advertisement

Video Q&A: Blizzard's Pearce, Pardo whip up storm

MMORPG barons tell GameSpot the fabled WOW-killer will be internally developed, address PC piracy and Starcraft II's trifurcation.

"We aren't in a situation where we feel that we're untouchable."

Such were the sentiments expressed by Blizzard Entertainment cofounder Frank Pearce in an interview with GameSpot during last week's BlizzCon 2008. Humble words, but if there were anything in the game industry that could be considered untouchable, it would be Blizzard's World of Warcraft. After all, the game boasts nearly 11 million players worldwide, a figure several times larger than the closest competition.

Blizzard's Frank Pearce

Pearce hopes the WOW killer is an inside job.

"We feel we've done a great job with WOW, but there's definitely a lot of talent in the industry," said Pearce. "There's going to be a game that comes along that tops WOW--hopefully it will be our game, but who knows. We'll have to wait and see. Even in the event that happens, hopefully WOW will still be a viable experience for many of our fans."

Many, namely those making massively multiplayer online games, are hoping that game comes along sooner rather than later. In an interview with MTV shortly before Warhammer Online launched, Mythic head Mark Jacobs said, "If we don't succeed with EA behind us, the Warhammer IP behind us, with one of the most experienced teams in the industry, that's not going to be good for the industry."

How does Blizzard take these kinds of comments? "It depends on what someone means when they say it's not good for the industry," Pearce told GameSpot. "As a whole, the MMO genre has exploded in terms of the size of the market. When we launched in Europe originally...we launched to a bigger base than the experts said was the size of the market. The market has grown incredibly over the last five years or so, so that's a good thing for everyone."

World of Warcraft may be Blizzard's bread and butter, but the company is far from a one-trick pony. Also on the horizon are Starcraft II and Diablo III. With both traditionally being PC games, Pearce also addressed how Blizzard plans to handle the omnipresent problem of piracy that plagues the desktop market.

Blizzard's Rob Pardo

Love it or hate it, Starcraft II is now a trilogy.

"We learned a lot in terms of minimizing piracy with World of Warcraft," he said. "Everyone that wants the full experience has to play connected to the World of Warcraft servers. So we're definitely talking about ways with Battle.net that we can provide the best online experience for our customers so that there's not an incentive to pirate the product but instead an incentive to be part of that community of gamers playing that game and they'd want to be part of that social experience on top of the single-player experience. We have some ideas--nothing specific in terms of technology but more in terms of the experience online."

Speaking of Starcraft II, GameSpot also sat down with Blizzard VP of game design Rob Pardo, who shed more light on the decision to break the sci-fi real-time strategy game into three separate products. As revealed with much fanfare at the show, Starcract II will now be broken into three games, with the Terran campaign Wings of Liberty leading, followed by Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, and then Protoss: Legacy of the Void.

"The main reason that we decided to do Starcraft II as a trilogy--rather than the way we've done previous games where we include all three campaigns--is really the size and the scope of the story we wanted to tell," commented Pardo. "We learned pretty early on that if we really wanted to have a really interesting, branching story and to have all these different characters and all these different resources, it ended up being an entire game just to tell one campaign story. And then we really got faced with that hard decision of, 'OK, well, what are we going to do? Do we go back to the Warcraft III approach so that we can include all three campaigns, or do we go ahead and just treat each race as its own product?'"

Pardo was also quick to emphasize that Starcraft II's multiplayer component will in no way be adversely affected by Blizzard's decision to split the game up into a trilogy.

"One of the things that comes out of the decision to ship as a trilogy is that it really only affects the single-player campaign," he said. "The multiplayer will still be fully featured with all three races, so there's not going to be any emphasis on the Terrans in multiplayer as opposed to the Zerg and the Protoss. All three races will be fully featured, similar number of units, equal amount of production behind all of them. It's only the single-player that's affected by the trilogy decision."

