Cross-Realm Dungeon Feature Coming Soon

[Sesshi]

If they stick to making it premium they should at least charge $1 for it, or REALLY make it worth paying more. Like give us BoA mounts and or pets for paying whatever amount they want us to pay to just be able to party up and do dungeons with our buddies cross servers. ;>>

[Aktavite]

I have been thinking about my argument regarding L4D, and I actually think that it is comparable with any wow expansion. So far, at the end of EVERY expansion lots of people are complaining about: "Omfg, all my hard work: gone. All those hours raiding for well deserved epics, and you're forcing me into greens again!?" And the updates for people who don't buy the expansions are lacking, combined with the fact that the communities for both instances of the game are separated (vanilla people can't get in bc zones, and so on). The diffrence is that a game like our example L4D is a one time payment, and then you have access to EVERYTHING. I can understand that, and I'm fine with that. After all, Wow expansions are brought once every ~18-22 months, while L4D was replaced after 12 months. But lets take a closer look: Cataclysm is out for 6 months, and they are already talking about premium content, which unleashed a MAJOR discussion regarding blizzards new policy: premium. (And on a sidenote, L4D2 hasn't been replaced for almost two years now, while updates and new content are still periodically being released, and L4D3's release date hasn't been officially announced yet).

Your analogy is wrong and quite frankly you don't make sense. The fact is that Valve tried to cash in the good fortunes of the L4D series by producing a second game out of content that should've been an expansion pack for the original. You want to look at it in WoW terms, it's like Blizzard made Cataclysm as a standalone game and charged full price. You have WoW/TBC/WotLK servers and Cataclysm servers. There is no interaction between players or content between the servers.

Furthermore, please explain the relationship between the age of Cataclysm and the release of paid service which allows you to group with friends across various servers. How you've drawn the two together is exceptionally confounding.

Yet people might argue about the fact that this is just a minor thing, but really? Would a minor thing unleash a discussion with a magnitude like this? Countless of threads on both the official and unofficial forums have been started, just for this minor feature? Let's take a look at some history. What caused World War One? Some guy got shot. What unleashed all the rage in the middle east lately? Just some random guy setting himself on fire.

I'm sorry but I've got no idea what you are on about here. But by the sounds of it you weren't around for the backlash of Real ID names being mandatory on the official forums.

As I have stated in my first post:
So yes, I have actually quit wow quite some months ago.
Because I am not only concerned about the fate of one of my favorite companies, but also because I would use this feature if it was free. I just don't think it would be worth any money, at least not any more than the monthly 13 euros already. And many of my friends think about it in exactly the same way: we might even consider playing again with this feature, because this would allow us to play together, even though we are spread among many servers.

Look, I am not a Blizzard hater.
I am not against this feature.
I am not trying to start or support any boycot against one of my favorite game designing companies.
I am, however, trying to stop this specific form of premium(greed) by any means of reason and constructive criticism, creating a verbal fist with people who think alike about this feature.
I am not against any other form of premium, including: vanity stuff for charity (I actually think this is one of the best ideas Blizzard has ever had), other vanity stuff (not as good as charity, but as long as it won't fulfill any role other than looking sexy ingame, I'm fine with that), and premium content designed for non-pc's: (mobile AH and stuff like that).

To be honest your argument is highly illogical and almost contradictory. How exactly are you against a specific form of premium when it is mirrored in other premium services. Why aren't you out championing against those? I don't understand how you can call the suggested service as Blizzard being greedy and being ok with them charging a fee so people can use their phones to access Guild Chat.

And I've got some bad news for you. Valve are headed down a similar path.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/104600/

[conceit2]

Your analogy is wrong and quite frankly you don't make sense.

That isn't even an argument.

The fact is that Valve tried to cash in the good fortunes of the L4D series by producing a second game out of content that should've been an expansion pack for the original.

Why would an expansion pack be different (or in your case "better") from a stand alone game that costed me 20 euros? Illogical argument. Also, like I said before L4D2 is almost out for two years, and still going strong. And quoting your last link: Valve "Vows Support For Original".

You want to look at it in WoW terms, it's like Blizzard made Cataclysm as a standalone game and charged full price.

Wrong. If I would pay for cata as stand alone, it would be at most the 30 euros for cata, plus ONLY TWO MONTHS of repeated payment =~ 56 euros. And, like I said (again) I'm fine with that, because I knew I had to pay 13 bucks a month to get access to all of the content. (which turned out to be a poor amount of interesting content anyway). Or did you mean that we actually had to pay 200+ euros for a standalone game?

