Blizzard Confirms Unnanounced MMO [Archive]

Gunmonk

12-14-2007, 8:42 PM

I'm not sure, it actually may be starcraft, I guess the only way to verify is to check employment rosters meaning, look at the old starcrafts team and compare any names that are on the new list.

West

12-14-2007, 8:46 PM

meh, i hope it's something new, there are already alot of MMOs similar
to diablo. a starcraft MMO would just be awsome but idk

Myr0nImm0rtal

12-14-2007, 10:26 PM

hmm, interesting i hope its diablo 3 that would be so awesome.

U-238

12-14-2007, 11:30 PM

I still think it'd be a wee bit too early to be working on a new MMO yet. Mainly because I think WoW has quite a few years left in the tank. (just look at starcraft) So unless they're planning on taking their time to an extreme extent then I'm not sure what they're trying to do.

But, being as they are working on it I would hope it's something new. Blizz already has 3 staple franchises and I think something new might be fun. (and I highly doubt D3 will be a MMO if there is a D3)

Black.Ice

12-14-2007, 11:44 PM

Definitely not a SC MMO. It'd be conflicting with the current SC II release and it'd be a pain to have everything match. For example, why would you release two different competing products to the same crowd?

(On a side note, there's a chance that they're trying to invigorate their SC crowd by offering them two games, but I doubt it.)

I'm guessing it's something new. I doubt they'll do Diablo.

Toucan

12-14-2007, 11:49 PM

It would be nice to see Blizzard venture away from there safety net and do something new.

Zerg_eater

12-14-2007, 11:55 PM

Hmmm...Starcraft...it would be pretty wierd. but diablo, I can understand dat.
http://globalmuonline.com/
A diablo based mmorpg play if you want. it's really fun with friends

Please edit this post if it's not allowed though

Modred

12-15-2007, 12:43 AM

I still think it'd be a wee bit too early to be working on a new MMO yet.

The assumption of an MMO is based on the Blizzard job opportunities (http://www.blizzard.com/jobopp/) page. Note that the first two, Character Artist and Environment Artist, specifically state "for a team focused on next-generation massively multiplayer online games." So while they may not be working on a new MMO, they're certainly planning a new MMO.

Definitely not a SC MMO. It'd be conflicting with the current SC II release and it'd be a pain to have everything match. For example, why would you release two different competing products to the same crowd?

WarCraftIII was announced summer 1998 (if not earlier) and WoW was announced in 2001. They came out in 2002 and 2004, respectively. ;)

Wow, I didn't realize that WarIII was over 5 years old now...

Battlecruiser

12-15-2007, 1:52 AM

Whatever it is, I just hope it doesn't have monthly fees. But it probably will, unfortunately.

pytum

12-15-2007, 2:16 AM

diablo fits in this type of game, that should be nice for those diablo's fans

Neo

12-15-2007, 4:08 PM

As aggravating as it is to admit, I'd bet the new "next-gen mmo" will be a Diablo game.

Or barring that, WoW2. After all, he said it wasn't an expansion, nothing about it not being WoW-related :p

-Neo

Galiant

12-16-2007, 7:14 AM

Well, whatever it is. I'm not gonna play it, ever. I absolutely hate MMOs

Me too... :/

IrishDutchman

12-16-2007, 7:33 AM

I still think it'd be a wee bit too early to be working on a new MMO yet. Mainly because I think WoW has quite a few years left in the tank. (just look at starcraft) So unless they're planning on taking their time to an extreme extent then I'm not sure what they're trying to do.

Yeah, a few years at the most. But producing a brand new MMO takes a while. This new project is only in its early stages. So, when WoW kinda dies down, they'll have a great new MMO to take its place.

Toucan

12-16-2007, 8:55 AM

It would be silly to think Blizzard (or any game company) would not like to have a few popular MMO's on the market.
More MMO's will come on to the market if blizzard releases them or not.
Even if there new games pull players from there old games from there point of view it's better than loosing both experienced and potential new players to rival companies, they still get the profit, if one of there rival's new games get the players they dont. New games must be released often.

Cloneliness

12-17-2007, 5:15 PM

Blizzard can't do MMOs. WoW is a shallow game.

Hunta

12-17-2007, 6:21 PM

It would be nice to see a new universe, but I'm guessing it will be Diablo-something :)

Blizzard can't do MMOs. WoW is a shallow game.