Check out GameSpot's BlizzCon 2008 hub for the rest of the news and previews from this year's show.

72 Comments

  • NickAnguiano

    Posted Dec 22, 2008 7:13 pm PT

    People seem to forget that SC1 was 2 games but everyone was cool with that. Suddenly they say that SC2 is going to be a 90 mission + triology and everyone goes ape sh!t lol. Each of the SC1 games was less than 30 missions a piece. Not to mention WC3 was a 2 game thing as well. I personally am looking forward the length this new Starcraft will bring. 90+ missions will probably let the story really develop so I can get into it and really enjoy it. What will piss me off is if I have to start paying $15 a month to play Battle.net. I'll admit I probably will still buy it but that would suck...

  • Lexandru

    Posted Dec 15, 2008 9:46 am PT

    Blizzard lost their creativity, their innovation and basically all that made it the best game developer in the world. Primary topic on their mind is money and how they can milk more. The bullsh!t reason to make a TRILOGY is simple. More products = more money. I stood in the balance and kinda took Blizzards side at one point but I'm really disappointed now. But Pearce was right: they are untouchable, I'm not touching any one of their products until they come with a new title and good one in fact. I miss Blizzard North.

  • Dimitriov

    Posted Nov 26, 2008 10:43 pm PT

    why does the starcraft official website not update, its been the same for like 2 months now and i need my fix. I mean, wow is out in the meantime if your in to that but what are the rest of us supposed to do, cod 5 only has so much playability.....

  • TehUndeadHorror

    Posted Nov 26, 2008 5:11 am PT

    Hope the whole trilogy thing includes extra stuff like units or just random improvements =D That'd be a good incentive cause some people might only want it for the multiplayer therefore not buy the rest of the set...

  • Jarltheafro

    Posted Nov 14, 2008 10:38 am PT

    Hmm i think they should wait with their mmo till virtual reality systems ship out, they should definitely be the first to bring out a MASSIVE Massively multiplayer online game when the front gets shifted that way though. i also think its nice blizzard is trying to make interesting campaigns, man i've not played a game like that since baldurs gate... :p i just hope they aren't doing it to pull a couple of extra bucks.
    And if that mmo would be starcraft in virtual reality, just imagine being a zerg! that would be awesome dont you think? but then again when that does happen, a new warcraft and diablo should also be released, but lets not think too far ahead, blizzard is bound to fail in a game sometime, lets hope that the day will come later rather than sooner.

  • KSigMTSU

    Posted Nov 7, 2008 8:32 am PT

    Wow was a very good game. It is becoming more and more unbalanced, and less fun to play. The PVP and PVE in the game take away from each other, the arena and BG grind necessary to get gear to be able to compete takes away from the game. The focus on grinding and farming takes away from the game. It is not a bad game, it is just not as balanced as it used to be, or as focused, or as good. I have tons of faith in blizzard producing good games, I don't remember them ever making a bad game. People just like to bash on wow (which I no longer play, I must admit I did sell my account when warhammer came out because I was tired of wow) because they don't play or used to play and got sick of it, just because you move on dosen't mean the game is bad. Hell sometimes playing warhammer I miss little things wow does better, or that their code is generally less laggy and more stable. I have more fun playing warhammer now, but both games are very good games. A starcraft MMO would be fantastic, maybe we'll get lucky enough for that to happen I would personally LOVE to play a zerg or protoss.

  • LandSavage

    Posted Nov 5, 2008 2:16 pm PT

    "Starcraft MMO on the way. It's the reason they "have" to flush out the story."

    Please oh please I hope your right. I love WoW, I played orcs and humans all the way up through 3:frozen throne, and starcraft and BW. I must say, if they can drop a Future based RPG (ALL HAVE FAILED MISERABLY) around the goodness of Starcraft, with Galaxies to explore, and other factions.... let me stop. I would definately be on it, a ghost or a firebat

  • DivineChampion

    Posted Oct 28, 2008 7:11 pm PT

    @ Tsunami_pt

    I personally treat WoW like i treat Star Wars: I hate it.