You have WoW/TBC/WotLK servers and Cataclysm servers. There is no interaction between players or content between the servers.

In wow the interaction is chatting with RealID, which actually works EXACTLY the same as steam chat. The diffrence is, and I hope you're still with me, and I'll use your situation with vanilla, BC, wotlk and cata servers: People with L4D1 can play on any server, with anyone they want, the way they want. And you don't have to start "at level one" to play together, or pay for a "server transfer".

Furthermore, please explain the relationship between the age of Cataclysm and the release of paid service which allows you to group with friends across various servers. How you've drawn the two together is exceptionally confounding.

You related the age of L4D1 with L4D2 I only related that age (1 year) with the age of Cata (0,5 year). I also stated that I think there is far too less (fun) content since cata (0,5 year) or even ICC (1,5 years), and I think Blizzard could implement some new fancy content/features (without having to pay extra for it), like this, after waiting this long for new interesting content. And as for freedom of speech I have the right to express my current displeasure, right?

I'm sorry but I've got no idea what you are on about here. But by the sounds of it you weren't around for the backlash of Real ID names being mandatory on the official forums.

Yes, but Blizzard revised that, right? Blizzard hasn't revised this yet, and untill that day I will go on ranting about this feature. I'm repeating myself now but again: as for freedom of speech I have the right to express my current displeasure, right?

To be honest your argument is highly illogical and almost contradictory. How exactly are you against a specific form of premium when it is mirrored in other premium services. Why aren't you out championing against those? I don't understand how you can call the suggested service as Blizzard being greedy and being ok with them charging a fee so people can use their phones to access Guild Chat.

I actually thought that was rather obvious, as I stated I am fine with premium for non pc users. If you have L4D on the pc, and you want L4D for any other apparatus (like for exemple on the PS3) ,you'll have to pay for that. Is that really far fetched? Or are you saying: "I have L4D on pc so I should get it for free for the PS3!"? Both machines have diffrent types of programming, I'm just not going to suck "...As this is a fairly complex service to develop..." for a pc feature inside a pc game. So are they saying designing stuff like the calendar, Battlenet2.0 and mostly the dungeon finder itself are not complex to design?

And I've got some bad news for you. Valve are headed down a similar path.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/104600/

I have some bad news for you too: V*lve doesn't ask us for 13 bucks per months to play the game, and Portal is not L4D.

But really, why is it you want this premium so badly? Is it for a bigger E-peen? Is it so you can sell your new ability for ingame gold? ("I will invite you and your real ID friend on another server for a mere 2k gold! Yay me!") Is it because you don't care what future has in store for us, and how blizzard is possibly going abuse premium? Do you have too much money? Really, why?

[Lisanne]

cool,

now lets hope they will make the same for raiding instance and guilds are no longer limited to a server :P. Haha pretty hard to make that one i guess, so it wont happen. But hea wishfull thinking :P

[Elim Garak]

cool,

now lets hope they will make the same for raiding instance and guilds are no longer limited to a server :P. Haha pretty hard to make that one i guess, so it wont happen. But hea wishfull thinking :P

Actually since raids are instanced - I can see that happen, and it will be awesome - imagine cross-realm guilds...

[4nubis]

Ok, this is about it. If this comes in effect, that will be it for me.
I'm not gonna compete with losers who don't think the current monthly fee is more than enough for what we get.
I've payed them a 1000 € in total just to play their game for 6 years ... which was fun and I don't regret it, but which also was enough.

This 'we need more cash' signal is an obvious sign that wow is finally dying and I'm abandoning ship because of it.
Whatever this feature takes from a programmers view definately is a peanut effort in comparison to the future cash received.
It will not require a ton of new servers (maybe just a few and some networking equipment, admitted) so it's an obvious scam.

One should expect features like these to be implemented automatically to keep a game like this alive after 6 years of payments.
The engine is becoming a joke compared to nowadays' stuff.

No. I'm investing it in my house (and pool), tyvm.
Enyoy the geekathlon we saw in a ton of other games, milking the community to death. Only the suckers stick till the end.
Goodbye. Premium accounts ... Hah !


and I see the flame wars have already started

[Aktavite]

That isn't even an argument.

No, it’s the truth. Your posts sound like you’re having a major internal struggle with yourself. Almost to the point of schizophrenia (see the whole Freedom of speech quotes below).

Why would an expansion pack be different (or in your case "better") from a stand alone game that costed me 20 euros? Illogical argument. Also, like I said before L4D2 is almost out for two years, and still going strong. And quoting your last link: Valve "Vows Support For Original".

