The Need for Legacy Servers - Garrett Fuller at MMORPG.com

SBFord · April 2016

The Need for Legacy Servers - Garrett Fuller at MMORPG.com

This is an article I have wanted to write for a long time. Today with all of the news about the shut down and response to the World of Warcraft server Nostalrius, I feel like it is time to finally talk plainly about the existence and importance of "legacy servers" in MMO gaming.

Read the full story here

MrBum21 · April 2016

I remember commenting on a player run UO server, which is what got me my post deleted image. I wouldn't mind going back to Vanilla WoW, and would love to see some of those player run AC servers that were promised. My dad on the other hand would probably pay the server fee to get CoH back in it's old glory.

pad07 · April 2016

Great Article!
and yes gives us CIty of Heroes back!!

Gdemami · April 2016

I guess that is how you generate traffic/make money on this site....pity the articles are pain to read though

Horusra · April 2016

I still fail to see a faithful following that would not make demands that the company basically have two teams for two different games. People want Vanilla stuff cause they do not like the direction of the game. I doubt a game that is stagnate would hold their interest long enough to make it financially beneficial.

Cramit845 · April 2016

Personally, I have had some of my best MMO times on legacy servers. Project 1999 comes to mind since that is where I have had my best EQ experiences. I mean sure I had a good time in live, but I enjoy the older content a lot more than anything new.

I would personally love CoH to make a return as that was my fallback MMO for many many years. However I can also understand the point made by @DMKano in that for most studio's, it doesn't make sense at all.

I think if the studio's would just be willing to sell or lease their code to private folks so they could run a server for a fee, then you would see these being a lot more common and would give a reason for these studio's to still get credit for the game without having to keep dev teams around to keep the game running well.

Shrilly · April 2016

DMKano said:

The importance for players - maybe, but is there enough money in it that's worth the effort for the dev studios?

That's the real question for legacy servers.

If money > effort of cost doing it = maybe

Old code has exploits and bugs that get fixed with patches so it's a pain in the ass to do legacy servers properly - I know most devs don't want to look at fixing code thats 10 years old.

Again IMO it's simply not worth if for most studios.

Games are usually bug free at the time of another expansion, then they need to add more patches because doing one thing in the part of the game world could effect a whole other part of the game world, thats why patches are layered.

Cyrael · April 2016

DMKano said:

The importance for players - maybe, but is there enough money in it that's worth the effort for the dev studios?

That's the real question for legacy servers.

If money > effort of cost doing it = maybe

Old code has exploits and bugs that get fixed with patches so it's a pain in the ass to do legacy servers properly - I know most devs don't want to look at fixing code thats 10 years old.

Again IMO it's simply not worth if for most studios.

That's the thing, there's no need to devote dev time to them. Server upkeep and that's it. People just want to play. Unless there are utterly game-breaking bugs afoot, the servers can just be left on auto-pilot.

With the plummeting costs of hosting due to cloud computing options (I'm an AWS fan myself - stupidly scalable and very cheap), this seems to be like a very, very missed opportunity by Blizzard.

Set up legacy servers, charge $15 for three months of playtime, and watch the profit roll in.

H0urg1ass · April 2016

Horusra said:

I still fail to see a faithful following that would not make demands that the company basically have two teams for two different games. People want Vanilla stuff cause they do not like the direction of the game. I doubt a game that is stagnate would hold their interest long enough to make it financially beneficial.

I know right? No one plays chess anymore.

Sovrath · April 2016

DMKano said:

The importance for players - maybe, but is there enough money in it that's worth the effort for the dev studios?

That's the real question for legacy servers.

If money > effort of cost doing it = maybe

Old code has exploits and bugs that get fixed with patches so it's a pain in the ass to do legacy servers properly - I know most devs don't want to look at fixing code thats 10 years old.

Again IMO it's simply not worth if for most studios.

I think this is the crux of it.

Garret seems to think that it's just as easy as firing up a server, putting an old version of the software on it and opening up the credit card lines.

While running a server might be less expensive it still costs money. Additionally, any company worth its salt is going to want to at least have someone responsible for answering support tickets. That additional work for the CS teams. Or maybe a gm.

And then are people going to ask for expansions after they have played the original game over and over and over again? If they add the standard expansions then we are right back where we started. Are they going to demand expansions but still keep the original server's rules? Well that's a lot more money and work.

