Next WoW expansion release date
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 4 August 2015, 11:33 pm
All subscription MMORPGs have the same universal curve of growth, plateau, and slow decline of subscription numbers. Nothing Blizzard announces this week about the next expansion can change the basic trajectory of slow decline WoW now is on. It is stupid to think that any design feature is responsible for subscription numbers, that WoW was better while it was growing than it is now. If Mists of Pandaria had been released in 2007 and Burning Crusade in 2012 instead of the other way around, that wouldn't have changed the basic universal subscription number curve at all. It's not them, it is us, the curve is based on network effects and people getting bored with any game, not design features.

Having said that, any expansion results in a blip on that curve. And the financial impact is significant: If 10 million people buy a $40 expansion and there is a 3 million subscriber blip for one quarter, we are talking about additional revenue in the order of 500 million dollars here. Which is exactly why Blizzard has always said they wanted to release expansions faster: It costs them only a fraction of the added revenue to make an expansion. They would release an expansion every year if they could. But large organizations have their own internal production dynamics and Blizzard has proven again and again that they are unable to speed up the pace of expansions by much.

Now previous expansions were announced in November Blizzcons, while the next expansion is being announced this week at the Gamescon. From that some people concluded that Blizzard is going to announce the expansion for this Christmas. Dream on! Due to the mythical man-month they can't just throw more resources at the problem and speed up production by much. If the next expansion comes "faster", they'd be lucky if they could manage to release it in one year, around the time of the next Gamescom. It is not that they can't see all the good reasons for an annual expansion, or don't want to make faster expansions; they just can't manage it. The next expansion for World of Warcraft is going to be released in 2016, and more likely in the second half than in the first.
Tobold's Blog



Mr. Suitcase
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 4 August 2015, 12:29 pm
From 1994 to 2000 I played Magic the Gathering with actual cards, as opposed to virtual cards. And I was the type of player we used to call "Mr. Suitcase", having a collection of cards so big that I literally needed a metal suitcase to store it in. I spent about $1,000 per year buying cards, and I didn't buy single boosters but boxes of 36 boosters. Now the actual boosters contained (and still contain) 15 cards, of which only 1 is a rare, 3 are uncommon, and 11 are common. But as an edition had about equal numbers of different rares, uncommons, and commons, you ended up with a big excess of commons when you bought enough boosters to get every rare. So when I saw that Magic Duels: Origins has 6-card boosters, containing 1 rare, 2 uncommons, and 3 commons, I considered that an advantage, because it means less excess commons.

As I previously mentioned I paid €40 for 50 boosters in Magic Duels Origins, because by buying the maximum amount of gold at once I paid only €0.80 per booster, while buying them one by one costs €2 per booster. But given my previous experience with Magic the Gathering I thought that 50 boosters would still be very far from a complete set. Turns out I was wrong, looking through my card collection I see that it is already nearly complete. How can that be? It turns out that Magic Duels Origins has a casual player friendly system of rarity restrictions and smart boosters: You can only ever own 1 of each mythic rare, 2 of each rare, 3 of each uncommon, and 4 of each common (as opposed to being able to put 4 of each card in a paper deck). If you open a booster, the cards in the booster are not completely random, but a random selection of the cards that you don't have the maximum of yet. You never find excess cards in boosters.

So the 251 different cards in the Magic Duels Origins set result in a "complete collection" of just 800 cards, of which you get 320 for free as starting set. That leaves 480 cards to get from boosters, or 80 boosters. You get 8 free boosters from doing the tutorial and story missions, which leaves just 72 boosters to collect. Me buying 50 boosters just left me with 22 boosters to buy with gold. You can get about 3 boosters per day due to a 400 coin daily limit (not including quest rewards), but even though I play far less than that it is possible that I'll get a complete Origins collection without paying more than my initial €40. If you never played Magic the Gathering paying €40 for an iPad game probably appears to be a lot of money. But for a MtG collector, €40 per set looks rather cheap. It also means that any attempt to "pay to win" is hard capped at €60.

Back in my days, WotC launched a basic edition now and then, and then every year one big set and two small sets. If that is still the case it would cost me about $100 per year to be Mr. Suitcase in Magic Duels. Which, again, is a lot for an iPad game, but a factor 10 cheaper than I used to pay. The only downside is that I can't build every deck that the paper version can build, because of the rarity restrictions. More casual players would probably consider that a good thing, because decks with lots of rares tended to annoy the players who had spent less money on their collection.

Note that Magic Duels is thus much cheaper than Magic the Gathering Online. And as far as I know (haven't played MtGO for years), MtGO doesn't have a single-player mode versus AI. Which is something I prefer after years of experience with players behaving badly.
Tobold's Blog



A practical approach to game monetization
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 4 August 2015, 4:29 am
Over the last decade paying for a game has gotten increasingly complicated. Among MMORPGs there are very few subscription games left, and even those all have shops and/or systems to buy in-game currency with real money via game time codes. The "buy once, play forever" payment model for other game genres is also on its way out: Buying once now frequently only gets you the base game, and you need to do additional payments for DLCs and expansions to get all the content. And the "forever" part is now not just limited by new operating systems not able to play old games any more, but also by games now frequently requiring connection to an online server, and the game becoming unplayable when those servers shut down.

Instead of simple buy once or pay monthly systems, we now have far more complicated systems where you can pay a variable amount of money for a variable degree of service. It is understandable that there is a certain degree of resistance, because there clearly are games which use the complicated monetization systems to nickel and dime their players, or make them pay far more money than those players would have been willing to pay in a buy once system. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that this is yet another case of resistance is futile: If you refused to buy all games that don't have only buy once or pay monthly monetization, you'd be left with not much choice of games at all. Absolute refusal to play games with variable payment models simply isn't practical any more.

A major reason why resistance failed is that most gamers were never very principled in their resistance. Even the most hardcore gamers flocked to Free2Play games like League of Legends and Hearthstone, or bought and sold in-game currency in EVE Online via PLEX. Game companies never felt they were losing customers by using variable payment systems, and simple economics show that variable payment systems earn companies more money than fixed payment systems. So for gamers it is time to let go of the hypocrisy, posting a refusenik position on various gaming forums and blogs while participating in the system anyway. What we need is a more practical approach to game monetization.

