Blizzard Has Canceled Titan, Its Next-gen MMO 155
Ptolemarch writes: Blizzard never officially announced it, but now it's gone: Titan, the next-generation MMO that had been in development for seven years, has been canceled. Mike Morhaime said, "[W]e set out to make the most ambitious thing that you could possibly imagine. And it didn't come together. We didn't find the fun. We didn't find the passion. We talked about how we put it through a reevaluation period, and actually, what we reevaluated is whether that's the game we really wanted to be making. The answer is no." Polygon adds an article detailing everything publicly known about Titan (which wasn't much). MMO-Champion's report mentions rumors of a new project at Blizzard called Prometheus.
Warcraft Killed it? (Score:3)
"We're not trying to replace World of Warcraft with this new MMO," Morhaime told Wired at the time. "We're trying to create a different massively multiplayer experience, and hopefully World of Warcraft will still be going strong when that one is released."
So the execs didn't let the new thing cannibalize the old, but still profitable thing?
I'm sure that'll work well for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
FF XIV ARR has catgirls.
No further argument is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, they also added female Roegadyn at the same time. I go cry in the corner every time I see one, nyah!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you implying the current crop of new MMOs are what the market wants? lol.
They more likely canned it because it too closely resembled one of the stinkers you mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have two million players, not two million subscribers. There's a very important difference there.
Remember that the game has a free trial now. Inflating that player count is very easy.
Weren't they suppose to be announcing active player numbers recently? Notice how that never happened? Gee, wonder why.
The idea that a failed MMO from 2010 could someone be a competitor in 2014 while requiring a subscription is just so laughable I don't even no where to start. And, yes, I've played 2.0. They removed eve
Re: (Score:2)
As for sub fees, the MMO demographic is aging, and for myself and my friends, $12 a month to not have to deal with broke teenagers and buy to win whales is great.
Re: (Score:2)
MMOs right now are essentially 'WoW' and 'the other ones.' Your theory sounds entirely plausible. If they were to lure too many WoW players away they may start to make other MMOs look more attractive too.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out, even Blizzard doesn't understand its own success enough to replicate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultima on the Apple ][ was great. I wonder if the online version is better.
And where did that come from? (Score:2)
Blizzard is perfectly aware WoW has a limited shelf-life, and I don't see any indication from the announcement that they canned this product because of a fear it would take resources or marketshare from WoW.
Seems to me that it just wasn't that good...
Should have called it Zeus (Score:1)
Zeus is the one who killed the Titans. Including his own father, who to be fair, tried to eat him.
Re: (Score:2)
For your analogy to be correct, they'd have had to call the project Olympian. The project was not called Cronus (Zeus's father).
I'm happy about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything blizzard has done that's been online only has just completely disinterested me. I miss their games that were designed to be games, rather than continuous profit centers.
Starcraft 2, was probably okay, but online only DRM, changed out for online only multiplayer was still enough to sour me on the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank Activision for that - Kottick is all about profit and milking. Even SC2 had milk opportunities linked to the online DRM.
Destiny right now is surprising in how little is being milked - you'd expect it to have tons of day 1 DLC to milk more money out of you, but so far not yet. (I'm guessing the smart move is wait for it to b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I said. He's into milking. Make as much money as possible. Hell, he's the main reason why Xbone and PS4 games in Canada cost $70 rather than $60.
Well, there's a lot of talk about it. And if there's money to be made releasing it for PC, you can bet it'll come out. Even if it's a completely crappy port and they charge $70 f
Re: (Score:2)
No, I have not noticed that on new releases. That's one of the best reasons for PC games in general is that they are the same price at release and quickly fall in price within a few months. They are often filled with more content to begin with as well. Maybe if you are only talking about the games that start on consoles then move to PC later since they try to keep the continuity the same then in rare cases it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Welp, since there's no PC version of Destiny.....me and mine won't be playing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As to single player SC2, it was mildly entertaining with Blizzard Cinematics. Maybe they should turn into animation studio if their key (and arguably the only) strength is cut scenes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Watching other play, I think SC2 is actually more fun at Silver-Bronze level, where there isn't skill level to instantly identify right strategy. Anything above that level becomes a repetitive exercise in doing one thing over and over and over again.
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda reminds me of chess.
