And we know this because they've just filed the trademarks for it! The question now, is Cataclysm the title of their new "from scratch" MMO title, or the hush-hush unknown 5th franchise that is rumoured?
With record profits thanks to World of Warcraft, it's not surprising that Blizzard are all-guns-blazing with development - StarCraft 2, Diablo 3, ongoing World of Warcraft, Cataclysm and the final known about yet allusive project.
It's great to see them branching out beyond their "safe bet" IP's - let's just hope there's no drop in quality.
sure it does. look at flatout3 - they removed LAN support and the game is shitful even when not compared to it's predecessors. there is zero argument for not supporting pure LAN play. sorry dude. zero. especially the "but it will stop piracy!" bullshit people keep spouting.
[hide=true]Yeah i know flatout3's ACTUAL crapness stems from bustedarse games for windows live - but hey what do you know, GFWL doesnt support LAN - right there is the perfect reason TO support it.[/hide]
There is argument for it not supporting LAN play, and I touch on those in the other thread (piracy aside).
And despite Flatout 3 being "shitful" without LAN play, the game's quality hasn't changed. Same graphics engine, same gameplay... it's just that they removed the element that makes it enjoyable (yelling at your mates across the room). Of course, the game has a shit netcode, so you can't get that same experience playing your mates in the same room via the internet.
Starcraft can't be thrown into that basket, though, as it's still hugely fun outside of that traditional LAN environment AND they have a brilliant system in the shape of Battle.net that means playing other people in the country wouldn't really feel any different to LAN, anyway.
Isn't the '"from scratch" MMO title' and the new franchise the one and the same?
There is also a large possibility of it being the next expansion for WoW, the Cataclysm was the event that tore Kalimdor (the original continent) apart, and created the 'Maelstrom' (which is been rumored for the past few years to be the next expansion due). Also tied in with the fact that Blizzcon is only a month away, and if it follows inline with TBC (Blizzcon '05) and Wrath (Blizzcon '07), this year we are due for another.
I am still hoping that it is the new franchise that is being developed, but all signs are pointing away. Nevertheless Blizzard are notoriously well known for screwing with people, and it could be anything.
Edit (Starcraft LAN Issue): As long as they have Battlenet servers in Australia I don't think I'll mind this change so much, although if they don't, I believe I will not be purchasing the game, they have already made it bad enough releasing the single player over 3 different games.
Quote from rec;366997: And despite Flatout 3 being "shitful" without LAN play, the game's quality hasn't changed. Same graphics engine, same gameplay... it's just that they removed the element that makes it enjoyable (yelling at your mates across the room).
eeeeeeeeeeeeeh WRONG. the game is shitful. i KNOW it's the same engine so the only thing i can attribute the constant crashes and loss of save games to is GFWL - which took away the LAN playability - ergo: lack of lan killed it ;P
and as for your reasons why they SHOULDNT use LAN: Quote: It means all accounts are monitored for exploits, all games are registered, all match results are logged and that border-crossing social element of multiplayer is retained - all while in a 'LAN' environment. yeah they're great, except you could do that anyway even with the game supporting LAN play :P
so i say again - the ONLY argument against a LAN play option is piracy - and we all know how valid that one is.
You're contradicting yourself. If the game is shitful already, then LAN is irrelevant. If it's only shitful because of LAN, then explain why a bit better - because you're not making a lot of sense.
pretty sure i used plain english :P the game IS shitful - re: crashes and disappearing saved games which are issues i can only attribute to GFWL since Flatout 2 never had those issues. GFWL removed LAN capacity from the game. So cutting out the middle bit: Lack of LAN made the game shit :)
oh no, i've never said the GAME would be shit - I just want LAN support because I know my wife and i will want to be able to play SC2 together even when it's pissing with rain :)
(for those who can't be bothered looking in the other thread: rain+telstra cable pits = epic fail)
oh oh oh! i just thought of another reason! I just bet they force unique names same way GFWL does! That really shits me in a game with 8 players max, you can't use the nick you've used forever because someone in ****ing Jutland registered it on their xbox years before you could. because, you know, people might confuse you with him/her/it.
HmmI dont know what al the fuss is aboutfallout 3 crashing, and problems It has not once ever crashed on my system, the only probleme I have ever noticed is that at ultra high quality the landscape can be a little jolty but no where near enough to be of issue, but then mine is a physical version.
there was once a time when game developers encouraged LAN play and even allowed you to use one copy of a game for multiple people and only ask for the game disk in single player.
guess those days are gone, its a shame.
i can remember playing warcraft via appletalk on the school computers. if we didnt have lan support that would have been impossible due to firewalls.
lack of lan play basically rules out this game for alot of social events too, like say DGA or other big lans where internet is not always a sure thing.