraft and World of Warcraft?

Re:Treading the same ground?

[Enselic]

If you define "same ground" as "same name and same concept" then yeah.

But the differences between those titles are quite major if you see to the differences in features.

Re:Treading the same ground?

[MeanderingMind]

Contrary to popular belief, you can make a game within the same world and context without treading the same ground.

This isn't Team Ninja where they keep rereleasing Ninja Gaiden in new, prettier forms. The differences between Diablo 1 and 2, between WarCraft 2 and 3, and between WoW and anything else Blizzard has done are huge.

Most companies would have taken Diablo and stuck exactly to the formula. Diablo 2 would have had the same three classes, the same book system with a few new skills, some reason to revisit tristram and kill Diablo again, and maybe prettier graphics. Instead we got 5 new classes (and none of the old ones, unless you count killing them), a completely different skill system, socketed items, an expansive world across multiple acts, waypoints, and even more in the expansion. The only thing that remained the same was the clickfest.

While Lord of the Clans died, and StarCraft: Ghost may never see the light, Blizzard is known to tread new ground in familiar worlds. Simply listing off game titles without the context of how different each was is disingenuous.

Re:Treading the same ground?

[markov_chain]

The only thing that remained the same was the clickfest.

Since both games have Tristram, it is possible with Diablo and Diablo 2 literally to tread the same ground, albeit virtual.

Just nitpicking ;)

Re:Treading the same ground?

[obeythefist]

Exactly - like the Nintendo Wii, which while a nice evolution of existing motion sensitive controllers, is going to be completely dependant on Mario and friends in the future. What was one of the first big games? Zelda? Of course the franchise is borrowed but the game is a rather new one.

Anyway don't forget the Horadric cube. I sure hope they implement one of those in WoW, the possibilities could be remarkable, and it would be great to watch highbie raiders trashing piles of epic items and getting minor healing potions. I'd never seen anything like that in a game before.

Re:Treading the same ground?

[node 3]

it is possible with Diablo and Diablo 2 literally to tread the same ground, albeit virtual.

You can't literally tread virtual ground, by definition.

Just nitpicking ;)

Yeah, me too ;)

Let's see how long it is before I'm proved wrong.

[Gothic_Walrus]

Between the hiring of RTS developers, the constant hints about Starcraft, and the fact that the game's tenth anniversary is coming up...well, it's just a hunch, really, but it's starting to sound more and more likely that this project is some kind of Starcraft MMOG, however that would work.

I know that I'm not the only one considering this, and that there have been thousands - if not millions - of wrong predictions about gaming. That said, considering how popular Starcraft still is today, if Blizzard doesn't bring the franchise back in some form in the future it would be a horrendously bad business decision. As long as the game isn't terrible (and Blizzard's track record is still very solid, lest we forget), it'd sell like hotcakes and would help to bring in money from the crowd that's not up for the time commitment and fees that MMORPGs require.

Misleading..

[zyl0x]

TFA doesn't actually say anything about them releasing another MMO. It's just saying that their next game isn't going to be in the Warcraft universe. Also, the guy just said the next MMO they make (he didn't say if they're going to make another one or not) won't be another WoW. Duh. That would be foolish. WoW 1 attracted more than 8 million players, WoW 2 will only bring back the people that canceled their accounts after playing the game for 5 years.. maybe.

Carefully

[El Lobo]

Making something "new and innovative" is not enough sometimes. History shows many cases of companies that have changed a winning formula for some "new fresh ideas" with catastrophic results.

That said, WoW is a great game. Million of people (including me) love it, so the expectations for the "next big thing" from Blizzard will be just too big, I think.... Changing the winning formula could be a big misstake. Look at Heroes of Might and Magic IV. It changed the way a HoMM game should have been with the result of users don't buying it. The next version V, came back somehow to the roots. The sales were just again better...

Re:Carefully

[YukiKotetsu]

HoMMIV I thought was better myself.

Re:Carefully

[markov_chain]

How right you are. Heroes V is nice, but it is so slow that playing it is an exercise in frustration. I'm again back to Heroes III with the awesome WOG patch basically because 1) the graphics are incredibly well done: vivid, clear, stylish, and 2) the gameplay is lightning fast! I can't believe how important the second point is, but once I came back to it it was like jumping out of a pool of molasses or having a heavy, stupefying alcohol fog lift off my brain.

That and the hot-seat multi-player model is a lot of fun; I wish there were more RP games that allow it.

Re:Carefully

[the_humeister]

Making something "new and innovative" is not enough sometimes. History shows many cases of companies that have changed a winning formula for some "new fresh ideas" with catastrophic results.

Am I the only one who liked New Coke?

Re:Carefully

[jfodale]

Agreed, I absolutely loved HOMM4. Played it to death.

I couldn't even make it through the campaign in HOMM5 before uninstalling.

Treading the same ground

[Jugalator]

"'When we announce our next MMORPG it's not going to be another WOW--we're not a company that tends to tread the same ground,'

Heh, no, "we" just did WoW after the third Warcraft game... Which is now followed by an expansion.

I personally feel that Blizzard need to clarify this these days, as it's far from obvious. Unfortunately. :-(

Re:Treading the same ground

[plalonde2]

Sure, because as a company, when I have a license to print money, I just throw it away in the name of "innovation".

Blizzard are doing everything right as far as cashing in on their IP. They should continue. If that means another expansion, or another revision of a hugely popular, best-selling game, then they should do it.

I hate these whiners who would have you believe that Blizzard is doing it wrong because it's not tickling their particular itch.

Re:Treading the same ground

[nomadic]

Sure, because as a company, when I have a license to print money, I just throw it away in the name of "innovation". Blizzard are doing everything right as far as cashing in on their IP. They should continue. If that means another expansion, or another revision of a hugely popular, best-selling game, then they should do it.

Yep, they're doing everything right, but I think the one issue people have here is they're being a bit dishonest about the "treading new ground" thing, that's all. They should just be upfront and honest about their tendency to stick with formulae.

Re:Treading the same ground

[mikkelm]

And in turn there are quite a few people, including me, who grow tired of people like you complaining without getting the gist of the discussion at hand. The issue here is that the interviewee described Blizzard as a wildly innovative company that never does the same thing twice, and these people are casually pointing out that all of their major releases have been parts of the same three series of games.

Re:Treading the same ground

[Anonymous Coward]

Because World of Warcraft is pretty much the same game as Warcraft 3?

Re:Treading the same ground

[plalonde2]

And you need to read too: there is substantial re-work in all their new products, even when based on the same gameplay mechanism. I hate to tell you, but that's not just a "rehash" a la NHL 2005->NHL 2006.

Re:Treading the same ground

[mikkelm]

I don't believe that I need to read anything. No matter how you put it, following lore, ideas and artwork as religiously as Blizzard did with the Warcraft series will always be "treading the same ground".

Re:Treading the same ground

[plalonde2]

I guess no writer is ever original in dealing with his established characters and worlds. I pity your worldview.