One thing that the panoply of game monetization systems has shown is that there are clearly some systems which are fair and acceptable to most people, and others that feel much more unfair and exploitative. The problem here is that it is nearly impossible to define criteria for fairness that everybody would agree with. That is because complex games often leave room for different player motivations, and different player motivations lead to different attitudes towards different monetization schemes. If I don't play PvP in a MMORPG, I don't care whether you can buy uber PvP gear in the item shop. But if I PvP was the main reason for me to play that game, I would care very much. Thus the only way to approach game monetization systems is to have a set of personal criteria.

For me personally one major criterion is how optional payment is. I like systems like in Hearthstone / Magic Duels where I can get exactly the same cards by playing, and paying is basically just a shortcut to get stuff faster. However there is a fine line there somewhere, as perceived fairness depends on how fast or slow you advance without paying. Recent example: Magic Duels giving 10 gold for a medium difficulty AI match plus 40 gold for a daily quest to buy a 6-card booster for 150 gold felt reasonable to me. Warhammer 40k Deathwatch giving only 6 credits per match to buy a 3-card booster for 100 gold is starting to feel sluggish. Another factor in the same example is that in Magic the cards I buy will be useful as long as I play the game, while in Deathwatch a higher tier card I find in a booster later will make my previous card obsolete.

One example of how personal fairness criteria can vary from person to person is the wide-spread system in mobile games to have some amount of "energy" which limits how long you can play in a session. You then need to either wait for that energy to restore itself slowly over time, or pay for an immediate energy boost. Me, I am totally okay with those systems. I don't mind at all to play a game for half an hour and then close it an do or play something else while I wait for my energy to come back. Other people are far more impatient with regards to this, and find such systems totally unfair and unacceptable.

With regard to content, that is most of the time something I am willing to pay for. In spite of other people's protests, I found the expansion for Guild Wars 2 perfectly reasonably priced (although communication could have been better). I'm okay with the business model of Destiny, and many other games with expansions or DLCs. That is because in those examples like GW2 or Destiny I felt I got a full game for the first payment, and the expansions and DLCs are more content for more money. In other cases I was less happy, because the base game felt far more unfinished, and day zero DLC and annual DLC passes made it look as if I was sold a salami slice by slice.

My recommendation for everybody is to think very hard about what variable payment systems you find acceptable and which not, and then check carefully each game what exactly you are supposed to pay for. There are no simple rules any more where you can boldly state that every Free2Play game is evil, and then sneak off to play League of Legends. I'd rather play a game for free and then see in practice whether what is for sale is fair or exploitative. Both exist, and you need to find out for yourself which is which.
Tobold's Blog



Concentrating on the core
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 31 July 2015, 3:13 am
I rarely play a game just for the story. Game stories rarely reach the quality of a good book, and if you play for the story the game doesn't have much replayability. So I am far more interested in gameplay. And most of all I am interested in the core gameplay mode, what I call the "basic repeating unit" of the game, the one thing you do over and over and over. In a MMORPG that would typically be combat. For me to like a role-playing game, I need to like the combat system. And if the combat system is flawed, I typically won't play the game for long.

One prime example for that is Lord of the Rings Online, for which I technically have a lifetime subscription, and where I absolutely love the setting. But I find the combat unresponsive and annoying, so I ended up not playing it much. In Wildstar I liked the combat for solo PvE, but felt that it broke down in all multiplayer situations, with far too many telegraphs everywhere. The Secret World I considered combat to be somewhat sluggish, you need to shoot a zombie in the head ten times before he falls over. And so on.

World of Warcraft for me has passed the test of time, I still like the combat system after a decade and thousands of hours played. But as combat is different for the different classes, I am getting more selective with what classes I play. I like classes that have varied and interactive combat, for example having abilities that you can use under certain circumstances, random chances to be able to use some bonus power, interrupts, and a mix of damage dealing and self-preservation powers. My fury warrior is quite good for that, and so is my frost mage, in a completely different way. I'm less happy about my other two level 100 characters: The demonology warlock is by far the most powerful, being able to beat elite mobs the other two can't, but at the cost of having an extremely boring combat; very slow spells, and a sure way to beat almost anything by simply keeping a voidwalker alive forever (Health Funnel + Drain Life) and waiting that the elite mob eventually drops dead. The shadow priest I like the least, he curiously has less self-preservation abilities than the others, and doesn't do well against multiple enemies. He has a basic spell rotation that deals good damage against single targets, but isn't very interactive.

Having basically "done" Tanaan Jungle already, including the achievement needed for flying, and getting bored of just doing garrison maintenance, I am looking for another character to level to 100. And how much fun combat is will be the prime selection criterion. I leveled a beast mastery hunter from level 1 to 34, but I feel he somewhat has the same problem as the warlock: Powerful, but boring. I fiddled a bit with a unholy death knight I had at level 80, but ended up not liking it much either for similar reasons: Huge damage output, but not very interactive combat style, you could program his spell rotation in a macro. So last night I played my level 86 retribution paladin, and liked that one much better. Abilities that you don't hit blindly, but which depend on the situation, and a good mix of damage and self-preservation abilities that you can adjust to many different combat situations.

I'm pretty certain that rogue is probably the most interactive class in WoW, but that one might be a bit too twitchy for me. Monk I only tried at low level, but it didn't click with me yet. I have a level 65 shaman as well, but I never liked the totem mechanic nailing your bonus to a specific location, and forcing you to recast them if you move. The one other character I have which I still might play in my moonkin druid, where I find the sun/moon mechanic quite fun.

What combat mechanics from which game or class do you like particularly? Which ones do you dislike?
Tobold's Blog



World of Warcraft : The Dark Prophet
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 30 July 2015, 1:08 am
On the World of Warcraft loading screen there is the announcement that there will be an announcement of the next expansion on August 6th. Personally I find those "we announce that we have something to announce" things a bit silly. Furthermore there is apparently a leak, which might or might not be complete fiction. I once made up the announcement for the second WoW expansion that I called The Freezing Jihad, and got a surprising amount of things right, from the new level cap to the ice theme. The monk I predicted got added later in Mists of Pandaria.