You’ve completely missed the point and you’re quoting words I never stated - where did you get “better” from?

The fact that L4D2 is still going strong is irrelevant. Left 4 Dead was not even 12 months old, had not received one bit of new content and Valve was releasing a sequel. This was unheard of by Valve, they’d never done that before. So between the lack of patched content for the original game and the seemingly small amount of content that was going to make the sequel, the community raised its collective voice.

Only when questions were asked of Valve did they “vow to support” the original game. If they hadn’t made any promise for new content or updates for the original game it would’ve been even clearer that Valve was milking the community and they would’ve suffered an even worse backlash.

Read the boycott group’s manifesto and you’ll understand:
http://kotaku.com/5281374/l4d-sequel...n-indifference

The author hits the nail right on the head “I'm not really seeing how this sequel doesn't do something a series of DLC packs couldn't also accomplish”. L4D2 is essentially Valve charging people money for content that should’ve been DLC for the first game.

Wrong. If I would pay for cata as stand alone, it would be at most the 30 euros for cata, plus ONLY TWO MONTHS of repeated payment =~ 56 euros. And, like I said (again) I'm fine with that, because I knew I had to pay 13 bucks a month to get access to all of the content. (which turned out to be a poor amount of interesting content anyway). Or did you mean that we actually had to pay 200+ euros for a standalone game?

As I said previously, for the relationship between WoW/TBC/WotLK and Cataclysm to be similar to that of L4D and L4D2, Cataclysm would have to be a separate standalone game. And we’d all be crying foul, that the content on offer (in Cataclysm) is more akin to an expansion than that of a sequel.

In wow the interaction is chatting with RealID, which actually works EXACTLY the same as steam chat. The diffrence is, and I hope you're still with me, and I'll use your situation with vanilla, BC, wotlk and cata servers: People with L4D1 can play on any server, with anyone they want, the way they want. And you don't have to start "at level one" to play together, or pay for a "server transfer".

Once again, you missed the point. If WoW and Cataclysm were separate games, there would be no player interaction between those on WoW servers and those on Cataclysm servers. It’s not about the player’s ability to chat with each other, it’s about their ability to interact with the game world together. A player without the Cataclysm expansion still exists in the same world as a player with the expansion.

This type of interaction doesn’t happen in L4D/L4D2 therefore they are dissimilar and you can’t compare them as you have been trying.

Apples and Oranges.

You related the age of L4D1 with L4D2 I only related that age (1 year) with the age of Cata (0,5 year). I also stated that I think there is far too less (fun) content since cata (0,5 year) or even ICC (1,5 years), and I think Blizzard could implement some new fancy content/features (without having to pay extra for it), like this, after waiting this long for new interesting content. And as for freedom of speech I have the right to express my current displeasure, right?

What are you talking about? Where did I post anything about the Freedom of Speech? Do you consider the ability to group with Real ID friends on the same level as a content patch for a new raid? Because that is what you appear to be doing.

Yes, but Blizzard revised that, right? Blizzard hasn't revised this yet, and untill that day I will go on ranting about this feature. I'm repeating myself now but again: as for freedom of speech I have the right to express my current displeasure, right?

Again with the Freedom of Speech thing. What is the relevance to my posts?

I actually thought that was rather obvious, as I stated I am fine with premium for non pc users. If you have L4D on the pc, and you want L4D for any other apparatus (like for exemple on the PS3) ,you'll have to pay for that. Is that really far fetched? Or are you saying: "I have L4D on pc so I should get it for free for the PS3!"? Both machines have diffrent types of programming, I'm just not going to suck "...As this is a fairly complex service to develop..." for a pc feature inside a pc game. So are they saying designing stuff like the calendar, Battlenet2.0 and mostly the dungeon finder itself are not complex to design?

No, it’s not obvious far from it. In fact it appears as if you don’t even know or understand what you are posting about. There is no question about paying for a game twice if you intend on playing across different platforms. Where did you get that idea from my posts? Why are you deliberating trying to misquote me?

I have some bad news for you too: V*lve doesn't ask us for 13 bucks per months to play the game, and Portal is not L4D.

This shows just how hypocritical and flawed your argument really is. On the one hand you blindly accuse Blizzard of greed and yet fail to recognize when Valve do the same thing. You are so focussed on trying to prove your point that your argument is imbalanced between that of one game series versus that of a game developer. You like to point out how much support Valve has given L4D in the 3 years since its release but you fail to recognize that Blizzard has done the same to some of it’s older games. Late March this year saw an update to Warcraft 3, but if Blizzard was so greedy wouldn’t they have dropped support for this game or perhaps ask for more money?