At low/mediocre level play, people will make "bad" moves on which a top-tier professional would easily capitalize. Lower skill players don't always know the perfect strategies, so it mixes up the games and keeps things interesting. You can try some bonkers strategy, and if it doesn't quite go to plan, you're not completely hosed
At the top tiers, it's all about sticking to formula crafted by the absolute pinnacle players, and never deviating from those formulas unless you manage t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the problem is that the formulas are to simple to execute.
Meaning the only important thing is how fast you can do them.
Basically, they planned everything to resemble how Starcraft turned out when played professionaly, and enabled and required that gameplay.
Re: (Score:2)
SC2 is only about timed pushes and static strategies at the lower to middle levels. At higher levels, there is a lot of thinking on your feet and directly reacting to what information you can obtain from your opponent, and actively denying them information about your strategy or even purposefully feeding them disinformation (although that gamble is usually considered dangerous/expensive).
You can get to Diamond with a static timed strategy, but (unless there's a specific cheese or imbalance in your favor dur
Re: (Score:2)
Auto Assault?
Dear Bungie... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well rumor has it that Bungie bought what was complete of Titan, did some work, and released it as Destiny.
Good for them (Score:2)
It's nice to see people that care about doing it right.
There are so many awful MMOs out lately that are little more than designers frankensteining bits from MMO A , B, C together, then tossing bits of warcraft and calling it something new.
Blizzard Titan / Iceberg Titanic (Score:3, Funny)
So Blizzard sunk it like the Titanic when it hit frozen water...
What where they copying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Blizzard does great games.
But every new game they put out has been an iteratively improved copy of a lower-tech game with great gameplay put out by someone else.
Dialbo is Nethack (and variants). Warcraft was Dune 2 (and arguably goes back to Empire). World of Warcraft was EQ (which came from DikuMUD).
Now, they made significant improvements to them. All 3 of them have lineages that go back to pure text games, and they where addictive as hell even as text games.
Blizzard has the ability to take such a game, and amp it up hugely -- well polished, with lots of iterative design evidence. I haven't seen reason to believe that they are great at creating new types of games, however.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I would 100% concur with that analysis.
Blizzard was know for polish, polish, polish. But with the fiasco over Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, and the continued "dumbing down" of WoW they only care about 1 thing now: Profits.
Re:What where they copying? (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to be a WoW fanatic even back before the first expansion. It was grueling in some ways until you discovered some of the shortcuts, easier ways, and ultimately found a good guild. You had to actually pay attention to learn...and typically were rewarded with a good experience if you have a group reasonably adept at the same.
Then all the easy-way-out things came along. Forget tricky shortcuts or easier ways to level or learning the pattern of mining nodes to run...now you could just throw gold at most of the problems and grind the others. I stuck around for 2 expansions if memory serves, left, came back a while, left again, came back to play a few hours killing time and realized it just wasn't fun anymore. Everything had to be equal like between squabbling children. Seemed like they painted an I-WIN button over the grind button.
Buy hey...keep paying! Buy this, buy that...etc. No thanks. Somewhere along the way I shrugged off the MMO world and found better games to play in RL (and no, not sports). I'll stick to hard but short-lived games games like the old 8-bit days (or kill some time with candy crush) and call it a day if I get bored.
Re: (Score:2)
I left shortly after the first expansion. I briefly checked out the Panda expansion and left again. You summed it up perfectly!
With the removal of lockpicking, and dumbing down poisons they really nerfed the whole feel of Rogues, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been a Warcraft fan from day one, when my small, young and eager hands got hold of a copy of Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. Back then I didn't have so many games to choose from, so I guess I played it at least three times (Demon/Water Elemental spam 4 teh win!). Warcraft 2 I played at least two times, and Warcraft 3 three times again.
Yet I never touched World of Warcraft, at all. I was intrigued at first, but when I started hearing about how the MMO mechanics work, my interest faded fast. I much prefer e
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand the "floaty" feel. If you want a more "tangible" world I would suggest game:
* Terraria
Yes, it is 2D but the gameplay smeggin rocks! The mechanics are ton of fun once you get over the initial dying. A progression of exploration, items, and challenging boss monsters.
You can play single player or multiplayer.
If you need help, I can suggest reddit.com/r/Terraria
Re: (Score:2)
It is always amusing hearing stories about how the 'game became too easy' from WoW players:)
I was a hardcore EQ player. When WoW came out we all laughed at it. It was like a mmorpg with training wheels. We kinda stopped laughing after WoW eventually sucked a lot of our userbase away.... but I digress.