Indeed, the millions of fans just haven't realized it yet :rolleyes:

Neo

12-17-2007, 6:23 PM

Yes thats why they don't have 8 million subscribers...

oh wait

-Neo

Cloneliness

12-18-2007, 12:21 AM

Number of subscribers mean nothing. Some people like me play to hang out with friends and the story arcs. And because I play it, I know what's wrong with it.

kongurous

12-18-2007, 12:25 AM

No, Clone is right. WoW is pretty damn shallow.

Neo

12-18-2007, 1:41 AM

shallow or not, it's still popular.

"CS SUCKS!"

I mean seriously. I personally think CS is shit, but that doesn't change the fact that it's like the most popular game on the planet.

-Neo

kongurous

12-18-2007, 1:43 AM

shallow or not, it's still popular.

"CS SUCKS!"

I mean seriously. I personally think CS is shit, but that doesn't change the fact that it's like the most popular game on the planet.

-Neo

I don't remember seeing anyone say it wasn't popular. Popularity does not equal quality, however.

Just look at rap.

Neo

12-18-2007, 1:59 AM

Considering Country corners like 60% of the music industry, I'd say that example doesn't matter either.

WoW is a quality game. We know this because a) it's blizzards, b) millions of people play it, and c) people are still playing it.

But that's beside the point. I was refuting his comment, not defending a game I could really care less about.

Saying Blizzard "can't do MMOs" is asinine plain and simple.

-Neo

Kazeofwinds

12-18-2007, 2:02 AM

Lowest common denominator /= quality, it does however, tend to attract huge numbers.

Also, Its probably either WoW 2 or world of Diablo.

Probably Diablo, since WoW will keep shitting gold bricks for quite some time yet.

Note that I may be biased, as my experiences have led me to conclude that no MMO can currently stand on game play alone, and they're all just fancy chatroom interfaces. The gameplay is all strategically designed to be as time consuming as possible to keep those fees coming in, with the exact bare minimum of progress being made hourly to preserve interest.

Don't even bring up PvP, thats always based on who has the most time to grind up levels/gear

Call me when they make an MMORPG that plays like Ninja Gaiden (er, I'd settle for fable), and not like "click the attack button, watch your character hit something until one of them is dead, rinse, repeat, Insert specials as necessary"

Cloneliness

12-18-2007, 9:46 AM

You refuted nothing Neo, that would require you to know what I am talking about.

Neo

12-18-2007, 5:07 PM

You refuted nothing Neo, that would require you to know what I am talking about.

Well since you've neglected to explain anything except making negative comments about a game that you, yourself play...

"omg this game sucks" "...aren't you playing it? "well, yeah..."

Seriously, cmon.

"Don't even bring up PvP, thats always based on who has the most time to grind up levels/gear"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same for pretty much every game? Even to some degree games where there aren't levels? If you play enough you'll get better then others, it's just levels show this more then something like an FPS-type game.

Besides why should the PvP mean that much? I always thought MMOs were more of a coop-type game.

-Neo

Cloneliness

12-18-2007, 8:55 PM

Well, I never brought up PvP, so... But just for the record, PvP matters to those that likes to PvP.

Anyways, I've already explained why I play it. I enjoy playing it to some extent, but I am not going to act like there is nothing wrong with it. Don't confuse it with something like "omg this game sucks," take it as something like "these parts of the game aren't too hot."

Edit: Don't take it as some QQ post about class balance or welfare epic either.

Neo

12-19-2007, 11:24 AM

Cloneliness

12-19-2007, 12:24 PM

Well, that must be the problem then.

WoW, to look at its core, is a game based on carrot on a stick. It doesn't offer anything other than attaining that next goal, and the next, and so on. There is nothing in the middle. That's why they keep absoleting player accomplishments, because the game is over once there is nothing higher to achieve.

I know that's sort of the case with many other MMOs, but you can still grief others in the middle, such as poisoning the grass in UO, world PvP in DAoC, and generally fucking with other people in Eve.

This may sound like "Blizzard can't please everyone," but it's not. I don't expect them to do what somebody else is doing.

kongurous

12-19-2007, 12:27 PM

But see thats what I don't get, you say you've explained yourself, but in this thread all you've said is "blizzard can't do mmos"

My response would be more along the lines of "blizzard can't please everyone" =p

-Neo

Some people like me play to hang out with friends and the story arcs.

Neo, there's phrase that I'd like you to memorize. It's called: pay attention.

