I think WAR will give WoW competition. IF they can manage to get 1-2 millionsubscribers between NA/EU then mission complete =D if they can manage to sway 1-2 million wow subscribers then blizzard will be like "wtf, do something to get those subscribers back".
WoW will always will have diehards, even after it becomes completely obsolete. but before then it it will slowly decline, and be come EQ, with a possible sequel, which could be good, or just WoW now with better graphix and PvP to try and compete with WAR.
From what we've seen and heard and played so far, the score is 100 - 1
So in my opinion, yes, WAR will be bringing out the competition gloves. It will also be around much longer than WoW.
The last statment is odd indeed. Another blizzard game Starcraft released in 1998 is still going strong I can log into battlenet and see thousands of games going on, I can walk in most Games shops and buy Starcraft off the shelf... same for Warcraft and Diablo.
WoW will be around for a long time, its 4 years old now and its population (paid subscribers) has done nothing but grow its still around the 10 million mark (4.5million western). I still dont understand why most people think WoW subs will plumet over night because yet another pretender to the thrown as stepped up. WoW will show WAR the door just as it has all the others.
On topic WoW did not have 500 million or probably either 100 million to develope the original WoW, sure they have that kind of cash now.. but they are developing Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Wrath and a another MMO. Blizzard was small quality developer before WoW and was handed around between several owners.. that was untill WoW took off mostly on word of mouth and great reviews.. then it all changed.
Theres room for WAR but you have to ask your self WAR might have all these PvP features but does it play well? (in my experince its meh) how will the game play a few month after launch when the majority of the player base is max cap. How many times can you raid an enemy city before it becomes boring? If most of the players are max cap who will be around to play the PQ's? who will be around to capture the low level PVP objectives so are apparently so key to the uper tiers?
WoW has had it's day. I played since open Beta and it's just plain gone flat. Grinding for gear by way of extremely repetitive PvP instances and mindlessly boring raiding drags. There's very little dynamic to WoW at all. It's all cookie-cutter in depth and scope and WotLK really won't do much but provide 10 more levels of the same. I've quit the game and I'm not looking back.
WAR offers a lot more on the dynamic side, especially when it comes to PvP/RvR. Sure, there's the lot of PVE-based quests, but the grind effect just isn't there - at least not from what I saw in the preview weekend. I'm not chasing for bear claws hoping like hell I can get 10 in the next 50 - 100 kills. WoW's FULL of those boring quests.
The PQ system is fairly innovative: it allows you to help your side, gain xp and possibly some rewards. You can join in to help others or pass on by, it's ALWAYS your choice. A game that give me choice wins every time.
RvR in WAR alone blows WoW away when it comes to PvP. Let's face it, world-based PvP in WoW died ages ago, and it never really had any end goal. With RvR in WAR you HAVE an end goal. Hell, you have many of them, and it'll be a challenge to boot (think a PUG's gonna take on a capital city? Ever seen a PUG in WoW beat a raid dungeon? Enough said).
WoW was a fun game for me. It was new, fresh and had a lot of features I loved, but it's dated.
It shouldn't matter what a game costs to develop. If it brings to the MMO community the innovations and dynamics that draw in players and can keep them anxious to see what's just around the next bend, it's a winner.
If at first you don't succeed, pay someone who will.
WoW has had it's day. I played since open Beta and it's just plain gone flat. Grinding for gear by way of extremely repetitive PvP instances and mindlessly boring raiding drags. There's very little dynamic to WoW at all. It's all cookie-cutter in depth and scope and WotLK really won't do much but provide 10 more levels of the same. I've quit the game and I'm not looking back. WAR offers a lot more on the dynamic side, especially when it comes to PvP/RvR. Sure, there's the lot of PVE-based quests, but the grind effect just isn't there - at least not from what I saw in the preview weekend. I'm not chasing for bear claws hoping like hell I can get 10 in the next 50 - 100 kills. WoW's FULL of those boring quests. The PQ system is fairly innovative: it allows you to help your side, gain xp and possibly some rewards. You can join in to help others or pass on by, it's ALWAYS your choice. A game that give me choice wins every time. RvR in WAR alone blows WoW away when it comes to PvP. Let's face it, world-based PvP in WoW died ages ago, and it never really had any end goal. With RvR in WAR you HAVE an end goal. Hell, you have many of them, and it'll be a challenge to boot (think a PUG's gonna take on a capital city? Ever seen a PUG in WoW beat a raid dungeon? Enough said). WoW was a fun game for me. It was new, fresh and had a lot of features I loved, but it's dated. It shouldn't matter what a game costs to develop. If it brings to the MMO community the innovations and dynamics that draw in players and can keep them anxious to see what's just around the next bend, it's a winner.
