Blizzard release schedule up to 2015

[Paelos]

I'll say it again. I want a formal apology. I want them to publically admit that this was a horrible decision and reverse their course. The day they publically and directly do that, I will sign up for a full 6 months of sub. I don't even care if I play much anymore, I just want to support that decision with my money.

This is still a completely retarded thing to ask for, and you'd have a hard time getting players to agree on what went wrong with this expansion that they should be apologizing for 

I'm pretty sure people left because they tuned up shit so their friends couldn't do it. Almost every problem stemmed from that.

[Rokal]

Actually if there's anything your silly "I Quit" posts have shown, it's that people have a variety of reasons for quitting the game. One man's "this is too hard for my dumb friends" is another man's "RP isn't encouraged enough in Cata and the world feels small", etc.

[Ingmar]

I have my Horde characters on Moon Guard, an RP server, the big whine there lately is how some Ask the Devs column made all the pen and paper RPG books NON-CANON and it RUINED their backgrounds etc.

[Kail]

I have my Horde characters on Moon Guard, an RP server, the big whine there lately is how some Ask the Devs column made all the pen and paper RPG books NON-CANON and it RUINED their backgrounds etc.

Oh, wow, the guys over at Wowpedia must be having a goddamn seisure.  Half their content was pulled from the P&P RPG.

[Fordel]

Pretty much, yes.


The entire lolore/RP community went   

[Amaron]

Need link.   Loretard tears are among the most delicious in existence.

Edit:  Nm I found it.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2283549208

Q: Are the Warcraft and World of Warcraft RPG books considered canon?
 
A: No. The RPG books were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience, which sometimes required diverging from the established video game canon. Blizzard helped generate a great deal of the content within the RPG books, so there will be times when ideas from the RPG will make their way into the game and official lore, but you are much better off considering the RPG books non-canonical unless otherwise stated.

[WindupAtheist]

Blizzard is just being greedy as fuck and doesn't really give a shit about WoW anymore. Even if Cataclysm chased off 50% of their subscribers they would still be the biggest thing in the world with more than enough resources to give us an appearance tab, instanced houses, and all the fucking content we could shake a poopsock at. Instead they're just milking the bitch dry for a minimal expenditure.

[Merusk]

Need link.   Loretard tears are among the most delicious in existence.

Edit:  Nm I found it.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2283549208

Q: Are the Warcraft and World of Warcraft RPG books considered canon?
 
A: No. The RPG books were created to provide an engaging table-top role-playing experience, which sometimes required diverging from the established video game canon. Blizzard helped generate a great deal of the content within the RPG books, so there will be times when ideas from the RPG will make their way into the game and official lore, but you are much better off considering the RPG books non-canonical unless otherwise stated.

All that's a way of avoiding the bitching that would happen if they did something counter to what some RPG book writer made-up on the fly to fill some space.   Metzen's ego couldn't handle having to fit "his world" around someone else's idea.

[Amaron]

All that's a way of avoiding the bitching that would happen if they did something counter to what some RPG book writer made-up on the fly to fill some space. 

Stop loretards from bitching about things they don't like is a futile effort.   This answer was just the equivalent of them kicking an ant hill.

[Paelos]

Actually if there's anything your silly "I Quit" posts have shown

Get ready for more silly I quit posts, then. I haven't even posted the MY SERVER IS DEAD PLEASE HELP! posts.

[Rendakor]

I'm not even sure what it means to be canon in the WoW universe, since they've shown willingness to retcon away things they didn't like from the Warcraft games.

[Sky]

Valve has shown them the way.  Sell hats and they will come.

[Rokal]

Get ready for more silly I quit posts, then. I haven't even posted the MY SERVER IS DEAD PLEASE HELP! posts.

I think one a day is (more than) enough, but your point is already dis-proven. You won't get the WoW community to agree on what is 'wrong' with the game, there are simply too many different players out there with different reasons to play or not to play the game.

Blizzard is just being greedy as fuck and doesn't really give a shit about WoW anymore. Even if Cataclysm chased off 50% of their subscribers they would still be the biggest thing in the world with more than enough resources to give us an appearance tab, instanced houses, and all the fucking content we could shake a poopsock at. Instead they're just milking the bitch dry for a minimal expenditure.

I wouldn't say either of those features are missing from the game because of greed. Ego maybe, but not greed. Player housing is a mixed blessing in MMOs, and it's clear they decided against it instead of implementing housing that was either fluff that was never used (no AH/bank), or replaced cities (AH/bank). The appearance tab thing is totally "we want you to wear the new armor art we're making even if you don't like it".