So for comparison with the real announcement, here is the "leaked" one:

The expansion will be called The Dark Prophet

New level cap will be 110

New class introduced, the Shadowstalker, a sort of magical ranger without pet

8 new zones with 2-3 new dungeons per zone

Location will be the South Seas, filled with trolls and naga

Instead of a garrison players will get a ship, which can travel around, and get a pirate crew

As you can see, the "leak" is full of relatively predictable stuff. Which doesn't make it less likely to be true, because who expects something really ground-breaking from Blizzard?
Tobold's Blog



Warhammer 40,000 Deathwatch Tyranid Invasion
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 27 July 2015, 6:37 am
Competing today for the title of the game with the silliest long name is Warhammer 40,000 Deathwatch Tyranid Invasion, made by the same people who did Warhammer Quest, but currently on iOS only. Like Warhammer Quest, Deathwatch is a tactical turn-based game, in which you level up a squad by gaining experience points and gear from missions. But the similarity ends there. While Quest was fantasy and had random dungeons, Deathwatch is in the 40K universe with you playing a squadron of space marines fighting aliens in a series of 40 hand-made missions. More importantly the combat feels very different. While in Quest the enemies came in similar numbers and had similar abilities as your adventurer party, in Deathwatch you play powerful space marines frequently fighting off an endless stream of less powerful aliens. You rarely kill every monster on the map, but have victory conditions like surviving X turns, or reaching certain waypoints.

Combat is turn-based, with your space marines having only 4 action points per turn. Each space to move costs 1 AP, while firing a weapons costs between 1 and 3 AP, so you're not doing much each turn. However you can use unused AP to set your space marine to overwatch in one direction, and then he shoots during the enemy turn if aliens run into his target area. The feel of combat against the tyranid aliens is done rather well, and at its core the game is much fun.

Less fun however is the monetization. In addition to the $5 cost of the game, there are also in-app purchases of boosters. Each booster contains 3 cards, which can be space marines, weapons, or gear. One of those is guaranteed (or "guarenteed" as they spell it) to be tier 2 or better, out of 4 possible tiers. You get 1 booster for finishing each act of 4 missions for the first time, and 1 booster for 100 in-game currency, of which you get 6 for succeeding a mission in normal difficulty. Otherwise boosters cost between $1.23 and $1.49. My main problem with that is that if you don't buy boosters, you're going to play with bad tier 1 space marines for a while to earn boosters; then once you finally get some higher tier space marines, you'll have to start over to level those up again. Buying boosters at the start is a pretty massive power boost, even if the higher tier weapons won't be useful immediately, as they need higher level space marines with better accuracy to work properly. It isn't quite as bad as Warhammer Quest where you couldn't get different character classes, enemies, dungeons, and epic weapons without paying for them, but it still smells of Pay2Win.

Space marines in Deathwatch never die permanently, which might have to do with some people having paid to get those marines in the first place. But there is a death penalty: To unlock wargear slots, traits, and abilities you need far more experience points than you can earn in a single mission. But if you save them up and your space marine dies, you lose all saved experience. I think that is a pretty good system. I haven't finished those 40 missions yet, and apparently once you do you unlock higher difficulty levels "veteran" and "heroic". But I'm not sure how much longevity the game has, as even with the higher difficulty you'll be running through the same 40 missions over and over.

The weakest point of the game for me is that it runs rather slow, even on an iPad Air. There are very long loading screens, and the game takes forever to start up. Which is annoying as it apparently uses all of the memory, so if you switch to another application you need to restart the game and can't quickly swap back. On the upside the game looks rather good, using the Unreal 4 engine. Overall I am having fun (having bought some boosters), but I'm not giving out an unreserved recommendation. Be aware of the technical limitations and the monetization before you buy this!
Tobold's Blog



Heroforge
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 25 July 2015, 1:37 am
I originally wanted to write an article like this one about Heroforge, with photographs. But frankly I just don't have the photographic skills. And I still need to persuade one of my players to paint them. So I'll stick to my traditional medium of just the written word and refer you to the above linked article for photographic examples.

Heroforge is a service, launched via Kickstarter, that provides 3D printed figurines for tabletop roleplaying games. The website works a bit like a character generator from a MMORPG: You create a character in one of several different settings, choosing his race, gender, clothing/armor, weapon, and pose to create a 3D representation that corresponds to your character sheet. You can then have that character printed on standard 30 mm scale, or twice or four times as big. At the time I ordered my figurines a month ago, you could get them in either strong plastic or ultra-detail plastic for $15 and $25 per figurine. Now steel ($35) and bronze ($100) are also available as "beta materials".

On the website it said that 3D printing could take up to a month, and then I thought the figurines would get shipped from the USA to Europe, which could take some weeks as well. But instead of waiting 6 weeks I was positively surprised that I got the figurines just 6 days after ordering. Turns out they have manufacturing facilities in the Netherlands. I took the ultra-detail plastic ones, because they were said to be more suitable for painting. The figurines are very nicely detailed, in clear, frosty plastic. But I need to handle them with care, as apparently they are prone to breaking. And they are a lot lighter than the usual lead figurines.

I like Heroforge because getting commercial figurines that exactly fit your characters is difficult. For example I had a halfling ranger in my previous campaign, and could never find a fitting figurine in our local games store. My new campaign is even more difficult, because it uses traditional 4E D&D classes, but a Renaissance setting with some Steam Punk elements. The group is playing a squadron of musketeers, and where do you find a figurine of a wizard with a musket? Heroforge allowed me to switch between genres when making the figurines, so all the characters I made have a gun on their back. Okay, the gun looks more like a Winchester than a musket, but let's not be picky to that degree of detail. One character, who is playing a tank with a background of being second generation policeman, is even wearing a Victorian policeman's helmet. So I got myself some truly unique figurines for my campaign that exactly fit the character sheets.

