Is Old Content going to be Redone every patch

90 Night Elf Hunter
13055
03/10/2011 3:50 PMPosted by Zarhym
Is your definition of rehashed content deduced to the names of bosses being the same? There will always be recurring characters in World of Warcraft, as there is in any fantasy story telling. :)


True, however when a character dies, they usually stay dead. In WoW death seems to be a minor inconvenience.
Reply Quote
62 Blood Elf Warlock
880
i don't know what the explanation is, but Cataclysm seems sub-par in terms of content, compared to other expansions. It seems like the vast majority of the content of this expansion was re-vamping the vanilla content - which we've already paid for once. This second time around it seemed like only about a third of what we paid for the developers to work on was 'new.'

i can only offer evidence in terms of what we received. TBC had 10 new levels and 7 new zones (8 if you count the elf island thingy that came late in the expansion). Wrath had 10 new levels and 8 new zones (9 if you count the zone under dalaran). Cataclysm had 5 levels and 5 zones. You could argue things like "southern and northern barrens being divided makes a new zone" but that is exactly what I'm saying: that's the revamping of old content. Any development in an area not suited for those between the level cap of the most recent past expansion and the current expansion is the redoing of old content - it's nice, but shouldn't be sold to us as a second time.



*sigh* We didn't pay for the redo of azeroth per say. At least as far as cata is concerned. That hit in a patch which people of all account types (i believe) got. For a 5 level not 10 level xpac Cata so far is ok on the amount of content.
i'm under the impression that we did, even though it was released in a patch. let's play some math:

say blizzard has 10 developers that worked on the expansion content for wrath. For cataclysm, however, they hired 4 more developers - they then separated the developers: 7 worked on the 80-85 content to be released with Cataclysm, the other 7 worked on improving the old world to make it compatible with the cataclysm content to come. With this fake scenario, we received 7/10ths of what we paid for, but blizzard can still claim that they increased overall effort on this expansion by 40%, even though half of what they worked on was actually a patch that they applied to the vanilla version of WoW.

that's not a very good example, but it is the most straightforward i could think of.
Reply Quote
62 Blood Elf Warlock
880
So in effect the Forum is here just to point out flaws in the game? And QQ about them?

Got it.
yes.

of course, you're more than welcome to praise blizzard with claims of divine perfection every post, but that's really not very interesting. If you think other people are posting in error, it is helpful to point out that error - but to do this you need to know what the error is: it is not sufficient to rely on some vague assumption that blizzard is flawless except on issues that you alone decide are important to derive your counter-arguments.
Reply Quote
85 Night Elf Druid
8940
03/10/2011 6:10 PMPosted by Kiingy
Is your definition of rehashed content deduced to the names of bosses being the same? There will always be recurring characters in World of Warcraft, as there is in any fantasy story telling. :)


True, however when a character dies, they usually stay dead. In WoW death seems to be a minor inconvenience.



HAH Love it.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Paladin
13505
The 39.99 you paid for Cata did not include the updated Azeroth period. Even though it was "linked". You would have gotten it even if you didn't buy Cata. So to say that was included in the money is a farce by a long shot.
And you were right not a very good example as we don't know the exact size of the dev teams. Now if we did then it would be a different story. But to find fault with the devs ( and no i don't think they are perfect, far, far from it actually) for something that was in a patch not the box, and was free or part of the monethly sub,if you think about is just silly.
Edited by Geronys on 3/10/2011 6:32 PM PST
Reply Quote
85 Human Paladin
10810
nice
Reply Quote
62 Blood Elf Warlock
880
03/10/2011 6:31 PMPosted by Geronys
The 39.99 you paid for Cata did not include the updated Azeroth period.
i understand that. i'm saying what they did add with Cata seems subpar compared with previous expansions. Assume for a second that this is the case. The only explanations I can come up with, for this, is that some of their development resources were being allocated towards updating Azeroth or they are lazy. which is it?