War will definantly be a great game , however i doubt it will take wow to the ruin. Wow keeps on attracting new players and bliz has the money to translate it to different languages thus opening up even a broader player base.
Yes wow does get stale, but then its simplicity is what makes it so damn big. anyone can get into it. Its like the darn ipod. Simple and easy to use.
war is sounding like the zune. has much more features than the ipod yet it did little to even attempt to replace the ipods dominance.
both games will still be big even after a year or so. They are based on popular franchises and 2 respectable companies.
Watching Fanbois drop their soap in a prison full of desperate men.
WoW has had it's day. I played since open Beta and it's just plain gone flat. Grinding for gear by way of extremely repetitive PvP instances and mindlessly boring raiding drags. There's very little dynamic to WoW at all. It's all cookie-cutter in depth and scope and WotLK really won't do much but provide 10 more levels of the same. I've quit the game and I'm not looking back. WAR offers a lot more on the dynamic side, especially when it comes to PvP/RvR. Sure, there's the lot of PVE-based quests, but the grind effect just isn't there - at least not from what I saw in the preview weekend. I'm not chasing for bear claws hoping like hell I can get 10 in the next 50 - 100 kills. WoW's FULL of those boring quests. The PQ system is fairly innovative: it allows you to help your side, gain xp and possibly some rewards. You can join in to help others or pass on by, it's ALWAYS your choice. A game that give me choice wins every time. RvR in WAR alone blows WoW away when it comes to PvP. Let's face it, world-based PvP in WoW died ages ago, and it never really had any end goal. With RvR in WAR you HAVE an end goal. Hell, you have many of them, and it'll be a challenge to boot (think a PUG's gonna take on a capital city? Ever seen a PUG in WoW beat a raid dungeon? Enough said). WoW was a fun game for me. It was new, fresh and had a lot of features I loved, but it's dated. It shouldn't matter what a game costs to develop. If it brings to the MMO community the innovations and dynamics that draw in players and can keep them anxious to see what's just around the next bend, it's a winner.
There is no indication that World of Warcraft is declining, their subscription numbers are continually rising (although ofcourse slower now than at launch) and there is little doubt in my mind that some players will return now a new expansion is coming out.
It is also important to separate key elements that is often overlooked when people dismiss World of Warcraft and highlight a new game. They have played all the content in World of Warcraft, they have competed in what that game has to offer for a long time (years). That is then compared to reviews, a brief stint in beta or a public weekend. In that short amount of time anything that isn't an exact copy of something you know by heart is going to feel fresh and exciting.
In my view, a new MMO has to succeed in the overall continued playability that has made World of Warcraft into what it is today.
If you have a single gimmick and haven't really thought about longevity in your game (giving as large an array of options as possible to the players at all levels of gameplay - that will give meaning to both End Game and Replay) you are going to fall short of the multitude of options World of Warcraft has established as something any MMO gamer should reasonably expect from a game.
If Warhammer: Age of Reckoning does not seriously deliver for both Core game, End Game and possibility of Replay, it will end up just as Age of Conan: A veritable endorsement for World of Warcraft, the game where there is things to do and things to see - at all levels.
Just for the record, I'm the kind of person that plays all the MMOs I find something fun in. Currently that means that I have open accounts in Age of Conan, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes/Villains, EverQuest2, and Dungeons & Dragons Online. I'm definately going to get Warhammer: Age of Reckoning as well but only time will tell if there is enough there to warrant a continued subscription or whether it becomes like most of my MMOs, something I play maybe 3 months out of every year.
No matter how old or dated a game is, there will always be a certain amount of die-hard players, and their population will directly relate to how many subscribers they had. In other words, even if all the lookie-loos left WoW and all it had were their solid core gamers, that would still be a lot more than play "Global Mu", 2Moons, Anarchy Online, etc.
