MTW folk RE: RTW

Hellenes, what I am trying to say is that, yes, Blizzard's patching policy is better, but their products and the TW series are different beasts.

You are right that Blizzard is a more succesful corporation than CA, but it is probably not only their patching policy that paved the way to success. Blizzard produces different games for a different public, so their business model may not be suited to CA unless they are going to produce the same games as Blizzard does. And I am sure nobody is waiting for that ~:rolleyes: .

While I have nothing but respect for Blizzard's coding skills, when compared to R:TW, Warcraft is less complex in both economic and battle model, with the exception of special abilities and scripted events. This makes it easier to patch, allowing Blizzard to focus on small balance patches that take less time.

Quote:

---

As for balancing, it took 20 patches for Blizzard to reach the current point in WIII which still isnt perfect, also the differences between orcs, elves, undead and human are much greater than the one race RTW which has the RPS value that just needs to be applied...

---

You've got to be kidding. Just because all fighters in R:TW fall under the classification of humans, you say they are all alike? Only fantasy games lump humans together (to pit them against orks or dragons or...), but more historically minded games make sure that there are differences in the way humans fight. Try Romans, Numidians, Macedonians and Parthians and you know what I mean. As for applying the RPS value, I am afraid that's an illusion. The RPS needs to be balanced as well. Blizzard got it far easier because they can make things up without people whining about overpowered Elf cavalry and too little historical accuracy for the Orc ~:cool: .

To summarize, you have to be carefull comparing CA with Blizzard as they have chosen to produce different products. Only when they would produce similar games then full comparisons are allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Hellenes, what I am trying to say is that, yes, Blizzard's patching policy is better, but their products and the TW series are different beasts.

You are right that Blizzard is a more succesful corporation than CA, but it is probably not only their patching policy that paved the way to success. Blizzard produces different games for a different public, so their business model may not be suited to CA unless they are going to produce the same games as Blizzard does. And I am sure nobody is waiting for that ~:rolleyes: .

While I have nothing but respect for Blizzard's coding skills, when compared to R:TW, Warcraft is less complex in both economic and battle model, with the exception of special abilities and scripted events. This makes it easier to patch, allowing Blizzard to focus on small balance patches that take less time.


You've got to be kidding. Just because all fighters in R:TW fall under the classification of humans, you say they are all alike? Only fantasy games lump humans together (to pit them against orks or dragons or...), but more historically minded games make sure that there are differences in the way humans fight. Try Romans, Numidians, Macedonians and Parthians and you know what I mean. As for applying the RPS value, I am afraid that's an illusion. The RPS needs to be balanced as well. Blizzard got it far easier because they can make things up without people whining about overpowered Elf cavalry and too little historical accuracy for the Orc ~:cool: .

To summarize, you have to be carefull comparing CA with Blizzard as they have chosen to produce different products. Only when they would produce similar games then full comparisons are allowed.

---

One must remember the consistant practice by CA on insisting that their product to be classed as "RTS", which I definately understand since it would sound a bit awkward to the mainstream potential clients the "T" word (turn-based)...
Do the people that made Blizzard rich like TW? IMO most dont... Are Blizzard games like Starcraft, Warcraft classed as STRATEGY? Its not relevant if they include any strategy or not... the public has classed them as that and thus IN THE MAINSTREAM where the CA has sailed with RTW it must compare to them...
As far as balance is concerned, if fans can do it, if other companies can do it CA can do it too, RTW hasnt thousands of parameters, it has phalanx, mounts, mounted archers, missiles, spearmen, swordsmen, the fantasy units apart... Not that impossible task to balance, one then may say that CA cares only about future sales and ditches past products (STW MI, MTW VI, RTW soon abandoned, all focus on future producta and sales, no "unprofitable" patches) but none still answered why Blizzard makes patches for 8+ years old games?
Why its not ditching them in favour of future products?
A family in Greece went to buy a car (Husband, his mother and the wife), first they went to the Huyndai shop talked about prices and left saying that they would think about it, across the street was the BMW shop and they thought to give it a go, they entered and saw the cars and asked about the price, when the salesman told them the Husband's mother surprised cryed: "Why its so expensive there is a bigger one for half of the price accross the street!!"
Can you tell her why its so expensive?