Re:Treading the same ground

[mikkelm]

And I pity your inability to discern the difference between conceptual similarity and original functionality.

Re:Treading the same ground

[MortimerV]

You're looking for the word "innovative", not "original". Blizzard doesn't lack for innovation, but they've been sticking to what they know, which is hardly being original.

impressive

[MatthewAnderson]

Good job Blizzard! I was at my local Best Buy (Richfield, MN near their HQ) for their midnight release and even though it was a blistering 1 degree (F) out, they managed to draw approximately 250 people standing in line for over an hour and probably 400-500 people that arrived near midnight. I was there for 2 hours or so personally since I wasn't aware of the number of collector's edition copies they'd have. (I later learned they had about 300.)

I wished they would have at least given me a choice in CE pets personally.. The in-game benefit for this collector's edition pales in comparison to the original title's offering. Panda!

My distaste for 40 man raids aside, I have very little I can gripe about EXCEPT the f___ing collectable card game garnering in-game rewards. It's bad enough that it exists in any capacity, but for Christ, leave me out of it, and stop nickel-and-diming these kids whom you KNOW are spending a lot of money on this CCG. The insult to it all is having to stare at that awesome baby hippogryph every time I visit Booty Bay. Of course it has no benefit beyond cosmetics, but come on. It's both awesome and unattainable without luck or significant dollar investment. I heard $200 for a code on eBay? :(

Re:impressive

[andy9701]

My distaste for 40 man raids aside, I have very little I can gripe about EXCEPT the f___ing collectable card game garnering in-game rewards. It's bad enough that it exists in any capacity, but for Christ, leave me out of it, and stop nickel-and-diming these kids whom you KNOW are spending a lot of money on this CCG. The insult to it all is having to stare at that awesome baby hippogryph every time I visit Booty Bay. Of course it has no benefit beyond cosmetics, but come on. It's both awesome and unattainable without luck or significant dollar investment. I heard $200 for a code on eBay?

My wife actually just bought the card for the hippogryph off of eBay for about $5. When she originally looked for it, it was $30 (I think...or maybe more like $100-200? I don't recall), which is more than she wanted to spend on it, but she kept at it and eventually found a good deal on one.

Re:impressive

[PingSpike]

Wow, I didn't actually release they were you getting you guys that bad. I guess I can't blame them, but I understand your complaint.

I've often wondered, with all the effort blizzard puts into stopping gold farmers from selling gold...why doesn't blizzard just start selling it themselves and undercut the competition? Sure, it would piss everyone off a bit, but its not like they've eliminated the practice of gold being sold by going the other way.

Re:impressive

[MatthewAnderson]

Well, the reason they discourage selling gold is due to their concern about the in-game economy. The cost of Stuff in the game is based upon the average rewards of a player whose goal is to take their character from bottom to top. When the normal player grows their character, gold comes into the game at a rather predictable rate. When you alter that goal to simply make as much in-game gold as possible, you're going to do 2 things: you'll find the weakest point of the game design with regards to collecting money and exploit it, and, you'll stop participating in the "normal" game economy because you won't be spending the gold you do get on furthering your character. Basic economics regarding inflation should be able to take this story the rest of the way. Thus, it is suggested that Blizzard isn't upset about their in-game currency making some chinese kid money, but rather that they're concerned about the game economy crashing.

Re:impressive

[Kynmore]

I've often wondered, with all the effort blizzard puts into stopping gold farmers from selling gold

What effort does Blizzard put into stopping gold farmers? Not nearly as much as they might want you believe. So far, the most they've done is ban accounts. But what does that really mean? All they do is freeze the acct permanently, they don't block the account holder from opening up another 100 or so accounts on a new CC.

I know for a fact that they do not take action aginst the sites that actually sell the gold, only the accounts that farm it. And you know why? They know that gold reselling is a very important secondary market to their game. They know that if they killed it completely, they would lose a portion of their playerbase.

Sad but true.

Re:impressive

[Doug-W]

That's why the price of 1000 gold has gone from $18 to $314 on my server right? Almost a 20x increase in price because Blizzard hasn't put much effort into stopping the farmers. If you track the price per gold over time you can see the price doubling with each set of changes blizzard has done. I'd think about dropping $20 on gold, it's less then a bargain game and will last me longer, there's no way in hell I'd drop the cost of a new console on gold however.

Re:impressive

[Gerad]

FYI, Starcity Games (a relatively reputable store that sells Magic: The Gathering and similar cards) is selling the Hippogryph pet for $40 here. $200 sounds completely out of line.

Re:impressive

[Kynmore]

Price changes per reseller and per server, and they fluctuate all the time.

One thing you have to remember is Burning Crusade just came out, so the lull in buying gold is over for a short time, as people now was all the new weapons and skills and professions. It will go back down.

And yes, you will see it spike up after Blizzard flushes out a batch of accounts, because thye have to resetup all their accounts and rebuild their farmers, which takes time.

Don't take my first post as standing up for gold farmers, I hate them just as much as everyone else. I was merely stating the fact that Blizzard talks a big talk, but behind the curtain, they're not doing more to stop the farmers.

Re:impressive

[mmalove]

Well, you pick your battles. Blizzard could attempt to go to court and present before a judge that someone wasn't playing their game the way they wanted. And they might win, after laying out millions in court costs, lawyers, GM time collecting evidence, etc. Or, they could continue to attack the gold farmers by denying them accounts, which costs very little, and lets them fight where they are basically gods. They can see everything, they can track transactions like the government could only wish, they can make people not exist, etc. Either way the idea is to make gold selling unprofittable, and gold buying unattactive. And I think it's working. The "price" of gold has shot up from some 7 dollars / hundred gold, to about 40 dollars / 100 gold, based on IGE pricing. Yes, for enough money you can get anything, but the higher the price on the black market, the less it's going to occur, and the less impact it has on the game company.

Re:impressive

[Evangelion]

If you find 40 man raids distasteful, then the expansion should be good news. The largest raid instance is capped at 25.

Blizzard actually *gasp!* listened to their customers (in aggregate) and tried to find ways to reduce the "contiguous time block" and "guild member herding" requirements for end-game raids.

I ended getting sucked back into playing when the expansion came out. Fortunately, I was able to walk into a best buy at random and pick up a CE. My BE Paladin (named Netherwhelp) likes his pet very much.

Re:impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the point - a CCG is all about nickel and diming people.

Re:impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at my local Best Buy (Richfield, MN near their HQ) for their midnight release and even though it was a blistering 1 degree (F) out

Sorry, I have to say this: GET A LIFE! Damn, I know a lot of people that admit having an addiction to this game, but this just beats it all. You're standing in the freezing cold to buy the collectors edition of a video game, and then you gripe because Blizzard screwed you over on the pet?

