Apr 1st 2009 10:11PM I think that the notion that Blizzard is going to "monetize" addons isn't grounded in reality, and from my read of her interview she's only somewhat informed on the wider issues of internet gaming. She characterizes Glider as a simple addon rather than what it was: a bot. Bots are prohibited in many, many internet games (and rightly so) because of their destabilizing effect. She glosses over that rather quickly.
The legal implications here are overblown, but considering which side she was on during the MDY case it's not surprising. She's very good at the evil empire angle on Blizzard, and the representation of Glider as "just another addon" is misleading at best. It should also be mentioned that it was Glider that took Blizzard to court, not the other way around.
Creating an "ala-carte" addon market is just as likely as Valve creating such an option for its updates of Team Fortress 2 that include community maps. Or Epic Games deciding that they're going to charge people to download community map packs. And all of these games, coincidentally, only grant you license to play the games and stuff made by the community commonly belongs to the company by way of the same licenses.
In all of these cases too you don't own the game, which is the crux of the friend of the court argument made by her outfit. Steam has a similar EULA, as does Quake 4, as does any PC game. The EULA is a means to stop the hacking or reverse engineering of a company's property for another party's profit by granting a license that may be rescinded at any time (since ownership is a more complicated term legally than Ms. Mabelson lets on, especially when it comes to the digital sea). But there's nary a mention of the fact that these have been the practice since the DMCA was enacted. That people have been playing games under these terms for a very, very long time and haven't noticed much of a difference.
Cliff's: Ms. Mabelson, who was part of a lobbying firm that took the side of MDY, takes the absolute worst case scenario in terms of the future of addons and makes it sound like irrefutable fact while glossing over the fact that such a model would do more harm than good to Blizzard's business. In other words, she's a very good lawyer.
Oct 6th 2007 11:21PM To be honest, I think that Hyjal would be a great mid-level area:
1) Proximity to similarly leveled areas.
2) Huge. On the map it seems to cover an extremely large area, with plenty of potential for outposts and quests.
3) A perfect opportunity to fill new players with awe when seeing the old World Tree and the skeleton of Archimonde, and get them wondering about it. And then (if they're lucky) they can experience the actual battle.
Aug 3rd 2007 5:14PM While some of this advice is solid, a lot if it is way, WAY off base. Most of the gaffes have already been mentioned, but I had to throw in my two cents.
Please don't give advice on playing a resto shaman if you don't even know what the trees do. Last thing we need is know-it-all GMs thinking they know the shammy trees because they read this way-off-base article.