I guess 'easy' and 'hard' are very relative concepts. EQ you could literally sit (camp) at a spot, clearing the mobs around that single spot, for 3 actual real days. Trying to get 1 rare drop, out of 16 ra
Re: (Score:3)
> WoW's real game always only really starts at level cap.
So basically all the fun a person has while leveling doesn't count ??
That's crap and a total cop-out.
WoW has turned into one major grind-fest. Grind for gear while the next patch nullifies and obsoletes it. B_O_R_I_N_G.
Re: (Score:2)
> WoW's real game always only really starts at level cap.
So basically all the fun a person has while leveling doesn't count ??
Way back in 2005 in the earlier days of vanilla, I was told over and over again that the "real game" begins at level 60. Keep adding more tiers of endgame (60-70, 70-80, 80-85, 85-90, and now 90-100) and you have to start compressing that 1-60 experience or it really will take ages to get to the endgame.
That being said, I'm not a fan of how the Cataclysm-redesigned leveling zones turned out. I like a bit more challenge and more exploration. I'm just happy they didn't touch Outland.
WoW has turned into one major grind-fest.
The comments here are funn
Re: (Score:2)
and basically turning "raid finder" raids into the step-up Heroics.
Well, they're not changing that much (unless you have an established group) from the current system other than relabeling what the raids are called. Warlords's "heroic raids" will be the same difficulty as Pandaria's "normal raids," Warlords's "normal raids" will be the same difficulty as Pandaria's "flex raids." The new Mythic Raids fulfill the same difficulty level as the old Heroics. "Raid Finder" remains unchanged. So there are the same four raid tiers that there are now.
The reason for the change is tha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Never.
Creation is never taken out of nothing.
It's always in some way derivative.
Otherwise it wouldn't be interesting to make or to partake in.
It would require a crazy person to design something not founded on some principle of entertainment they already knew.
Incidently, some of the most outrageous entertainment, especially truly random humor, is based on drug experiences.
Re: (Score:3)
Legos.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Calling Diablo a roguelike is actually kinda silly.
Even the first one, which was probably the most roguelike of them (except no permanent death without the ability to load existed) was primarily just an Action RPG with some roguelike elements.
But, yeah.
They are more like apple has been since 2000.
Taking stuff from various sources and refining them until you have a product which has got a neat package och nothing being entirely wrong.
MOO4? (Score:2)
Masters of OrionCraft? :)
Re: (Score:2)
> How often does a new genre of gaming get created?
Pretty often in the 80's since the established genres were still being created! Today, not so much. Everything is cross genre these days.
id invented the First Person Shooter with Wolfenstein 3D (though purists might argue it was earlier [techrepublic.com]
Doom settled the deal though: Doom Clone vs FPS [wikimedia.org]
Colossal Cave Adventure [wikipedia.org] was the first text adventure, but Infocom (with Zork) refined it.
> I often hear Blizzard criticized for not being original enough
That is definitel
Re: (Score:2)
The first person shooter was invented the first time someone picked up a rock. It was refined with squirt guns with many revisions in between. Id just helped move it to a computer.
Ebay didn't invention auctions. Paypal didn't invent currency. Id didn't invent chasing imaginary creatures with imaginary firearms.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget MMOs for a while and work on some good single-player games.
MMOs are played-out. The biggest problem with them is you have to engage with other gamers and that's never a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heroin is making money too. What's your point?
It isn't the first time for Blizzard (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And with Lord of the Clans.
Both those games where outsourced though.
They were both failed experiments of trying to hire others do stuff under their banner and realizing that they made crappier stuff.
This is the first in-house game which was canned.
Well, that have gone far enough to have even rumors about.
Re: (Score:2)
The first time it was officially announced that Ghost was canceled was yesterday in the article linked to in this slashdot topic. Previously it had been on hold indefinitely with the last official statement coming in 2008. So sometime in the past six years it was cancelled without much fanfare. Of course, it had been considered vaporware for some time before the 2008 announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
The first time it was officially announced that Ghost was canceled was yesterday in the article linked to in this slashdot topic. Previously it had been on hold indefinitely with the last official statement coming in 2008. So sometime in the past six years it was cancelled without much fanfare. Of course, it had been considered vaporware for some time before the 2008 announcement.
At least with Starcraft: Ghost, they had playable demos at Blizzcon.
F*ck Titan. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Diablo 3 was a big disappointment to me on launch. But I think the game has made great strides and is pretty good now. And the new ladder season means everyone in the same ladder starts out on the same level.