C) WAR will take a lot of hard-core WoW gamers (I know several personally) because EA Mythic is trying to correct all of the things that irritated the WoW players.
D) No other dame development company has promised to pay attention and tune the game to what the players want like Mythic has- whether or not they do it, and for how long- remains to be seen, but the promise of that will keep a lot of people interested for quite a while
E) LOTRO Sucks. There, I've said it. We've all been thinking it, but there it is- that game blows.
A) Money doesn't= good product (i.e. "Waterworld" No matter how old or dated a game is, there will always be a certain amount of die-hard players, and their population will directly relate to how many subscribers they had. In other words, even if all the lookie-loos left WoW and all it had were their solid core gamers, that would still be a lot more than play "Global Mu", 2Moons, Anarchy Online, etc. C) WAR will take a lot of hard-core WoW gamers (I know several personally) because EA Mythic is trying to correct all of the things that irritated the WoW players. D) No other dame development company has promised to pay attention and tune the game to what the players want like Mythic has- whether or not they do it, and for how long- remains to be seen, but the promise of that will keep a lot of people interested for quite a while E) LOTRO Sucks. There, I've said it. We've all been thinking it, but there it is- that game blows.
A) That's true. And sometimes more money makes for a less focused attention to what should actually be in the game and therefore the game can be realized more poorly. Fewer funds necessitates tight attention to what you want to do and how you want to do it. On the other hand, your ambition will also have to relate to your budget, if you don't have a lot of money, you cannot break the mold in all directions at once, you have to stick with your gimmick and go from there.
True. Short of closing the servers there will always be the party that says "This was the greatest game ever". In my experience from talking with lots of other players, it mainly means either that this was their first game, the game they progressed the furthest in, or the game in which they met their best friends. Or a combination of all three.
C) This is a very broad statement. I know several World of Warcraft players who thought Age of Conan would bring what they always wanted in World of Warcraft: The ability to build cities that could be engrossed in huge battles, the ability to create player generated content in remote zones, enabling them to expand on the already NPC driven content. I don't see anything of that in Warhammer: Age of Reckoning and I still think it is the key element for meaningful World (or Realm) PvP - the ability to change the map as the players want. In my personal view I think the greatest mistake of all MMOs currently is that they are level-based and I could mention lots of things that other people don't like in World of Warcraft but isn't covered by any of the upcoming titles.
D) You're absolutely right. That game is the lowest of the low.
Copied and pasted Warhammer Online lead designer estimates the real amount to be around $100 million Earlier this year, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said investing $500 million to a billion in a product wouldn't be enough to compete in the same space as World of Warcraft. Naturally, Mythic VP and Warhammer Online lead designer Mark Jacobs disagrees. Speaking to MTV, he claims Kotick set the bar so high to scare off competition and make themselves seem invincible. So how much does it really take to compete with the juggernaut? Jacobs believes the amount is much smaller, saying: Realistically, if you're going into this space for the first time, and you want to compete with 'WoW' and you want to compete with us -- because we're going into that same space -- you've got to make sure that you have at least 100 million dollars. Jacobs notes the 100 million isn't necessarily just to cover development costs, but to recover if the company messes up. "A lot of start-ups fail because they run out of money. It's not because they don't work hard; it's like 'Oops, it took an extra year or two; now what do we do?'" he further explains. While Jacobs will only admit to EA spending "south of $100 million on "Warhammer Online," he says they will need at least half a million subscribers to be successful.
Blizzard raises the bar and Mythic tries to lower it. That's all this is. I think what blizz is saying is if you want to compete with us to win you need our kind of budget. Mythic is responding with lower standards saying "well you could at least get in the same ball game with 100m". Just being in the same game really isn't competing though
funny thing... pretty much all the folks i know thru our multi-game clan, irl folks, etc -- they play wow because the new games they've tried have flopped. they've tried things like potbs, hg:l, aoc, etc... they go back to wow because they have max level toons and it's easy-peasy.
honestly, it seems like other games don't make it, because, well, they screwed the pooch themselves.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Yeah but at this rate well see Orcs flying the Enterprise, Dwarves with lightsabers and Elves moving through stargates.