6 figurines in ultra-detail plastic, plus shipping, isn't exactly cheap. But I think they are worth it. I'd love the bronze ones, but that would really get too expensive for the whole group. I could however imagine players wanting to print their favorite character like that. I'm looking forward to show the figurines to my group when we start the campaign (only did a warm-up session up to now). I think they will be thrilled!
Tobold's Blog



Player interaction
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 24 July 2015, 6:29 am
Ravious and Bhagpuss kicked of an interesting series of discussions about player interactions in MMORPGs. Bhagpuss states "There's nothing amazing any more in joining with dozens of people of all ages and races and genders and religions separated by thousands of miles and an infinity of experiences, coming together to imagine killing a giant dragon or a destroying a titanic spacecraft. Happens all the time.", while Ravious thinks we prefer to play alone, but in a crowd.

While I do think that Bhagpuss is onto something when he thinks that familiarity breeds contempt, I do wonder in how far game design is to blame for our desire to play alone rather than with other people in a MMORPG or other online world. To me it appears as if most game design inadvertently makes us hate our fellow players. Either because that other player is actively trying to kill us, or because cooperative play is designed in a way that a weak player can ruin our experience. As I mentioned previously, I haven't been running dungeons in the current expansion of WoW; I mean, who needs the hassle? Even if many runs might just end up being totally silent and anonymous, there is a too high chance of getting grouped with somebody really annoying. The chance of a real bad experience ruins multiplayer for me. But I totally realize that in most of these cases the other player didn't ruin the fun for everybody on purpose, but is a victim himself of game design. The system puts together players with different goals, strengths, and attitudes in a challenge that would only work if the group was far more homogeneous in purpose and strength.

On the other hand I'm frequently in the so-called premade groups in WoW. They nearly always work well, because the purpose is more narrowly defined, and the design is in a way that adding another player is always helpful, even if he isn't superman. But premade groups have a short duration. I wished that guilds would work more like a permanent form of a premade group than like a permanent form of a dungeon group. It would be better game designs if guild members could contribute on a daily basis to the progress of the guild, regardless of playstyle and strength, instead of the guild purpose being so narrowly defined by raiding, or reduced to a chat channel.

I must say that the best player interaction I experienced, with and without guilds, was in A Tale in the Desert. And that was through game design, with people being able to cooperate, and everybody being able to contribute. I also think that the original Asheron's Call had a superior social system with new players being vassals to veteran players, with each contributing to the success of the other. Unfortunately I didn't play that at the time, and much later it becomes difficult to join any social system. There is a reason why ATITD resets every now and then and starts over fresh.

Anyhow I do think that new MMORPGs should experiment more with social structures. There was more variety a decade ago, with games like Star Wars Galaxies and others I mentioned. Today there is only the raiding guild model left, and that is a shame.
Tobold's Blog



iLvl 681
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 23 July 2015, 5:54 am
Just to give a short status of my World of Warcraft experience, the average item level of my main character (fury warrior) is now 681. Besides some iLvl 670 items from follower missions, and iLvl 685 items from ship missions, he is mainly wearing items coming from baleful tokens found in Tanaan Jungle. These tokens most of the time give just a iLvl 650 blue item, but sometimes result in a iLvl 675 epic. As you find enough of those tokens, you get chances for such an epic frequently enough. In addition there are upgrade items that upgrade either of those baleful items to iLvl 695. You get one upgrade item for finishing the 6th campaign quest series, or you buy the upgrades for 20,000 apexis crystals. Which isn't all that much any more, since apexis crystals now come in at a much faster rate.

My three alts (frost mage, shadow priest, demonology warlock) are a bit behind that, but not too much. With the warlock I made a costly mistake: Bought two baleful trinkets and upgraded them to iLvl 695 for a grand total of 50,000 apexis crystal. Turns out that half of that was totally wasted, as the trinket is "unique equipped" and you can't wear two. And you can't get refund on upgrade items you already used. Ouch!

What I'm not wearing at all is gear from raiding, as I neither raid nor run dungeons. One exception was doing a LFR raid with each character to get some blueprints for the shipyard. What I am also not wearing is crafted gear, which is a conscious decision to not spend that much gold. Each character could wear 3 crafted items, and fully upgraded each item could be iLvl 715. But that costs 60k+ gold per item, which times 12 would eat up most of my funds. And really, what would I need such a high iLvl for as long as I don't do raids nor dungeons?

However I was thinking of leveling another character, either a moonkin druid, unholy death knight, or retribution paladin. I'm accumulating a second sort of baleful tokens, which are limited to a specific class of armor, but only bound to account. So you can send a new character a bunch of those tokens and insta-equip him at level 100. Even weirder those iLvl 715 items have a minimum level of only 91, and I was thinking that at least an iLvl 715 weapon would be a good investment for a new character. But as the three characters mentioned are only level 80 to 86, I'll first have to decide which one to play and get that far.
Tobold's Blog



Mercenary mode
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 20 July 2015, 4:56 am
Factions in World of Warcraft are a curious thing, since the beginning. Some people chose a PvP server and consider this to be a game about the struggle between Horde and Alliance. Others chose a PvE server at which point the factions become pretty much meaningless. And Horde and Alliance have never been really balanced in terms of numbers of players. That causes problems for specific PvP content which is Horde vs. Alliance, because the side with more players ends up in long queues.

So Blizzard decided to "fix" that with the announced mercenary mode: The players from the more numerous side can simply fight for the *other* side, thus removing queues. If you always thought that Horde vs. Alliance made no sense at all, it doesn't matter which side you are fighting on, does it? But of course those who liked factions are complaining that this makes factions meaningless. Well, more like another nail in the coffin, the stories of the expansions were more "Horde and Alliance fight together against some new menace" than a faction war.

I don't think Blizzard will ever completely eliminate factions, but the borders could be made even more porous: Cross-faction chat, cross-faction groups, guilds, and raids, and so on. We already have cross-faction auction houses. Somehow WoW never lived up to the original premise of Warcraft : Orcs vs. Humans, and if anything factions will become ever more unimportant.
Tobold's Blog



Magic Duels : Origins
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 18 July 2015, 2:20 am
Magic the Gathering, the granddaddy of trading card games, has over the last years been experimenting with how to get the game out to computers and especially mobile platforms. As the card game has new sets of cards every year, they decided on making a new computer game every year. So there is a Magic 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. That started out with you being only able to play premade decks to which you added more cards you gained by playing. But every version had a bit more freedom, and the 2015 Magic had a full deckbuilder for your own decks and the possibility to buy cards. At which point it turned out that a new game every year doesn't mix well with buying virtual cards which you can't transfer to the next game. So Wizards of the Coast changed their strategy and is now making a new game without a year in the name: Magic Duels : Origins. It is already out for iOS, and will come to PC and XBox later.

