Blizzard starting work on 'Next-Gen MMO'?

[ajax34i]

Wouldn't it be funny if Blizzard makes another "fantasy" MMO, and they end up keeping their WoW player base as is, AND getting another 10 million players to play the new MMO?

[Nebu]

Yes, because stagnation is funny!

[ajax34i]

Oh yeah, stagnation, God forbid we don't make some sort of ground-breaking progress every second of our lives, and choose instead to just double the population with no change whatsoever.   There would be no meaning!  No achievement!  It'd be the end of the world!

[Nebu]

Oh yeah, stagnation, God forbid we don't make some sort of ground-breaking progress every second of our lives, and choose instead to just double the population with no change whatsoever.   There would be no meaning!  No achievement!  It'd be the end of the world!

I'm glad we agree.

[Nija]

Hey that would be like Mythic making another 3 sided game with "frontiers" and "battlegrounds" right? RIGHT!?!

C'mon.

[Akkori]

Anyone care to guess at how long a person at X age is interested in playing a type Y game? How about whether the changing nature of "culture" affects the market forces toward or against a particular type of game? Simply put: Will the people who have been playing WoW all this time be interested in another, shinier, WoW now that they are a few years older?

I'd love a Starcraft MMO, as long as it's not designed for the lowest common denominator of player intelligence. It's an interesting IP.

[Venkman]

Thank you. I've been making that point for years. People wish for a return to the old days when they don't realize they fucking outgrew them, or got older, or changed their preferences, wtf-ever it was. I laugh every time I see posts that boil down to change-h8 because a) MMOs are nothing if they are not constant change; and, b) people change all the time too.

[Nebu]

Hey that would be like Mythic making another 3 sided game with "frontiers" and "battlegrounds" right? RIGHT!?!

C'mon.

I'd cheer if they'd do something more creative.  Sadly, it's easier to emulate and alter than it is to create.  Investors prefer safer bets as well.  

[El Gallo]

Lots of people who liked EQ1 play WOW, which is a better, shinier EQ.  Though WoW certainly fits better into the now-adult former EQ1 player's life than EQ1 itself would.  It will be interesting to see what MMOs are like when some are designed and marketed for retirees (20 years or so from now?).

Anecdotally, I played and still play the everloving fuck out of Civ 4, which is a better, shinier Civ 3 (which I played the everloving fuck out of), Alpha Centauri  (which I played the everloving fuck out of), Civ 2 (which I played the everloving fuck out of), and Civ1 (which I played the everloving fuck out of).  However, I also fear change.  The last time I signed up for radically innovative gameplay I got HAM, an experience from which I may never recover.  I may not be the norm on this one.

[Nebu]

I think most people agree.  It's easier to enter into a system that's familiar rather than having to learn an entirely new system.  My biggest gripe right now is that every mmog out right now is so close to being the same that playing one over the other is like ordering a different flavor fo vanilla.  Granted, the VG version has some little bits of glass in it. 

I want to see more development houses branch out like Eve or ATitD.  I'm not sure why that strikes such a nerve with people.

[Margalis]

This is a bit off topic, but I find it very interesting.

WOW is easy to play in small bites. It is a good fit for older players with less time. Yet the player base is generally considered to be very immature.

FFXI takes a huge time commitment. It is a good fit for high school kids with nothing else to do. Yet they player base is fairly mature overall.

Exactly the opposite of what you might guess in some ways.

[Valmorian]

WOW is easy to play in small bites. It is a good fit for older players with less time. Yet the player base is generally considered to be very immature.

That's because so many people play it.  People remember immature rude asses more than they remember polite well-mannered people.

[Pyran]

Lots of people who liked EQ1 play WOW, which is a better, shinier EQ.  Though WoW certainly fits better into the now-adult former EQ1 player's life than EQ1 itself would.  It will be interesting to see what MMOs are like when some are designed and marketed for retirees (20 years or so from now?).

Brain Age-Craft.

[Venkman]

Hehe. Or Animal Crossing with a PC and Wii angle.

I want to see more development houses branch out like Eve or ATitD.  I'm not sure why that strikes such a nerve with people.