Thats exactly what you will see just with diffrent skins. Unless they change something your still going to hit the 1 button to do x move, 2 button to do y move ect. I could care less what the setting is so long as its fun to play. WAR is fun to play. I hope some sci fi mmo comes out thats FUN TO PLAY. The skins in a game dont really matter to me if the art fits the idea and the gameplay is just fun.
Everyone knows that the next big thing after WAR will be when Blizzard finally announces Starcraft Universe and makes a PvP sci fi game of some sort, mmorpg/mmofps or whatever.
Then we will finally have something else than orcs and elves and everyone knows Blizzard will make the game fun.
Then goodbye elves, wow and war and hello zeeeeergggggg
I still don't understand why people even ask questions like "Will this be the "WoW-killer?" Historically, whenever an MMO has done well to start (meaning a decently large, stable population), it has never just "died." Before WoW, the greatest success was met by EverQuest, and no game ever just came along and destroyed it. Everquest just slowly aged and declined over time, the populations dwindled over time, and it was just due to its advanced age and getting slowly chipped away at by lots of other games.
The same is true of WoW. Nobody is going to come along and put a stake in its heart and chop off its head, its just gonna fade into obsolescance.
As for competing, any company that stays afloat, and supports a decently large and stable population can compete - and it has less to do with the amount of money you dump in and a LOT more to do with the net profit you get back out of it.
If I spend 500 million dollars on a game, then I need to MAKE 500 million dollars just to break EVEN.
Whereas, if I spend a lot less, then I need to make a lot less both to break even and to profit.
Everyone knows that the next big thing after WAR will be when Blizzard finally announces Starcraft Universe and makes a PvP sci fi game of some sort, mmorpg/mmofps or whatever.
Then we will finally have something else than orcs and elves and everyone knows Blizzard will make the game fun.
Then goodbye elves, wow and war and hello zeeeeergggggg
i don't know that.
the people that did the QUALITY work/games at blizzard NORTH (i.e. starcraft, diablo, warcraft) are no longer employed by blizzard.
plus, everything we'd been promised about wow either never materialized or took forever to implement (hero classes, cool pvp, etc).
blizzard releases another mmo and i'm just watching it for the first 6-9 months and seeing that happens. blizzard north no longer being an entity really does mean a LOT.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Copied and pasted Warhammer Online lead designer estimates the real amount to be around $100 million Earlier this year, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said investing $500 million to a billion in a product wouldn't be enough to compete in the same space as World of Warcraft. Naturally, Mythic VP and Warhammer Online lead designer Mark Jacobs disagrees. Speaking to MTV, he claims Kotick set the bar so high to scare off competition and make themselves seem invincible. So how much does it really take to compete with the juggernaut? Jacobs believes the amount is much smaller, saying: Realistically, if you're going into this space for the first time, and you want to compete with 'WoW' and you want to compete with us -- because we're going into that same space -- you've got to make sure that you have at least 100 million dollars. Jacobs notes the 100 million isn't necessarily just to cover development costs, but to recover if the company messes up. "A lot of start-ups fail because they run out of money. It's not because they don't work hard; it's like 'Oops, it took an extra year or two; now what do we do?'" he further explains. While Jacobs will only admit to EA spending "south of $100 million on "Warhammer Online," he says they will need at least half a million subscribers to be successful.
Blizzard raises the bar and Mythic tries to lower it. That's all this is. I think what blizz is saying is if you want to compete with us to win you need our kind of budget. Mythic is responding with lower standards saying "well you could at least get in the same ball game with 100m". Just being in the same game really isn't competing though
Wrong.
The Blair Witch Project had a 35.000 $ budget and earned 140 million $ at US cinemas.
This is an extreme example, but its not uncommon to see much lower budget movies beat much higher budget movies.
Big budget is not everything.
WoW had 400 people working on it for 4 years, Warhammer had 250 people for 3.5 years, and Warhammer got lots more content than wow did at release.
An extreme example? This isn't an example at all. You're talking about someone who had a completely innovative unique idea and a lot of talent and got away with it. Warhammer isn't innovative and it doesn't show as much talent as blizzard either.