    However i spent years loving it. How George Lucas shamed Star Wars with the damn prequels is almost as bad as what Blizzard did to World of Warcraft with their dumb Burning Crusade.

    Dont get me wrong. World of Warcraft "USED TO BE" the best damn MMORPG on the face of the planet. It's just that its awful NOW. As far as wow haters go, I'm one of them. i think many wow haters post comments on anything remotely WoW or MMORPG related and that's usually because their anger at the BC expansion goes unanswered and that posting mindless comments about how "horrible wow is" perhaps feeds their ever hungering regret at what Blizzard did to WoW: Ruined it. WoW that people currently play is a shadow of its former glory.

    But hey, that's just me.

  • Demon3322

    Posted Oct 27, 2008 1:04 am PT

    @Tsunami pt that sir is true
    people just give the game a go, a nice long go and try to enjoy it

  • RomanticFool

    Posted Oct 23, 2008 3:06 am PT

    @Tsunami_pt

    (shrugs) People need something to hate. Personally, as long as Blizzard delivers a high quality product, which not only entertains me but puts coin in their bank (and ergo, mine), I won't care. But I guess thats the entire point of this argument, isn't it?

  • Tsunami_pt

    Posted Oct 21, 2008 6:24 pm PT

    There used to be a time when ppl loved Blizzard games, because they had the quality that others missed. Games like the original Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft were really great and everybody loved Blizzard.

    Now, I see a lot of hate for Blizzard, and acusations that WoW is not a good game.

    OH, FOR ELUNE'S SAKE, PPL! What happened? Can't stand that Blizzard is now one of the top companies in the world? Can't stand the fact that everybody loves their games, and not just a minority? WoW is great. The best MMO ever, and tbh, if other companies fail to deliver even a quarter of WoW's quality, it's their fault.

    Geez... I hate these Blizzard haters nowadays. So sick of you guys. All you do is complain that the game sucks and that 11 million players is not important, etc, etc, when most of u spend hundreds of days of game time played on WoW. The game is good! There's nothing wrong in admiting it!

    Like, Warhammer has a huge fanbase now. I played it, I wanted it to be good. Yet, I found it to be very flawed, and disapointing. But... It "IS" better then WoW, because it's a big MMO that wasnt made by Blizzard! And when I gave my feedback on forums why the game wasnt that good, ppl were all on me! My critics were made with the purpose of making it a better game!

    And there are ppl complaining that when they wanna leave WoW, Blizz launches new patches with new content that makes them play more? Complaining for that? For more content? LOL!

    What a strange atitude, guys... If you dont like WoW, then stop the destructive critics that bring nothing new to the game. WoW is the best. It wasnt the timming, it wasnt the developer. It is that good.

  • skaluv

    Posted Oct 21, 2008 2:15 pm PT

    @MurderMode
    "Relating to the story, I personally think Blizzard's hold on the mmo community is a bad thing. Despite there are many that would argue against me, WoW isn't really that good of a game... it was just a game launched at the right time by the right developer, strategically designed to hold it's player base."

    What an odd thing to say. I can understand your opinion of not liking the game but to say it's success is luck is just crazy. 1. As stated in the article they are beating the competition by over 2x. 2. There were quite few competitors when the game was launched (Star Wars Galaxies, EQ2, EQ, DAoC, City of Heroes). 3. While they have raised the bar for return on investment in the mmo space the # of new mmos have only increased since its release. 4. Subscriber retention/return business has been amazing. Based on those four statements I would say that quality of product had more than a little to do with the success of WoW. If a game can "strategically" hold on to it's players doesn't that mean its a good game to it's players? I can't say whether or not Blizzard has been or good for the space. I would like to think it has. It seems to of increased investment in companies that make them. Blizzard can't be blamed if those companies fail because investors want Blizzard like #s of subscribers. While most companies are trying to pick a plum from the mmo money tree Blizzard has actually grown their own tree.