Not a cord for me, but branching out these types of games can ONLY be done by indies. That's fine, but they don't get the coverage and therefore not the players and therefore not the same level of VC investment and therefore not the same breadth of experiences. All of that is fine if you're not expecting millions and haven't staffed up for it. There's plenty of games to go around and plenty more than could come.

But it's important to realize the source. For example, the very last thing Blizzard would ever do, with all their cred and cash, is invent. Their stock-in-trade is to refine to a shine already-popularized conventions. And it's not their fault really. As a business unit of that size, they don't have much of a choice. And this puts them right in line with other studios capable of developing for mass-success. The best places for big outfits to put their energy is on polish and refinement of stuff others pushed out with sweat and tears. Invention can't be measured, so is the first thing to go in a process-oriented environment.

As a side note, I gotta say something about LoTRO vs WoW: I think it was Endie that called LoTRO "messy" compared to the on-rails experience that is WoW, and he liked it. Well shit, I love it. A lot of the things I remember as being more immersive from EQ1 are somewhat here again in LoTRO. It feels more "natural" if that's the right term. Things aren't laid out for pure linearity (except Old Forest which reminded me of gadawful Dungeon Runners of that Forest of Pirates of the Ca ). Some might say it was because the dev team wasn't as good. Others might believe this messiness is on purpose. I'll always wonder.

[Akkori]

With the ridiculous amount of money coming in to Blizzard, why *can't* they spend some of it on things the indies put out? I mean really, what's the operating overhead for ATitD? (I honestly have no clue, anyone have an idea?). I would't be suprised if it's ANNUAL overhead is maybe 10% of WoW's MONTHLY income. So, why couldn't Blizzard buy in as a kind of "silent partner" with ATitD, giving them the funds needed to turn a small indie project into a small commercial project?

[Trippy]

With the ridiculous amount of money coming in to Blizzard, why *can't* they spend some of it on things the indies put out? I mean really, what's the operating overhead for ATitD? (I honestly have no clue, anyone have an idea?). I would't be suprised if it's ANNUAL overhead is maybe 10% of WoW's MONTHLY income. So, why couldn't Blizzard buy in as a kind of "silent partner" with ATitD, giving them the funds needed to turn a small indie project into a small commercial project?

Well first it's Vivendi's money to spend not Blizzard's and second with WoW they've shown that by spending the time and money they can get a payoff much greater than what was proportionally spent. E.g. for the sake of argument we'll say that they spent 3x what SOE did on EQ2 (it was less than that but it was more than 2X and I don't want to bother with fractional amounts). However, the number of subscribers they got in the first 6 months was over 20X what I'm estimating EQ2 had (2 million+ vs maybe 100K). So spend 3x money and get 20X the payoff? Sounds like a good investment to me.

Now comparing things to EQ2 isn't totally fair since EQ2 sucked so badly at the start but my point remains which is why should Vivendi invest say 50 million on 10 different smaller titles from various developers and get maybe a million subscribers total for all of them combined when they can put that 50 million into StarCraft Online and get a bazillion subscribers?

[Venkman]

With the ridiculous amount of money coming in to Blizzard, why *can't* they spend some of it on things the indies put out? I mean really, what's the operating overhead for ATitD? (I honestly have no clue, anyone have an idea?). I would't be suprised if it's ANNUAL overhead is maybe 10% of WoW's MONTHLY income. So, why couldn't Blizzard buy in as a kind of "silent partner" with ATitD, giving them the funds needed to turn a small indie project into a small commercial project?

Because you don't get that big by a) inventing; and, b) thinking small. It's the plight of large companies everywhere that they HAVE to think big. This always means cutting off the smaller efforts, which invariably get scooped by smaller companies, which come with a new idea, which then becomes big, which then results in the big company BUYING the small idea so that it can continue to appear relevant and creative.

Blizzard hasn't so much to worry about because all things aside, they're still talented game developers. They identify a popular trend, project ahead a year or three, develop for what WILL be, and then rake in the cash. Not 100% of the time, but enough for people to think it's their stock in trade.