I still don't understand why people even ask questions like "Will this be the "WoW-killer?" Historically, whenever an MMO has done well to start (meaning a decently large, stable population), it has never just "died." Before WoW, the greatest success was met by EverQuest, and no game ever just came along and destroyed it. Everquest just slowly aged and declined over time, the populations dwindled over time, and it was just due to its advanced age and getting slowly chipped away at by lots of other games.
The same is true of WoW. Nobody is going to come along and put a stake in its heart and chop off its head, its just gonna fade into obsolescance.
As for competing, any company that stays afloat, and supports a decently large and stable population can compete - and it has less to do with the amount of money you dump in and a LOT more to do with the net profit you get back out of it. If I spend 500 million dollars on a game, then I need to MAKE 500 million dollars just to break EVEN.
Whereas, if I spend a lot less, then I need to make a lot less both to break even and to profit. And if I'm profiting, then I'm competing.
That just makes too much sense for these forums. Go away.
I still don't understand why people even ask questions like "Will this be the "WoW-killer?" Historically, whenever an MMO has done well to start (meaning a decently large, stable population), it has never just "died." Before WoW, the greatest success was met by EverQuest, and no game ever just came along and destroyed it. Everquest just slowly aged and declined over time, the populations dwindled over time, and it was just due to its advanced age and getting slowly chipped away at by lots of other games.
The same is true of WoW. Nobody is going to come along and put a stake in its heart and chop off its head, its just gonna fade into obsolescance.
As for competing, any company that stays afloat, and supports a decently large and stable population can compete - and it has less to do with the amount of money you dump in and a LOT more to do with the net profit you get back out of it. If I spend 500 million dollars on a game, then I need to MAKE 500 million dollars just to break EVEN.
Whereas, if I spend a lot less, then I need to make a lot less both to break even and to profit. And if I'm profiting, then I'm competing.
That just makes too much sense for these forums. Go away.
Comments
I think WAR will give WoW competition. IF they can manage to get 1-2 millionsubscribers between NA/EU then mission complete =D if they can manage to sway 1-2 million wow subscribers then blizzard will be like "wtf, do something to get those subscribers back".
WAR ............. or WotLK..............
From what we've seen and heard and played so far, the score is 100 - 1
So in my opinion, yes, WAR will be bringing out the competition gloves. It will also be around much longer than WoW.
WoW will always will have diehards, even after it becomes completely obsolete. but before then it it will slowly decline, and be come EQ, with a possible sequel, which could be good, or just WoW now with better graphix and PvP to try and compete with WAR.
WoW 2.. Mh. No thanks.
The last statment is odd indeed. Another blizzard game Starcraft released in 1998 is still going strong I can log into battlenet and see thousands of games going on, I can walk in most Games shops and buy Starcraft off the shelf... same for Warcraft and Diablo.
WoW will be around for a long time, its 4 years old now and its population (paid subscribers) has done nothing but grow its still around the 10 million mark (4.5million western). I still dont understand why most people think WoW subs will plumet over night because yet another pretender to the thrown as stepped up. WoW will show WAR the door just as it has all the others.
On topic WoW did not have 500 million or probably either 100 million to develope the original WoW, sure they have that kind of cash now.. but they are developing Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Wrath and a another MMO. Blizzard was small quality developer before WoW and was handed around between several owners.. that was untill WoW took off mostly on word of mouth and great reviews.. then it all changed.
Theres room for WAR but you have to ask your self WAR might have all these PvP features but does it play well? (in my experince its meh) how will the game play a few month after launch when the majority of the player base is max cap. How many times can you raid an enemy city before it becomes boring? If most of the players are max cap who will be around to play the PQ's? who will be around to capture the low level PVP objectives so are apparently so key to the uper tiers?
I think the next big game will need the action up front, no traditional leveling.
Think cod4/Gta with a real world and an economy.
This is what i think the future of mmo's will look like LINK
Own, Mine, Defend, Attack, 24/7
Anyone that takes those numbers the Blizz dude spit out seriously is a seriously slow person.
MMEEEEEHHHHH!!!
WoW has had it's day. I played since open Beta and it's just plain gone flat. Grinding for gear by way of extremely repetitive PvP instances and mindlessly boring raiding drags. There's very little dynamic to WoW at all. It's all cookie-cutter in depth and scope and WotLK really won't do much but provide 10 more levels of the same. I've quit the game and I'm not looking back.