The insult to it all is having to stare at that awesome baby hippogryph every time I visit Booty Bay. Of course it has no benefit beyond cosmetics, but come on. It's both awesome and unattainable without luck or significant dollar investment. I heard $200 for a code on eBay? :(

And you're just itching to grab your credit card and buy it. Blizzard owns you more than the guys raiding 40 hours / week. Ever notice how nobody used those collectors edition pets from the first game after 2 weeks? Hope you enjoyed your long wait in the cold. :-D (Yes, press "Buy" on that ebayed card game code. Do it! Blizzard commands you!!!!!)

Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[Dan Slotman]

I sincerely hope that the next Starcraft game is not a MMO. Starcraft is still my favorite Blizzard game because it was a delicious union of sci-fi coolness with three wildly unique races. Blizzard has talented designers, but I hate to see them ignore those of us who prefer real time strategy games. If they want to chase the money pot of another MMO, they should make one from Diablo since I don't care if they whore that franchise out. (Plus I think they'll just be stealing their own customers away from WOW.)

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"If they want to chase the money pot of another MMO, they should make one from Diablo since I don't care if they whore that franchise out."

There's a really convincing argument. Because you (1 guy on the Internet) likes Starcraft, they should push a Diablo MMOG. Yeah, don't study the market and determine what has more potential or anything - that would be crazy!

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[Thansal]

Well, the reason you are not seeing any RTS games from blizz recently is exactly what you said, they didn't want to steal purchaces of WCIII/WCIII:FT

I am willing to bet we will see a new RTS comming out at some point, if it will be WCIV or SCII or something compleatly different, I dono.

Admitedly what I would love to see is a combination of SC:Ghost and an MMO. My favorite type of game is MMOFPS, think Planetside, then make it not suck some how. And if any one can make an MMOFPS not suck, I am bettign it would be Blizz. Oh, and why do I want it to be from the SC universe? Simple:
1) Massive subscription base. The more poeple there are, the more chances you have of findign some poeple you like playing with, and an MMOFPS NEEDS an massive subscription base to make it not suck (epic battles sorta suck when there are only 100 people anywhere on the server).
2) Awsome universe.

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[Dan Slotman]

I agree that a Starcraft FPS would be awesome, but don't forget that Ghost got "indefinitely postponed". I feel like FPS fans are fewer in number than RTS fans, and they are certainly given more options to choose from. I'm also skeptical of the wisdom of moving so far from anything Blizzard has done before. However, I do think it would be interesting to see a MMORTS. No one has done that, and I think that tackling that project is something that suits Blizzard's strengths.

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[Thansal]

Actualy there have been a few MMORTS games out there, of course I can't think of any names, and the only one I remember well never made it out of beta (it was an awsome game, baiscly you started with a plot of land on a planet, build up your resources and everything, then attempted to spread out).

Either way, I would love to see an MMOFPS or MMORTS from Blizz. My reasoning is exactly opposite from yours. I LOVE it when Blizz gets up and does something they have never done before, hell if they stuck only with what they had done before we would just be seeing more variants of scantily clad queens getting killing every one (or gettign eaten by rooks).

Their collection of titles is so eclectic and wonderful because of that.

from a chess game, to puzzle platform hoppers, to arcade beat'em'ups, onto the Diablo Click Fest, and finaly into MMORPGS. And just about every one of their games is deffinative of a genre. So I for one would LOVE to see them step up and make an MMORTS or MMOFPS.

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[eclipser13]

I think you're talking about 10six. It was shutdown, but revived as Project Visitor

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[Thansal]

My GOD you are a genius!

My description was compleatly halfarsed and you hit the nail on the head!

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[Dan Slotman]

Huh. I'd never heard of Project Visitor before or anything like it. Wikipedia has a half dozen other MMORTS games. Still, it would be sweet to see a company with the visibility of Blizzard move into the area.

Your point about Blizzard is well made, except that I was thinking of their recent history (Diablo, Warcraft, and Starcraft.) Within these games, we see that Blizzard does real-time games extremely well, and successfully transitioned one of their most popular titles to the MMORPG context. It is just as hard if not harder to transition an RTS to a FPS while retaining the same fanbase. I think an MMORTS is much more attractive from a business and consumer standpoint than an MMOFPS. Time will tell.

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[JediLow]

Here're a couple of options:

Shattered Galaxy - the first MMORTS (its a decent game but the lack of population has hurt it over the years).

Society - a game thats fairly early in development by Stardock

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[walnutmon]

"I feel like FPS fans are fewer in number than RTS fans"

And to any of you out there saying "No, that isn't true! FPSs are more popular": That is because you looked it up in a book. Next time look it up in your gut.

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[phxbadash]

Or perhaps we can look it up in our ass, as that is exactly where you pulled that figure out of. RTS's are FAR less popular than the FPS genre. Why do you think that there are 10x as many FPS games being released or in development than there are RTS? Because there is a larger market for them. Look at games like CS and CS:S, they each have upwards of 60-70 THOUSAND servers running at any one time, each with 10-20 people on them on average. There are MILLIONS of people playing FPS's at any time of the day and that's just for the multiplayer portion of the game. I highly doubt there are that many people playing RTS's at the same time.

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[aikouka]

Well, to be honest, Blizzard shot themselves in the foot with Warcraft "expanding" when it comes to WoW. The problem is that Blizzard usually sticks very close to their lore and they try to keep everything consistent (although the nerds do find flaws every once in awhile ;)). Now you may wonder, "well man... what's the dilly?"

If Blizzard makes a Warcraft IV, they will be further pushing the lore beyond its current place in WoW. This can quite possibly cut off WoW's ability to truly have expansions as they cannot further the content but rather further the timeline. A game that exists within two different portions of time and is a dynamic MMO world? I just don't see this happening at all unless it involves some cheesy hack.

So in short, WoW probably doomed the idea of another WarCraft RTS game as Blizzard would end up cutting off expansions to WoW, which are quite possibly more lucrative than another WC game ever will be.

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[Cornflake917]

Well the guy said they were hiring RTS developers too. I'm thinking it's going to be a Starcraft MMO-RTS. Try googling Shattered Galaxies if you're wondering what a MMO/RTS is like. I actaully don't think this is a horrible idea. If they just made a Starcraft 2, it simply won't be good as the first Stacraft for two reasons:

A. Starcraft was an amazingly great and fun game, and it would be hard for the developers to improve on such a success
B. Many the people and talent who worked on Starcraft no longer work for Blizzard.

I'm a little worried about them being innovative though. I think one of the key reasons for Blizzard's success is that they take/copy/steal/borrow innovative features from other games and they refine them and improve them. If you look at any of Blizzard's games hardly any of the features the games have are features that never been seen before.

Re:Vote no to Starcraft MMO

[geminidomino]

Wooosh!

GP post was a reference to Stephen Colbert's speech at the WH Corespondant's Dinner last year.

New from Blizzard! Starcraft Idol!

[RyanFenton]

Currently Embargoed Press Release for late 2007:

-------------------

New from Blizzard! Starcraft Idol!

