Interview with Smed

[Rythonn]

Originally Posted by Doc

It'll be 5 to 10 years before Blizz falls below 1 to 2 million subscribers. They are a gold mine because they cater to the major population of people in the middle of time to play and skill. Vanguard will take the hardcores away like FoH but the suits at Blizz couldn't care less.

I agree that it is not falling anytime soon, but after awhile the content gets stale, and people will leave. I don't think I can handle waiting another 2 years for an expansion.

[Xaen]

Jesus, by the time WoW even got to a closed beta, the game was pretty much polished from it being developed for years as their devs simultaniously played EQ. Then they started to disappear from EQ entirely. And that was way back twords the end of Velious. 3 months close and 3 months open? Good lord.

[Sylas]

More interesting though, the company execs, that before would have been screaming to GET THE GAME OUT BY XMAS OR THANKSGIVING - are they more willing to instead wait for developers to give the OK now, or are the deadlines the same as always?

Pretty sure smed already answered this, or atleast implied it. 9 months is too long = We can't compete in terms of quality, we'll continue the course of releasing more quantity. New lackluster games every 18 months added to the All Access pass, expansion packs every 5 months for every game that turns a profit.

[kasey]

SOmehow what you describe sounds very promising Sylas!

[Sheaf]

You may think Smed copped out answering why WoW is doing so well in terms of subscribers, but take a step back from the games themselves and look at the companies.

Blizzard has a tradition of making incredibly addictive, balanced games that don't need much polish after going gold. SoE, while certainly developing a name for themselves with Everquest I, was operating off a less-than-stellar company name and history. Numerous people vowed never to play another SoE game again. Really, I think the general public feeling was that Everquest players were the D&D-type geeks that found their way to the computer. Blizzard managed to make WoW an acceptable topic at the work watercooler.

All that aside though, I think it's safe to say that WoW was released as a better all-around game than EQ2, but SoE has made considerably more improvements to their title than Blizzard has to WoW. Granted, it is more difficult to improve a better product, but nonetheless SoE's efforts have been impressive.

[Trebla]

Not that anyone cares, but... 8 months and 5 days of "Beta" not counting Friends and Family phases which weren't publically released.

WoW Beta history (in reverse chronological order)
11/23/04 Game launches (in USA)
11/18/04 Open Beta Ends
11/08/04 Open Beta begins
11/01/04 Final Beta Stress Test begins
10/29/04 End of Closed Beta at 3pm PST
9/21/04 Another round of testers and a second PvE server
9/17/04 Level Cap increased from 55 to 60
8/17/04 Hunter Class first appears in Beta
8/17/04 Level Cap Increased from 50 to 55
7/07/04 Level Cap Increased from 45 to 50
6/21/04 Beta Phase 3 Begins
6/15/04 Level cap increased from 39 to 45
4/27/04 Level Cap Increased from 35 to 39
4/16/04 Beta Phase 2 Begins
3/18/04 Start of Beta Phase 1
1/28/04 Beta sign-ups were opened on Blizzard's web site.

I also disagree that EQ2 was well balanced at release. Several key roles and abilities (Shaman Wards, Monk/Bruiser avoidance tanking, Buff stacking... particularly AGI... just some huge things that still stand out) were massively imbalanced. Not even to begin to look at the dramatic changes that happened to tradeskills within the first half dozen "live updates".

EQ2 was still a good game at release, but to claim that it was even 90% polished/balanced is hard to back up. I recently restarted after quitting 9+ months ago and it's amazing how much has been filled in that was missing. I didn't even realize the how badly unfinished it was at the time.

[Dokomo]

How can you say you got balance right Day 1 Smed, when you completely revamped the class and combat system later?

[Venjenz]

Originally Posted by Doc

It'll be 5 to 10 years before Blizz falls below 1 to 2 million subscribers. They are a gold mine because they cater to the major population of people in the middle of time to play and skill. Vanguard will take the hardcores away like FoH but the suits at Blizz couldn't care less.

Doubtful. And I say that because Blizzard does not cater to the middle of the road with playtime and skill, they cater to casual, and there are more casual players than hardcores, as has always been the case. The problem with casual gamers is that they are easily distracted by the shinier bauble du jour. All someone has to do to grab a good chunk of Blizzard's subscription base is to make a prettier game that is just as simplistic, yet runs with more stability and no login queues. But prettier and more slick is the key to taking that particular audience. WoW got their subscriptions by taking advantage of existing boredom in other games, and with their "every 24 months" release schedule, someone will be able to do it right back at them. Cyclical nature of a business that caters to a very fickle and demanding target audience.

The hardcores for the most part play other games already, with EQ2 being one of them. With Blizzard's relaease methodology, the Burning Crusade will be where they lose some more hardcore folks, because the truly hardcore will cruch the entire expansion in 6 months, and then have to wait another 18 months before anything new happens.

So right now, I would wager dimes to donuts that Smedley and others of his ilk are trying to design the newest, prettiest and most casual friendly MMO out there. It isn't EQ2, that's for sure, because EQ2 is not casual friendly.

The other consideration is to make sure you have content for the legions of bnet kiddies and the ADHD pvp squad. WoW is awesome for these type of folks because death has no penalty, PVP is all about teh zergness, and all losses can be blamed on balance issues instead of skill. so the next gen MMO better not be Eve with its PVP, but more carebear like WoW.

[Gnome Eater]

Well, as far as I can see, by far the best way for us gamers to demand absolutely polished games is to keep voting with our wallets.

As long as we flat out refuse to purchase games that are buggy, or bail out when buggy content is released then our message will be loud and clear. This has nothing to do with posting spamming message boards how you are quitting because xyz game sucks, but simply leaving and cancelling your subscription, or refusing to purchase a game until it is polished.

Eventually, people will do the math and realize that letting the game stay in beta longer to get it very polished will get rewarded.

[Cadrid]

Originally Posted by Smed

I think it's going to be game-by-game. Blizzard's beta was great.. it helped them polish the game and it also helped them on the technical side (remember this was their first MMO). For us 9 months is probably too long.. I think the ideal # is closer to 3 months of closed beta and 3 months of open beta. We would likely go longer on a Playstation 3 MMO (if such a beast was in fact in development )

It can really help to build awareness of a game and get polish ready. One thing I will say about Blizzard's beta is that they got WoW very well balanced day one which is something I really respect them for. I think we managed that with EQ2 as well.

Smed

You stick to your guns, that's for sure.

You've been in the business for a while. You obviously know how to sail in the waters of game developement. But the tide has changed. Remember back when hundreds of Atari and Colecovision etc. games were being pumped out? Remember how horribly crappy some were, because dev teams didn't put the polish on them that they needed? Do you remember E.T. the game?

The gaming industry has started reverting back to those days over the past four years or so. Fewer companies are releasing quality products and more are counting on flooding the market and hype to make a buck. EQ2 was rushed to release in order to steal away any impatient potential WoW customers it could. Do the games cater to different audiences? Sure. But between an obviously rushed release of EQ2 and the torrent of crap spewed forth in EQ1 you lost a very large portion of hardcore gamers you might have kept if it weren't for excessively rushed releases.

C'mon, Smed. You're no dummy. Sure, you have to keep a stiff upper lip, but this isn't the place for it. There needs to be a reformation in game developement before it gets out of control.

Life is a wheel.

Try to stay on top.