WAR offers a lot more on the dynamic side, especially when it comes to PvP/RvR. Sure, there's the lot of PVE-based quests, but the grind effect just isn't there - at least not from what I saw in the preview weekend. I'm not chasing for bear claws hoping like hell I can get 10 in the next 50 - 100 kills. WoW's FULL of those boring quests.
The PQ system is fairly innovative: it allows you to help your side, gain xp and possibly some rewards. You can join in to help others or pass on by, it's ALWAYS your choice. A game that give me choice wins every time.
RvR in WAR alone blows WoW away when it comes to PvP. Let's face it, world-based PvP in WoW died ages ago, and it never really had any end goal. With RvR in WAR you HAVE an end goal. Hell, you have many of them, and it'll be a challenge to boot (think a PUG's gonna take on a capital city? Ever seen a PUG in WoW beat a raid dungeon? Enough said).
WoW was a fun game for me. It was new, fresh and had a lot of features I loved, but it's dated.
It shouldn't matter what a game costs to develop. If it brings to the MMO community the innovations and dynamics that draw in players and can keep them anxious to see what's just around the next bend, it's a winner.
If at first you don't succeed, pay someone who will.
War will definantly be a great game , however i doubt it will take wow to the ruin. Wow keeps on attracting new players and bliz has the money to translate it to different languages thus opening up even a broader player base.
Yes wow does get stale, but then its simplicity is what makes it so damn big. anyone can get into it. Its like the darn ipod. Simple and easy to use.
war is sounding like the zune. has much more features than the ipod yet it did little to even attempt to replace the ipods dominance.
both games will still be big even after a year or so. They are based on popular franchises and 2 respectable companies.
Watching Fanbois drop their soap in a prison full of desperate men.
There is no indication that World of Warcraft is declining, their subscription numbers are continually rising (although ofcourse slower now than at launch) and there is little doubt in my mind that some players will return now a new expansion is coming out.
It is also important to separate key elements that is often overlooked when people dismiss World of Warcraft and highlight a new game. They have played all the content in World of Warcraft, they have competed in what that game has to offer for a long time (years). That is then compared to reviews, a brief stint in beta or a public weekend. In that short amount of time anything that isn't an exact copy of something you know by heart is going to feel fresh and exciting.
In my view, a new MMO has to succeed in the overall continued playability that has made World of Warcraft into what it is today.
If you have a single gimmick and haven't really thought about longevity in your game (giving as large an array of options as possible to the players at all levels of gameplay - that will give meaning to both End Game and Replay) you are going to fall short of the multitude of options World of Warcraft has established as something any MMO gamer should reasonably expect from a game.
If Warhammer: Age of Reckoning does not seriously deliver for both Core game, End Game and possibility of Replay, it will end up just as Age of Conan: A veritable endorsement for World of Warcraft, the game where there is things to do and things to see - at all levels.
Just for the record, I'm the kind of person that plays all the MMOs I find something fun in. Currently that means that I have open accounts in Age of Conan, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes/Villains, EverQuest2, and Dungeons & Dragons Online. I'm definately going to get Warhammer: Age of Reckoning as well but only time will tell if there is enough there to warrant a continued subscription or whether it becomes like most of my MMOs, something I play maybe 3 months out of every year.
A few things that we all seem to be forgetting:
A) Money doesn't= good product (i.e. "Waterworld"
C) WAR will take a lot of hard-core WoW gamers (I know several personally) because EA Mythic is trying to correct all of the things that irritated the WoW players.
D) No other dame development company has promised to pay attention and tune the game to what the players want like Mythic has- whether or not they do it, and for how long- remains to be seen, but the promise of that will keep a lot of people interested for quite a while
E) LOTRO Sucks. There, I've said it. We've all been thinking it, but there it is- that game blows.
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
A) That's true. And sometimes more money makes for a less focused attention to what should actually be in the game and therefore the game can be realized more poorly. Fewer funds necessitates tight attention to what you want to do and how you want to do it. On the other hand, your ambition will also have to relate to your budget, if you don't have a lot of money, you cannot break the mold in all directions at once, you have to stick with your gimmick and go from there.