Primp your Protoss! Fire up your firebat's singing voice! Practice your zerglings' choreography! It'll all be worth it when your peers decide who is the new...

STARCRAFT IDOL!

Tired of resolving ancient animosities, genetic imperatives, and vital resource conflicts through a bloody battlefield? Change those horrific screams to cheers of joy, as the new name of the game is style! Choose from over 40 dance moves, 15 voice styles, and 5 sets of 'attitudes' to make your perfect performance. Win contests, and earn accessories. Learn crafting skills and dress to impress! You'll be amazed what a little makeup and elbow-grease will do for an ultralisk.

Bring out the beautiful alien in you!

----------------

You *don't* want to see the screenshots.

Ryan Fenton

Blizzard, bring back Diablo!! please!!

[Wingfat]

Star Craft is fine and all.. but you already have a "Craf" game... World of Warcraft.. hmm lets see.. should we make a game that is pretty darn the same thing as what we already have? migth seem like a good business model right now, becasue of all the people that love WoW. But as an avid Diblo 1 & 2 player i would love to see a new update to an already MMORPG. It is all there. just needs some graphic tweaks and allow a ton of people in the same "world". I think that waisting time and money on Star Craft is a bad idea. and one big reason why is that Star Trek MMORPG will be out soon. how many star based MMORPGs do we need? Star wars Star Trek adn now Star Craft? i think not.

Re:Blizzard, bring back Diablo!! please!!

[OoZz]

Star Wars Galaxies is hardly an MMORPG anymore, you cannot put it in the same category as any other games anymore since it is probably one of the worst games on the market today. Frankly, I'm astonished that people still pay to play.

Re:Blizzard, bring back Diablo!! please!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So... let me get this straight:

A StarCraft MMOG would be a bad idea because there are too many space themed MMOs out there, so we need Blizzard to release a Diablo MMO, since there aren't enough fantasy MMOs? Ok. Makes sense to me.

Re:Blizzard, bring back Diablo!! please!!

[Wingfat]

True very True about the Star Wars mess. after the NGE they did it messed the whole thing up. i played it for a bit becasue a friend really wanted me on his server. I have been playing City of Heroes though since it came out.. i also have a FFXI account, but i am thinking of selling that one now that i am married i dont have as much time to devote to online games. so now my PSP is saving me. :) a cool MMORPG for the PSP would be cool i think. lol

Yeah...

[j0nkatz]

Those numbers are just for North American and the EU, too, which totally discounts any sales the box may have had in Asian markets. Even without our eastern brethren, that number pretty much destroys every other launch-day sales number for a PC game. Yeah can't leave out the Asians. How else am I supposed to buy my in-game gold?

Starcraft version of Tabula Rasa

[Isca]

I think this is what they've got planned. If you don't know what Tabula Rasa is, go here: http://www.playtr.com/index.html Sort of FPS, sort of MMORPG... The battlegrounds inside WOW have proved hugely popular, and with the new release have hinted at some possibilities of actually having seige weapons and tanks and such in future expansion battlegrounds. If they can beta test that system in stages now, then they can pop off an announcement next year about a Starcraft MMO for xmas 2008, soon to be delayed to early 2009 (This is blizzard we are talking about)

Diablo MMORTS

[fyrie]

They turned a RTS into a MMORPG, so why not take an RPG and turn it into a MMORTS?

Re:Diablo MMORTS

[dsraistlin]

Diablo Epic or World of Warcraft Epic, not just 1000pt armies anymore it is 10000pt armies clashing on a 5mm scale... wait a minute.... Doh! wrong gameverse.

Re:Let's see how long it is before I'm proved wron

[SatanicPuppy]

I could see an MMORPG a la Planetside, but I doubt they'd do that.

A way to do an MMO that would be cool would be to flesh out the scope of the conflict and expand it to a wider scale, while holding on to the RTS nature of it...Think Rise of Empires but with planets...There is a zone you want to invade, so you start an attack there against either a computer opponent or a real opponent...Other people who are cruising your game "universe" see that there is a fight kicking up there and join in.

Win the battle, and gain resources/technology options, which would let you build higher tier units, or give you production bonuses. Lose the battle, and maybe lose some bonuses.

Remember, MMO doesn't have to be MMORPG...A big persistent universe with dynamic opportunities for tactical combat that actually has a strategic impact on the whole conflict...Damn, that would be cool.

Warcraft Adventures

[hansamurai]

Well, maybe they'll finally release Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans now.

warcraft vs. starcraft

[Triv]

So here's the thing: I play WoW casually but it's really not holding my interest, not because the game mechanics aren't interesting, they are (although there's a certain repetitiveness to the whole thing that's getting to me, but I guess every computer game can be reduced to pressing a limited series of buttons over and over) it's because I'm not that big a fan of the game world. I like fantasy, but I love hard sci-fi, with bigass guns and technology and, you know, Outer Space. IF Blizzard came out with a Starcraft MMORPG, I'd be first in line. Take THAT, Zerg scum.

--Triv

Re:warcraft vs. starcraft

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, always loved Sci-Fi, I don't hate fantasy, but never really liked it either (never watched any of the LOTR movies *ducks), and as the vast majority of (MMO)RPGs out there are fantasy based, I've never found one I could really get into. That could indeed change if this turns out to be true.

Re:warcraft vs. starcraft

[ajs]

I like fantasy, but I love hard sci-fi, with bigass guns and technology and, you know, Outer Space.

I don't have a good screenshot of the many, many kinds of guns from muskets to shotguns to massive canons that are in the game, but:

Technology: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrusade/imag eviewer.html?/burningcrusade/,images/screenshots/, 227,241,http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrus ade/screenshots.html?2@27

Space: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrusade/imag eviewer.html?/burningcrusade/,images/screenshots/, 222,241,http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrus ade/screenshots.html?3@27, http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrusade/imag eviewer.html?/burningcrusade/,images/screenshots/, 205,241,http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/burningcrus ade/screenshots.html?5@27

Remember that Warcraft is a hybrid of science fiction and fantasy elements. The orcs, in this world, are an alien species that was banished from their homeworld. The new race, the Drenai, are literally a spacefaring race whose homeworld was blown up.

You probably want to get the expansion and explore it.

Re:warcraft vs. starcraft

[Triv]

Doesn't matter to me. It's still a fantasy world, and given a choice between draining an enemy's mana with a spell or with an Electromagnetic Pulse, the science wins.

I like, you know, spaceships and lasers, not demonic horses and bows and arrows. Starcraft's a more involving world for me, is all.

Triv

Re:warcraft vs. starcraft

[Anonymous Coward]

You might try checking out EVE Online (www.eve-online.com). EVE Never Fades XL and No Other Destiny are cool videos to checkout. Or check out the wikipedia page on it. EVE has a pretty steep learning curve and is not for everyone, but it definitely is sci-fi. And just to not get your hopes up, you don't pilot joystick style. It is immensely detailed though.