I don't think Blizzard has plans on ever winding down WoW. In fact, if Titan is some sort of shooter, the games won't even really be competing with each other. People claiming they are intentionally trying to scare off players in preparation to shift them to Titan are crazy.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Blizzard is just being greedy as fuck and doesn't really give a shit about WoW anymore. Even if Cataclysm chased off 50% of their subscribers they would still be the biggest thing in the world with more than enough resources to give us an appearance tab, instanced houses, and all the fucking content we could shake a poopsock at. Instead they're just milking the bitch dry for a minimal expenditure.

Considering every million WoW customers represents 5% of of ATVI's annual revenue, they will definitely hear about it very loudly from their shareholders/board if there is a significant subscriber decline.

[WindupAtheist]

I don't think Blizzard has plans on ever winding down WoW. In fact, if Titan is some sort of shooter, the games won't even really be competing with each other. People claiming they are intentionally trying to scare off players in preparation to shift them to Titan are crazy.

They're not trying to chase people off, they're trying to milk their cash cow while expending the minimal amount of resources required to do so. Long-term UO veteran here, I know what this looks like.

"We know we promised two raids, but then we decided that this one was so awesome that we totally didn't need another. Really. Enjoy your 7 bosses and please buy another sparklepony lion thingy from our cash shop."

Sure. 

[Xanthippe]

They're not trying to chase people off, they're trying to milk their cash cow while expending the minimal amount of resources required to do so. Long-term UO veteran here, I know what this looks like.

Exactly. 

It's clear that the company milking WoW (and killing WoW) is not the company that poured its heart and soul into making WoW.  The attitude shift has been very clear to anyone playing the game for more than a couple of years.

[Malakili]

Are we allowed to blame it on Actvision, I'd really like to blame it on Activision.

[Paelos]

Get ready for more silly I quit posts, then. I haven't even posted the MY SERVER IS DEAD PLEASE HELP! posts.

I think one a day is (more than) enough, but your point is already dis-proven. You won't get the WoW community to agree on what is 'wrong' with the game, there are simply too many different players out there with different reasons to play or not to play the game.

So you're saying it's unfixable, then? Or is this another one of your attempts to point at burnout. I always get confused on which party line you're pushing.

I'm not stupid enough to believe 10M people will agree on anything. What the quitters can agree on is this expansion fucked everything up. That and WUA's right. They are miliking the shit out of this thing for the lowest possible inputs.

[Rokal]

They're not trying to chase people off, they're trying to milk their cash cow while expending the minimal amount of resources required to do so. Long-term UO veteran here, I know what this looks like.

Some people were claiming it earlier in the thread.

So you're saying it's unfixable, then? Or is this another one of your attempts to point at burnout. I always get confused on which party line you're pushing.

It's unfixable within this expansion I'm pretty sure. Next expansion needs to focus on end-game, have more stuff to do at the level cap, and have a better variety of content for all playstyles.

[Xanthippe]

Are we allowed to blame it on Actvision, I'd really like to blame it on Activision.

Compare what Blizzard's philosophy has become to this, from an interview in 2004: 

As Kaplan fired up the game and ran me through the character creation process, he went on about Blizzard's gaming philosophy and how they're specifically applying it to World of Warcraft. Apparently, according to Kaplan, Blizzard's game philosophy has always been that it's all about the player experience, not the designer's ego. Throughout the development process of any of their titles, they're constantly asking themselves the same questions: 'Am I having fun now?' 'Am I getting angry at the game?' 'Am I bored and watching the clock?' In World of Warcraft's case it's, 'Am I just grinding experience levels?'

Those questions informed the entire World of Warcraft design process. One of the biggest issues with the current generation of MMOs isn't technological, it's philosophical. An MMO is a game, not a social experiment. Creating a huge arena and expecting the players to generate all your content means you've forgotten why people play games in the first place -- to have experiences, to challenge themselves. MMOs shouldn't be about a designer playing god and seeing what all his little ants do in his digital ant farm. To extend the metaphor, MMOs should be a theme park -- not a playground.

Blizzard lost its way.  Is it just a coincidence that it occurred after being acquired by Activision, whose CEO has a much different philosophy? 

[tmp]

Blizzard is just being greedy as fuck and doesn't really give a shit about WoW anymore. Even if Cataclysm chased off 50% of their subscribers they would still be the biggest thing in the world with more than enough resources to give us an appearance tab, instanced houses, and all the fucking content we could shake a poopsock at.

At this point they may well look at these as key features which can set their new, casual MMO apart from the established juggernaut.

