Atomic and their game cannot be blamed for the actions of our government (if you want to take it to that level). And how would their interpretation on the events be any different than being engaged in a movie or book about the subject (which is also subject to interpretation)? Controversial subjects are put in print and on film as forms of entertainment on a regular basis, so what's the solution there?

If anyone really wants to see this game (or any other) fail, stop talking about it, stop making comments, and giving it your attention. If you must speak about it, write a private letter to your congressman/women describing your distaste. When you fuel controversy, you just fire up more interest.

I agree with RCH. I think it's great they're still trying to find ways to improve and support a game this old.

I've read that each class will have both genders, but that's not to say Blizzard won't retract on that. Nothing's final until they release it.

I'm excited for it. It has a lot of potential with the Vegas setting. I'm not familiar with Obsidian's track record, but there's been enough time since the release of Fallout 3 that hopefully most of the engine bugs have been worked on and solved.

I'm just saying the signs of success were there pre-WoW.

There weren't in 1994. As mentioned, they hadn't even bought the company that made Diablo.

Sure Warcraft was their only hit at the time, but it was one of those games a lot of garnered a lot of attention and a benchmark in gaming. Someone was wise enough to invest.

None, and nearly all of them. Lots of the talent that made successful games in 95 are still in the business.

Not of that list.

From Wikipedia (not that it's a totally reliable source), "Ex-Looking Glass personnel have worked on such games as Deus Ex, Guitar Hero, Rock Band, Half-Life 2, Freedom Force, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Fallout 3, Bioshock..."

That's more than I expected! But I guess I just look at it differently than you, in that even though the companies have dissolved, the hearts and souls of these companies are still out there making the same type of games they initially got in the business to make.

And therein lies a huge part of the problem: talent isn't enough. Quality of games isn't enough. If a handful of people leave an entire studio can completely fall apart. Look at Rare.

Yes, it's business. It's a risk like any investment. That's what people like Kotick are paid to judge. I make the occassional mistake at my job, so does he obviously. Later on you can laugh at them, which I think is the point of this article -- only he may be crying inside at the same time.

JA is more a turn-based strategy. Dead. RTSs? Come on, how many are released each year? FPS of course are successful.

Fallout 3 has a system called V.A.T.S. which enables a turned-based strategy sequence in the game. In fact many modern games allow you to pause and employ strategy. I'd have to argue not dead. If there was a good way to bring RTS to consoles, you bet developers would be cranking them out. I'm sure someone is working on it. Meanwhile nearly every RTS release on PC has been pretty successful, even some surprise indy successes like Sins of a Solar Empire.

Nearly everyone in this thread not us.

Gotta love the Internet.

You knew this in 1995, before Diablo was announced? When Diablo was being made by Condor games, prior to Blizzard buying Condor in 1996?

No. I'm not saying I did, and it's not about me anyway. I'm just saying the signs of success were there pre-WoW.

How many of these companies are still around?

None, and nearly all of them. Lots of the talent that made successful games in 95 are still in the business.

How many of these companies, if you put $7 million into them in 1995, would have paid off?

Hard to say until it's done. But I wouldn't have bawked and laughed at the idea of dumping it into several on the list there. It's hard to say whether or not a company like Looking Glass would have thrived. I place the quality of their games right up there with Blizzard.

How many of these games are genres that are even profitable now?

Oh let's see, the FPS. No. Nobody plays that. Nobody likes Bungie or Halo. RPG like Jagged Alliance? No again. Games like that and Fallout 3 just don't do well. RTS's have flopped huge which is why Age of Empires was a huge non-success for Microsoft, and Starcraft II will fail in a big way. Racing and driving games? Continue to flop, no interest. Casual adventure games? Well, Myst sealed the coffin up on that genre and it's completely useless which is why they're pretty much the one of the few computer game genres places like Target and Walmart still carry -- but what do they know about making money? Complicated Flight Sims... well I'll give you that one.

And you still think Kotick is braindead for not knowing this?