I also missed my chance to try out the market when it was still usable.
You didn't miss out. The market was the biggest reason why regular D3 was such a disappointment.
Depends whether they had the asset prodcuction ... (Score:1)
The bulk of the cost is still the assets (terrain/npcs/scripted behaviors/testing - all the specific data needed for the game) - bug staff needed for that and farming it out/managing it.
Working on the engine and server/client to be able demonstrate/prove the advanced features (whatever they were) could be likely (and for a median hardware target) would be only a fraction of the complete development cost (and of the subsequent marketing/royalties/operational costs which can be as much as the development cos
Where does it go? (Score:2)
Re:Where does it go? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can tell you from my own experience, having had a nearly-complete game cancelled on me once during my career.
Game source material tends to be highly game-specific, and even more so for MMOs. It's saved forever in archives, of course, in case someone wants to pilfer something, but as technology marches on and tools are updated, it becomes harder to keep the game in a working state - especially for MMOs, who have extremely complex building and deployment requirements.
In terms of game code (not engine code, which is designed to be reusable, of course), there are two basic approaches to starting a new game. If you're working on a sequel or have a similar game in the company library, you can branch an existing game and start stripping it down - this let's you start with a working game, and then you can swap out systems on the fly with whatever needs to change. If the game is distinct enough and wouldn't benefit from this techinque, you can start clean, working on top of whatever shared engine and libraries you have, but still may copy over specific subsystems, or use them as a starting point for new systems. This obviously occurs if it's your first game, but also if it's the first game within a new genre that wouldn't benefit from the copy-and-modify approach. For instance, when I worked on a turn-based strategy game and most of the company's previous games were 3rd person adventure games, it would have been pointless to start from one of those games' source code.
For artwork, it really depends. Sounds, textures, and music are easily reused in many cases. Models and animations are a bit more of a question mark. Animations typically are matched to a specific rig and a specific set of game code that utilizes them. More often than not, all the game art tends to be too game-specific to be re-used for anything but a direct sequel, and often by then the assets aren't appropriate for the current state-of-the-art technology.
So, in short, it's archived away somewhere and most likely, only parts of the source code will be reused as a launching point for a new product. Most of the art assets will probably never be reused, unless they're fairly generic environmental textures, sound effects, or music that happen to match a new product's genre and style.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, there are generally two things that can be rescued from a cancelled game:
1) The game engine, if it was unique to the game. Of course if you're using someone else's engine this point doesn't apply.
2) Story lines, either the overall story line, or minor subplots. Works best if this is a part of a franchise, otherwise your mileage may vary for what can be salvaged.
Art is such a mixed bag. If you can immediately yank something to put into a game in a similar genre, great, though the longer
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, fortunately a major cancellation has only happened once to me. There were a couple other prospective titles I spent a few months on in a "demo" stage at all that never went anywhere as well, but those were fairly minor blips in a career shipping quite a few titles. I actually knew a poor soul unlucky enough to have worked for many years on Duke Nukem Forever, and ended up leaving the company with very little to show other than some minor resume filler material.
As far as showing non-published or propr
Ambiguity (Score:2)
I was really interested in reading about this blizzard that cancelled an entire planet...
Re: (Score:1)
Prometheus was a Titan (gave fire to humans, suffered eternally for the slight to the gods)
So, I am willing to bet that some of that investment will live on
Re: (Score:3)
suffered eternally
today's eternities aren't what they used to be, built to last forever ...
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't he saved by Chuck Norris err I mean Hercules eventually?
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while since I read it, but I think it might have been Perseus.
Re:The luxury of money (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude decided to defy the gods and give humans the gift of friggin' technology just because he felt it was the right the thing to do. For his kindness he was chained to a rock and is disemboweled every day for eternity.
And what does he ask in return? Nothing. He's just like "Nah dudes, I ask something in return for it's not a gift. And this whole "eternal torment" thing? Don't worry about it, I'm not going to hold y'all responsible for my decisions." Total bro.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude decided to defy the gods and give humans the gift of friggin' technology
It is actually even better than that, he defied the OTHER titans (titans being the level above even the gods).
Re:The luxury of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Better that the EA model of "eh, fuck it; publish what we got and close the shop."
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot "and have another studio finish the rest of the planned features for release as DLC."
Re: (Score:3)
Better that the EA model of "eh, fuck it; publish what we got and close the shop."