Re:warcraft vs. starcraft

[Cornflake917]

The new race, the Drenai, are literally a spacefaring race whose homeworld was blown up. The Draenei aren't litterally a spacefaring race at all. Yes they can travel to many worlds, but their ships don't travel in space. They travel through some sort of temporal dimension. I do agree that there are sci-fi elements involved in the lore of Warcraft.

Re:warcraft vs. starcraft

[Dark_MadMax666]

hard sci-fi, with bigass guns and technology and, you know, Outer Space Uhmm hard sci-fi is mostly philosophical and scientific aspects (e.g. Space Odyssey), not "bigass" guns. What you want is "fantasy-fi" aka humans in pretty suits (e.g. Star Wars)

Re:warcraft vs. starcraft

[Triv]

Not quite, but thanks for playing.

--Triv

MMOFPS

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to see an MMOFPS for Starcraft. Sort of like Planetside.

Re:MMOFPS

[Tragek]

With squads and command capabilities, like Savage, might be interesting.

New Game ? not WoW?

[HAVOC0301]

Did any 1 see the screen shots? its the same game. its like getting WoW w/ a mod for char skinning. the UI is the same, radar is square not round and all the buttons are spot on the same. The quest giver even has the same icon above his head. How can they talk about making game that is diff but show 2.4 million ppl the same game just w/ diff color UI ?

Re:New Game ? not WoW?

[MeanderingMind]

The screenshot was from an april fool's day joke by Gamespot, it has nothing to do with any projects Blizzard may actually be working on.

Maybe a RTS/MMOG hybrid?

[Churla]

Imagine an MMOG where once you get to the end game level you start to command troops and units. Engage in real time, world scale warfare. Build up so that a guild is a "nation" where each playing in the guild is commander of a squad/battalion/battlegroup. Set up towns and fortifications with Player directed NPC AI for defenses when the players weren't around.

The worlds would have to be far FAR larger to accommodate the same number of players per server if each were commanding a squad.

Pretty much Wow/Starcraft + shadowbane + CnC

Re:Maybe a RTS/MMOG hybrid?

[brendanoconnor]

As awesome as that sounds, and I would definitely buy it, Blizzard will never make a game that cool. The reason I say this is blizzard will want to pander to the lowest common denominator (good business really) and hardcore pvp and actual lose is not what the majority wants. I mean, in wow, pvp is almost entirely locked in a little box and kept away from anyone who doesn't want to see it. They even make the pvp servers carebearish compared to shadowbane and Dark Age of Cammy.

An awesome server idea for WoW would be a full pvp server where guilds could take over towns. There would be no alliance or horde player faction per say, though humans would certainly be welcomed in IF and SW, and orcs in UC and thunderbluff. They could leave the questing in but say a horde sakes an alliance faction town, all the npcs switch to horde offering the same quest for hordies and alliance couldn't use it. This would immediately cause the faction to really care about its towns, and it would make being part of a guild actually mean something. Of course this won't ever happen, but I can dream.

Brendan

Re:Maybe a RTS/MMOG hybrid?

[obeythefist]

Yeah, and with an average 70%-30% population in favour of alliance on WoW, that would be a nightmare (if you're over 15, aka, horde) or pointless (if you're under 15, aka alliance).

What happens when the horde don't have any towns at all? (this will occur roughly 3-4 hours after the realm opens).

Re:Maybe a RTS/MMOG hybrid?

[tbannist]

Are you trying to sell me on the upcoming Warhammer MMOG?

Re:Maybe a RTS/MMOG hybrid?

[Churla]

First, you build in NPC and system controlled constraints. As one faction takes over more space the defenses around the remaining towns fortify. Taking all the cities of a factoun being set to "DNI" (Darn Near Impossible).

Second, the expansion just hit, and all the servers are being flooded with nooblet kiddies making blood elves, so see, you'll have as much population as you want soon enough. Enjoy what we have been dealing with on the other side of the fence for 2 years ;)

Re:Maybe a RTS/MMOG hybrid?

[obeythefist]

"DNI" could still be surpassed, I'm pretty sure alliance players would like nothing more than to grind the opposing faction completely into the ground. If you want to understand something of the mentality of an alliance PvP player, I suggest rolling a L20 horde anything and hanging around Tarren Mill to do the quests there. Just quest. You'll be dead and corpse camped within 30 minutes. Your only hope? Horde counter-PvP. Good luck with the odds heavily tilted against you in terms of numbers.

Let's constructively assume that "DNI" is really "I", aka, Impossible. Now, Horde holds, say, 30% of the towns in the game, has only got access to 30% of the quests (so presumably can't quest from 1-70 anymore). Alliance holds 70% of towns and happily runs around ganking every horde they can find to make sure ally n00bs can keep on powerlevelling without losing any more towns... this is "fun", right? Why is this scenario fun for a Horde player?

And yes it's true, according to realm stats, there are 3 times more Horde pallies than Ally shammies now. Which says a lot about Blizzard's pro-Alliance bias we've endured for the past three years, having such great battlegrounds as A/V, where (I looked up the stats), it's about 90 alliance wins for every 30 horde ones. But will having pallies really balance the factions? On PvP realms, where it counts (unless you're a furry or otherwise love carebears and PvE servers), you can't roll both factions, so any alts you make will be same-faction. So only new players will tilt the balance, and at best there is a 50/50 chance they'll roll horde- but then we reduce that chance because they'll roll the same faction as their friends play, so we're back to 70/30 for new players as well. The balance won't change because of 2.0.x.

All we can hope for is that the rumours will work out, and once L70 horde pallies are established they'll review AV for a third time and balance the game out. Otherwise I'd suggest you continue to enjoy the wait in the AV queues while blizzard finds enough hordies for the allies to punish over and over again.

I already know which MMORPG I'm waiting for...

[HerculesMO]

Darkfall Online -- http://www.darkfallonline.com/

I'm tired of the level treadmill and carebear-land where nobody is attackable. It's a fantasy world, kill or be killed. Darkfall looks great for that :)

Re:I already know which MMORPG I'm waiting for...

[Tekninja_Hawk]

You must not have tried a PVP server. thats kill or be killed, for the most part. theres about 8 areas out of 50 you cant attack people randomly.

Re:I already know which MMORPG I'm waiting for...

[HerculesMO]

PvP in WoW takes almost zero skill. I played a PvP server for the entire time I played, it just paled in comparison to Ultima Online. I prefer a PvP game where it takes skill to be good, which is why I'm playing only FPSes lately, no good MMOs for PvP :(

Re:I already know which MMORPG I'm waiting for...

[Tekninja_Hawk]

its definitely not hard to pvp in WoW, depending on who youre fighting, but FPS takes about 23092u3% skill more than WoW does. I was just saying that the guy who said it was carebear-like probably never played pvp.

Re:I already know which MMORPG I'm waiting for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, because free-for-all PvP worked out swimmingly for Shadowbane.

Re:I already know which MMORPG I'm waiting for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try EVE-ONLINE for great pvp.

Re:I already know which MMORPG I'm waiting for...