Ultimately ‘Conceit2’ if you want to argue how good and pure Valve are, you have to be willing to hold them to the same standard across the board.

But really, why is it you want this premium so badly? Is it for a bigger E-peen? Is it so you can sell your new ability for ingame gold? ("I will invite you and your real ID friend on another server for a mere 2k gold! Yay me!") Is it because you don't care what future has in store for us, and how blizzard is possibly going abuse premium? Do you have too much money? Really, why?

“I've got no qualms about paying the fee either, in the long run it will save me time and money on leveling a new character/server changes.”

Perhaps if you spent less time trying to misquote me you would’ve read that above quote in my previous posts.

[conceit2]

No, it’s the truth. Your posts sound like you’re having a major internal struggle with yourself. Almost to the point of schizophrenia (see the whole Freedom of speech quotes below).

I'm not having a major struggle with myself, I am merely expressing my inner displeasure. The only thing I might be struggling with is how to express myself in english, while being clear, as english is not one of my native languages. Also: I am in the middle of my exams, and I wrote that after I got tired at home after probably the hardest physics test I've ever had, which might be the cause of the pretended "schozophrenia".

You’ve completely missed the point and you’re quoting words I never stated - where did you get “better” from?

You said: "...a second game out of content that should've been an expansion...". I am sorry if I missed your point, but I could not imagine you meant "expansion" to be worse than "original content" or even equal, otherwise that whole sentence wouldn't make sense, at least not in my eyes. Could you please explain what you meant by that then? And yes, I shouldn't have used quotes, but that's just a minor grammar issue. I used them merly to indicate that it was simply my interpretation.

The fact that L4D2 is still going strong is irrelevant.

It was extremely relevant to the link you linked, and to my argument. Did you actually read them?

Left 4 Dead was not even 12 months old

You are basing that on... what? I found: L4D1 "Release date November 18, 2008" and L4D2 "Release date(s) NA November 17, 2009 EU November 20, 2009". Ok, not 12 months, but 12 months and two days where I live. Happy now?

Left 4 Dead ... had not received one bit of new content and Valve was releasing a sequel.

You never even played the game, did you? Otherwise you would have probably known that they not only implemented a whole new level, but also survival mode for all campaigns. And I almost forgot about the two brand new campaigns, all with new achievements. Also, V*lve added map editors so the community itself was able to create their own awesome content and mods.

This was unheard of by Valve, they’d never done that before. So between the lack of patched content for the original game and the seemingly small amount of content that was going to make the sequel, the community raised its collective voice.

Lack? Last paragraph. It was probably even more than what blizzard released between ICC and cata. Are you supporting my arguments now?
"...the community raised its collective voice." Isn't that what I'm doing now? I'm just an ant in the swarm.

Only when questions were asked of Valve did they “vow to support” the original game. If they hadn’t made any promise for new content or updates for the original game it would’ve been even clearer that Valve was milking the community and they would’ve suffered an even worse backlash.

And again, that is exactly what I am trying to do right this moment. I mean at least V*lve promised, and after that they brought free DLC for the game, even though L4D2 was out there (as I have stated some lines up). I mean, where's blizzard's promise for fancy (free) content? And not just some aweful revamped ragnaros with legs. It's the least they could do for us after killing pugging.

Read the boycott group’s manifesto and you’ll understand:
http://kotaku.com/5281374/l4d-sequel...n-indifference

The author hits the nail right on the head “I'm not really seeing how this sequel doesn't do something a series of DLC packs couldn't also accomplish”. L4D2 is essentially Valve charging people money for content that should’ve been DLC for the first game.

New characters. New weapons. New location for campaigns. LOTS of new game modes. All sounds like a new game to me. Especially if they are only charging 20 bucks for it. And then again, I might not agree with that author's point of view (on lack of content for both games), but appreciate the fact that he is not afraid to express his displeasure about that situation. Personally I think things turned out fine in the end.

As I said previously, for the relationship between WoW/TBC/WotLK and Cataclysm to be similar to that of L4D and L4D2, Cataclysm would have to be a separate standalone game. And we’d all be crying foul, that the content on offer (in Cataclysm) is more akin to an expansion than that of a sequel.

Once again, you missed the point. If WoW and Cataclysm were separate games, there would be no player interaction between those on WoW servers and those on Cataclysm servers. It’s not about the player’s ability to chat with each other, it’s about their ability to interact with the game world together. A player without the Cataclysm expansion still exists in the same world as a player with the expansion.