Balance in WoW is in the toilet, there's no challenge to the game whatsoever. People only play it because it's easy to get into and easy to play. "Wow, I got to level 10 in 30 minutes!" then turns into "I'm level 70 and it's been 3 months, this game is fun!" turns into "Fuck yeah, tier 6 epics", when you aren't doing much of anything that stimulates your brain or anything really but push a few buttons. There's no thought to the entire process and that attracts stupid people who think it's a good game.

IrishDutchman

12-19-2007, 3:52 PM

There's no thought to the entire process and that attracts stupid people who think it's a good game.

Don't you have several level 70 WoW characters?

kongurous

12-19-2007, 4:50 PM

Don't you have several level 70 WoW characters?

Yes, yes I do. Why does that matter? So what, I play the game. That doesn't mean I can't have problems with it.

West

12-19-2007, 10:36 PM

Note that I may be biased, as my experiences have led me to conclude that no MMO can currently stand on game play alone, and they're all just fancy chatroom interfaces. The gameplay is all strategically designed to be as time consuming as possible to keep those fees coming in, with the exact bare minimum of progress being made hourly to preserve interest.

you know there is a MMORPG called Guildwars and it isn't p2p.

Kazeofwinds

12-19-2007, 10:40 PM

you know there is a MMORPG called Guildwars and it isn't p2p.

Yeah, I have it.

The problem of course being, the expansions are still some 50 bucks each, and as far as I know, Nobody plays vanilla anymore.

Also, it got old when I started running out of quests to do, and needs like, 4 more character slots (seriously, 4 slots with like 20 class combos....what the hell)

Though I haven't played in awhile, no will to sit through the three days of patching. (Computer it was on died a few months back, never bothered installing again)

Also, there are plenty of free MMO's, they just tend to be cookie-cutter korean grindan game MMO's that are all nearly the exact same engine with a new paintjob. Then again, I've never seen a grind-free MMO (Guildwars being somewhat of an exception, as the quests were the primary exp source, not the 5million respawning goats, actually, guild-wars lacks most of my issues with the Genre, except the click-and-watch gameplay issue)

Neo

12-20-2007, 12:54 AM

Kong saying "I play to hang with friends" doesn't excuse "blizzard can't do mmos"

=p

Don't get me wrong... seriously, I don't even play wow, nor do I have an intention of doing so, but saying Blizzard sucks at MMOs is pretty lame =P

-Neo

IrishDutchman

12-20-2007, 1:36 AM

Yes, yes I do. Why does that matter? So what, I play the game. That doesn't mean I can't have problems with it.

Yeah, no problem. I played WoW too. I was just wondering, what with you insulting yourself and all:

There's no thought to the entire process and that attracts stupid people who think it's a good game.

West

12-21-2007, 11:33 PM

well.. i haven't played Guildwars yet but i am getting it from "santa"
.... i should have asked for exp. too cause it looked only like $20 in the store
i saw it in. lol.

pytum

12-22-2007, 7:21 AM

just three words: DIABLO has more possibilities to new mmo under development by blizzard :P

SANTA and SATAN have the same letters!!!
both are red!! holy fuck! (discovered that 2 months ago)

Zenox

12-22-2007, 1:30 PM

Id like SC, but somthing new would be more rational..a D3 MMO = WOW so a big no

Faiien

12-22-2007, 2:07 PM

iono
i still think its a new diablo mmorpg but thats just me and the other couple hundred people lol

kongurous

12-22-2007, 2:41 PM

iono
i still think its a new diablo mmorpg but thats just me and the other couple hundred people lol

Because strength of numbers automatically makes you correct.

Neo

12-22-2007, 4:31 PM

Deductive reasoning.

D3, MMO or not is likely.

An SC MMO is very unlikely.

-Neo

Modred

12-22-2007, 11:29 PM

On the note of a Diablo MMO, it wouldn't necessarily need to be billed as a "real" MMO, in the vein of EQ, WoW, and friends. Rather, it could be simply the multiplayer aspect of D3. But Neo seems rather convinced that D3 shall not be, at least for some time.

As an aside, I really need to order D2 off someplace cheap. All the crummy stores around here still sell the battle chest for $40. Sure it's a good game, but $40 for a game nearly 10 years old? Good grief!

Faiien

12-22-2007, 11:32 PM

+ if they made a diablo mmo they would already have a set customer base ready and willing to switch from diablo 2...although it is blizzard, and iam sure thousands of people would be willing to buy any game they make lol

pytum

12-23-2007, 4:04 AM

I have a question, which one is a division of which one?, blizzard is a div. from vivendi games, or vivendi is a div. from blizzard.