On the one side Magic Duels : Origins is free. You get the game and the full story mode for free, which gives you the same guided experiences as previous versions: In 5 stories you play an increasingly complex mono-colored deck against premade AI decks to learn the basics of each color. But while doing that you also earn coins. And the game gives you a free starter set for deckbuilding. The coins buy you boosters, and then you can create your own decks to play either against AI opponents of various difficulty or against other people in duels or even two-headed giant mode.

Magic Duels : Origins thus nearly replaces the aging Magic the Gathering : Online, and is a lot closer to playing the card game than the annual version were. And that comes with a big warning: Magic the Gathering is the game that invented the Pay2Win principle. On paper you can get all the cards for free by playing, but a 6-card booster costs 150 gold, and you only gain 5 to 15 gold from a win against the AI and 20 from a win against another player. So there is a strong temptation to buy coins for money. Magic Duels : Origins has the steepest rebate scheme for such purchases that I have ever seen: $20 buys you one booster, 20 times $2 doesn't buy you 20 boosters but 50. Which means you absolutely shouldn't make small purchases in this game. Play for free, then if you decide you have enough fun to justify spending money, spend directly $40 for those 50 boosters. That still doesn't get you every card in the game, but already a much bigger base from which to builds decks from. With the big purchase rebate the virtual cards cost less than the paper version.

Personally I made that $40 purchase, because I love the complexity of Magic and find Hearthstone far too simple for my tastes. But I'd say that for most people the simpler and cheaper Hearthstone is probably the better option, and Magic Duels : Origins is the niche option for the veteran geek. I'll get my fun out of those $40, but that is because I love building decks.
Tobold's Blog



Undercutting so that it hurts
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 17 July 2015, 4:16 am
In World of Warcraft trade chat as well as on various forums and blogs you will frequently find somebody complaining about people who undercut auction houses by a lot. You are being told that the only "correct" way to undercut is by 1 copper: That basically makes you sell the item at the same price as your competitor, but technically cheaper, and so in all likelihood your item gets sold first. If you undercut by more, so you are being told, you are playing it wrong. Of course that is just a jedi mind trick: The 1-copper undercut strategy favors a certain type of player, so that type of player wants to assure that you play by his rules. I'm here to tell you of the alternative: Undercutting by a lot.

Imagine a price war between two or more players wanting to sell the same item. Both undercut always by 1 copper. Who wins? It is pretty obvious that the "cost" of the 1-copper undercut is staying in front of the AH and reacting to the competition's every move. Perfect strategy for the unemployed basement dweller, but a guaranteed loss for anybody who either wants to spend his time outside of the game, or inside the game actually playing instead of camping the AH. The 1-copper undercut game can go on forever and the player with the longest breath wins.

So if you aren't willing to camp the AH all day, consider the alternative: Undercut by a significant amount of money, like 10%. If the competition undercuts by 1 copper, you undercut by another 10%, and so on. It is pretty clear that this *can't* go on forever. The heavy undercutting reduces the profit margin. So at one point one of several things will happen: The competition gives up, not willing to sell as cheap as you do; or the competition thinks you are too cheap and buys you out; or the competition undercuts your too cheap price by 1 copper and you buy them out. All of which scenarios are infinitely better than you never selling anything because you're always being undercut by 1 copper.

The 1-copper undercut is an artifact of WoW's badly designed auction house system. Other games show past sell prices and not exactly the prices the sellers are willing to accept, so you can't undercut by 1 copper. Undercutting by a significant amount is closer to real life economics: You win market share because for some reason you can actually sell cheaper than the competition, by being more efficient or by accepting a lower profit margin. There is no cheap trick that can beat that. Which is why significant undercutting is the way to go if you want to sell stuff in a competitive market.
Tobold's Blog



Trulon
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 15 July 2015, 3:24 am
I always feel a bit cheated when I buy a $50 game and it is over in 10 hours. That isn't to say that 10-hour games can't be fun, just the price has to be right. Like Trulon for example, which costs $5 and is available for iOS and Android. And no, before you ask, there are no additional in-app purchases.

Trulon is a role-playing game with combat based on cards. So each of your characters has a deck of cards with various tactics, you start combat with a random hand of them, and draw a fresh one every turn. If you run out of cards, you can always do a basic attack, or use a "wildcard" randomly selected from all characters' decks. The system works pretty well and gives a nicely tactical combat without being too dependent from luck.

You can follow the main story and do side-quests, but if you feel weak you can also just run around until you run into random monsters and beat some of those for additional xp and cards. The story isn't all that special, but an okay heroic fantasy / steampunk mix. The whole thing is over in 10 hours, but those 10 hours are good fun, and priced right. Recommended!
Tobold's Blog



Oil crisis
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 9 July 2015, 2:54 am
At the start of Warlords of Draenor I leveled up 4 characters to 100 and then went into a routine where I logged on all of them every day to do garrison stuff like follower missions and work orders. Most days I didn't have time for much else. Patch 6.2 started with me actually playing those 4 characters again, doing quests in the Tanaan Jungle to unlock stuff for the shipyard. And then I thought I could go back to my previous regime of maintenance mode.

Turns out that I was wrong. I can't just log on a character and do naval missions every day. Those missions cost oil, and the oil you can get from followers missions doesn't cover the requirements. In order to keep naval missions running, I need to do at the very least the daily apexis quest, which gives 600 or 750 oil. When I'm short on oil I also need to farm the 4 Hellbane rares, because besides a chance for a medallion or a mount they always drop 100 oil.

The situation should improve slightly once I am revered with the main faction in Tanaan Jungle on all characters, because that unlocks the oil rig naval missions which give 400 oil. But I doubt that will be sufficient. Naval missions, unlike follower missions, appear to be designed to be not really viable for an alt who is just doing that without going adventuring. And while going adventuring with one character is okay, it gets too much if you want to do it with 4 characters.