Starting out, it sounded like Blizzard really had something with Titan. Or at least they made it sound that way. I wouldn't mind seeing a half finished product, just to see what they had.
Re: (Score:2)
We never knew anything about it. What makes you think they "really had something"?
Speculation by websites desperate to publish "news" for ad impressions does not count.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably near the $20-40 million range for seven years rather than $2 million. But that's okay since they make well over $100 million per year just from world of warcraft.
Re:The luxury of money (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The luxury of money (Score:5, Interesting)
I was so wrong thinking a game like this requires only 50 developers. Here's what they spent/used for WoW:
http://www.gamespot.com/articl... [gamespot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Only 7650 quests in all of WoW, but 70K spells? These numbers seem wrong to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what MOBAs are.
And MOBAs are making money without the n
Re: (Score:2)
For me, games are fun until they reach a level where I just feel like I'm repeating myself.
LoL died for me when the positions got locked so that you ALWAYS had the same teamups (not specific characters, but roles), for instance.
That, incidently, is why I prefer SP games since less repetition is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to Vivendi, (the original) World of Warcraft took 4.5 years to develop and cost [google.com] $63,000,000 (63M).
I'm assuming Titan had similar production values.
Other [escapistmagazine.com] people are estimating the same cost.
Re:The luxury of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Activision-Blizzard recently bought itself independent. Can they really afford to write off the couple-million-and-change Titan undoubtedly cost to make?
That's the "Loss aversion" or "sunk cost" fallacy.
In any financial transaction your only questions should be:
How much will this cost me to do/complete?
How much will it make me when I'm done?
The entire act of "gambling" is based on people thinking about what they've lost rather than what they could gain. The fact of the matter is, what they have lost is irrelevant. Their future actions are what count and if they continue they'll just lose even more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Colloquially also known as crying over spilt milk or sending good money after bad.
People who've been closely involved in a previous decision are much more likely to make this kind of error. Which is partly why in business it's good to have input from others - they won't have the same emotional involvement or concerns about being seen to have made a bad choice. Hence they are better able to abandon something when necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about this, for an interesting concept... players could control multiple characters to balance it out. Not full sized armies or anything, but small swarms/squads
... just an off-the-cuff example, you could play as: 1 Ultralisk or 3 hydralisks, 4 terrans (Marine/Firebat), 2 Zealots, 1 Siege Tank, 3 Dragoons, or 8 zerglings, etc etc. (tweak as necessary)
The bigger units would play like a traditional MMO character, and the groups would play like a pet-class, with one of the pack designated as the lead (or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Na. Dota is always just a single character per player.
Did you ever play WarCraft 3? Remember the hero units that would level up and progress with you? DOTA is basically *only* those. You pick one hero (the list has expanded to ridiculous levels) and fight in 5v5 with other people, in a top-down isometric view that can be moved independently of your character (exactly like Starcraft or non-MMO Warcraft) instead of the over-the-shoulder camera that moves with you in MMOs
Re: (Score:2)
That might be hard to balance out different characters. Blizzard has enough issues with PvP and PvE balance for humanoid characters in WoW. For example, if you are an Ultralisk you can pretty much stomp on any other ground based character but completely helpless against some aircraft.
Maybe, but even in WoW it's freely acknowledged by the developers that that 1 vs 1 combat is not balanced, that some classes will just be BETTER than other classes, but that together they achieve some sort of form of balance. Starcraft works along the same lines, though because of Starcraft's resource feature the 1on1 imbalances are more acute. An MMO would have to have a different style of combat system to make up for that, or scrap the whole imbalance entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but even in WoW it's freely acknowledged by the developers that that 1 vs 1 combat is not balanced, that some classes will just be BETTER than other classes, but that together they achieve some sort of form of balance.
Personally I found many of the problems that Blizzards runs into when to balance is self-inflicted when they to balance PvE and PvP on the same character. For a PvE raider they don't like it when their damage has been nerfed because of PvP balance that they don't care about. For competitive guilds, they may lose a raid spot through no fault of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many people will want to play a game called "A day"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I had read or watched much about Landmark, Minecraft was still superior in nearly every aspect. The exceptions being that Landmark had prettier graphics with small voxels, instead of low res textures on large cubes. In Minecraft you can't make things as pretty on a small scale as in Landmark. But in Minecraft you can build things that actually have function and movement. The building in Minecraft also feels more like building to me, whereas Landmark looks like using a 3D modeling tool inside o