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

One must remember the consistant practice by CA on insisting that their product to be classed as "RTS", which I definately understand since it would sound a bit awkward to the mainstream potential clients the "T" word (turn-based)...
Do the people that made Blizzard rich like TW? IMO most dont... Are Blizzard games like Starcraft, Warcraft classed as STRATEGY? Its not relevant if they include any strategy or not... the public has classed them as that and thus IN THE MAINSTREAM where the CA has sailed with RTW it must compare to them...
As far as balance is concerned, if fans can do it, if other companies can do it CA can do it too, RTW hasnt thousands of parameters, it has phalanx, mounts, mounted archers, missiles, spearmen, swordsmen, the fantasy units apart... Not that impossible task to balance, one then may say that CA cares only about future sales and ditches past products (STW MI, MTW VI, RTW soon abandoned, all focus on future producta and sales, no "unprofitable" patches) but none still answered why Blizzard makes patches for 8+ years old games?
Why its not ditching them in favour of future products?
A family in Greece went to buy a car (Husband, his mother and the wife), first they went to the Huyndai shop talked about prices and left saying that they would think about it, across the street was the BMW shop and they thought to give it a go, they entered and saw the cars and asked about the price, when the salesman told them the Husband's mother surprised cryed: "Why its so expensive there is a bigger one for half of the price accross the street!!"
Can you tell her why its so expensive?

Hellenes

---

There are misconceptions and opinions-stated-as-fact that need to be corrected here.

Actually, we - that is CA - don't refer to any Total War titles as RTS games. We call them 'strategy games' when we call them anything other than TW or "Total War". There may be journalists and others who use the label as a convenient shorthand, but we do not.

The mainstream is not a bad place. While some who feel themselves to be an 'elite' have a snobbish attitude to it, they should not; they should welcome new players as new blood into the TW-playing hobby.

There's a second aspect too: the mainstream make it possible for you to enjoy the games too. This isn't really the time and place to explain the economics of the games industry, but - although some find this really hard to understand - mainstream sales are an absolute necessity for any entertainment industry. If a game (or game series) cannot find a large audience it is eventually doomed to disappear. Ivory-tower purity means nothing out there to play.

Let's move on swiftly past your comments on game balance, which didn't actually make sense to me. This may be my failing. Past products are not 'ditched', but all games have a natural life span eventually ending up in the 'nostalgia' phase. ALL companies concentrate their efforts on future products. Anything else is economic suicide. Work patching already-released games is done, but no one can carry out the level of patching you seem to want. Ever. Unless... they are very lucky or very, very, very big. Or both.

So, there are some simple answers as to why Blizzard make patches for old games. (1) Starcraft and their other titles have the status of national sports in Korea - hence some patches being nothing more than Korean language fixes - and the Korean market for this kind of thing is bigger than big. (2) Blizzard are their own publishers and can do what they like when they like. (3) There are a million-zillion people giving Blizzard money every month for WOW, and this kind of cash flow allows them to cross-subsidize other unprofitable things. Blizzard do a splendid job with their games - I still have Diablo II on my laptop - to be sure, but they do have these advantages.

And what is the car metaphor about? ~:confused:

Anyway, there's another patch on the way and you'll probably quite enjoy it. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Do the people that made Blizzard rich like TW? IMO most dont...

---

I agree. The conclusion that follows is that CA should drop the TW series for Warcraft-clones. Which is not what I want. Do you?

Quote:

---

Are Blizzard games like Starcraft, Warcraft classed as STRATEGY? Its not relevant if they include any strategy or not... the public has classed them as that and thus IN THE MAINSTREAM where the CA has sailed with RTW it must compare to them...

---

Again, TW is not Warcraft and I hope it never will be. If you classing all strategy games with real-time elements as the same, yes, you are right. But TW is a more accurate portrayal of historical warfare than Warcraft, and therefore has other requirements. Like a more complex battle model, an additional strategic level and, preferably, a historical justification.

Quote:

---

As far as balance is concerned, if fans can do it, if other companies can do it CA can do it too, RTW hasnt thousands of parameters, it has phalanx, mounts, mounted archers, missiles, spearmen, swordsmen, the fantasy units apart...

---

You have (again) avoided answering my assertion that R:TW has a more complex engine, and that this has its effect on patching and balancing.