[jfodale]

WoW's major stumbling block has been lack of worthwhile PvP. It's definitely been a motivator for the upcoming "PvP MMO" surge.

Re:I already know which MMORPG I'm waiting for...

[@madeus]

Eve Online has the skill element in so far as you need to know your load outs, it's also got a strong element of being group based, which I think is great.

However, it's still screwed up like WoW PvP in so far as who has the most developed character wins - with WoW it's level based, but with EVE it's basically money based (though they've done well to side step the traditional levelling system in favour of a better system).

Within maybe 2-4 levels in WoW it's variable, but after that skill is out the window (unless the person is a complete fool, which hapens), especially if you are wearing anything but plate/chain and are hit by a Rogue - which account for 60%+ of the PvP Server population.

In WoW the 'world' is so much smaller than in EVE, it makes the endless ganking of lower level players by 60 Rogues a total nightmare - it's not like you can actually fight back until you are 60 too, the maths mean they will win every time (even if they go AFK / fall asleep). It wouldn't be so bad if they actually bothered to impliment dishonour instead of making excuses as to why they "can't".

In contrast, EVE, while it tries to encourage differnt load outs, mostly in reality he who has the biggest ship wins. I've been ganked on several occations in a lower sec area which is not contested, and killed in *two to three shots* (i.e. about 5 seconds) while in a very well defended Thorax (which is, or was a pretty decent ship - at least pre-insane nerfing the like of which as not been seen in an MMO since the SWG combat change fisaco) by in a Megathon (a much bigger ship). Even if I could have hit him with all 5 mounted guns and drones (which I couldn't, because he outranged me), it would have done sqat damage to him.

So in EVE, regular PvP comes down to 'you have to buy ISK from vendors to complete' so you can have ships that can complete with the other guys who are all twinked out. I've never done it, but I know plenty who do. It's become the norm for PvP'ers in EVE - it's something like 50 Million ISK for 5 UKP, which is insanly cheap given the time / effort to make that from scratch - and CCP don't seem to be bothered about it. They could easily track volume transfers by account / IP and workout when something fishy is going on and kick the offenders. They say they do it every now and again, but it doesn't look like they are putting much effort into it.

ObMoan: Apart from Honor/Dishonor and Ranking systems, developers would do well to note the folly of having combat classes that can go completely invisible! Never, *EVER*! How did they imagine that would not be insanely account-canciling annoying in PVP?!

Fun? Probably. Innovative? Probably not.

[hellfire]

I have to say the development/testing/design team is pretty good. I've had my issues with them in the past but over all they are well above most.

That being said, I'm really sick and tired of Blizzard super media hype attitude. I'm tired of anyone in the computer industry using the word "innovative" to describe their next itteration of software. World of Starcraft will be fun, if that's what they do, but it will not be "innovative." You keep using that fucking word! I do not fucking think it means what you think it goddamn means!

(apologies to Mandy Potenkin)

Blizzard tries to do everything better than the next guy in terms of design, gameplay, and quality. Trying hard to make the game balance out while giving people lots of options and strategies. Trying hard to have good quality graphics that won't break machines not sold by alienware. Trying to kill as many bugs as possible. Trying to make sure the game isn't dominated by one trick ponies. Providing an background to the game so that players can feel more immersed.

It's better, yes, but more of the same. Warcraft was their first success. They made a second one. then they tried their hand at Diablo. Good game, that was reasonably innovative. Then they made Starcraft and the innovation stopped. Starcraft was fun, but it was orcs in space, stop kidding yourself. It wasn't "all new." It was only "all new" in that "All new 2007 Toyota Camry" kind of way. Then Diablo 2, then WC3. Then they saw two of their successful francises and merged the idea of the two together and now you have WoW. Recycling old ideas with improvements, and giving people the same thing as before.

I'm not belittling Blizzard or their games, I'm just really tired of their marketing department making sound like they are going to sell software that will give you instant multiple orgasms.

Consider the huge number of starcraft games played

[Anonymous Coward]

- or even being played right now - and even I start using words like "monetize" and having Scrooge McDuck dreams even though I'm not a exec or marketroid.

It might not be an MMORPG, but you can bet anything you like that when the next starcraft game shows up there will be some form of extra, recurring charge over and above buying the box.

As a WoW player, I couldn't agree more

[jchenx]

I sincerely hope that the next Starcraft game is not a MMO. Starcraft is still my favorite Blizzard game because it was a delicious union of sci-fi coolness with three wildly unique races. Blizzard has talented designers, but I hate to see them ignore those of us who prefer real time strategy games. If they want to chase the money pot of another MMO, they should make one from Diablo since I don't care if they whore that franchise out. (Plus I think they'll just be stealing their own customers away from WOW.)

As a big fan of pretty much all of Blizzard's games, and a current WoW-addict as well, I couldn't agree more. Why start another MMO? It's not like a Starcraft MMO is suddenly going to convince all the Blizzard fans who don't like MMOs and aren't into WoW ... to now go play an MMO. Plus, you've got a ton of people dedicated to their characters in WoW, so they're not going to switch suddenly to a Starcraft-based one. (And even if you do, well, you're just shuffling subscriptions around) Finally, you're certainly not going to have someone subscribe to both of them, at least for very long.

Re:As a WoW player, I couldn't agree more

[flyingsquid]

True, another WOW-like game doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. Offering the same gameplay but with different character classes (Oboy! I wanna be an SCV pilot!) would just cannibalize the existing business they're getting from WOW.

The clever thing to do would be to create a massively multiplayer online game which involves a completely different model of gameplay, so that it doesn't compete with World of Warcraft so much. The fact that they're hiring RTS people could be an indication of the direction they're going: MMORTS.

What if your character isn't a Marine, he's a squad leader. He gets a dozen marines, half a dozen firebats, a couple of goliaths. And maybe by leveling up you can move up the tech tree and get different units, command more units, ultimately become an Admiral, and soforth. The gameplay could be like Starcraft, but unlike online Starcraft- where you face the same units over, and over, and over no matter how long you've been playing- you'd have the opportunity to acquire new technologies and face ever more challenging enemies.

Re:As a WoW player, I couldn't agree more

[Dan Slotman]

Your concept would be even better if the game was implemented in a split-tiered leveling system. As you leveled up in the traditional sense, you could "become" better units i.e. siege tanks, high templar, defiler, etc. At the same time, you leveled up in tactical and strategic command as well. If you are a squad commander, you order your player-controlled subordinates to perform certain objectives and get bonus points for completing the task with minimal casualties. Your objects are in turn derived from another player representing a mid-tier commander like a lieutenant.

If balanced correctly, you could have fun playing at every level of tactical and skill level. Skilled strategy-minded players would naturally gravitate to higher command ranks, while talented combat-oriented players would naturally anchor squads. Looking at group composition would tell you whether your mixed marine/firebat/goliath group has a chance against the zealot/archon group, but it wouldn't tell you how capable those players and their command structure is.