Now, you can stop assuming that: if you want to debate over whether or not Cata was sub-par compared with other expansions, feel free - but before you do so, please answer the previous question which assumes that it is.
Edited by Search on 3/10/2011 6:47 PM PST
Reply Quote
You know, I'm really sick and tired of people QQing about old content rehashes, the only reason they can give being "Omg, I have/haven't done it before, therefore it's old and is below me".

First, content rehash, if you want to look at the bigger picture, is rare. Yes, it happens, but it's not like every new dungeon/raid we get is a rehash. Personally? I like seeing old content revisited. Otherwise you'd never see it again (the sticking point being some people never want to see it again, I suppose).

Secondly, and much more importantly, content rehash allows blizzard to churn out content for you guys in a very cost effective manner (believe it or not, blizzard does not have constant access to infinity billion dollars as you guys seem to believe). Yes, WoW is (seemingly, I haven't looked at any public financial reports of late) profitable to Blizzard. Mad props.
Lets take a look at their not so profitable projects, shall we?
• Battle.net - Pretty sure this is still free worldwide, and you can still play SC and D2, as well as SC2 on this service for free. Servers ain't cheap, neither is the bandwidth used when playing on them.
• WoW Servers - Given how stable they are for the most part, I'm willing to bet we're running on some pretty pricey hardware, and some fat pipes. Also not cheap. I'm willing to bet the hardware alone would cost more than most of you make in a year.
• Diablo 3 - Still in development, therefore losing money for Blizzard. Yes, they'll make millions when it launches, then you guys will be playing on Battle.net...for free! Most likely a financial loss in the long run, and definitely a financial sink hole right now.
• Project Titan - Yet another project in development, this one probably Early Alpha - Mid Alpha. Not making Blizzard money in any sense of the word, and probably has a fairly large dev team behind it. I'm willing to bet the baseline budget on this is $10m+ (most games usually go over their initial baseline estimates).
• SC2 Expansions - Oh look, more development.
• Warcraft Development - See above.

Everything I listed above costs money, and none of them are immediately profitable (D3, SC2 expac and Warcraft patches being the most realistic potential income). While Blizzard probably makes money hand over fist from all the subscribers they have, I'm willing to bet alot of it gets immediately put back into the company somehow, before even looking at paying the people who work there. After employee expenditures, anything left over is the profit Blizzard makes. Not profit they're bound to reinvest into their games, mind you (I'm willing to bet some of it is reinvested, but that's not the point). Profit is calculated out and reported to shareholders (as ActivisionBlizzard is a publicly traded company, after all) and business partners, who, ultimately, control the fate of the company.

Want Blizzard to cater to you? Buy stock. In the meantime, enjoy the content Blizzard is putting out for you while you wait for the 'real' content.

As for my personal opinion, I can't wait for redone ZG/ZA to hit live servers. I loved them at 60/70, and I can't argue with free Maelstrom Crystals :)
Reply Quote
62 Blood Elf Warlock
880
You know, I'm really sick and tired of people QQing about old content rehashes, the only reason they can give being "Omg, I have/haven't done it before, therefore it's old and is below me".

First, content rehash, if you want to look at the bigger picture, is rare. Yes, it happens, but it's not like every new dungeon/raid we get is a rehash. Personally? I like seeing old content revisited. Otherwise you'd never see it again (the sticking point being some people never want to see it again, I suppose).

Secondly, and much more importantly, content rehash allows blizzard to churn out content for you guys in a very cost effective manner (believe it or not, blizzard does not have constant access to infinity billion dollars as you guys seem to believe). Yes, WoW is (seemingly, I haven't looked at any public financial reports of late) profitable to Blizzard. Mad props.
Lets take a look at their not so profitable projects, shall we?
• Battle.net - Pretty sure this is still free worldwide, and you can still play SC and D2, as well as SC2 on this service for free. Servers ain't cheap, neither is the bandwidth used when playing on them.
• WoW Servers - Given how stable they are for the most part, I'm willing to bet we're running on some pretty pricey hardware, and some fat pipes. Also not cheap. I'm willing to bet the hardware alone would cost more than most of you make in a year.
• Diablo 3 - Still in development, therefore losing money for Blizzard. Yes, they'll make millions when it launches, then you guys will be playing on Battle.net...for free! Most likely a financial loss in the long run, and definitely a financial sink hole right now.
• Project Titan - Yet another project in development, this one probably Early Alpha - Mid Alpha. Not making Blizzard money in any sense of the word, and probably has a fairly large dev team behind it. I'm willing to bet the baseline budget on this is $10m+ (most games usually go over their initial baseline estimates).
• SC2 Expansions - Oh look, more development.
• Warcraft Development - See above.

