Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Deleted]

You appear not to be a person with any sort of commitment to honesty, but let's give this one more try.

You removed the sentence that explained what the first sentence in the quote meant.

An emulator is a program that runs on a computer that enables that computer to run programs intended for another computer.

It is not a program intended to replicate the function of another program.

This is a simple concept, and you could admit the point without really losing anything. All you have to say is "fine, Nost didn't 'emulate', but rather replaced the server with a program of their own design". Not sure why you feel being shown wrong about a point of terminology (and you are wrong) is so threatening.

He didn't remove anything, the word "typically" is used in your second sentence for a reason, because it's the most common example.

They are emulating the server software (not the client, which is freely downloadable for all anyway) and it is a perfectly acceptable use of the word. Yes, you'd typically associate the word emulator with things like dolphin, or any virtual machine in general, but the use of the term emulation is perfectly fine in this case regardless.

If the end goal is to behave exactly like another program in every imaginable way, then it emulates that program. It (attempts to) communicate with the client just like an official server would, and manages to trick the client into believing it is connected to a real server. Textbook emulation.

Usually your posts actually have some basis even if I think they are based on completely false premises, right now you're just embarassing yourself.

[McNeil]

Oh, Mark Kern. Yeah, I'm not so sure you'd want to take his advice on anything game related.

What did I miss? Who is this guy?

[A dot Ham]

I'm sorry, but have you had an education? Because it sure doesn't take a genius to know that all business ventures have risk and reward. Blizzard has risked far more money into projects they have scrapped. The monetary risk for them to try this venture is extremely low. This isn't an emotional thing for me, it's simple business knowledge, and based on the size of Activision Blizzard, and their revenue and profits for each year. This is just another day in the park. They easily pay more money in settling suits filed against them each year than the cost to operate a couple legacy servers.

Also, you were vehemently against this thread a few days ago, yet here you are continuing to post. It's hard to take someone seriously when they go back on their own beliefs.

I am not going to rehash arguments again for you. It isn't a matter of whether or not it would be profitable. But your "calculations" which don't exist don't take into account any direct or variable costs, nor does it take into account the impact and subsequent losses that live may incur as a result of legacy servers.

(1) The profits really aren't big enough for Blizzard to bother with
(2) Can they spend the same amount of time/energy/resources on another endeavor that might be more profitable? Yes (shown that too)

You saying it is "simply business knowledge" and not employing that "simple business knowledge" destroys your own argument.

Your tone and attitude makes everything you have to say irritating and easy to disregard.

But to be fair, most of your fellow proponents share the same attitude. Continue to keep us apprised of the results of those endeavors. I am still hearing a resounding "NO!"

[Gondorian]

I am not going to rehash arguments again for you. It isn't a matter of whether or not it would be profitable. But your "calculations" which don't exist don't take into account any direct or variable costs, nor does it take into account the impact and subsequent losses that live may incur as a result of legacy servers.

(1) The profits really aren't big enough for Blizzard to bother with
(2) Can they spend the same amount of time/energy/resources on another endeavor that might be more profitable? Yes (shown that too)

You saying it is "simply business knowledge" and not employing that "simple business knowledge" destroys your own argument.

Your tone and attitude makes everything you have to say irritating and easy to disregard.

But to be fair, most of your fellow proponents share the same attitude. Continue to keep us apprised of the results of those endeavors. I am still hearing a resounding "NO!"

I made a previous post that delved into an estimate of costs and earnings based on reasonable figures. Due to blizzard having the staff, assets, and money to staff this project I made a calculation based on the cost for 6 months being $1,000,000. They would need less than 12,000 people paying their monthly fee to break even. Also my argument was never saying this would be a highly profitable venture, simply that establishing it wasn't do to it being a monetary expense on their part. But it's hard to say there wouldn't even be marginal profits, because evidence shows it doesn't take much to break even.

I also enjoy how you chose to ignore the latter portion of my message and my other post that delved more into this. One could assume you're cherry picking to try and get a specific agenda you have across to everyone.

[D3athsting]

"Old Blizzard Style" sums up how activision ruined blizzard

[Akka]

You appear not to be a person with any sort of commitment to honesty, but let's give this one more try.

You removed the sentence that explained what the first sentence in the quote meant.

An emulator is a program that runs on a computer that enables that computer to run programs intended for another computer.

It is not a program intended to replicate the function of another program.