Gitmix · April 2016

If Blizzard opens official vanilla servers, less people will buy their expansions for the regular game.
That's the bottom line...not is it financially viable, is it within the game's philosophy etc. That's all BS.
So forget about it. Official vanilla servers will never happen as long as people keep buying WoW expansions.

Sovrath · April 2016

Cyrael said:

DMKano said:

The importance for players - maybe, but is there enough money in it that's worth the effort for the dev studios?

That's the real question for legacy servers.

If money > effort of cost doing it = maybe

Old code has exploits and bugs that get fixed with patches so it's a pain in the ass to do legacy servers properly - I know most devs don't want to look at fixing code thats 10 years old.

Again IMO it's simply not worth if for most studios.

That's the thing, there's no need to devote dev time to them. Server upkeep and that's it. People just want to play. Unless there are utterly game-breaking bugs afoot, the servers can just be left on auto-pilot.

With the plummeting costs of hosting due to cloud computing options (I'm an AWS fan myself - stupidly scalable and very cheap), this seems to be like a very, very missed opportunity by Blizzard.

Set up legacy servers, charge $15 for three months of playtime, and watch the profit roll in.

I don't think it's as easy as that. And as I've mentioned, eventually people are going to get tired of the same material. And what happens when they have had their fill? Now you have a server with a very small population no it. Is there $15 per month enough?

SBFord · April 2016

I was speaking to @BillMurphy and said that I found it interesting that we have this article literally wanting to recapture the past and his review about Black Desert and "moving the genre forward". His response was that "BDO is a step back to the past of MMOs". He's right, though I would argue that what players should be clamoring for are new games with "old fashioned" features like EQ or VanWoW had. To me, that's true progress -- just look at some of the games in development for those trying to both move things forward and bring back favorite features from the past (Pantheon, Elyria, to name two).

Horusra · April 2016

Cyrael said:

DMKano said:

The importance for players - maybe, but is there enough money in it that's worth the effort for the dev studios?

That's the real question for legacy servers.

If money > effort of cost doing it = maybe

Old code has exploits and bugs that get fixed with patches so it's a pain in the ass to do legacy servers properly - I know most devs don't want to look at fixing code thats 10 years old.

Again IMO it's simply not worth if for most studios.

That's the thing, there's no need to devote dev time to them. Server upkeep and that's it. People just want to play. Unless there are utterly game-breaking bugs afoot, the servers can just be left on auto-pilot.

With the plummeting costs of hosting due to cloud computing options (I'm an AWS fan myself - stupidly scalable and very cheap), this seems to be like a very, very missed opportunity by Blizzard.

Set up legacy servers, charge $15 for three months of playtime, and watch the profit roll in.

you think people would play for years on a stagnate server where nothing changes?

[Deleted User] · April 2016

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Alverant · April 2016

What you said about CoH x10! I'd sure go back even if I had to pay a small fee (and if I got my old characters - all the better).

jesteralways · April 2016

Look forward, not backward. I don't support any kind of "legacy server" idea. But i do like many ideas and implementation of old school games and i would not mind a game that tries to capture those ideas and deliver them. That is why i am looking forward to Crowfall.

Cyrael · April 2016

Horusra said:

Cyrael said:

DMKano said:

The importance for players - maybe, but is there enough money in it that's worth the effort for the dev studios?

That's the real question for legacy servers.

If money > effort of cost doing it = maybe

Old code has exploits and bugs that get fixed with patches so it's a pain in the ass to do legacy servers properly - I know most devs don't want to look at fixing code thats 10 years old.

Again IMO it's simply not worth if for most studios.

That's the thing, there's no need to devote dev time to them. Server upkeep and that's it. People just want to play. Unless there are utterly game-breaking bugs afoot, the servers can just be left on auto-pilot.

With the plummeting costs of hosting due to cloud computing options (I'm an AWS fan myself - stupidly scalable and very cheap), this seems to be like a very, very missed opportunity by Blizzard.

Set up legacy servers, charge $15 for three months of playtime, and watch the profit roll in.

you think people would play for years on a stagnate server where nothing changes?

Not at all. I think your average player would only play 3-6 months, if that. But how often would they return, and how big is the audience? I definitely don't think it would hold people the way MMORPGs traditionally try to, but the nostalgia factor isn't one that should be easily dismissed when it comes to bringing players back for second helpings.

I thoroughly enjoyed Vanilla WoW. If they offered a retro server, I would definitely play for a few months on (probably long enough to work to max level and clear T3 with at least one character). A year or two from now, I would probably do it again. After the initial excitement wore off, I don't imagine the population would be huge, but with minimal to non-existant dev and support cost I have trouble imagining it wouldn't be profitable.

