Blizzard has publicly stated they are working on their next mmo (which should not surprise anyone), and that it's already playable. They did not say if it was wow 2, wo Starcraft, or a different ip.
R.I.P Neverwinter.
Débuté par
DarkestHour420
, oct. 06 2011 01:34
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 02:44
MartinJHolm
-
- Members
- 339 messages
Actually we already know the name, it's called Titan and it will be a brand new setting.
#78
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 03:11
DarkestHour420
-
- Members
- 5 messages
Allow me to give you an idea of some costs of purchasing servers, storage, backups, energy costs, cooling costs, etc.
The following is just an example but based on real numbers. It goes without saying that many things will cause these numbers to flucuate including your physical location and utilities provider, hardware provider, whether it's physical or VM, etc. This is a small business and not an exact example for a large MMO enterprise.
First off the initial investment. This example is for 3 VM servers, SQL servers to run the databases and SANS to store the data. These 3 VM servers can run on average 8-12 server instances
PROJECT COSTS
Hardware
$88,572
Servers
$27,038
Storage
$43,735
SQL SAN
$15,246
Switches
$1,310
R810 Drives
$1,243
Software
$50,567
VM
$3,957
Backup
$1,814
Kace
$25,326
Exhcnage 2010
$11,068
Windows Ent. Server
$4,871
FTP
$3,531
Services
$18,300
VM, Active Server, DNS
$16,500
SQL Implementation
$1,800
Total Project Cost
$157,439
*quotes
above include tax and shipping
Next compares costs when currently running in a Physical environment and switching to a VM environment.
OPERATIONAL COSTS
2011
Current Environment
Energy
$14,898
Cooling
$14,972
Total Costs
$29,869
Virtualized Environment
Energy
$6,376
Cooling
$5,471
Total Costs
$11,848
Total Operational Costs Savings
$18,022
*NOTE:
costs taken at a moderate usage
These particular servers last about 6 years. So here is the total you are looking at after 6 years.
TOTAL
Current Environment
Energy $89,386
Cooling $89,830
Total Costs $179,216
Virtualized Environment
Energy $38,258
Cooling $32,829
Total Costs $71,087
Total
Operational Costs Savings $108,129
Now for Maintenance costs, and this does not include the salaries of employees who are in charge of this.
EXPENSES - MAINTENANCE
2011
Current Environment
Professional Services
$0
Software Maintenance
$6,617
Hardware maintenance
$18,152
Total Current Costs
$24,769
Virtualized Environment
Professional Services
$18,300
Software Maintenance
$6,617
Hardware maintenance
$0
Total Current Costs
$24,917
Total
Hardware/Software Cost Variance
($148)
And after 6 years.
Current
Environment
Professional Services
$0
Software Maintenance
$57,357
Hardware maintenance
$92,361
Total Current Costs
$149,718
Virtualized Environment
Professional Services
$18,300
Software Maintenance
$72,402
Hardware maintenance
$43,259
Total Current Costs
$133,961
Total Hardware/Software Cost Variance $15,758
Further capital over the years for new software, replacements, etc.
CAPITAL
2011
Current Environment
Software Purchase
$14,599
Server Replacement
$54,853
Total Current Costs
$69,452
Virtualized Environment
Software Purchase
$50,567
Server Purchase/Replacement
$88,572
Total Current Costs
$139,139
Total Hardware/Software Cost Variance
($69,687)
After 6 years, if for the first 5 years there are no VM software purchases and no VM server purchases after the first 3.
Current
Environment
Software Purchase
$14,599
Server Replacement
$250,579
Total Current Costs
$265,178
Virtualized Environment
Software Purchase
$50,567
Server Purchase/Replacement
$145,340
Total Current Costs
$195,907
Total Hardware/Software Cost Variance $69,271
Summary when switching from a physical environment to a VM environment.