[Paelos]

ATVI stock is almost up to $12 a share, so it's not falling yet due to the moves made by the company. Since I watch the markets closely I think this is anticipation of future development rather than any Q2 numbers release. The Motley Fool, which is a pretty good Wall Street information source, rated the recent move by Blizzard as one of the dumbest this week:

Activision Blizzard (Nasdaq: ATVI  ) is doing away with the free 10- and 14-day trials it uses to hook World of Warcraft players. It's going the more generous route of allowing gamers to play for free until their warring characters hit level 20.

A lot of people see this as a brilliant move. Social gaming has popularized free ad-supported diversions, and that trend isn't going away anytime soon. Social gaming is what is making Zynga one of the more anticipated IPOs in the pipeline. Why can't Activision milk its juiciest premium franchise that way? Why can't World of Warcraft's addictive ways cash in by being more inviting to new players?

Well, the problem with War-Crack is that I don't think this will lead to a spike in paying gamers. Instead of generating subscription revenue after a few days of playing, casual gamers will just move on after they hit the tollbooth requiring $13 to $15 a month to continue advancing in the game. Existing players may also resent the freeloading.

Perhaps more importantly, what's the message Activision Blizzard is sending here? It wouldn't be tweaking its model unless the social gaming trend was starting to work against the franchise.

It's not about quality, since no one would dare compare Activision Blizzard's rich games to the free apps and Facebook games. It's all about time, and more gamers are settling for cheaper, casual diversions.

[Rokal]

ATVI stock is almost up to $12 a share, so it's not falling yet due to the moves made by the company. Since I watch the markets closely I think this is anticipation of future development rather than any Q2 numbers release. The Motley Fool, which is a pretty good Wall Street information source, rated the recent move by Blizzard as one of the dumbest this week:

Activision Blizzard (Nasdaq: ATVI  ) is doing away with the free 10- and 14-day trials it uses to hook World of Warcraft players. It's going the more generous route of allowing gamers to play for free until their warring characters hit level 20.

A lot of people see this as a brilliant move. Social gaming has popularized free ad-supported diversions, and that trend isn't going away anytime soon. Social gaming is what is making Zynga one of the more anticipated IPOs in the pipeline. Why can't Activision milk its juiciest premium franchise that way? Why can't World of Warcraft's addictive ways cash in by being more inviting to new players?

Well, the problem with War-Crack is that I don't think this will lead to a spike in paying gamers. Instead of generating subscription revenue after a few days of playing, casual gamers will just move on after they hit the tollbooth requiring $13 to $15 a month to continue advancing in the game. Existing players may also resent the freeloading.

Perhaps more importantly, what's the message Activision Blizzard is sending here? It wouldn't be tweaking its model unless the social gaming trend was starting to work against the franchise.

It's not about quality, since no one would dare compare Activision Blizzard's rich games to the free apps and Facebook games. It's all about time, and more gamers are settling for cheaper, casual diversions.

This isn't the behavior reflected by most F2P games where you eventually hit a paywall. I'd assume Activisions stock price is mostly tied to the performance of CoD at this point.

[Paelos]

I'd say that's true, but there are many people in the market out there who warn investors that the company is sacrificing quality across all fronts to achieve these goals. The target price right now its $13 for the second half of 2011, and I'm pretty sure they will reach that mark. However, I think they are due for a downturn in 2012 when the WoW numbers show the company has been shooting itself in the foot.

[Ingmar]

ATVI stock is almost up to $12 a share, so it's not falling yet due to the moves made by the company. Since I watch the markets closely I think this is anticipation of future development rather than any Q2 numbers release. The Motley Fool, which is a pretty good Wall Street information source, rated the recent move by Blizzard as one of the dumbest this week:

Activision Blizzard (Nasdaq: ATVI  ) is doing away with the free 10- and 14-day trials it uses to hook World of Warcraft players. It's going the more generous route of allowing gamers to play for free until their warring characters hit level 20.

A lot of people see this as a brilliant move. Social gaming has popularized free ad-supported diversions, and that trend isn't going away anytime soon. Social gaming is what is making Zynga one of the more anticipated IPOs in the pipeline. Why can't Activision milk its juiciest premium franchise that way? Why can't World of Warcraft's addictive ways cash in by being more inviting to new players?

Well, the problem with War-Crack is that I don't think this will lead to a spike in paying gamers. Instead of generating subscription revenue after a few days of playing, casual gamers will just move on after they hit the tollbooth requiring $13 to $15 a month to continue advancing in the game. Existing players may also resent the freeloading.