Quote:

---

Not that impossible task to balance, one then may say that CA cares only about future sales and ditches past products (STW MI, MTW VI, RTW soon abandoned, all focus on future producta and sales, no "unprofitable" patches) but none still answered why Blizzard makes patches for 8+ years old games?

---

Soon? S:TW was abandoned when it was about five years old and most people had passed to M:TW. M:TW is still running, so is VI. As for patches, see above.

Quote:

---

A family in Greece went to buy a car (Husband, his mother and the wife), first they went to the Huyndai shop talked about prices and left saying that they would think about it, across the street was the BMW shop and they thought to give it a go, they entered and saw the cars and asked about the price, when the salesman told them the Husband's mother surprised cryed: "Why its so expensive there is a bigger one for half of the price accross the street!!"
Can you tell her why its so expensive?

---

Because it's a status symbol? ~;p

Lastly, I'd like to point out that Blizzard has major resources due to early succes, while CA has so far produced only one really big hit. You cannot expect the same level of services from CA because they could not afford it and I seriously doubt they can now.

I agree it would be nice if CA spent more time on patching and balancing, if they would have their own MP servers and if they cooperated more with fans to make the game better. But as you pointed out before, it's all a matter of money, and this takes major resources, and on this front, Blizzard is way ahead of CA.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...ode=interviews
Developer Interview May 4, 2004 where Michael de Plater calls RTW a REAL TIME STRATEGY game, when we all know that the strategy part is TURN BASED.
But the point in this debate isnt whether CA is bad or good or whatever...
Its the notion of copying the GOOD practices of other companies while improving your own.
I didnt demand a patch for Shogun, what Im merely suggesting is to see Blizzard not as impossible rich gamegods, they werent always in the rich position but theyve built the customer loyality and most important BRAND VALUE (thats where the car example fits into).
Thats the way for the CA to go, it was all good and nice with making the game for 10 years olds (from Tim Ansell at the same interview) and all the eye candy but if one wants to make the BIG money there is ONLY one way:
MP+Customer Support...
WoW has shown how much money gets lost to piracy by not losing that money, one can say its an MMORPG but Warcraft didnt make much less money (from sales), Battlenet shielded it from piracy toghether with the shallow Single Player.
Captain Fishpants
Im very sorry to mention this but Ive seen in russian Total War forums people distributing pirated copies of RTW and BI in threads under the title: Help a friend send discs of RTW!!!
Also Ive been in russian Warcraft forums, I ve seen moderators there overloaded with saying to all new comers that ask how to play online (wich equals to "enjoy" for Warcraft) pirated Warcraft III that its NOT possible and that they should buy the ORIGINAL game, this shows why Blizzard is its own publisher.
The Total War series are the ONLY thing in the game industry that can come close to an ancient battlefield, I hope that future products will see devotion and support that the innovation and brand of the series need.

Hellenes

Is it just me or this thread horribly off-topic ??
This is a MTW vs RTW thread, not a blizzard rulez!!111 or piracy thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

Is it just me or this thread horribly off-topic ??
This is a MTW vs RTW thread, not a blizzard rulez!!111 or piracy thread.

---

You are absolutely right, but I felt the need to defend CA because one patron made rather strong and by my knowledge untrue accusations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

Its the notion of copying the GOOD practices of other companies while improving your own.

---

Then you and I are in agreement. My point merely was that expecting Blizzard-like support from CA is unreasonable, because Blizzard has far greater resources and (for Warcraft) a far simpler game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

You are absolutely right, but I felt the need to defend CA because one patron made rather strong and by my knowledge untrue accusations.


Then you and I are in agreement. My point merely was that expecting Blizzard-like support from CA is unreasonable, because Blizzard has far greater resources and (for Warcraft) a far simpler game.

---

I agree with you my repeated statement of Blizzard patching old games was to magnify that there is something that makes this unprofitable practice to be followed...(yes they have the money but they arent stupid to throw it away...)
Something that IMO eluded CA's attention and I hope that it will see it and copies it in the future...

Hellenes

Blizzard are able to patch old games because there are many within - " " - there corp that still play those games and pretty work for nowt - prove me wrong - Gamers within corps tend to want to improve their own AND get a pat on the back when they do it - did it cost blizzard a penny to improve those games? prolly not dude. Even if it did their money comes in from all those people who pay for other games. You make a profit on one game - you can build on others....