SUMMARY
Operational Savings
$108,129
Expense- Maintenance Savings
$15,758, 11% reduction
Capital Savings
$69,271, 26% reduction
Savings over 6 years
$193,158
Average Savings Per Year
$32,193
Other stuff
Electricity Cost for 2010
$90,591
Current Environment Costs
$29,869
Current Environment Utilization
33%
Goal to Reduce Current Utilization
60%
Long winded story I think there is this common misconception that running servers are cheap. It certainly is better than it used to be. Again these are numbers based on a small business with 35ish servers and moving over to VM combining about 25 of those into 3.
The following is just an example but based on real numbers. It goes without saying that many things will cause these numbers to flucuate including your physical location and utilities provider, hardware provider, whether it's physical or VM, etc. This is a small business and not an exact example for a large MMO enterprise.
First off the initial investment. This example is for 3 VM servers, SQL servers to run the databases and SANS to store the data. These 3 VM servers can run on average 8-12 server instances
PROJECT COSTS
Hardware
$88,572
Servers
$27,038
Storage
$43,735
SQL SAN
$15,246
Switches
$1,310
R810 Drives
$1,243
Software
$50,567
VM
$3,957
Backup
$1,814
Kace
$25,326
Exhcnage 2010
$11,068
Windows Ent. Server
$4,871
FTP
$3,531
Services
$18,300
VM, Active Server, DNS
$16,500
SQL Implementation
$1,800
Total Project Cost
$157,439
*quotes
above include tax and shipping
Next compares costs when currently running in a Physical environment and switching to a VM environment.
OPERATIONAL COSTS
2011
Current Environment
Energy
$14,898
Cooling
$14,972
Total Costs
$29,869
Virtualized Environment
Energy
$6,376
Cooling
$5,471
Total Costs
$11,848
Total Operational Costs Savings
$18,022
*NOTE:
costs taken at a moderate usage
These particular servers last about 6 years. So here is the total you are looking at after 6 years.
TOTAL
Current Environment
Energy $89,386
Cooling $89,830
Total Costs $179,216
Virtualized Environment
Energy $38,258
Cooling $32,829
Total Costs $71,087
Total
Operational Costs Savings $108,129
Now for Maintenance costs, and this does not include the salaries of employees who are in charge of this.
EXPENSES - MAINTENANCE
2011
Current Environment
Professional Services
$0
Software Maintenance
$6,617
Hardware maintenance
$18,152
Total Current Costs
$24,769
Virtualized Environment
Professional Services
$18,300
Software Maintenance
$6,617
Hardware maintenance
$0
Total Current Costs
$24,917
Total
Hardware/Software Cost Variance
($148)
And after 6 years.
Current
Environment
Professional Services
$0
Software Maintenance
$57,357
Hardware maintenance
$92,361
Total Current Costs
$149,718
Virtualized Environment
Professional Services
$18,300
Software Maintenance
$72,402
Hardware maintenance
$43,259
Total Current Costs
$133,961
Total Hardware/Software Cost Variance $15,758
Further capital over the years for new software, replacements, etc.
CAPITAL
2011
Current Environment
Software Purchase
$14,599
Server Replacement
$54,853
Total Current Costs
$69,452
Virtualized Environment
Software Purchase
$50,567
Server Purchase/Replacement
$88,572
Total Current Costs
$139,139
Total Hardware/Software Cost Variance
($69,687)
After 6 years, if for the first 5 years there are no VM software purchases and no VM server purchases after the first 3.
Current
Environment
Software Purchase
$14,599
Server Replacement
$250,579
Total Current Costs
$265,178
Virtualized Environment
Software Purchase
$50,567
Server Purchase/Replacement
$145,340
Total Current Costs
$195,907
Total Hardware/Software Cost Variance $69,271
Summary when switching from a physical environment to a VM environment.