Alverant · April 2016

Horusra said:

Cyrael said:

DMKano said:

The importance for players - maybe, but is there enough money in it that's worth the effort for the dev studios?

That's the real question for legacy servers.

If money > effort of cost doing it = maybe

Old code has exploits and bugs that get fixed with patches so it's a pain in the ass to do legacy servers properly - I know most devs don't want to look at fixing code thats 10 years old.

Again IMO it's simply not worth if for most studios.

That's the thing, there's no need to devote dev time to them. Server upkeep and that's it. People just want to play. Unless there are utterly game-breaking bugs afoot, the servers can just be left on auto-pilot.

With the plummeting costs of hosting due to cloud computing options (I'm an AWS fan myself - stupidly scalable and very cheap), this seems to be like a very, very missed opportunity by Blizzard.

Set up legacy servers, charge $15 for three months of playtime, and watch the profit roll in.

you think people would play for years on a stagnate server where nothing changes?

CoH has enough variety in the game to keep it from going stagnate too quickly. Also if you didn't know, they were one of the first MMOs to have user generated content. Players could make their own missions to share with other players. I can also see some of the people who worked on it donating some time between to work on new content to keep up their skills and boost their resume.

simsalabim77 · April 2016

H0urg1ass said:

Horusra said:

I still fail to see a faithful following that would not make demands that the company basically have two teams for two different games. People want Vanilla stuff cause they do not like the direction of the game. I doubt a game that is stagnate would hold their interest long enough to make it financially beneficial.

I know right? No one plays chess anymore.

That's a pretty awful analogy lol. There are version of "Vanilla Chess" with different rules. How many people are playing chess with rules that are 1500 years old?

Cramit845 · April 2016

Horusra said:

Cyrael said:

DMKano said:

The importance for players - maybe, but is there enough money in it that's worth the effort for the dev studios?

That's the real question for legacy servers.

If money > effort of cost doing it = maybe

Old code has exploits and bugs that get fixed with patches so it's a pain in the ass to do legacy servers properly - I know most devs don't want to look at fixing code thats 10 years old.

Again IMO it's simply not worth if for most studios.

That's the thing, there's no need to devote dev time to them. Server upkeep and that's it. People just want to play. Unless there are utterly game-breaking bugs afoot, the servers can just be left on auto-pilot.

With the plummeting costs of hosting due to cloud computing options (I'm an AWS fan myself - stupidly scalable and very cheap), this seems to be like a very, very missed opportunity by Blizzard.

Set up legacy servers, charge $15 for three months of playtime, and watch the profit roll in.

you think people would play for years on a stagnate server where nothing changes?

They already do for a couple different games of old.

Zarriya · April 2016

Good article Garrett!

Those of you who want a vanilla wow server from Blizzard I would take a look at the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/michael-morhaime-legacy-server-among-world-of-warcraft-community?recruiter=522873458

Khayotix · April 2016

The plain and simple truth is this. If you don't want legacy servers don't play on them, but do not deny a portion of the community that wants a specific thing. Everyone has the right to be happy plain and simple. Why must a bunch of toxic people always try to tell others what they should and should not like or do. Live and let live. If I want to play Live WoW and Legacy WoW I should have the option provided by Blizzard. Likewise, if I dislike one or the other I should also have the option to ignore said choice. If I want a newer game with oldschool feel, I should be able to choose that. No one.....NO ONE has the right to tell anyone what they should or should not want, do, feel, or think. If you don't like it, you have the right to ignore it, that is where your rights end.

Whiskey_Sam · April 2016

I'd love to have a legacy LOTRO server or SWG with JTL. What really sucks is there hasn't been a game that held my interest like either of those since.

RolanStorm · April 2016

There are few games that could work this way. City of Heroes (people will love that), Star Wars: Galaxies, Matrix Online. To be honest emulators fail to deliver level of support original companies had. Not to mention CoH and MxO are unavailiable at all.

Alomar · April 2016

I didn't even know such a WoW legacy server existed until now lol. Otherwise I would have given it a shot. Can't say I'm surprise, Blizzard hasn't had the fans/costumer's best interest in mind for quite a few years now. The usual progression of large corporations, it's all about the least effort and maximum $. There's a reason why I've skipped the last 2 WoW expansions, and now will skip the next ones too.