True. Short of closing the servers there will always be the party that says "This was the greatest game ever". In my experience from talking with lots of other players, it mainly means either that this was their first game, the game they progressed the furthest in, or the game in which they met their best friends. Or a combination of all three.
C) This is a very broad statement. I know several World of Warcraft players who thought Age of Conan would bring what they always wanted in World of Warcraft: The ability to build cities that could be engrossed in huge battles, the ability to create player generated content in remote zones, enabling them to expand on the already NPC driven content. I don't see anything of that in Warhammer: Age of Reckoning and I still think it is the key element for meaningful World (or Realm) PvP - the ability to change the map as the players want. In my personal view I think the greatest mistake of all MMOs currently is that they are level-based and I could mention lots of things that other people don't like in World of Warcraft but isn't covered by any of the upcoming titles.
D) You're absolutely right. That game is the lowest of the low.
Blizzard raises the bar and Mythic tries to lower it. That's all this is. I think what blizz is saying is if you want to compete with us to win you need our kind of budget. Mythic is responding with lower standards saying "well you could at least get in the same ball game with 100m". Just being in the same game really isn't competing though
funny thing... pretty much all the folks i know thru our multi-game clan, irl folks, etc -- they play wow because the new games they've tried have flopped. they've tried things like potbs, hg:l, aoc, etc... they go back to wow because they have max level toons and it's easy-peasy.
honestly, it seems like other games don't make it, because, well, they screwed the pooch themselves.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Thats exactly what you will see just with diffrent skins. Unless they change something your still going to hit the 1 button to do x move, 2 button to do y move ect. I could care less what the setting is so long as its fun to play. WAR is fun to play. I hope some sci fi mmo comes out thats FUN TO PLAY. The skins in a game dont really matter to me if the art fits the idea and the gameplay is just fun.
Everyone knows that the next big thing after WAR will be when Blizzard finally announces Starcraft Universe and makes a PvP sci fi game of some sort, mmorpg/mmofps or whatever.
Then we will finally have something else than orcs and elves and everyone knows Blizzard will make the game fun.
Then goodbye elves, wow and war and hello zeeeeergggggg
I still don't understand why people even ask questions like "Will this be the "WoW-killer?" Historically, whenever an MMO has done well to start (meaning a decently large, stable population), it has never just "died." Before WoW, the greatest success was met by EverQuest, and no game ever just came along and destroyed it. Everquest just slowly aged and declined over time, the populations dwindled over time, and it was just due to its advanced age and getting slowly chipped away at by lots of other games.
The same is true of WoW. Nobody is going to come along and put a stake in its heart and chop off its head, its just gonna fade into obsolescance.
As for competing, any company that stays afloat, and supports a decently large and stable population can compete - and it has less to do with the amount of money you dump in and a LOT more to do with the net profit you get back out of it.
If I spend 500 million dollars on a game, then I need to MAKE 500 million dollars just to break EVEN.
Whereas, if I spend a lot less, then I need to make a lot less both to break even and to profit.
And if I'm profiting, then I'm competing.
i don't know that.
the people that did the QUALITY work/games at blizzard NORTH (i.e. starcraft, diablo, warcraft) are no longer employed by blizzard.
plus, everything we'd been promised about wow either never materialized or took forever to implement (hero classes, cool pvp, etc).
blizzard releases another mmo and i'm just watching it for the first 6-9 months and seeing that happens. blizzard north no longer being an entity really does mean a LOT.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Blizzard raises the bar and Mythic tries to lower it. That's all this is. I think what blizz is saying is if you want to compete with us to win you need our kind of budget. Mythic is responding with lower standards saying "well you could at least get in the same ball game with 100m". Just being in the same game really isn't competing though
Wrong.
The Blair Witch Project had a 35.000 $ budget and earned 140 million $ at US cinemas.
This is an extreme example, but its not uncommon to see much lower budget movies beat much higher budget movies.
Big budget is not everything.
WoW had 400 people working on it for 4 years, Warhammer had 250 people for 3.5 years, and Warhammer got lots more content than wow did at release.
An extreme example? This isn't an example at all. You're talking about someone who had a completely innovative unique idea and a lot of talent and got away with it. Warhammer isn't innovative and it doesn't show as much talent as blizzard either.
That just makes too much sense for these forums. Go away.
That just makes too much sense for these forums. Go away.