SUMMARY
Operational Savings
$108,129
Expense- Maintenance Savings
$15,758, 11% reduction
Capital Savings
$69,271, 26% reduction
Savings over 6 years
$193,158
Average Savings Per Year
$32,193
Other stuff
Electricity Cost for 2010
$90,591
Current Environment Costs
$29,869
Current Environment Utilization
33%
Goal to Reduce Current Utilization
60%
Long winded story I think there is this common misconception that running servers are cheap. It certainly is better than it used to be. Again these are numbers based on a small business with 35ish servers and moving over to VM combining about 25 of those into 3.
Modifié par DarkestHour420, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:22 .
#79
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 03:13
Quixal
-
- Members
- 1 790 messages
I would argue that it is designed to keep people playing rather than keep them entertained. There is a subtle difference. Much of WoW is based on grinding to "keep up" with others. The way this is laced in under the surface is quite clever. Nobody has done this as well since. Still, at the end of the day, I already have a job and would rather not grind for any real length of time.Shallina wrote...
The biggest difference is that WoW is made to keep the player entertained for as long as possible so they continue to pay their subscription.
#80
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 03:24
Shallina
-
- Members
- 1 011 messages
MMO buy new server and top of the line server on a regular basis. They don't stay with the same machines.
There is also all the customers supports ("GM"), and the staff making the regular patch.
I don't remember it but Blizzard gave the operational cost of WoW, of course the subscription is higher than the operational cost and they make a lot of money from it. But it was a huge number and it's clear that the game can't run only on the number of box sold.
There is also all the customers supports ("GM"), and the staff making the regular patch.
I don't remember it but Blizzard gave the operational cost of WoW, of course the subscription is higher than the operational cost and they make a lot of money from it. But it was a huge number and it's clear that the game can't run only on the number of box sold.
Modifié par Shallina, 10 octobre 2011 - 03:25 .
#81
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 04:51
MokahTGS
-
- Members
- 946 messages
I don't understand your "understanding" of Guild Wars or ANet. Guild Wars is continually getting new content, and Guild Wars 2 is designed in such a way that you are never going to run out of things to do. Both games are designed on the Purchased Game Box model with no subscription fee. They are also designed with the core idea of grinding up in level tossed out the window.
Have you watched any of the ANet interviews? The MMO Manifesto video? Read any developer comentary? If you had, I don't think you could make the statements you are making.
I have nothing against WoW, it's a great game for what it's designed for. I just prefer ANet's stance on gaming and how they should be designed. It is crystal clear that YOU CAN SUPPORT AN MMO with box sales, as ANet is doing just that, and doing fine with it. They are not struggling, they are thriving.
Blizzard might be doing it one way, and have had great success, but that does not mean that is the only way. If that were true we would not see Guild Wars 2 in development.
Have you watched any of the ANet interviews? The MMO Manifesto video? Read any developer comentary? If you had, I don't think you could make the statements you are making.
I have nothing against WoW, it's a great game for what it's designed for. I just prefer ANet's stance on gaming and how they should be designed. It is crystal clear that YOU CAN SUPPORT AN MMO with box sales, as ANet is doing just that, and doing fine with it. They are not struggling, they are thriving.
Blizzard might be doing it one way, and have had great success, but that does not mean that is the only way. If that were true we would not see Guild Wars 2 in development.
#82
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 05:06
painofdungeoneternal
-
- Members
- 1 799 messages
Model does not matter, it's execution
Blizzard, and bioware to a lesser extent are good at executing. Hoping that has not changed since bioware joined EA. Atari is not so good at executing, but they did hire obsidian/obsidian which i think was a good thing.
If Free to play, or whatever other acronym develops a bad reputation, it's due to garbage in, garbage out, and it does not mean EVERY game needs to be garbage since the last one was.
I mean before george lucas, science fiction was basically B rated movies, it takes someone to raise the standards like that sometimes.