Perhaps more importantly, what's the message Activision Blizzard is sending here? It wouldn't be tweaking its model unless the social gaming trend was starting to work against the franchise.

It's not about quality, since no one would dare compare Activision Blizzard's rich games to the free apps and Facebook games. It's all about time, and more gamers are settling for cheaper, casual diversions.

I get the impression this guy doesn't know much about MMOs. Existing players won't and don't give two craps about people floating around for free at level 20.

[Speedy Cerviche]

This isn't the behavior reflected by most F2P games where you eventually hit a paywall. I'd assume Activisions stock price is mostly tied to the performance of CoD at this point.

50% of Activision's revenue is WoW, any subscription dropoff is a very big deal.

[Sjofn]

I just want no cooldown WoG and HP on misses strikes back :(

That was broken as fuck and you could see the holy power on misses nerf coming from a gazillion miles away, dearheart.

The WOG cooldown is annoying as shit, though at this point I'm used to it.

[Paelos]

I get the impression this guy doesn't know much about MMOs. Existing players won't and don't give two craps about people floating around for free at level 20.

He doesn't. He's giving you the impression of the market when it looks at WoW, which I think is a valuable counterpoint to our more insider view. It might be wrong, but the money sees it that way and questions the game for differing reasons.

[Simond]

http://www.mmowned.com/forums/content/370-new-world-of-warcraft-expansion-memo-leak.html
http://www.mmowned.com/forums/content/373-vengeance-of-void-pages-2-15-leaked-image-heavy.html


It's a FAAAAAAAAAAKKE!

[Ingmar]

Why would you even link that?

[Trippy]

Blizzard lost its way.  Is it just a coincidence that it occurred after being acquired by Activision, whose CEO has a much different philosophy? 

Vivendi (owners of Blizzard) bought Activision, not the other way around. Vivendi has been very careful since it's owned Blizzard not to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. That's one of the reasons why the combined gaming companies is called "Activision Blizzard" -- Blizzard Entertainment is a separate entity from Activision. That's not to say that Kotick's hasn't had a negative influence on Blizzard but his influence is limited.

[Simond]

Bullshit.

[Xanthippe]

Blizzard lost its way.  Is it just a coincidence that it occurred after being acquired by Activision, whose CEO has a much different philosophy? 

Vivendi (owners of Blizzard) bought Activision, not the other way around. Vivendi has been very careful since it's owned Blizzard not to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. That's one of the reasons why the combined gaming companies is called "Activision Blizzard" -- Blizzard Entertainment is a separate entity from Activision. That's not to say that Kotick's hasn't had a negative influence on Blizzard but his influence is limited.

More specifically, the two companies were approximately the same size when they merged (Vivendi a little larger).  However, Activision is now the parent company of Vivendi games former division.  Kotick, who was the president of Activision, is the president and CEO of Activision Blizzard.  The old chairman of Vivendi became chairman of Activision Blizzard (and has since been replaced by another board member of Vivendi).

It still looks to me as though Kotick is the big cheese in charge.

Sure, it could be complete coincidence that Blizzard is now acting like greedy fuckers trying to squeeze every last nickle out of the business without putting much fun in, but I don't think so.

[Trippy]

Blizzard lost its way.  Is it just a coincidence that it occurred after being acquired by Activision, whose CEO has a much different philosophy? 

Vivendi (owners of Blizzard) bought Activision, not the other way around. Vivendi has been very careful since it's owned Blizzard not to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs. That's one of the reasons why the combined gaming companies is called "Activision Blizzard" -- Blizzard Entertainment is a separate entity from Activision. That's not to say that Kotick's hasn't had a negative influence on Blizzard but his influence is limited.

More specifically, the two companies were approximately the same size when they merged (Vivendi a little larger).  However, Activision is now the parent company of Vivendi games former division.

Activision is the parent of the former Vivendi game divisions *except* for Blizzard. Read the Wiki page again.

Kotick, who was the president of Activision, is the president and CEO of Activision Blizzard.  The old chairman of Vivendi became chairman of Activision Blizzard (and has since been replaced by another board member of Vivendi).

It still looks to me as though Kotick is the big cheese in charge.

Vivendi owns a majority share in the combined companies. Kotick answers to Vivendi and as I said Vivendi has been very careful to protect Blizzard.

[Trippy]

Bullshit.

What in my post is bullshit? Kotick may be a dickwad but saying he is responsible for the issues with WoW is a stretch. The far more likely scenario is that Blizzard is focused on things other than WoW right now.