This is a simple concept, and you could admit the point without really losing anything. All you have to say is "fine, Nost didn't 'emulate', but rather replaced the server with a program of their own design". Not sure why you feel being shown wrong about a point of terminology (and you are wrong) is so threatening.

Actually you're the one being dishonest, or simply without a clue. The first sentence is the definition. The second is the typical example (not the definition). I gave a definition, which near-exactly matches the one you provided too.
You manage to try to say that my definition is wrong, by ignoring the definition you yourself gave and attempting to twist the example into contradicting its own definition. Don't call ME dishonest when you pull this obvious shit.

Also, just for fun : you just copy-pasted the Wikipedia definition. Which is fine. The part which is amusing comes when it's obvious you just stopped right there 'cause you thought you pwned me, and managed to not even read past the first line. As RIGHT AFTER THAT came this amusing piece :

Emulators in computing

Emulation refers to the ability of a computer program in an electronic device to emulate (imitate) another program or device.

Holy shit, again exactly what I said ! Just eat your crow and be done with it ?

[Deleted]

There is no lawsuit just cease & Desist order.

And we still dont know if the c&d order was real or just a claim by the nost team....

[AeneasBK]

I also enjoy how you chose to ignore the latter portion of my message and my other post that delved more into this. One could assume you're cherry picking to try and get a specific agenda you have across to everyone.

The thread makes much healthier reading if you put the trolls on ignore until it's done

[A dot Ham]

I made a previous post that delved into an estimate of costs and earnings based on reasonable figures. Due to blizzard having the staff, assets, and money to staff this project I made a calculation based on the cost for 6 months being $1,000,000. They would need less than 12,000 people paying their monthly fee to break even. Also my argument was never saying this would be a highly profitable venture, simply that establishing it wasn't do to it being a monetary expense on their part. But it's hard to say there wouldn't even be marginal profits, because evidence shows it doesn't take much to break even.

I also enjoy how you chose to ignore the latter portion of my message and my other post that delved more into this. One could assume you're cherry picking to try and get a specific agenda you have across to everyone.

My specific agenda is to make you see reason. My own rough estimates calculate a very speculative amount of $2.25 million before costs. But the biggest thing is it doesn't take into account the impact it would have on live. (repeated)

That still isn't enough for them to make a move. If they are projecting another 10 million to come back for legion. They could spend far less money developing a mount + pet combo for the store, and release that within the first month of Legion. If only 1% of the population was interested in such a purchase it would still make MORE money than taking the time and effort to add legacy servers.

TBH this isn't something pro-vanilla players want to hear, it isn't something pro-WoD/live players want to hear either. Even though some of us buy those mounts we would prefer to see a new daily hub, a new dungeon, something... But ultimately its one of those "simple business knowledge" things.

[Gondorian]

The thread makes much healthier reading if you put the trolls on ignore until it's done

You have a good point, but to some extent this is how people get misinformed. A lot of people will read what trolls say and take it for fact.

[A dot Ham]

The thread makes much healthier reading if you put the trolls on ignore until it's done

Oh the irony!

This just in: If you aren't a proponent of Legacy servers, or sympathetic to the Nost crowd, you are most definitely trolling and/or shitposting.

[Deleted]

Mark Kern [...] had an opinion to share about this

Some dude who work for blizzard a DECADE ago has an oppinion - ofc the best move would be to hire thugs that dont care about laws.....

[AeneasBK]

You have a good point, but to some extent this is how people get misinformed. A lot of people will read what trolls say and take it for fact.

I'm not saying these posters are always trolling but hundreds of pages ago when this was nascent there were a handful or so who admitted they were just here to rile people up; and since then have done nothing to disprove this, made obvious by the fact they won't repsond until someone posts something dumb, and they pounce on that, ignoring any of the "slightly more awkward to respond to" posts In a week or month or w/e this finally dies down I'm sure they'll be able to return to mature posting habits; but in their own words: "schadenfreude"

[Gondorian]

My specific agenda is to make you see reason. My own rough estimates calculate a very speculative amount of $2.25 million before costs. But the biggest thing is it doesn't take into account the impact it would have on live. (repeated)

That still isn't enough for them to make a move. If they are projecting another 10 million to come back for legion. They could spend far less money developing a mount + pet combo for the store, and release that within the first month of Legion. If only 1% of the population was interested in such a purchase it would still make MORE money than taking the time and effort to add legacy servers.