Because i saw in a demo disc of blu ray in a circuit city store in a hdtv (yuma, az) and that video (it shows the characteristics about the blu ray, and the differences between dvd quality and blu ray quality and stuff) and at the end, it shows a list of some companies that are joining blu ray in aspects like movies and gaming, and when it appeared the companies supporting blu ray for gaming, it appeared playstation 3, sony and VIVENDI GAMES...

does it mean that starcraft 2 may be for ps3?? just a thought... but, that could be awesome

IrishDutchman

12-23-2007, 6:53 AM

I have a question, which one is a division of which one?, blizzard is a div. from vivendi games, or vivendi is a div. from blizzard.

Blizzard was a div. from Vivendi. Then Vivendi merged with Activision, and took on the name Activision Blizzard. But the people holding the cards there are still Vivendi.
So, Blizzard is a div. of Activision Blizzard.

Faiien

12-23-2007, 9:17 AM

no, i dont think theres ever gonna be a starcraft 2 for consoles, so dont hold your breath

Modred

12-23-2007, 3:34 PM

no, i dont think theres ever gonna be a starcraft 2 for consoles, so dont hold your breath

They might would consider it, if SC for N64 hadn't flopped horribly. ^^

pytum

12-23-2007, 4:57 PM

no, i dont think theres ever gonna be a starcraft 2 for consoles, so dont hold your breath

then, why vivendi games joined forces with blu ray...

Neo

12-23-2007, 5:07 PM

BluRay is a disc format. It doesn't belong to Sony or the PS3.

One day we might see Blizzard games released on BluRay discs, but thats not happening any time soon. Just because Blizzard (or) Blizzard's Parent company Vivendi joined the BlueRay group doesn't indicate that their will suddenly be a console version of SC2 =p

And a console based RTS like SC2 is very unlikely. I'd prefer Blizzard apply their extreme smoothing to PC/Mac play, so that SC2 is just as complete as their other games.

Seriously, did you ever try Starcraft 64?

-Neo

BobaDaFett

12-23-2007, 9:29 PM

I think it might be a new diablo game...but i have been wrong before. :confused:

Protosschick99

12-25-2007, 1:32 AM

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16626

So a new project from blizzard. W/e it is i know it'll be great.

I'm look'n forward to this, this is gonna be awesome :]

I believe that it will be something totally unrelated to an SC, Diablo, WC game.

Something new and unique--Something that isn't out there.

Blizzard is ahead of it's time and I'm anticipating their next creation :)

Dayoh

12-27-2007, 6:18 AM

Think of it this way an MMO on a console is obviously doable, the 360 and PS3 can both handle it.

Blizzard owns the MMO PC World, if they take the console one too; they will have monopoly.

GG Blizz :)

Neo

12-28-2007, 4:31 AM

mmo diablo console though?

wouldn't work anyways. who's going to pay extra (xbl) or pay at all (ps3) for an online-only console game that probably won't work through the standard online services (Since that doesn't exactly make blizzard money, nor would, I'd imagine, XBL or PS3's online servers wish to be hosting an MMO server setup.

Plus there's something to be said for a keyboard and mouse over a controller.

-Neo

Faiien

01-07-2008, 9:28 AM

i dont know if anyones read this but i found a small tibit of news that i thought i was interesting so i decided to revive this thread
Unannounced:

They have not officially been announced, but they have been confirmed -- Project "Hydra" and a new MMO. It is possible that they are one and the same, which is seen in the comments of the community. Some say that the new MMO is going to revisit the Diablo world, while "Hydra" is a new RTS. Although this idea is not as popular, the idea of a StarCraft MMO has popped up. Nothing official has been said about these games, or game, but we expect to get more information on it later in 2008.

VigilanteV

01-07-2008, 10:20 AM

i hope diablo

Gunmonk

01-07-2008, 1:16 PM

Is this condsidered necro?, oh well I'll take a shot. I think that the game will be starcraft related.

Neo

01-07-2008, 4:49 PM

hydra doesn't = starcraft, please die >:|

seriously. Hydra is an iconic diablo thing.

-Neo

WhatIsStarcraft

01-11-2008, 4:37 PM

Voting for Diablo 3. Would be very intersesting to see the new graphics, and the new game overall.Just hopes there is a single player, if it is Diablo 3, nobody kinda knows yet, so...