Did I call him braindead, or did you just do that? Perhaps he just shouldn't have guffawed at the idea.

i hear ya loud and clear, although I think development of Battlenet is what's holding the game up. Blizzard wants their piece of the social networking pie on top of everything else. And so we wait.

Of course Kotick couldn't know about WoW, but by 1995 video games on the computer were becoming huge money-makers, and starting to match Hollywood in terms of revenue. The first Warcraft had already brought Blizzard moderate success, enough so that they released the sequel in 1995. And Blizzard just continued to make games and franchises that topped their previous efforts. Even without WoW, Blizzard (I've no doubt in my mind) would continue to succeed, because later on Diablo 2 would sell 4 million units worldwide.

And no, the closest counterpart to Blizzard (imho) in terms of success was id, and they released Doom in 1993.

And I don't hate any publishers, but I couldn't help but chime in, because even back then people were claiming the death of PC games.

It was insane! Because you guys didn't know what Kotick knew. That PC gaming was and is dead. Sheesh, get a clue already.

I've played other free-to-play MMO's that use GameGaurd and I'm happy they dumped it. Vista doesn't like it, and I doubt 7 will like it either. Getting around it with permissions is not terribly difficult, but takes research and is probably work more than the average user wants to deal with. I'm sure they're looking at it from the perspective of not having as many technical support calls.

I played Postal II and all it had was shock value. Otherwise it was completely amateur and boring in it's design. I hope version 3 is better, but they're kidding themselves if they think they don't have to tone things down for an ESRB M rating and Microsoft approval.

Is your child viewing inappropriate content on their computers and phone? Well, they're children. Be a parent and do what you need to do about it. If you need to shut little Johnny down by taking away his phone or computer, boo-friggen-hoo! Go tell him to ride his bike and socialize outside of facebook for a change. It's ridiculous how we wimp out and cry for the government to try solve all our problems. Especially parenting.

Learning and improving skill sets is still leveling. It's just not tallied with numbers.

Well I like Blizzard's CGI and I like Sam Raimi films, so chances are I'll like the movie too. The Spiderman movies were very tongue in cheek at times and it worked in my opinion, so a little of that in a Warcraft movie should be good. A big chunk of its success depends on the screenplay. Lame story, lame movie.

These games are still developed on PC hardware. The only reason it wouldn't be released on the PC is because Microsoft would want it to be an Xbox exclusive, which could very well happen with a game like this. It's more a marketing ploy than anything.

Looking forward to MP3 as well, but I'm curious as to how they are going to tie it into the series with the new character look and setting.

April/May 2010 is a horrible time to release a game

Looks like the original was released on March 31st, 1998?

That was 11 years ago my friend. How times have changed, huh?

Please elaborate.

The retail market, both online and traditional, have changed quite a bit in the last eleven years. Back then, the market was less fickle, and Blizzard was a much smaller company. Now the planograms for Christmas are decided in June/July. Now even though Blizzard is a current powerhouse in PC gaming, it would be foolish not try and schedule the sale of this game during the busiest shopping holiday of the year. Could Blizzard release in March at 3:00am, sure. But Blizzard has never been about appealing to only the hard-core super-fan audience. My best guess is the beta will be announced at Blizzcon, keys will be handed out to attendees, and we'll see retail in Dec/Jan. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But that's how the retail game is played. From a corporate standpoint.

April/May 2010 is a horrible time to release a game

Looks like the original was released on March 31st, 1998?

That was 11 years ago my friend. How times have changed, huh?

April/May 2010 is a horrible time to release a game. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'll push for a Dec/Jan release. That will garnish the most sales for the game, not that it won't sell well regardless. It's not like they're doing a lot with WoW, or needing a large amount of resources for it at this point in time. D3 is still far too early for a development push. If there's any game to focus development and resources into, it's SC2, and a holiday release would be the maximum profit for them. Don't let the "when it's done" and "passionate about making games" banter fool you. They're still a company in it to make money. Why else would they litter their community site for WoW with ads?

Wow, this in an incredibly newsworthy item. Top story tonight, Inverted Mouse Option in Game! Stayed tuned for our follow-up of, WSAD and Arrow Key Functionality!