Rob Pardo talks about free WoW, Starcraft, Activision
by Natalie Mootz 
Jun 24th 2008 at 7:00PM
Rob Pardo, SVP of game design at Blizzard, gave the keynote speech at the Game Developer's Conference held in Paris this week. Here are some WoW-related tidbits from his talk and the Q&A session held afterward.About WoW
- WoW was first conceived as free to play, being supported by advertising. However, the non-subscription business model couldn't support Blizzard's goals for the game.
- Pardo suggested that Blizzard approached the MMO genre "very naively, or else we might not have done it."
- He once hired a WoW player who sent him a 16-page diatribe about the game because, even though the guy was wrong, "he was passionate" about improving the game.
- Blizzard has no problem putting intellectual properties on hold for a while, hence the wait for a Starcraft game. Pardo says that they wanted to make a real-time strategy game but were "tired of green-skinned orcs" so they moved away from Warcraft to Starcraft.
- Starcraft 2 is at a playable stage in its development and he's having a lot of fun with it.
About the Activision Blizzard merger
- Pardo says that the merger is not really affecting Blizzard at all because Activision is taking a hands-off approach in building a true blended company.
- Making a game community should not be the first priority for an MMO. Pardo says that game communities arise out of great games, not the other way around.
- Pardo noted that he's a great fan of user-developed content but that he believes you must first make a great game to which players can add content. He doesn't side with the idea that all you have to do is provide users with a playground so they can do all the work for you.
- While not exactly pessimistic about the future of PC gaming, Pardo believes that true innovation in web interfaces will more likely come from Apple than from Microsoft.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, News items, Interviews
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Brian Jun 24th 2008 7:10PM
Interesting comment about Apple at the end. I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard moved toward the iPhone as a mobile platform as it gives them more room to play with rather than more limited 'standard' phones with Java games.
So yeah Diablo 3 on the iPhone...
Ikarus Jun 25th 2008 5:28PM
It's nice to see Apple get some credit for their ingenuity. I suppose I'd fall in the camp of "apple fanboy" but you cant, with any integrity, deny that they are an incredible company who, though having a vastly smaller market share than Dell, HP etc have really shaped the industry to a large extent.
I've always been curious to know what percentage of WoW players are playing on a Mac and to what degree that's boosted Blizzards success.
Rob Jun 24th 2008 7:28PM
Extra quote:
"tired of green-skinned" orcs"
Missing word:
...all you have to do is users...
Natalie Mootz Jun 24th 2008 7:58PM
Thanks, fixed.
Andrew Jun 24th 2008 8:12PM
"...even though the guy was wrong..."
Huh? Nice of Rob to dismiss someone's opinions as just "wrong". All 16 pages of it in fact. This isn't mathematics, where something is either right or wrong, it is a game, just because you don't like someone's opinions doesn't mean they are wrong.
But then he goes and hires the guy. What a strange fellow. And I wonder how that employee feels at the moment after being reminded that he was "wrong".
Gerik Jun 24th 2008 8:31PM
For all you know the guy wrote a 16-page paper about how the game should be converted into a WWII FPS.
Smurk Jun 24th 2008 9:20PM
Either way, this guy is gonna get a bunch more 16-page diatribes in his inbox after this.
PhyerFly Jun 24th 2008 8:34PM
"Making a game community should not be the first priority for an MMO. Pardo says that game communities arise out of great games, not the other way around."
Matrix Online was a really crappy MMO but it had an amazing community of players.
kr3wman Jun 24th 2008 8:53PM
Was the community from the game or the movie?
rick gregory Jun 25th 2008 1:20AM
Um.. so? He's not saying that a good community can't come out of a not-so-good game, but that games give rise to communities rather than vice versa.
Zack Jun 25th 2008 2:51AM
What he is saying that in order to have both a great game and a great community, the game must come first. Otherwise you end up with a lackluster game.
PhyerFly Jun 25th 2008 3:34AM
"What he is saying that in order to have both a great game and a great community, the game must come first. Otherwise you end up with a lackluster game."
I'd agree with that, but that's not what he said.
I was just making the point that sometimes the community is PART of what makes the game great. I played MxO because I thought the concept was cool, but the community is what kept me playing. It's not just features, graphics and gameplay - otherwise no-one would be playing CS 1.6 or JRPG's anymore.....any they definitely still are.
jrb Jun 25th 2008 8:26AM
PhyerFly: your comment holds water, until you claim the cs community is 'good'. from my experience a mass group of 12 year olds mouthing off about how 1337 they are doesn't make a good basis for a community.
but then.. i guess that's all we get in STV / Barrens chat. :D
Jason Jun 24th 2008 8:46PM
"He doesn't side with the idea that all you have to do is provide users with a playground so they can do all the work for you."
I disagree. The players aren't doing all the work for you. They have been given the freedom to play a non linear game. Give players the tools and freedom to play as they wish.
rick gregory Jun 25th 2008 1:18AM
But that's some other game. Not WoW. Most of us don't have any particular talent at building fictional worlds... so most of what we'd come up with would be crap. If you view the creation itself as a game fine... but that's more Second Life than WoW.
Blizzard doesn't have to make every possible game - other people will come up with good idea, implement them and have success too. At least I hope so... having multiple great games is only a good thing.
Rubin Jun 24th 2008 9:38PM
This is one of the main reasons why Jeff Strain led ex Blizzard employees who didn't like the subscription plan and formed ArenaNet. Really fI don't see the difference, I mean GW came out with an expansion every 6 months at $60 and plus tax I was basically paying the same amount as a WoW subscription.
Candina@WH Jun 25th 2008 10:13AM
This might be considered a troll, but...
I'm sorry. Yeah GW comes out with expansions every 6 months. But I have never bought them. The game play isn't compelling enough in the base game to hold my interest.
I was/am a huge critic of the subscription model. But the price point is right (costs about the same as HBO or Showtime). The base game content is compelling enough for me to spend the time and therefore the cash.
If Wow was free I wouldn't play any more or any less. But it is easier for me to budget/justify $14 a month rather than $60 every 6 months. The psychological price point, while overall 'cheaper' is harder to justify.
Would you pay $60 for patch 2.4? maybe. For Brewfest? doubtful.
And a pure subscription model gives them the cash flow to add infrastructure as needed, BEFORE a big content release, instead of 60 to 90 days after the cash infusion.
Markymark Jun 25th 2008 10:10AM
The free to play model spoils the game experience with either a item mall and or advertisements on a games main site and in-game. Which to me would spoil many elements of a game. How is one to emerge themselves into a world while seeing Intel ads. GW is different from WoW because they had to substitute subscription fees with constant expansions and advertisements.