While that is somewhat annoying, it doesn't mean that WoD has become less alt-friendly. In spite of various nerfs a level 100 alt with a level 3 garrison is still making a rather large passive income with very little effort. Four characters pay for a subscription in WoW tokens twice over with no problem. The problem is that if they don't do the new naval missions, they are stuck in the pre-patch routine, which already got rather boring.

So I think that after the holidays I'll do some other projects in World of Warcraft. I still have that level 34 hunter visiting all zones of the game and collecting all the pets. And then I was thinking of trying out a few other character classes and find which ones are fun to play in the current conditions. Right now I have two fun characters, the fury warrior and the frost mage, and two that are much less fun to play, the shadow priest and the demonology warlock. The priest is underpowered, while the warlock is strong, but boring, having too slow basic spells.
Tobold's Blog



Cash cows and moving on
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 8 July 2015, 6:03 am
There has been much discussion about a recent announcement that there will be no more major content added to Warlords of Draenor, thus presumably leaving it with only minor content patches until the next expansion which based on previous form should be out in Q4 2016. That is a long time with no added content, and will certainly lead to new lows in subscription numbers for World of Warcraft. Why wouldn't Blizzard want to keep up subscriber numbers by adding more content?

The answer to that question is relatively basic economic theory of any business venture. After an initial phase where you spend more on development than you get in revenue, and a phase of peak popularity where you pump less money into the project and get a maximum out of it, there is a third phase that is generally called the cash cow phase where the business venture produces cash with very little maintenance. World of Warcraft is in this cash cow phase, where Blizzard considers it as a low-maintenance venture that will produce cash without requiring major investment.

That is not some heartless or stupid decision. Fact is that a good part of the decline in popularity is natural, and that it would cost increasing amounts of money to keep up subscription numbers. If you tried, you'd end up with costs higher than revenue, and an expensive but unprofitable business. The wiser decision is recognizing that the peak of popularity has been passed, and using the cash that WoW produces to finance other projects that haven't reached peak popularity yet.

Blizzard basically has moved on, and at least mentally so should we. We can enjoy WoW in its current stage with a decade worth of content in the game, but we shouldn't expect an increase in the future speed of content creation. The subscription peak of WoD was in some respects an anomaly, it should have been smaller, but was more a reflection of the lack of success of WoW's competitors to create games that remain popular for more than three months. The most interesting thing about it is that if WoW loses 3 million subscribers, you don't see those 3 million people turn up elsewhere.
Tobold's Blog



That is not a game!
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 7 July 2015, 5:44 am
Compared to other media, discussing games is more complicated, because there are two very distinctive parts to it: Gameplay and story. For a long time reviews were pretty much limited to discussing gameplay, but with the advances of technology that becomes less and less viable. There are more and more games out there where the gameplay is very simple to the point of being nearly non-existing, but the story is very important, for example the recent "Her Story".

I'm sharing Azuriel's dislike of games that are about blind choices, where you are being told a story and have to make a decision with no hint of what the consequences of that decision are going to be. So I recognize the story value of games like "80 Days" or "Ryan North's To Be Or Not To Be", but find them aggravating to play. In other cases I'm okay with the gameplay, but dislike the story, setting, or the message the game is sending, for example with "Fallout Shelter". So I see gameplay and story as separate issues, but both have to be right for a game to be enjoyable to me.

The trap that I see many people falling into is saying that if for either gameplay or story reasons they don't like a game, "that is not a game!". Well, then what else is it? I can't really understand why Clicker Heroes is one of the top ten played games on Steam, but I wouldn't know what other than "game" I would call it. The whole genre started with satire games like Progressquest and Cow Clicker, and then surprised the satirists by their popularity. An argument can be made that these idle games are "stupid", but I refuse to call them "not a game", because that would require a needlessly complicated definition of what a game is, just so that we could exclude the games we don't like from the definition.
Tobold's Blog



Accuracy and reverting to the mean
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 July 2015, 9:54 am
Talarian has a very niche post up, discussing accuracy in games. The chance to hit with an attack that is, not whether the things depicted in those games are accurate, which is a completely different can of worms. Talarian points out that if the game is designed around a few, decisive attacks, you are more likely to feel the effect of randomness. If there are many small attacks, missing a few doesn't matter so much, and is felt much less.

I found that interesting because it pretty much describes my main point of contention with 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons. I prefer 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, whose combat has with some justification been described as "slow". Basically in 4E everybody has a lot of hit points, and you need several good hits to bring an enemy down. In 5E the characters have a lot less hit points, deal more damage, and thus fights are over much quicker. But because of what Talarian describes, the 5E combat is much more likely to produce random results. In 5E it matters less whether the player has good tactics or otherwise made good choices, he can be downed in round one by a critical hit before he even acted. Fast, yes, but for me that speed comes with too much of a price.

I especially hate critical hits in 5E. In 4E a critical hit deals maximum damage. Only at later levels, when you have magical weapons, do you get additional dice to roll. In 5E you get double the dice on a critical even at level 1. So a simple arrow dealing 1d6 damage does 6 damage in 4E, and 2d6 damage in 5E. Which very much opens up the chance of the high attack roll being followed by a high damage roll, for up to 12 points of damage. Which knocks out most level 1 characters.

Of course the early death of a key player can create some good narrative. But it also removes damage potential from the player's side, so makes the combat slower again. From a social point of view it is awkward having a player just sit there, not able to participate, just rolling death saves for the rest of the encounter. Especially if it is due to no fault of his own.

I guess that is a typical example of me putting gameplay over narrative. I would like the outcome of a combat to be determined by tactics, not by chance, even if that makes the game more predictable and less fast.
Tobold's Blog



Accuracy and reverting to the mean
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 July 2015, 9:54 am
Talarian has a very niche post up, discussing accuracy in games. The chance to hit with an attack that is, not whether the things depicted in those games are accurate, which is a completely different can of worms. Talarian points out that if the game is designed around a few, decisive attacks, you are more likely to feel the effect of randomness. If there are many small attacks, missing a few doesn't matter so much, and is felt much less.