Re:As a WoW player, I couldn't agree more

[jchenx]

What if your character isn't a Marine, he's a squad leader. He gets a dozen marines, half a dozen firebats, a couple of goliaths. And maybe by leveling up you can move up the tech tree and get different units, command more units, ultimately become an Admiral, and soforth. The gameplay could be like Starcraft, but unlike online Starcraft- where you face the same units over, and over, and over no matter how long you've been playing- you'd have the opportunity to acquire new technologies and face ever more challenging enemies.

It's an interesting idea. They did a little bit of that with Warcraft III, with the elite units and experience, although the bonuses weren't persistent. What you're describing sounds a bit like combining a traditional RTS with some Diablo-like features (persistency in your stats).

That said, a part of me would just like to see Blizzard stick to the traditional RTS model (with maybe a few tweaks here and there), and just do it really well. You could argue that this is what they did with WoW. It's not a tremendous innovation over previous MMORPGs. If you're not a fan of the genre, then there's really nothing new for you in that game (just boils down to a level/rep grind and treadmill). However, what Blizzard did polish and balance the heck out of that game, and it really shows.

Re:As a WoW player, I couldn't agree more

[D-Cypell]

Superb idea.

I would play that!

Re:As a WoW player, I couldn't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, MMO programming has a lot more to do with RTS programming anyway. In an FPS the focus is on graphics and getting as much out of the client system, whereas in an RTS the limiting factor aside from graphics is always the amount of logic you place in each of the 'units' you control (which has to be done essentially on some master computer/server and the physics results propegated), and with a vast army you need various technical tricks and design decisions to enable you to ramp up the size of the battle without compromising play quality, tools that often aren't even in the mindset of FPS programmers.

In an MMORPG, just like an RTS, you have lots of smaller intelligent elements in the environment which can respond to player interaction. They need processor cycles every tick the server runs, and they need to be present in vast numbers as well as checking for interactions with potentially large numbers of players. They need to have the ability to produce effective, simple behavioral models that can emote a complexity that simply doesnt exist.

That is why MMORPG programming is more like RTS programming than you think! If you fail to adopt the right stance, you end up with horribly inefficient server code, just like Second Life. If you do things right though you end up with giant games like EVE-Online, where tens of thousands of asteroids and objects are each running their own scripts happily.

Regards,
-Steve Gray
-Cobalt Software

Re:As a WoW player, I couldn't agree more

[CAIMLAS]

That's pretty much what I was thinking. Except, something more like this:

In the mid-1990s, there was a game that took place on the far side of the moon. Its premise was that the Soviets and the Americans were fighting a covert war on the moon throughout the cold war (possibly using Nazi tech; I don't recall). The soviets had more, lesser quality ships, while the Americans had better but fewer ships.

Gameplay worked like this: It was a FPS/RTS hybrid. In essence (and IIRC - I barely played it, but it was my best friends' favorite game), each player controlled a 'lead ship', and the lead ship was the POV used for the RTS construction. You could level up, too, IIRC, and become more powerful through upgrades. You could then control your constructed ships and base from within your lead ship in a fashion not too different from the control you'd expect with RTS, except the waypoints were limited by what you could see from within your ship. (Ships were, iirc, most exclusively tracked or hovercraft vehicles, not space farring or similar to aircraft.)

Now, transpose this to Starcraft. Imagine there are two or three main roles: controller - which is the RTS player, commander (a 'group' commander), and specialist - someone who can control individual units to greater impact/skill, and retains his skill. The specialist and commander units would basically be like 'heros' in WC3, except their skills (damage modifiers, maybe some other unit-impacting abilities like what the medics, etc. had depending on what kind of unit they're in). The controller would be responsible for assigning commanders to unit groups, which they would control in the fashion of the above mentioned soviet vs. US game - first person, with NPC wingmen. As the controller makes units, they automatically get assigned to groups, which are then given to a commander to control.

The commanders and specialists all start out playing the game as something like a Super Marine (or protos/zerg equiv), but then can enter (or control, in the case of zerg?) any unit in the game. So, for instance, you could have a dozen people on a team, 4 teams (2 zerg, 1 tos, 1 ter), with 1 controller and enough people to control 6 teams, with 5 specialists (or however you want to arrange them, depending on the skill of the people - commanders double as specialists to some degree, but the opposite isn't true, and the specialists would have more individual skills than a commander).

Of course, the controller would need a substantially more enhanced interface than what starcraft offered, as he'd have to have an easy way (aside from just the alt-4 type combination key shortcuts) to assign new units to groups, and then for those groups to individual commanders. Specialists, conceivably, could either be assigned units for maximum affect, or they could conceivably pick whichever they're better at.

Individual gameplay for the commanders (and specialists) would obviously have to be a bit more complex than it is for Starcraft with more combat options, but then I imagine the various units would also have substantially more abilities. There'd also (at least initially) be less unit types to play, obviously. Terran would have the marines, firebats, goliaths, and tanks. Similar for 'tos and zerg. There may even need to be less units on the field at a time than in SC, as obviously 200 is a lot.

Then, when a given match is finished, a person's account retains all the abilities they gained in their individual role, whether it be commander, controller, or specialist.

Then, at a level above controller, commander, and specialists, you'd be able to have clans and control planets through those clans.

For the overall affect, think: Starcraft meets a non-existent MechWarrior 5 that everyone wants to play.

The difference between Diablo/Starcraft and an MMO

[Gavin Scott]

...is simply that an MMO carries a monthly fee whereas the traditional games like Diablo and Starcraft included free online play once you bought the game.

Blizzard/Vivendi have gotten a taste of blood from the monthly revenue from 8 million WoW players and I predict they will not be introducing any new games that do not have a pay-per-month component.

So I would expect Starcraft/Diablo 3 to come out as online games where you pay $5-$10/month or something and in exchange you get a more dynamic multi-player environment than the standalone games but nothing quite as elaborate as WoW.

G.

Re:Let's see how long it is before I'm proved wron

[ajs]

There are many things that Blizzard needs to do in a new MMO:

• Distinguish it from WoW (an RTS MMO would certainly do that)
  
• Remove the "realms" or "servers" division while not throwing 8 million players into one virtual room (hard problem, but whoever solves it first pretty much wins the market)
  
• Remove the "I'd like to play with my friends, but I'd have to level for 2 months first" problem without trivializing the value of leveling (another hard problem, but City of Heroes had what sounds like a passable solution)
  

I'd personally like to see a "Universe of Starcraft" or the like, but I'd *really* like to see something like a MMO Diablo with the above problems solved. I liked the Diablo storyline and world much more than Warcraft, but that's just a matter of taste.

Re:Fun? Probably. Innovative? Probably not.

[brkello]

Just because it is the same genre doesn't mean it can't be innovative. Seriously, play warcraft 1 and then play startcraft and tell me it isn't innovative. But really...who pays attention to PR anyways. Wait for the game to come out, see if it gets good reviews, if so, then play it. Everything else is just noise.

