World of Warcraft pulled from shelves...

[Tremulant]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: hungfarover

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
Ok, so this thing costs $15/mo? I never understood the point of paying for a game...again...and again...and again. Month by month? Do you realize that's $179.40/year you guys pay to play a game...that you've already bought?

That's like paying Microsoft to boot up your copy of Windows each startup. Of course, in MS' case, that'd be an astronomical amount of cash everyday when it crashes. J/K

This is the best online game I've played since the advent of FPS's over the internet in the form of Quake. I don't have a problem paying for a game that keeps me entertained for hours daily. I do have a problem with paying for a game and have extended unplanned downtime on an all-too-often basis.

Oh yeah, and has anyone said they use Bittorrent to distribute patches? Yep, they do.

I've always been a big Blizzard fan, but the downtime is getting old quickly.

There hasnt been a major MMOG launch without these problems. With the exception of maybe EQ2, and well the launch of WoW drawfs all other launches 10 to 1. Sure its been about three months, but it took almost a year to correct the server problems in UO. 4 months for EQ. Anarchy Online had alot of problems if I recall. The launching of these games is not an exact science, more so when you get twice as many customers than planned for.

True. I think EQ2 didn't have many problems because Sony's been doing the pay-to-play thing for years now. Hell.. I remember playing Infantry and CR ~5 years ago. (damn, I feel old).

In my personal experience, I haven't had many problems with lag and downtime in WoW. I only lag when I'm at the AH in IF. Besides that, I don't experience any lag or disconnects.

The only thing I'm disappointed with is their patching system. It uses a crappy blizzard tailored version of BT and it just doesn't work as well as it should.

Oh, and I have the feeling that each realm is more than 7 servers.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Tremulant

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: hungfarover

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
Ok, so this thing costs $15/mo? I never understood the point of paying for a game...again...and again...and again. Month by month? Do you realize that's $179.40/year you guys pay to play a game...that you've already bought?

That's like paying Microsoft to boot up your copy of Windows each startup. Of course, in MS' case, that'd be an astronomical amount of cash everyday when it crashes. J/K

This is the best online game I've played since the advent of FPS's over the internet in the form of Quake. I don't have a problem paying for a game that keeps me entertained for hours daily. I do have a problem with paying for a game and have extended unplanned downtime on an all-too-often basis.

Oh yeah, and has anyone said they use Bittorrent to distribute patches? Yep, they do.

I've always been a big Blizzard fan, but the downtime is getting old quickly.

There hasnt been a major MMOG launch without these problems. With the exception of maybe EQ2, and well the launch of WoW drawfs all other launches 10 to 1. Sure its been about three months, but it took almost a year to correct the server problems in UO. 4 months for EQ. Anarchy Online had alot of problems if I recall. The launching of these games is not an exact science, more so when you get twice as many customers than planned for.

True. I think EQ2 didn't have many problems because Sony's been doing the pay-to-play thing for years now. Hell.. I remember playing Infantry and CR ~5 years ago. (damn, I feel old).

In my personal experience, I haven't had many problems with lag and downtime in WoW. I only lag when I'm at the AH in IF. Besides that, I don't experience any lag or disconnects.

The only thing I'm disappointed with is their patching system. It uses a crappy blizzard tailored version of BT and it just doesn't work as well as it should.

Oh, and I have the feeling that each realm is more than 7 servers.

I dont have a problem with servers crashing Archimonde has really crashed or been taken down unexpectedly. Nor do I have a problem with the line to get in, its typically around ~100 or 5 minutes, except when other servers are down, and jackasses clog up the servers that are up because their servers are down. Ive seen a line of 900(hour and a half wait), at peak time when they had ~15 servers down for 16+ hours recently.

The server cant handle large raids. I play on the Horde on Archimonde, the Alliance outnumber us by a great deal. They routinely do HUGE raids on UC, and the servers just chug along. I mean, there are 3-4 minute delays between actions and its all because they dont have enough processing power.

Im sure there are more than 7 servers per world as well, but they certainly dont have enough processing power for servers at capacity, or for large raids. Unless they do something dramatic with the server farms(ie expanding them and splitting up current server boundaries), the battle grounds will become a fiasco because of the problems it will bring.

 

[gtsukada]

and the servers are down . . . . again

 

[OverVolt]

Awww poor blizzard, 700,000 users at $14.95/month. == $10,465,000...... $10million to run those servers for ONE MONTH!?

I refuse to pay for a game more than once. MMORPG's require only one thing to be good : lots of free time. I hope the MMORPG kick dies down soon, i don't have the time to spend clicking on 1meellion computer bots to level up, i just want to get on, and play.

It's ridiculas that blizzard lets such lag problems exsist and it shows their lack of forsight in the launch of the game. They even had data from the beta, so it's not like this lag issue caught them blind side. Maybe it's just neglegance in the hopes of raising profits.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
There hasnt been a major MMOG launch without these problems. With the exception of maybe EQ2, and well the launch of WoW drawfs all other launches 10 to 1. Sure its been about three months, but it took almost a year to correct the server problems in UO. 4 months for EQ. Anarchy Online had alot of problems if I recall. The launching of these games is not an exact science, more so when you get twice as many customers than planned for.

You realize that there are almost exactly as many EQ2 players as WoW players right now, right?

And that EQ1 - still running - has more players than either of them?

Linkage to interesting chart

Originally posted by: OverVolt
Awww poor blizzard, 700,000 users at $14.95/month.