This type of interaction doesn’t happen in L4D/L4D2 therefore they are dissimilar and you can’t compare them as you have been trying.

Apples and Oranges.

Wait, I quite lost you there... Did you try to justify the lack of content for Cata? Or not? Because what I meant to say with the comparison in the first place comes down to (first you must take into account that both L4D and WoW are games (apples and apples), though): Game x releases a good amount of (free) content. Game y used to deliver great (free) content, but it appears as if game y is going to damage it's reputation because it might deliver even less (free) content than it already did lately. Therefore I say that I am not happy with the plans of game y, and that this is the reason that I prefer game x.

What are you talking about? Where did I post anything about the Freedom of Speech?

Again with the Freedom of Speech thing. What is the relevance to my posts?

You said: "what are you doing here posting about it?". I mainly used "freedom of speech" to support the reason why I posted any post in this thread: beacuase I have the right to express my displeasure. So it was just an indirect answer to one of your questions, nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't in any specific way directed at you, other than to back up my first post. Actually, my first post wasn't even specifically directected at you in the first place, all I have been doing eversince is backing up my post by reacting on your reactions.

Do you consider the ability to group with Real ID friends on the same level as a content patch for a new raid? Because that is what you appear to be doing.

Let me explain that. What I am trying to conclude is that blizzard seemingly thinks that way, or they might even consider it on a higher level. Why? Because they think this (small) feature is ought to be worth extra money, while raids and stuff like that aren't. Or it could indicate that blizzard is planning to release premium raid content, etc., which was one of my fears as stated before. And this was actually what I have been trying to make clear.

No, it’s not obvious far from it. There is no question about paying for a game twice if you intend on playing across different platforms. Where did you get that idea from my posts? Why are you deliberating trying to misquote me?

I am not deliberately trying to misquote you, I am merely attempting to explain myself. I consider apps for moblie phones as a diffrent platform, and therefore I think blizzard has the right to ask money for it. Because that was what it was about. Nothing more nothing less. I litterally quote you here to prove it: "I don't understand how you (...) being ok with them charging a fee so people can use their phones to access Guild Chat."

And all I did was explaining why I was OK with blizzard charging extra money for another platform, because that was your question.

This shows just how hypocritical and flawed your argument really is. On the one hand you blindly accuse Blizzard of greed and yet fail to recognize when Valve do the same thing.

Flawed? Game x costs ~150 euros per year; game y costs 20 euros and is a one time payment. Game x is going to charge even more for a feature that could boost ingame performance (taking into account that playing with friends has a positive effect on your gameplay compared to playing with random people, and also possibly reduces queues for the people who pay for it), even though game y has a better satisfaction/price ration (again this is based on personal opinion). Now, which of the two games is most likely to be accused for greed?

You are so focussed on trying to prove your point that your argument is imbalanced between that of one game series versus that of a game developer. You like to point out how much support Valve has given L4D in the 3 years since its release but you fail to recognize that Blizzard has done the same to some of it’s older games.

Actually, I am ONLY and ONLY pointing out, that I think(opinion) that the ratio of (fun/interesting, not just plain (who is misquoting who?)) content released and money asked for it by both games is not equal. And all I'm saying is that Blizzard COULD learn a thing or two from other game designers (like for instance V*lve). We all can learn a thing or two, but isn't that whe whole point of constructive criticism, instead of accusing someone to have mental disorders?

Late March this year saw an update to Warcraft 3, but if Blizzard was so greedy wouldn’t they have dropped support for this game or perhaps ask for more money?

In late march this whole premium issue wasn't even relevant. Also, the only blizzard games I criticize at the moment are WoW, and any form of potential premium. Wargraft 3 is a great game, imo! I still play it everyday.

Ultimately ‘Conceit2’ if you want to argue how good and pure Valve are, you have to be willing to hold them to the same standard across the board.

Why did you quote my name, and how did ever got to think that I think that V*lve would be good and pure? I never said that, but I did say that IF blizzard goes through with this premium thing, V*alve would be better IN MY OPINION than Blizzard regarding wow and the satisfaction/payment ratio.

“I've got no qualms about paying the fee either, in the long run it will save me time and money on leveling a new character/server changes.”

Perhaps if you spent less time trying to misquote me you would’ve read that above quote in my previous posts.

I think I misunderstood you then, as I am not familiar with the word "qualms".

[farfel]

Keep coming up with ways to allow RL friends to play together more easily and you will prolong the life of the game indefinitely.