[Typhon]

Blizzard research:

• Diablo 1 - randomized dungeon tiles+quests and character progression (spell drops). Sure the total game was based on the old dungeon crawls, but elements within it were somewhat newish twists on existing idea (but what isn't?  If you think anyone in the last 10 years has come up with something not based on something else you are fooling youselves)
• RPG with Thrall
• Ghost

Two of those three examples were scrapped.  In Ghost and the Thrall RPG they tried out existing IP in new gameplay, and were unhappy with the results so they canned them.  If that isn't research, what is?  What do you people want?  Does it have to be unpolished (and released) for it to have been considered "inventive".

I don't consider myself a Blizzard fanboy, but for fucks sake, Ghost + ThallRPG says "YES, they try new (for them) things".  Maybe what you're really bitching about is that they won't release games unless they feel that the game has mass-market appeal.  They don't do niche.  Ok, then if you are looking for a niche game, don't look to Blizzard to deliver it.

In my opinion there is a need for both mainstream and niche players.  The niche players stretch the boundaries from the outside, but the mainstream team stretch the boundaries from within.  What the hell does that mean?  It means that the niche players come up with new types of gameplay and deliver them in games that largely aren't player-friendly.  Niche players play these games for the newness, often times despite the host of issues these games bring along with them (I play these games, and I enjoy the innovation).  The mainstream games companies often incorporate the more popular elements that surface in niche games that work, incorporating them into more polished "tried and true" interfaces and conventions (I play these games and enjoy the total expereince).  It can be argued that integrating newer features into a more established type of game is a type of innovation.

Blizzard has delivered this type of innovation with WoW that I'm very happy about - they released a content-rich MMO that was polished, major-bug free at launch and not filled with soul-crushing tedium from day one and that as much as anything was a large part of why they have a gazillion customers.  All five of those elements are parts of the innovation:

• content rich
• polished
• no fun crushing bugs at launch
• no soul crushing gameplay
• money hats

Showing the suits at other companies that there are great rewards to be gained if you release a fun game that isn't broken - big innovation.  Showing designers that you don't have to have an eye-stabbing "Vision" to attract and keep customers - big innovation.

[Endie]

Blizzard research:

• Diablo 1 - randomized dungeon tiles+quests and character progression (spell drops). Sure the total game was based on the old dungeon crawls, but elements within it were somewhat newish twists on existing idea (but what isn't?  If you think anyone in the last 10 years has come up with something not based on something else you are fooling youselves)

Katamari Damacy?  I mean, I know that someone is going to claim that it was just the latest iteration in the genre of rolling up garbage and cows and mountains in order to rebuld constellations for yourfather the King of all Cosmos, but I thought it was pretty innovative.  I could probably name a few more, too, but that's the clearest cut I can think of offhand.

[McCow]

Blizzard research:

• Diablo 1 - randomized dungeon tiles+quests and character progression (spell drops). Sure the total game was based on the old dungeon crawls, but elements within it were somewhat newish twists on existing idea (but what isn't?  If you think anyone in the last 10 years has come up with something not based on something else you are fooling youselves)

Katamari Damacy? 

Flow, Rez/Guitar Hero, Elecktroplankton, Nintendogs, Trauma Center, Hotel Dusk etc etc etc.

Most games borrow either from other games or life itself, but few do it well. 

The biggest thing for me about the games of the past 10 years have shown that innovation is hard; polish appears to be next to impossible.  Blizzard has shown that you don't need to innovate to make people happy; people are more than happy with old idea's done well. 

[Nebu]

Blizzard has delivered this type of innovation with WoW that I'm very happy about - they released a content-rich MMO that was polished, major-bug free at launch and not filled with soul-crushing tedium from day one and that as much as anything was a large part of why they have a gazillion customers.  All five of those elements are parts of the innovation:

• content rich
• polished
• no fun crushing bugs at launch
• no soul crushing gameplay
• money hats

Showing the suits at other companies that there are great rewards to be gained if you release a fun game that isn't broken - big innovation.  Showing designers that you don't have to have an eye-stabbing "Vision" to attract and keep customers - big innovation.

I'll just state the obvious.

1) WoW released by any other design house would have had significantly less success.  Blizzard carried this title with great marketing and brand recognition.  I'd say that has easily as much to do with the success of WoW as does the polish.  If SoE had released the EXACT SAME GAME, we'd be looking at 500k subs or so.

2) If you really feel there's no "soul crushing gameplay" then this is either your first MMO or you're blind to the grind after level 40 or so.  