I found that interesting because it pretty much describes my main point of contention with 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons. I prefer 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, whose combat has with some justification been described as "slow". Basically in 4E everybody has a lot of hit points, and you need several good hits to bring an enemy down. In 5E the characters have a lot less hit points, deal more damage, and thus fights are over much quicker. But because of what Talarian describes, the 5E combat is much more likely to produce random results. In 5E it matters less whether the player has good tactics or otherwise made good choices, he can be downed in round one by a critical hit before he even acted. Fast, yes, but for me that speed comes with too much of a price.

I especially hate critical hits in 5E. In 4E a critical hit deals maximum damage. Only at later levels, when you have magical weapons, do you get additional dice to roll. In 5E you get double the dice on a critical even at level 1. So a simple arrow dealing 1d6 damage does 6 damage in 4E, and 2d6 damage in 5E. Which very much opens up the chance of the high attack roll being followed by a high damage roll, for up to 12 points of damage. Which knocks out most level 1 characters.

Of course the early death of a key player can create some good narrative. But it also removes damage potential from the player's side, so makes the combat slower again. From a social point of view it is awkward having a player just sit there, not able to participate, just rolling death saves for the rest of the encounter. Especially if it is due to no fault of his own.

I guess that is a typical example of me putting gameplay over narrative. I would like the outcome of a combat to be determined by tactics, not by chance, even if that makes the game more predictable and less fast.
Tobold's Blog



Accuracy and reverting to the mean
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 July 2015, 9:54 am
Talarian has a very niche post up, discussing accuracy in games. The chance to hit with an attack that is, not whether the things depicted in those games are accurate, which is a completely different can of worms. Talarian points out that if the game is designed around a few, decisive attacks, you are more likely to feel the effect of randomness. If there are many small attacks, missing a few doesn't matter so much, and is felt much less.

I found that interesting because it pretty much describes my main point of contention with 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons. I prefer 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, whose combat has with some justification been described as "slow". Basically in 4E everybody has a lot of hit points, and you need several good hits to bring an enemy down. In 5E the characters have a lot less hit points, deal more damage, and thus fights are over much quicker. But because of what Talarian describes, the 5E combat is much more likely to produce random results. In 5E it matters less whether the player has good tactics or otherwise made good choices, he can be downed in round one by a critical hit before he even acted. Fast, yes, but for me that speed comes with too much of a price.

I especially hate critical hits in 5E. In 4E a critical hit deals maximum damage. Only at later levels, when you have magical weapons, do you get additional dice to roll. In 5E you get double the dice on a critical even at level 1. So a simple arrow dealing 1d6 damage does 6 damage in 4E, and 2d6 damage in 5E. Which very much opens up the chance of the high attack roll being followed by a high damage roll, for up to 12 points of damage. Which knocks out most level 1 characters.

Of course the early death of a key player can create some good narrative. But it also removes damage potential from the player's side, so makes the combat slower again. From a social point of view it is awkward having a player just sit there, not able to participate, just rolling death saves for the rest of the encounter. Especially if it is due to no fault of his own.

I guess that is a typical example of me putting gameplay over narrative. I would like the outcome of a combat to be determined by tactics, not by chance, even if that makes the game more predictable and less fast.
Tobold's Blog



Accuracy and reverting to the mean
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 July 2015, 9:54 am
Talarian has a very niche post up, discussing accuracy in games. The chance to hit with an attack that is, not whether the things depicted in those games are accurate, which is a completely different can of worms. Talarian points out that if the game is designed around a few, decisive attacks, you are more likely to feel the effect of randomness. If there are many small attacks, missing a few doesn't matter so much, and is felt much less.

I found that interesting because it pretty much describes my main point of contention with 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons. I prefer 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, whose combat has with some justification been described as "slow". Basically in 4E everybody has a lot of hit points, and you need several good hits to bring an enemy down. In 5E the characters have a lot less hit points, deal more damage, and thus fights are over much quicker. But because of what Talarian describes, the 5E combat is much more likely to produce random results. In 5E it matters less whether the player has good tactics or otherwise made good choices, he can be downed in round one by a critical hit before he even acted. Fast, yes, but for me that speed comes with too much of a price.

I especially hate critical hits in 5E. In 4E a critical hit deals maximum damage. Only at later levels, when you have magical weapons, do you get additional dice to roll. In 5E you get double the dice on a critical even at level 1. So a simple arrow dealing 1d6 damage does 6 damage in 4E, and 2d6 damage in 5E. Which very much opens up the chance of the high attack roll being followed by a high damage roll, for up to 12 points of damage. Which knocks out most level 1 characters.

Of course the early death of a key player can create some good narrative. But it also removes damage potential from the player's side, so makes the combat slower again. From a social point of view it is awkward having a player just sit there, not able to participate, just rolling death saves for the rest of the encounter. Especially if it is due to no fault of his own.

I guess that is a typical example of me putting gameplay over narrative. I would like the outcome of a combat to be determined by tactics, not by chance, even if that makes the game more predictable and less fast.
Tobold's Blog



Accuracy and reverting to the mean
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 July 2015, 9:54 am
Talarian has a very niche post up, discussing accuracy in games. The chance to hit with an attack that is, not whether the things depicted in those games are accurate, which is a completely different can of worms. Talarian points out that if the game is designed around a few, decisive attacks, you are more likely to feel the effect of randomness. If there are many small attacks, missing a few doesn't matter so much, and is felt much less.

I found that interesting because it pretty much describes my main point of contention with 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons. I prefer 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, whose combat has with some justification been described as "slow". Basically in 4E everybody has a lot of hit points, and you need several good hits to bring an enemy down. In 5E the characters have a lot less hit points, deal more damage, and thus fights are over much quicker. But because of what Talarian describes, the 5E combat is much more likely to produce random results. In 5E it matters less whether the player has good tactics or otherwise made good choices, he can be downed in round one by a critical hit before he even acted. Fast, yes, but for me that speed comes with too much of a price.

I especially hate critical hits in 5E. In 4E a critical hit deals maximum damage. Only at later levels, when you have magical weapons, do you get additional dice to roll. In 5E you get double the dice on a critical even at level 1. So a simple arrow dealing 1d6 damage does 6 damage in 4E, and 2d6 damage in 5E. Which very much opens up the chance of the high attack roll being followed by a high damage roll, for up to 12 points of damage. Which knocks out most level 1 characters.