TBH this isn't something pro-vanilla players want to hear, it isn't something pro-WoD/live players want to hear either. Even though some of us buy those mounts we would prefer to see a new daily hub, a new dungeon, something... But ultimately its one of those "simple business knowledge" things.

It's one thing to make projections, but assuming 10 million will return for Legion is completely blasphemous. That aside, my discussion never had anything to do with live. If blizzard felt that a legacy server would cannibalize their user base to that large of extent, clearly the amount of people willing to play on legacy servers must be very high. That, or their current game must be crap if that many people want to leave.

[Darkeon]

Some dude who work for blizzard a DECADE ago has an oppinion - ofc the best move would be to hire thugs that dont care about laws.....

I know it might come as a shock.. but his is as worth as yours is

[A dot Ham]

It's one thing to make projections, but assuming 10 million will return for Legion is completely blasphemous. That aside, my discussion never had anything to do with live. If blizzard felt that a legacy server would cannibalize their user base to that large of extent, clearly the amount of people willing to play on legacy servers must be very high. That, or their current game must be crap if that many people want to leave.

There ya go. Ye ol fallback.

Bash Blizzard and then demand change.

WoD brought back 10 million. There are quite a few Legion changes that give nods to vanilla features/mechanics. In any case I think its a safe bet (given past performance) that we will at least see a huge spike in initials sales and player engagement (even if it tapers off to current status). My point is that blizzard need only provide a small incentive to that massive amount of people and it would be far more profitable than the relatively small amount that legacy servers would bring in.

Less work and more profits will always trump more work and less profits.

That minimal work doesn't have to be exclusive to WoW either.

Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Are the profits worth the work?

Please tell me you at least understand that. Whether you agree with it or not... that you understand it.

[Darkeon]

Less work and more profits will always trump more work and less profits.

That minimal work doesn't have to be exclusive to WoW either.

Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Are the profits worth the work?

Please tell me you at least understand that. Whether you agree with it or not... that you understand it.

Are you a Blizzard investor?

Then why are you advocating for better profits for a Multi-Billionaire Company, while asking for less content for you, as the consumer?

Tell me you at least understand that. Whether you agree with it or not... that you understand it.

[Aggrophobic]

What did I miss? Who is this guy?

Left Blizzard early on, talked a bit of crap about the game, said he could do better, started working on Firefall as CEO, became so unpopular with the development team he got fired.

[A dot Ham]

Are you a Blizzard investor?

Then why are you advocating for better profits for a Multi-Billionaire Company, while asking for less content for you, as the consumer?

Tell me you at least understand that. Whether you agree with it or not... that you understand it.

Who said I was advocating it? It is what it is.

Blizzard isn't a nonprofit organization. Yes they make games for you to have fun with, they also do it for a profit.

The only thing I have been repeating is that Blizzard has said, "No." Ya'll don't seem to understand why... here is why. Accept it and move on. I am not overly satisfied with WoD, I haven't been overly satisfied since WotLK. But I have a choice, play it or walk away. For now I continue to play.

and yes I do have a small investment in Blizzard. I have a small portfolio I manage myself that contains investments with companies I support/am a patron of. But if I ever became so disenchanted with Blizzard as a company that I stopped playing their games, and hated them the way some of you do... I would probably sell my shares, and I definitely wouldn't be begging them to release older versions of their games.

[Gondorian]

There ya go. Ye ol fallback.

Bash Blizzard and then demand change.

WoD brought back 10 million. There are quite a few Legion changes that give nods to vanilla features/mechanics. In any case I think its a safe bet (given past performance) that we will at least see a huge spike in initials sales and player engagement (even if it tapers off to current status). My point is that blizzard need only provide a small incentive to that massive amount of people and it would be far more profitable than the relatively small amount that legacy servers would bring in.

Less work and more profits will always trump more work and less profits.

That minimal work doesn't have to be exclusive to WoW either.

Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Are the profits worth the work?

Please tell me you at least understand that. Whether you agree with it or not... that you understand it.

I don't know where I bashed blizzard, I never called their game crap. All I said was that IF they felt that a vast amount of subscribers would leave for a legacy server, there is clearly something wrong with their current model.

In regards to the latter portion of your post. It's a small amount of work to open a legacy server since the assets already exist, which means profits for little work. I did not once refute the fact that blizzard makes good money selling mounts to current subscribers. I don't like to bring politics into these things, but you sound like Hillary giving non-answers to what is being asked.

Also there's a difference to gaining 10 million subscribers and going back up to 10 million subscribers, the difference in the case of WoD was about 5 million...