The rest I'll agree with.

[Slayerik]

Blizzard has delivered this type of innovation with WoW that I'm very happy about - they released a content-rich MMO that was polished, major-bug free at launch and not filled with soul-crushing tedium from day one and that as much as anything was a large part of why they have a gazillion customers.  All five of those elements are parts of the innovation:

• content rich
• polished
• no fun crushing bugs at launch
• no soul crushing gameplay
• money hats

Showing the suits at other companies that there are great rewards to be gained if you release a fun game that isn't broken - big innovation.  Showing designers that you don't have to have an eye-stabbing "Vision" to attract and keep customers - big innovation.

I'll just state the obvious.

1) WoW released by any other design house would have had significantly less success.  Blizzard carried this title with great marketing and brand recognition.  I'd say that has easily as much to do with the success of WoW as does the polish.  If SoE had released the EXACT SAME GAME, we'd be looking at 500k subs or so.

2) If you really feel there's no "soul crushing gameplay" then this is either your first MMO or you're blind to the grind after level 40 or so.  

The rest I'll agree with.

How do you have Wow without Blizzard? They created the warcraft universe. SOE has fucked up THE richest IP in history. Dont give me that shit, I don't wanna sound like a fanboy (hell i quit 2 weeks into BC) but the reason it was successful has been went over many times. Extended beta. Long production time. Compatable with old machines. Is fun.

Name one of these things SOE EVER did with their cash cow IP.

[Venkman]

When you say "biggest IP", I assume you're talking about SW. The EQ brand was not really that relevant outside of the then-niche MMO genre, and the extensions they tried (cellphone, CRPG, etc) didn't work well enough for them to continue pushing out such brand extensions, as evidenced by their lack of having done so recently. The lore of the EQ IP is just not as compelling because it's roots were within MMO and tied to the company everyone loves to hate.

Meanwhile, the Warcraft IP came from the much older RTS genre work and people by and large like Blizzard, at least for their game development skills.

no soul crushing gameplay

Until the endgame. And given the number of people that have reached that last level, there's a lot of peope who've encountered it.

And without repeating it again, the important element is that Blizzard/Vivendi has a LOT of fundamental competitive advantages which, in aggregate, are what almost nobody else has at all. Which requires they change the rules.

[Nebu]

I think he's referring to the Star Wars IP.

All I'm saying is that WoW is solid but its gameplay alone doesn't merit the huge increase in subs over every other MMO to date.  It was a beautifully orchestrated symphony of linear gameplay, interesting art, accessibility, and outstanding marketing.  It was a great vehicle for drawing console players into mmogs.  As a game free from its branding, it's really just a hyper polished version of everything we've all seen in the past 6+ years.  Does that have value? Yes.  Does the gameplay alone merit the huge increase in subs worldwide? I'd say No.

As an aside, I personally think that the current iteration of EQ2 is a much richer and engaging game as far as mmo's go.  An obvious sign that my tastes tend to be quite different from that of the mainstream. 

[Akkori]

I'm sorry, it just seems smart for a big company to add small but creative titles to their stable. It could be a platform ($elf-$ustaining, btw) to try out the new idea's they can then move to their main titles. Put all the games under a "Game Pack" subscription so you can play any of the games for one monthly fee, and lot's of people might poke into multiple games. Imagine WoW, Eve ONline, ATiTD and Sim's all under one umbrella.

If SOE had released a SW-skinned WoW I doubt it would have had the same success, at least initially. One of the things holding back that IP is that it's genesis is the movies. There are a lot of people who saw and maybe even loved the movie that are not at all interested in computer games. But WoW's origins are computer games.... so by default *everyone* who loves the Warcraft IP plays computer games. The Star Wars IP was never going to be, *could* never be as big as Warcraft. And that's part of what screwed up the game. The suits didn't like that and pushed too hard. IMHO.

[Triforcer]

I'm sorry, it just seems smart for a big company to add small but creative titles to their stable. It could be a platform ($elf-$ustaining, btw) to try out the new idea's they can then move to their main titles. Put all the games under a "Game Pack" subscription so you can play any of the games for one monthly fee, and lot's of people might poke into multiple games. Imagine WoW, Eve ONline, ATiTD and Sim's all under one umbrella.