I refuse to pay for a game more than once.

That's like saying you 'refuse to pay for a car more than once' since, after you bought it, you shouldn't have to put fuel in it. It should just *go* forever.

That doesn't make sense.

You are paying for a *service*, not a physical item. The servers, the ever-changing environment, new materials, new stories, etc - you are paying for all that to be created new on a regular basis as well as the bandwidth you are using.

And like any service or consumable - getting your hair cut, putting gas in your card, etc - yes, you DO have to keep paying for it until you don't want it any more.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: digitalsm
There hasnt been a major MMOG launch without these problems. With the exception of maybe EQ2, and well the launch of WoW drawfs all other launches 10 to 1. Sure its been about three months, but it took almost a year to correct the server problems in UO. 4 months for EQ. Anarchy Online had alot of problems if I recall. The launching of these games is not an exact science, more so when you get twice as many customers than planned for.

You realize that there are almost exactly as many EQ2 players as WoW players right now, right?

And that EQ1 - still running - has more players than either of them?

Linkage to interesting chart

Originally posted by: OverVolt
Awww poor blizzard, 700,000 users at $14.95/month.

I refuse to pay for a game more than once.

That's like saying you 'refuse to pay for a car more than once' since, after you bought it, you shouldn't have to put fuel in it. It should just *go* forever.

That doesn't make sense.

You are paying for a *service*, not a physical item. The servers, the ever-changing environment, new materials, new stories, etc - you are paying for all that to be created new on a regular basis as well as the bandwidth you are using.

And like any service or consumable - getting your hair cut, putting gas in your card, etc - yes, you DO have to keep paying for it until you don't want it any more.

comparing a car to a game?

 

[Zeeky Boogy Doog]

Originally posted by: Jfrag
Guess I am glad I picked EQII

edit: i was among those who never thought they'd pay monthly to play a game, but it's worth it, to be able to play it with all those thousands of people online is worth the money to help keep the servers up, granted there are some free online games, but i'll bet the rpgs just aren't as well done and don't last as long. one of my friends played eq1 and has over 5000 hours on his account, how many games do you have taht you can say you can play for that long? i'm happily shoveling out the money for it, it's so much fun

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The problem is people see the word HIGH next to their server when they are making a new char and click "continue". Then bitch about waiting in lines.

Mal'Ganis has not has unscheduled downtime since i began playing 4 weeks ago.

The problem is server population, not anything with the servers themselves. They are talking about forcing splits and moving entire guilds to new servers.

That would be a stupid move on their part. They should expand the server farms for each server, and split up zones. IE: Certain zones now should be split up and run on different servers.

Each "server" or "realm" is in fact 7 dual cpu servers.

Duh, why do you think I said they need to expand the server farms for each server.

Im not aware if 7 dual cpu servers is correct, if it is, well thats the problem right there. There are games out there with 18+ dual cpu servers per game world.

Like I said, they need to expand the server farm, and split up the zones(server boundaries).

But blizzard optimises their code instead of throwing more CPUs at it, a la sony.

 

[Scouzer]

Repost.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ght_key=y&keyword1=wow

 

[digitalsm]

You EQ2 fanbois need to pipe down with your talk of how EQ2 has almost as many subscribers as WoW. As of Jan 10, WoW has over twice as many subscribers as EQ2 and is quickly approaching the point where it has more subscribers than the entire EQ franchise.

The pie chart you linked to is either out of date or just incorrect. WoW is approaching 700k(right now) and EQ2 is at 310k(jan 10). EQ is in the range of 350k(Jan 10).

 

[Acanthus]

FFXI is well over 1mil, although the vast majority of the population isnt from the united states. (not that that invalidates the numbers, its just not very popular here in the states)

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
FFXI is well over 1mil, although the vast majority of the population isnt from the united states. (not that that invalidates the numbers, its just not very popular here in the states)

Lineage 1 had over 2million at its peak.

FFXI is crap compared to WoW or EQ2.

Once Blizzard launches its other versions around the world WoW will have over 1million as well.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The problem is people see the word HIGH next to their server when they are making a new char and click "continue". Then bitch about waiting in lines.

Mal'Ganis has not has unscheduled downtime since i began playing 4 weeks ago.

The problem is server population, not anything with the servers themselves. They are talking about forcing splits and moving entire guilds to new servers.

That would be a stupid move on their part. They should expand the server farms for each server, and split up zones. IE: Certain zones now should be split up and run on different servers.

Each "server" or "realm" is in fact 7 dual cpu servers.

Duh, why do you think I said they need to expand the server farms for each server.

Im not aware if 7 dual cpu servers is correct, if it is, well thats the problem right there. There are games out there with 18+ dual cpu servers per game world.

Like I said, they need to expand the server farm, and split up the zones(server boundaries).

But blizzard optimises their code instead of throwing more CPUs at it, a la sony.

Yeah and thats gotten them real far.. Its simple, they need more processing power. They can optimize till hell freezes over, unless they add more servers to each worlds serverfarm they are going to have problems. Bigger problems once battlegrounds are added.

 

[MrBond]

Battlegrounds will be instanced, probably on their own servers. At least I think instanced stuff is on separate servers, even when Stormwind is laggy, the Stockades isn't bad at all.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: MrBond
Battlegrounds will be instanced, probably on their own servers. At least I think instanced stuff is on separate servers, even when Stormwind is laggy, the Stockades isn't bad at all.

Instance dungeons are seperate from the game world, just like merchants and the auction house are on a DB server.