Broken Toys Random Comments About Games and Tractors

1. 

   Freakazoid
   June 14th, 2006 - 10:59

   Vivendi was specific to Blizzard about making more MMOs. You don’t easily forget that your company underling can make big decisions despite your interest. Something doesn’t sound right, and I’m betting that Vivendi wants to start calling the shots to ensure more WoW-like cash flow.

   It’ll be interesting to see if a power struggle develops from this.
2. 

   Obruo
   June 14th, 2006 - 10:59

   I would play another Blizzard MMO. Only this time I would have the expectation that the fun gameplay I came to enjoy would halt suddenly once I finished leveling.

   So, they would get a box out of me, and maybe one month on top of the free one.

   Also, it would be folly for Blizzard not to create an MMO out of Diablo or Starcraft. That’s like throwing away money. Although after seeing their customer service in action, throwing away money might have become company policy.
3. 

   Ghiest
   June 14th, 2006 - 12:30

   Only thing I can think of they would make is a MMO of Starcraft, and to-date I don’t think there has been a successful fun Sci-fi based MMO, well mebbe Planetside was fun for a few months.
4. 

   mystery
   June 14th, 2006 - 14:04

   An MMO of Starcraft would be sex. That’s all I’m sayin’ about that.
5. 

   Slyfeind
   June 14th, 2006 - 14:17

   Starcraft would be a better bet. WoW already has features from what makes Diablo unique from other fantasy worlds: set items, jewelcraft and socketed items, skill trees. All the Diablo classes are represented in WoW, except the Necromancer, and for the life of me I don’t understand why that is.

   But anyway…yeah. Starcraft would be a better choice imo. I’d also like to see Blizzard make what you crazy kids are callin’ a “worldy game,” just to see if their magic touch can sell a million of those. Unlikely, but I likes to see the experimenting.
6. 

   Big Gulp
   June 14th, 2006 - 14:31

   Freakazoid, I doubt seriously that Vivendi really has much of a leg to stand on with Blizzard; they sure as hell don’t have the clout to bark orders at their golden goose. Blizzard is going to do what it goddamned well wants to do, and Vivendi had just better be happy with whatever cream it can skim off the top.
7. 

   Nicademus
   June 14th, 2006 - 16:19

   Would World of Fallout be too much to ask? I’m sure the parties involved have enough money to buy/steal all the rights needed. I mean cmon its a game where grief play would actually be in line with the genre.
8. 

   Patrick McKenzie
   June 14th, 2006 - 19:53

   Blizzard won’t make a game which encourages grief play — they swing for the fences on every game and “real PVP” or “grief play” or whatever you want to call it confines you to a shrinking niche.
9. 

   Brent Michael Krupp
   June 14th, 2006 - 22:42

   Quote: “I doubt seriously that Vivendi really has much of a leg to stand on with Blizzard; they sure as hell don\’e2\’80\’99t have the clout to bark orders at their golden goose”.

   LOL. Can I say LOL again? Vivendi owns Blizzard, full stop. They can make Blizzard do whatever Vivendi wants them to do, even if that involves stupidly destroying the company by firing people and ordering dumb moves. My wife worked for Sierra Online back when Vivendi acquired them and drove them straight into the ground with a series of braindead moves. So don’t think it can’t happen. Let’s just pray that they really *do* heed the “goose that laid the golden egg” story and refrain from taking a hatchet to Blizzard.
10. 

    Jurrasic
    June 14th, 2006 - 23:03

    God I would subscribe my life away to a Fallout/Wastelands MMORPG.

    That said, Vivendi marketing trolls need to drink a steaming mug of shut the hell up and nibble on some know your role scones. I can’t believe the Vivendi executive made that call, it had to be Marketing. You don’t start demanding more cash cows from the group that has given you the biggest one on the planet (game wise) especially you don’t announce it like it’s a given WITHOUT even demanding it in the first place.

    Then again, see Sierra as quoted above….daym.
11. 

    TPRJones
    June 14th, 2006 - 23:08

    It really depends on the details of the deal at the time of purchase. It’s entirely possible that Vivendi owns Blizzard but Blizzard has contractural rights to autonomy. Or they could be out of luck. Only someone who has access to the papers on the deal can really know.
12. 

    TPRJones
    June 14th, 2006 - 23:13

    Although even if they do have autonomy, it’s probably tied to certain performance measures. That’s a pretty common stipulation in such deals. If profit margins or sales growth falls below a certains specified rate or a specified period of time, then they’d lose that autonomy.

    But, again, probably only the lawyers and the CEOs know the details.
13. 

    Hellfire
    June 15th, 2006 - 08:42

    I can’t imagine a bizzaro universe where any contractual performance metrics put on paper in 1998 (Blizzad->Havas->Vivendi) are not being met by 6.6-million strong WoW.

    I’m pretty sure they’d have to be using imaginary numbers to create a scheme where Blizzard-2006 is failing. “You didn’t make a hojillion dollars this year.” or something…

    Unless World of Starcraft was radically different from WoW in both gameplay and scope I wouldn’t give it a second look. Paladins with a Protoss skin isn’t worth 15$/mo.
14. 

    Dren
    June 15th, 2006 - 12:22

    But they’d be Paladins with frickin lasers man!
15. 

    Freakazoid
    June 15th, 2006 - 12:54

    No, they’ll get the same bolt gun any other marine gets but with +int instead of +crit. MAYBE a powersword, but that might upset the weirdboys.
16. 

    Staarkhand
    June 15th, 2006 - 13:21

    Competing with yourself is bad – I smell a WoW: Burning Zerg Crusade x-pack.

    But really, what will WoW look like after another 4.5 years? You can debate how much ‘history’ applies to the game that is in fact writing history, but most games have needed a major reshaping, and at that point in time World of Starcraft may look like a better option than WoW 2. Market it as BlizzardMMO 2.0 to the existing customers but leverage the fact that it’s ‘new’ and ‘different’ to bring the last stragglers into the fold.
17. 

    Hellfire
    June 15th, 2006 - 13:26

    Valid point. Blizzard could easily parlay a winning strategy into a SOE/NCSoft-sized stable of games one pays 35$/mo for and can play at will.

    The dev cycle for WoW content will get shorter and shorter, I bet by the end of 2007 they’ll have at least 1 unreleased chunk of content in the can at any given time “just in case”.
18. 

    Sachant
    June 15th, 2006 - 19:20

    Every time someone mentions Fallout it makes me want to reinstall. Please stop. I need to upgrade and get a bigger hardrive as it is!
19. 

    Tobold
    June 16th, 2006 - 09:28

    As it is it takes Blizzard two years to launch an expansion for their existing MMO, so where should the manpower to make a second or third MMO come from? Sure, you can hire another 1,000 programmers and artists, but would that company still be the same Blizzard and make the same quality of games?
20. 

    Brask Mumei
    June 16th, 2006 - 19:35

    I don’ t doubt that a sufficiently skilled accountant could make WoW a massive loss on paper. I mean, they did manage to make Spiderman 2 a box-office failure despite $780 million gross.

    http://www.out-law.com/page-5238

Leave a comment