If SOE had released a SW-skinned WoW I doubt it would have had the same success, at least initially. One of the things holding back that IP is that it's genesis is the movies. There are a lot of people who saw and maybe even loved the movie that are not at all interested in computer games. But WoW's origins are computer games.... so by default *everyone* who loves the Warcraft IP plays computer games. The Star Wars IP was never going to be, *could* never be as big as Warcraft. And that's part of what screwed up the game. The suits didn't like that and pushed too hard. IMHO.

Negatory.  SW license+MMOFPS=pure solid gold toilet money hat love.  As I've said before (and I don't want to say now, because it would involve bringing up the MMO Expansion That Must Not Be Named), the game design just came at a particularly unfortunate moment in time.  If a KOTOR MMO is coming up the pipe, they'll have enough sense to make everyone Jedi and lose the Wookiee hairdresser crap. 

[Typhon]

2) If you really feel there's no "soul crushing gameplay" then this is either your first MMO or you're blind to the grind after level 40 or so.

Blind to the grind, I guess.  In comparison to EQ it's a walk in the park on a sunshiny spring day.  Because in EQ the grind started at level 6 (unless you twinked yourself... then it started at level 18).

typed the following in a fit of self-absorbtion, feel free to skip cause the main point is above

Played UO from launch for two months.  Lag infuriated me so much I quit and never returned.  It was literly impossible to get anything done and my wife was very unhappy with how pissed off it was making me.  Looking at WUA's posts I'd say I probably should have been alittle more patient... on the other hand, fuck that, how many free months of unplayable game was I supposed to put with?  Fuck them and their laggy little sandbox.  I'm still bitter!

Played EQ (from launch) for 1.5 years.  I still remember the original death penalty, and I still get annoyed.  This game, more then any other, defines "player-hating, punishing gameplay" for me.  I know I should have fond memories, but all I remember is how absurd it was that a game could be built with the understanding that the player would die as a normal course of gameplay, yet the penalties for dying were so extreme.  I suspect that you had to be Catholic to really like this game.

DAOC (from launch) seemed like a breath of fresh air in comparison to EQ (even with the boring leveling!).  Got hooked on RvR, got unhooked after Trials went live... which is a shame, because I really like driving a boat around and I really liked the way they did underwater.

CoH.  Great game.  Leveling curve + character progression that is just outright stupid.  Not just grindy, fucking stupid.

WoW.  Got a druid to level 60.  Played two weeks after that and quit.  Came back 9 months (? maybe less, maybe more) later and tooled around with a mage (60), warrior (60), rogue (52) and warlock (60).  BC came out, leveled my druid to 70, tooled around with alts, quit.  Don't know if I'll ever be back, feel like I got my money's worth and more from the game, so I'm happy.  Only when I was leveling the druid in the 50s (mostly solo cause guys I played with had dropped out) did I feel a grind.

[Typhon]

I'm sorry, it just seems smart for a big company to add small but creative titles to their stable. It could be a platform ($elf-$ustaining, btw) to try out the new idea's they can then move to their main titles. Put all the games under a "Game Pack" subscription so you can play any of the games for one monthly fee, and lot's of people might poke into multiple games. Imagine WoW, Eve ONline, ATiTD and Sim's all under one umbrella.

I think this is a decent business model.  I think there are companies that should try this.  It seems like it should give internal teams a leg up on incorporating/iterating innovative gameplay into established games (internal experience/IP/etc).  I think NCSoft is trying something like this, especially with games like Dungeon Runner where it's understood that the game isn't an A-list, and it's priced accordingly.  Unfortunately it also may be part of what is generating noise about how NCSoft releases crap games (some of the games being crappy doesn't help either, I'd say).

I think that Blizzards mystique (that every Blizzard game is a hit) doesn't lend itself to this type of business plan.  To some extent I agree with Nebu that WoW released by anyone but Blizzard wouldn't have been as big - because of the mystique and the rabid fanboys the mystique generates (and the word of mouth that the rabid fanboys generate).  That being the case, why on earth would they want to screw with that built-in success?  It's a tremendous brand to have, they worked hard to get it, they shouldn't water it down.  I think at this point they have a responsibility to the employees and the shareholders (no I don't own stock) to not throw intangible but extremely valueable assets like their brand away for something as hollow as street credibility for being innovative.