  • Asrafil

    Posted Oct 20, 2008 8:46 pm PT

    "omnipresent problem of piracy that plagues the desktop market." It´s funny that comment (and I´m bored of hearing it), the last time I checked, Fallout 3, Fable 2, Saints Row 2 and Gears of War 2 were pirated(for those who don´t know all these games were on the net before hitting the stores) on Xbox 360 not on PC. The PC has its piracy that is known, but it´s not the only platform for sure.Some see through the ears instead of the eyes....

    P.D: sorry for the little off topic, lets hope Starcraft 2 WoL comes out soon.

  • Lightz39

    Posted Oct 20, 2008 10:01 am PT

    Blizzard can't screw up...if they did they would shut it down. IE: Starcraft:Ghost.

  • retrofraction12

    Posted Oct 20, 2008 9:44 am PT

    Blizzard really needs to step it up on this one, if they screw up starcraft 2 they will be screwed for the rest of their company's lifetime.

  • Xdra

    Posted Oct 20, 2008 8:36 am PT

    well that sucks for countries with bad internet connections who want to play with friends

  • drand24

    Posted Oct 20, 2008 7:12 am PT

    not effecting multiplayer huh?
    I'm going to be very surprised if the zerg and toss boxes don't come with additional units like Brood war did.
    whatever. I'll still buy it. the longer story lines sound awesome, but I'm not sure if this is the proper way to go about doing it. what about selling multiplayer + terran missions for $50 and $30 extra for each of the other two campaigns?

  • Icky27

    Posted Oct 20, 2008 6:52 am PT

    Starcraft MMO on the way. It's the reason they "have" to flush out the story.

  • MurderMode

    Posted Oct 20, 2008 4:55 am PT

    gringbot - Playing single player SC2 isn't going to give you an edge in the multiplayer, playing multiplayer is going to give you an edge in multiplayer. Oh, and if single player is all you care for, then the announcement of 3 stand-alone game sized campaigns should excite you... so why say you aren't going to buy it? Weird logic

    Relating to the story, I personally think Blizzard's hold on the mmo community is a bad thing. Despite there are many that would argue against me, WoW isn't really that good of a game... it was just a game launched at the right time by the right developer, strategically designed to hold it's player base.

    I don't really see the benefit of playing a game with 11 million players... I mean I live in a city with only 2 million people and I doubt I've even briefly met more then 0.5% of them, nor do I care to. I'd much prefer having a larger amount of good quality games to choose from even with a smaller fanbase, but with Blizzard holding the reigns not to many people are willing to step up to the plate.

  • gringbot

    Posted Oct 19, 2008 6:35 pm PT

    @suomi_rock
    "Well I maybe imagining this but wasn't Starcraft so massively popular as an online game in the far east that they were still holding tournaments as late as last summer. In fact I think the last big tournament was played on the west cost of the U.S.A."

    of course this is true. what my point is, is the CASUAL players, generally hold only a little interest in online multiplayer. they might dabble around in it, but they generally get heavily rocked and dont come back. its the skilled players that remain online which really is such a minority of gamers, considering how mainstream gaming is today, and really the only players online that will have proper training with their race will be, you guessed it, terrans. because they have the 30 missions to learn the ins and outs of each unit.

    but thats not my real point, unless your interested in multiplayer, or only SOLELY the terrans, you just probably wont buy this game. which, in my mind, is a lot of people not buying the game. to me terrans are only 1/3 the cool in starcraft, and as i previously stated, i wont be playing much online, because im just not a serious online RTS'er.

    @js0823 you sure seem to know a lot about me as a person, i guess its because you've met me in real life, and even read my mind about what my values are as a whole. i cant imagine why anyone would question your reasonings with such incredible amounts of evidence.

advertisement

Tags

Game Stats

Also on

Games you may like…

Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

See More Similar Games