Right now the game developers are having problems selling games without losing money to rampant piracy, or to boycotts since the DRM they are adding is completely nuts. The other models, microtransaction, monthly fee, consoles, even iphone game development are attractive ( for whatever reason ) since they allow end users to do exactly what they are doing now and don't have the same dynamics, and ensures the developer is going to get paid with more certainty. ( does not even matter if this is true, this is the perception )
Does not mean that anything is changing, it's still comes back to the fact that execution is far more important than what their overall model is. Crap games will flop, a good percentage of ALL games will flop just due to dumb luck. About the only reason a great game won't go free to play right away, is the developer in their greed will decide to do both, and shift to the other as the game declines.
Blizzard, and bioware to a lesser extent are good at executing. Hoping that has not changed since bioware joined EA. Atari is not so good at executing, but they did hire obsidian/obsidian which i think was a good thing.
If Free to play, or whatever other acronym develops a bad reputation, it's due to garbage in, garbage out, and it does not mean EVERY game needs to be garbage since the last one was.
I mean before george lucas, science fiction was basically B rated movies, it takes someone to raise the standards like that sometimes.
Right now the game developers are having problems selling games without losing money to rampant piracy, or to boycotts since the DRM they are adding is completely nuts. The other models, microtransaction, monthly fee, consoles, even iphone game development are attractive ( for whatever reason ) since they allow end users to do exactly what they are doing now and don't have the same dynamics, and ensures the developer is going to get paid with more certainty. ( does not even matter if this is true, this is the perception )
Does not mean that anything is changing, it's still comes back to the fact that execution is far more important than what their overall model is. Crap games will flop, a good percentage of ALL games will flop just due to dumb luck. About the only reason a great game won't go free to play right away, is the developer in their greed will decide to do both, and shift to the other as the game declines.
#83
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 05:27
-Semper-
-
- Members
- 2 256 messages
MokahTGS wrote...
Guild Wars 2 is designed in such a way that you are never going to run out of things to do. Both games are designed on the Purchased Game Box model with no subscription fee. It is crystal clear that YOU CAN SUPPORT AN MMO with box sales, as ANet is doing just that, and doing fine with it.
where is gw2 designed in a way to deliver endless entertainment out of the box? there's a limited number of events, a handful of instances, equip which varies more in aesthetic design than in stats throughout the different events and dungeons and hardly endgame content. don't get me wrong, gw is a fantastic game and i spent countless hours to play through the campaigns, develop and try out builds and in pvp. what i saw from gw2 is great too and i know i will love the game^^
btw gw is driven by ncsoft and financed by their dozens of subscription mmos - arenanet has nothing to do with the serverfarms and the money. without this armada in the back the support would have stopped long ago
Modifié par -Semper-, 10 octobre 2011 - 05:30 .
#84
Posté 13 octobre 2011 - 09:56
The Fred
-
- Members
- 2 516 messages
Just for the record, I'm doing neither. I've never played WoW so I have no real opinion on it; it's the subscription model I'm "trashing". Whilst I have played GW and enjoyed it, we're really just using it as the most appropriate example of a "buy-to-play" game.Shallina wrote...
Do you know what is the most fun of all this poeple praising guild wars and trashing WoW ?
This is community stuff, though. You still had to pay for NWN(2), and the expansions. You can't play those community modules without them. You get no new content other than what the community has made. The only real difference is that MMOs don't have toolsets.Shallina wrote...
The only games you'll have for free, are game that poeple make for themself and then share. Things like what the NWN/NWN2 community produce.
I'll agree, the content can be a bit limited. That said, things like the equipment is more of a design choice. Everything is capped so that people who haven't ground through the end-game dungeons can still take on other end-game dungeons without auto-failing due to not having the awsome equipment from the previous ones. OK the different types of item are a bit limited, but there are only so many weapon abilities etc. you can think of.-Semper- wrote...
where is gw2 designed in a way to deliver endless entertainment out of the box? there's a limited number of events, a handful of instances, equip which varies more in aesthetic design than in stats throughout the different events and dungeons and hardly endgame content.
#85
Posté 13 octobre 2011 - 11:38
Shallina
-
- Members
- 1 011 messages
It's capped so poeple don't spend endless hours consumming arena bandwitch 
That's the real reason.
That's the real reason.