[Venkman]

There’s a lot of solid reasons why this doesn’t happen though. The main one I think is relevant to this discussion is that big companies find it very hard to think in small terms. It’s a combination of overhead, amount of people, corporate-think, politics and a dozen other things that I had listed in a long post I didn’t think anyone would want to read anyway :) Basically, if you’ve ever worked at a 700+ person company doing a bunch of different things, you’ve experience the group mindset that makes it hard to think and act like an indie. And you’ve worked with people who, given the chance, absolutely love going rogue at the behest of, and with the direct support of, upper management.

This is why so much output from large companies is beautiful graphics and updated statistics field. Game development is relatively easy to measure. There’s lots of processes to use and methods to measure them. Game design though, particularly if it involves true invention, is by comparison nigh impossible to measure. You don’t know how long it’ll take nor what it’s impact to bottom line will be. And all of this measuring is generally done by process-focused people who balance price, investment, politics and quality of experience. Some think these people don’t care about quality. They sure as heck do because bad quality doens’t move and therefore infects profitability. It’s just that they assume the dev staff is working towards quality, so they let them have at it.

Small companies invent. Large companies buy them so they can be seen as inventive :)

[Akkori]

First off, my noob hat is firmly on and urges me to ask: Does Vivendi (Blizzard) really have 700+ employee's?

Second, you are right, of course. The larger the group, the harder it is to do anything but bigger and bigger strokes. But that doesn't mean that Vivendi can't make a small office of whatever the appropriate # Dev's to run an Eve. And another to run an ATitD. etc... Isn't this already being done? Maybe it's as simple as asking why Blizzard hasn't bought out Eve yet. Why not? It's profitable already, so it won't drain the coffers, and there is some interesting stuff there (space!) that might be useful in one of Blizzard's existing or upcoming games. No need to even change the names.

I too look forward to one day someone doing up a deep and complicated sci-fi space sim.

[Driakos]

First off, my noob hat is firmly on and urges me to ask: Does Vivendi (Blizzard) really have 700+ employee's?

Just as far as Blizzard goes (not parent Vivendi) their CS and QA staff beat 700+ alone.

[Venkman]

Why not? It's profitable already, so it won't drain the coffers, and there is some interesting stuff there (space!) that might be useful in one of Blizzard's existing or upcoming games. No need to even change the names.

Think about the game they already manage vs Eve. In my mind they are night and day, requiring completely different Live teams in almost every competency, from art to economic to GMs. And consider the policies CCP has vs Blizzard. And how the latter is highly dependent on IP at this point. Heck, even the entire server architecture and all associated content delivery pipelines are different. And finally, calculate how much actual revenue Eve generates vs that of WoW.

Oh the numbers side, Blizzard by itself is big enough. Last I read they had 1,500 people just on customer support alone. But I also consider them for the mere division of Vivendi that they are. Vivendi is serious big :)

[Margalis]

Putting out small, ok games would probably dilute their brand. If they were going to do it they would do it under a subsidiary, the way Disney has Beuno Vista or whatever it is called. But then without the brand recognition the games probably wouldn't sell too well.

[WindupAtheist]

I just want someone to make a nice sandbox MMO, because I've found I have less tolerance for the alternative than anyone else I know of.  Like I know WoW is supposed to be the game with the easy leveling, but I found my soul thoroughly pounded to dust and ready to quit by level 50.  Whenever I hear about someone with multiple max-level characters, I'm boggled as to how they can possibly stand it.  I need to be able to define my own goals, and spend a two-hour play period doing 4 different things for 30 minutes each, or else I feel the grind.

[Murgos]

I want to chime in for a second on why big companies value development (graphics and etc) so far above design (new ideas).

It's actually very simple and any business major can do a better job of explaining it than I can but the reality is that ideas are free.  What this means in the real world is that ideas have no value.  Any 2 post newb on this board can pipe up with a couple of hundred ideas in the space of an afternoon about what would make a great MMO.

You can put an exact dollar figure on what adding bump-mapping and lens flare to your game means in terms of cost and risk and time though.