I think in this case it was a matter of Blizzard not considering the possibility of having 6 million subscribers putting significantly more load than anticipated on their server infrastructure. Does this mean it is acceptable? No! But I just find it funny how forum warriors say things like 'Fix the servers!' and think they are in some way insightful. It's not like theres a big 'LAG: ON/OFF' switch in the server room that the admins forgot to flip.
I think you're underestimating the ongoing development costs of a major MMO, as well as underestimating how drastic of a change the NGE was.
You're basically asking them to maintain two MMO's, doubling the amount of work to be done. It's just not as reasonable an expectation you make it out to be.
Blizzard Server Admin 1: Hey, some guy on Slashdot said we should fix the servers!
Blizzard Server Admin 2: *facepalm* Shit, I NEVER thought of that.
BSA1: Imagine the implications of such a radical approach!
BSA2: My god, thank you ZombieRoboNinja! Your insight will revolutionize server administration around the world! Fix the Servers! Simply amazing.
Umm, Everquest? WoW has very little grind compared to a lot of games that came before. Try Lineage II for a bit then tell me WoW is a grind.
it's pitiful lack of real PVP, item drop on death, non-skillbased (player skill) fighting via collision detection ala Asheron's Call.
It's not a PvP game. It's like bitching about how Doom3 is a crappy racing sim. If you want PvP, play a game that is designed for it. Also, collision detection in an MMO is usually a bad thing. Makes it easy to grief by just blocking off doors, etc.
It created a template that was cloned so many times and just ruined the entire genre.
You really just have no idea what you're talking about. If anything fits the above statement, it's EverQuest. WoW is just a clone of EQ's basic game design.
Only because they're played often on TV and in films. Most people even if they recognise the tune won't be able to tell you who wrote it or what movement/symphony is. I for one don't know what the 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony is, even if I'd recognise it if I heard it.
It's commonly referred to as "Ode to Joy". However, they are used in TV and films for a reason. They are a part of our culture, and they endure.
That was before the era of films, TV and Internet.
Bach was considered by his peers to be the best organist in the known world. He was quite famous. He also wrote a massive body of works (usually for whatever church he was working at at the time)that was generally not regarded as very good. Basically noone paid attention to the music he was writing. It wasn't until after his death that people started taking notice of the stuff he wrote. This was mebbe 50-100 years after IIRC, but I'm not sure. Still nowhere close to the timeframe of TV, film, and internet.
The point is that current popular opinion of what is good has very little bearing on what will be remembered in the grand scheme of things.
Disney is an ironic example when talking about copyright. Keep in mind that a vas majority of Disney's successful works are adaptations of Public Domain works. Fairy tales. Of course, because of copyright extenstions, a practice which Disney pioneered mind you, no new material is entering the public domain. Disney's pot of free source material is running dry. I wonder if this has to do with the excessive amounts of sequels they are putting out lately?
I just don't think that copyright has any bearing on the value of the original work. However, I agree that current copyright laws will make it harder for works to be available for study and appreciation.
I'm just tired of people here blaming copyright laws for everything. My apologies that I jumped to conclusions.
Personally, I would be very suprised to see copyright laws in their current form survive in our lifetime, let alone 500 years. The way we handle creative works has dramatically and fundamentally changed in a relatively short time. (50 years or so) The way we treat them legally will have to change as well to keep up. It won't be too long before the people running the country are the same people who grew up with digital distribution and file-sharing.
I remember the first time through that game. Remember the 150 question survey at the beginning? Yeah, I just blew past that. Well when you get to the bridge of death, the old guy asks you three random questions from that survey. If your answers don't match, you're screwed.
The question is, 'will any games produced today be worth playing to people in 500 years' not 'will games produced today be available legally to people 500 years in the future'
Again, copyright limitations on the work have no affect on it's artistic merit. If it's good enough, people will find a way to play it. It's not like laws stop anyone now...
If Rockstar exists, and doesn't want people to port GTA III to the new platforms since it will interfere with the sales of GTA XXII and the PS VII won't run GTA III, yes, it does have to do with the topic at hand.
And this has to do with the artistic merit of games in what way?
This is true, but the means to copy something then were not as widespread as it is now. You want to copy a Shakespeare play back then? Hopefully you're literate, which wasn't exactly the norm... How about ripping off Mozart? Well, you better be able to play as well as he can, considering there is no such thing as 'recording'.
In this day and age, exact duplicates of a work are insanely easy to mass produce. That is the biggest difference between the past and the present.
There is something to be said for the mindshare that classic works still carry to this day. (I'm a musician, so the first things that come to mind are music related) I dare you to find someone who doesn't recognize the opening to Beethoven's 5th symphony, or the 4th movement of his 9th symphony. How about the Habanera from Carmen? Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor? People may not know them by name, but they will recognize thim if they hear them.
What have we created recently that will be remembered in 400 years? Who knows, but it will probably be what we least expect. Bach's compositions were unknown until long after his death...