Lost Vikings!

[Alzheimers]

Woot! Here's hoping for a Lost Vikings MMO!

Eric, Olaf and Baleog for the win!

Re:New from Blizzard! Starcraft Idol!

[jhantin]

Three words... Radio Free Zerg.

Retreads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, how's this for a thought: It'll be "Starcraft Galaxies" and they'll just dump all of the storyline that was supposed to be going into ghost into an MMOG instead. Seems like a very efficient use of IP.

With regards to creativity vs. retreads, World of Whatevercraft has been begging borrowing and stealing from whatever IP hasn't been properly nailed down -- or haven't you seen the Drain-o, Outland and Silithus lately? Seriously, the Diablo 2 "storyline" boils down to "you're a day late and a dollar short, now go get some loot." Blizzard has taken on a great pretense of lore, but the decision was made -- and contributes greatly to the success of WoW -- that fun is more important than lore. (This is in contrast to Warcraft 3 or Starcraft where you could get mission objectives that were patently dumb and transparently foolish and yet be forced into doing them to make the game continue for the sake of The Lore.) And given the track record that Blizzard has of making even quasi-interactive events in which the choices that the player makes have a tangible effect on long-term storyline, I definitely believe that it was the right choice.

If WoW were a better game, all of the characters would be pursuing different parallel quests that would change the characters' worlds as they progressed through them. Bosses, for example, would stay frikkin' dead. But I would rather have the option to complete the same dang quests with each of my WoW characters than have Blizzard tell me that I have to perform this Really Bad Idea because That's How Things Are -- that's not a game, it's a movie and a cheesy one where the audience is shouting advice at the screen to boot.

Re:New from Blizzard! Starcraft Idol!

[UED]

That is just too funny! I've got another one. Pimp my battlecruiser!

What about Blizzard's other IP's?

[Amphetam1ne]

Blackthorne Online anyone?

New and Innovative

[thebagel]

I think the majority of slashdotters have the wrong perspective on what "new and innovative" means; a lot of people have pointed out that Blizzard has put out mostly the same type of games with the same concepts. I can't vouch for Diablo vs. Diablo 2 because I never played them, but here's an example: Warcraft III introduced the idea of "heroes" into an RTS game, adding an element of RPG play to it. No longer was the game based wholly on spamming the same type of unit. Now players get to figure in what heroes to use, what order, and how many, as well as what other units mesh well with that hero's abilities. What I think they mean by new and innovative in terms of MMOG is gameplay *style* - how the game feels and the game mechanics. Just as WoW wasn't the same as Diablo, their new MMOG might be more akin to, for instance, Planetside? Just a thought. I might be off my rocker, who knows.

Re:New and Innovative

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Starcraft had heros in the campaign
Warcraft II had heros in the campaign (you don't touch the other elves like that)

Heroes of Might and Majic....but that was still turn based....

You say that....

[IflyRC]

You say that with all of the passion and zealotry of a person so addicted to WoW that he's lost his wife/gf, barely sleeps at night, rarely calls back friends and without a doubt neglects his job for surfing his guild/WoW internet forums.

Re:You say that....

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the end... I think it sounds a whole lot better than a bunch of other things!

You do what you want with your short lived collection of atoms, and allow other to do the same.

Rock 'N Roll Racing?

[wikthemighty]

Take Road Trip's RPG elements/world, add the MMO bits and feel from R&RR and you'd have a winner, IMHO.

Re:Rock 'N Roll Racing?

[Amphetam1ne]

Having played Auto Assault, I'd be reluctant to try another MMO on wheels. The intensive controls and almost constant combat made it one of the most anti-social mmo's I've ever played. There was virtually no communication between players in the field. It went to server merge after just 2 months iirc. Shame, it had a lot of potential for fun.

Re:Let's see how long it is before I'm proved wron

[Gropo]

Also don't fail to consider that Blizzard has traditionally built upon the work of previous endeavors from other companies. It's not as though they invented the RTS or MMORPG, they just polished the concept and as a result popularized them. In to the realm of Sci-Fi genre MMO's, Eve Online has a role playing foundation with many RTS resource objective, star-system control aspects thrown in to the mix. Not hard to imagine a new Starcraft title that leverages that hybridized concept with a less time-intensive playability.

No sharding!

[Kris_J]

Despite all the problems with WoW that caused me to leave, if Blizzard's new MMO is a single world, rather than 100+ realms, I might just sign up.

Persistent RTS?

[KurdtX]

One thing that I've been noticing quite a bit is the online explosion of persistent strategy games where you start off with a small empire and try to conquer your neighbors. Most of them are basic, with bad graphics and a lot of detail-oriented info screens that aren't much fun to anyone but statisticians.

However, if they could take that same idea and put it instead in a Starcraft Universe and add RTS elements, like live multiple unit control, that would definitely be a new game for Blizzard. Sort of a hybrid of WoW and Starcraft, if you will. If you think micro-managing in previous *craft games was hard, wait until you see what your choices are at the MMOG level.

Of course, this would be a prime motivator for group and guilding, as if you're going to smash some zerg, you're going to need a lot of marines and medics. Your level could literally translate to the pop cap of units you can control (probably level+5). You'd grind faction for upgrades, and access to different troop variants (what, you don't think you'd just have marines and firebats, do you?). I mean how else do you turn an RTS game massive?

But, for sure, the most exciting thing will be that special Blizzard touch that turns a concept into a masterpiece.

Obligatory

[Guppy06]

"Meanwhile, the same gent that teased us with the next StarCraft game has tossed out this bone as well: Blizzard's next MMOG 'won't be another WoW'."

This is not WarCraft in space! It's much more sophisticated! I know it's not 3-D

Re:Let's see how long it is before I'm proved wron

[DarkJC]

Doesn't have to have an RPG in the MMO. It could be an MMORTS? Not sure how that would work, but if anyone could make it work it's Blizzard.

Re:Let's see how long it is before I'm proved wron

[obeythefist]

Of course, we know Blizzard is not afraid to stick the knife into any projects that don't work out - so we can be assured of two things

1) We won't get a bad product
2) We may not get a product at all (Ghost, anyone?)

Re:Fun? Probably. Innovative? Probably not.

[Krakhan]

Diablo wasn't even innovative itself. It basically took the dungeon crawling elements from games like Rogue and Nethack, and put a nice GUI, with heavy focus on the mouse.

It was still a good game for its time though, mostly since it kind of revived the Hack 'n Slash portion of the PC gaming market, and even led to the rival of RPGs as well.

I still wonder how they got successful with the original Warcraft though. Ugh, how painful it was to control groups of units...

mmorpg dangers

[partowel]

DOn't play these stupid "pay per month" games.

all they do is nerf almost everything [ making the game more "fair" ].

Fair play is BORING.

Its never fun.

I won't ever touch these mmorpg's again.

Waste of money and time.

Spend your time on something more useful. Not playing for one more level or gold or isk or whatever.