Of course the early death of a key player can create some good narrative. But it also removes damage potential from the player's side, so makes the combat slower again. From a social point of view it is awkward having a player just sit there, not able to participate, just rolling death saves for the rest of the encounter. Especially if it is due to no fault of his own.

I guess that is a typical example of me putting gameplay over narrative. I would like the outcome of a combat to be determined by tactics, not by chance, even if that makes the game more predictable and less fast.
Tobold's Blog



Accuracy and reverting to the mean
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 July 2015, 9:54 am
Talarian has a very niche post up, discussing accuracy in games. The chance to hit with an attack that is, not whether the things depicted in those games are accurate, which is a completely different can of worms. Talarian points out that if the game is designed around a few, decisive attacks, you are more likely to feel the effect of randomness. If there are many small attacks, missing a few doesn't matter so much, and is felt much less.

I found that interesting because it pretty much describes my main point of contention with 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons. I prefer 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, whose combat has with some justification been described as "slow". Basically in 4E everybody has a lot of hit points, and you need several good hits to bring an enemy down. In 5E the characters have a lot less hit points, deal more damage, and thus fights are over much quicker. But because of what Talarian describes, the 5E combat is much more likely to produce random results. In 5E it matters less whether the player has good tactics or otherwise made good choices, he can be downed in round one by a critical hit before he even acted. Fast, yes, but for me that speed comes with too much of a price.

I especially hate critical hits in 5E. In 4E a critical hit deals maximum damage. Only at later levels, when you have magical weapons, do you get additional dice to roll. In 5E you get double the dice on a critical even at level 1. So a simple arrow dealing 1d6 damage does 6 damage in 4E, and 2d6 damage in 5E. Which very much opens up the chance of the high attack roll being followed by a high damage roll, for up to 12 points of damage. Which knocks out most level 1 characters.

Of course the early death of a key player can create some good narrative. But it also removes damage potential from the player's side, so makes the combat slower again. From a social point of view it is awkward having a player just sit there, not able to participate, just rolling death saves for the rest of the encounter. Especially if it is due to no fault of his own.

I guess that is a typical example of me putting gameplay over narrative. I would like the outcome of a combat to be determined by tactics, not by chance, even if that makes the game more predictable and less fast.
Tobold's Blog



Great PR
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 July 2015, 8:57 am
Wherever you stand on the issue of the Greek referendum, you need to admire Greece for its great public relations: Everywhere the story is how the plucky Greeks said "no" to the evil European loan sharks that want to suck all the life out of Greece. Debt forgiveness is widely demanded.

Actually I am for debt forgiveness as well. I mean, there isn't much chance that Greece will ever pay back its loans and bailouts, so you might as well write the money off right away. But maybe even more importantly, it might change the narrative to be somewhat kinder to the rest of Europe: Because what Greece wants isn't simple debt forgiveness. They want fresh money, their debt forgiven in order to then be able to take out new loans. They want to continue living a lifestyle where the state spends far more money than its revenue. Yes, of course Greece's GDP would look a lot better with unlimited free money from elsewhere, but can you really blame the rest of Europe for not wanting to throw more money into that bottomless pit?

I think the rest of Europe should forgive the Greek debt, and then hold a referendum on whether to give the Greeks more money. I'd bet the people of Europe would vote "Oxi" to that. And for the Greeks it is a lot harder to walk around with signs saying "We demand your money!" instead of "No to austerity".
Tobold's Blog



An esoteric question on WoW missions
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 July 2015, 7:12 am
Warlords of Draenor introduced a new offline element into World of Warcraft: Missions, where you send out your followers or since recently ships for hours. You need to select the right mix of skills of your followers (or equipment of your ships) for the challenges of the mission, and on success you are rewarded. Many missions only give experience for your followers/ships, but some give rewards to the player, like gold, apexis crystals, or even raid gear.

And here lies my problem: The missions that only give experience become useless after your followers / ships reach epic status. So I don't know if I should still do those missions that only give experience. What I don't know is whether doing experience missions alters the spawn time of the treasure missions. If I "clear" all experience missions, do I get new missions faster? If I stop doing experience missions, will I get stuck at some point with having only unfinished missions of that type and never get new treasure missions any more? As sending out followers / ships on missions costs resources, can I safely save those resources and ignore those missions?

Anybody know?
Tobold's Blog



1 million gold
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 5 July 2015, 4:33 pm
Friday I was thinking that I might be getting close to having 1 million gold on my World of Warcraft characters. So I installed an addon (Accountant) to do the math and found that I had over 900k, but was just short of a million. So I used the materials I had in stock to craft some stuff and earned another 100k this weekend. So now I really have over a million gold in WoW.

To put this in perspective, the price of the WoW Token recently spiked at just over 50k gold when the patch came out, and has since gone down to under 50k again. The tokens I bought in the past were 2 for 32k each, and one for 42k, and the tendency for the price is currently falling (I guess there was a rush to buy gametime for the patch which has since receded). But even if we say the price of the WoW Token is 50k gold, I would have enough gold for 20 months of WoW. As I've been earning over 100k a month in this expansion after expenses, I've gone infinite, and I wasn't even planning to. I just played what was fun to me.
Tobold's Blog



<< Newer Entries · · Older Entries >>

Show: [ALL] [NEWS] [BLOGS] [PODCASTS]

Updated Today:
A Green Mushroom [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Blue Kae [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
DDOcast [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Engadget Gaming [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Massively Overpowered [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
MmoQuests.com [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Mystic Worlds [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Updated this Week:
Anyway Games [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Lineage II [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
MMORPG.COM News [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Ogrebear's Thoughts [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Raph Koster [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Reign of Gaming [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Updated this Month:
Bethesda Blog [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Bioware TOR Dev Blog [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Morphisat's Blog [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
No Prisoners, No Mercy [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Player Versus Developer [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
The Old Republic News from Bioware [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Tide's Horizon [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Welshtroll [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Wolfshead Online [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
WoWCast [HTML] [XML] [FULL]