Slashdot Mirror
I think in this case it was a matter of Blizzard not considering the possibility of having 6 million subscribers putting significantly more load than anticipated on their server infrastructure. Does this mean it is acceptable? No! But I just find it funny how forum warriors say things like 'Fix the servers!' and think they are in some way insightful. It's not like theres a big 'LAG: ON/OFF' switch in the server room that the admins forgot to flip.
You're basically asking them to maintain two MMO's, doubling the amount of work to be done. It's just not as reasonable an expectation you make it out to be.
Blizzard Server Admin 1: Hey, some guy on Slashdot said we should fix the servers!
Blizzard Server Admin 2: *facepalm* Shit, I NEVER thought of that.
BSA1: Imagine the implications of such a radical approach!
BSA2: My god, thank you ZombieRoboNinja! Your insight will revolutionize server administration around the world! Fix the Servers! Simply amazing.
Thats the point. It's iTunes, not Apple iTunes. If you use the music store, it's not Apple branded at all.
The Homeworld manual is a shining example.
Yeah, that was a bit of a stretch. I thought it was kinda cheap how they dodged that long-anticipated bullet.
SWG takes place between A New Hope and Empire, IIRC
I am Oobeedoob Badoobee!
Whats your middle name?
Scooby Dooby.
So.. Oobeedoob Scooby Dooby Badoobee?
One and the same. And you must be...The Crybaby.
Thumb Wars FTW.
It's not a PvP game. It's like bitching about how Doom3 is a crappy racing sim. If you want PvP, play a game that is designed for it. Also, collision detection in an MMO is usually a bad thing. Makes it easy to grief by just blocking off doors, etc.
You really just have no idea what you're talking about. If anything fits the above statement, it's EverQuest. WoW is just a clone of EQ's basic game design.
I must be old. I thought "Graphic Novel" was the term people used when they weren't comfortable admitting they read comics.
The point is that current popular opinion of what is good has very little bearing on what will be remembered in the grand scheme of things.
Disney is an ironic example when talking about copyright. Keep in mind that a vas majority of Disney's successful works are adaptations of Public Domain works. Fairy tales. Of course, because of copyright extenstions, a practice which Disney pioneered mind you, no new material is entering the public domain. Disney's pot of free source material is running dry. I wonder if this has to do with the excessive amounts of sequels they are putting out lately?
Yeah, you don't get many opportunities in modern games to really screw yourself over without any chance of recovery. It was truly a :facepalm: moment.
I just don't think that copyright has any bearing on the value of the original work. However, I agree that current copyright laws will make it harder for works to be available for study and appreciation.
I'm just tired of people here blaming copyright laws for everything. My apologies that I jumped to conclusions.
Personally, I would be very suprised to see copyright laws in their current form survive in our lifetime, let alone 500 years. The way we handle creative works has dramatically and fundamentally changed in a relatively short time. (50 years or so) The way we treat them legally will have to change as well to keep up. It won't be too long before the people running the country are the same people who grew up with digital distribution and file-sharing.
All good points.
Plus, there was a lot more emphasis on performance as the means to make a living from your work.
I remember the first time through that game. Remember the 150 question survey at the beginning? Yeah, I just blew past that. Well when you get to the bridge of death, the old guy asks you three random questions from that survey. If your answers don't match, you're screwed.
:(
I had to start the game over.
I actually finished that god-forsaken game. It is just EVIL. (Loved it)
The question is, 'will any games produced today be worth playing to people in 500 years' not 'will games produced today be available legally to people 500 years in the future'
Again, copyright limitations on the work have no affect on it's artistic merit. If it's good enough, people will find a way to play it. It's not like laws stop anyone now...
This is true, but the means to copy something then were not as widespread as it is now. You want to copy a Shakespeare play back then? Hopefully you're literate, which wasn't exactly the norm... How about ripping off Mozart? Well, you better be able to play as well as he can, considering there is no such thing as 'recording'.
In this day and age, exact duplicates of a work are insanely easy to mass produce. That is the biggest difference between the past and the present.
There is something to be said for the mindshare that classic works still carry to this day. (I'm a musician, so the first things that come to mind are music related) I dare you to find someone who doesn't recognize the opening to Beethoven's 5th symphony, or the 4th movement of his 9th symphony. How about the Habanera from Carmen? Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor? People may not know them by name, but they will recognize thim if they hear them.
What have we created recently that will be remembered in 400 years? Who knows, but it will probably be what we least expect. Bach's compositions were unknown until long after his death...
It was also a time where you didn't have to worry about someone copying 'Hamlet' and passing it off as his own work.
Perpetual copyright is bad, agreed. But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Put your straw-man away.
Jumping needs to be removed from FPS'es. Bunny-hopping is absolutely rediculous.
Eve-Online isn't exactly the most graphically intensive game out there. Using that as a basis for comparison is a bad idea.
Not saying the game doesn't look great, it does. However it is very easy on the video card. An 8000 series Radeon can run it fine.