Everything I listed above costs money, and none of them are immediately profitable (D3, SC2 expac and Warcraft patches being the most realistic potential income). While Blizzard probably makes money hand over fist from all the subscribers they have, I'm willing to bet alot of it gets immediately put back into the company somehow, before even looking at paying the people who work there. After employee expenditures, anything left over is the profit Blizzard makes. Not profit they're bound to reinvest into their games, mind you (I'm willing to bet some of it is reinvested, but that's not the point). Profit is calculated out and reported to shareholders (as ActivisionBlizzard is a publicly traded company, after all) and business partners, who, ultimately, control the fate of the company.

Want Blizzard to cater to you? Buy stock. In the meantime, enjoy the content Blizzard is putting out for you while you wait for the 'real' content.

As for my personal opinion, I can't wait for redone ZG/ZA to hit live servers. I loved them at 60/70, and I can't argue with free Maelstrom Crystals :)
don't forget starcraft ghost which they (stupidly, in my opinion) scrapped altogether.

also, i think a lot of people would reel in pain if they knew how much companies pay in dividends to people who do nothing compared to how much companies pay their employees who do the work that generates those dividends
Edited by Search on 3/10/2011 6:52 PM PST
Reply Quote
03/10/2011 6:45 PMPosted by Search
don't forget starcraft ghost which they (stupidly, in my opinion) scrapped altogether.


I don't think that's a current expenditure (altho if it's secretly in development still, I think Duke Nukem Forever has a contender) :)
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Paladin
13505
03/10/2011 6:40 PMPosted by Search
The 39.99 you paid for Cata did not include the updated Azeroth period.
i understand that. i'm saying what they did add with Cata seems subpar compared with previous expansions. Assume for a second that this is the case. The only explanations I can come up with, for this, is that some of their development resources were being allocated towards updating Azeroth or they are lazy. which is it?

Now, you can stop assuming that: if you want to debate over whether or not Cata was sub-par compared with other expansions, feel free - but before you do so, please answer the previous question which assumes that it is.


Never said it wasn't sub par tbh it is in some ways. But most people lump the azeroth redo in with it, and just QQ about how we didn't get a lot of end game. Even when we were told at launch there would be end game just not as much as we are used to.
Reply Quote
62 Blood Elf Warlock
880
03/10/2011 6:51 PMPosted by Geronys
i understand that. i'm saying what they did add with Cata seems subpar compared with previous expansions. Assume for a second that this is the case. The only explanations I can come up with, for this, is that some of their development resources were being allocated towards updating Azeroth or they are lazy. which is it?

Now, you can stop assuming that: if you want to debate over whether or not Cata was sub-par compared with other expansions, feel free - but before you do so, please answer the previous question which assumes that it is.


Never said it wasn't sub par tbh it is in some ways. But most people lump the azeroth redo in with it, and just QQ about how we didn't get a lot of end game. Even when we were told at launch there would be end game just not as much as we are used to.
so, your answer to the question is...?
Reply Quote
90 Orc Warrior
0
03/10/2011 5:33 PMPosted by Marketnstein
A decision to wildly change the focus of the game to a more difficult or hardcore or whatever you wish to call Cataclysms model was made.


cataclysms heroic 5 mans and the first tier of raid content are easier than tbc's. classic instances and raids were harder on several levels. much harder. wotlk was different.

If any wild changes occured, they were in wrath of the lich king.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Paladin
13505


Never said it wasn't sub par tbh it is in some ways. But most people lump the azeroth redo in with it, and just QQ about how we didn't get a lot of end game. Even when we were told at launch there would be end game just not as much as we are used to.
so, your answer to the question is...?


None of the above...my answer is Activision's share holders is what happened.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]