Psychochild's Blog

A developer's musings on game development and writing.

16 September, 2007

Lessons learned
Filed under: — Psychochild @ 2:39 PM
(This post has been viewed 10847 times.)

There's a lot of talk about learning the lessons from other games. In particular, people want to learn what made WoW so successful. Of course, this is the game industry so this usually means, "I want to make a copy/clone of the game and wear nice moneyhats like they did."

The Austin conference had quite a bit of information to point out how cool WoW still is. Mike Morhaime, president of Blizzard, had a keynote. And, the usually respectable Gordon Walton gave a talk about lessons learned from WoW.

Of course, if it were as simple as learning a few lessons, we'd be knee-deep in WoW clones today. Well, successful ones at least. So, why haven't people taken obvious advice and made their own WoW clones?

Mostly because people are learning the wrong lessons.

Incorrect observations

Take a look at the article on Gordon's talk linked above, and you'll see what I mean if you look at his first lesson where he claims that Blizzard learned from the past. In fact, this is not the case. According to people discussing Morhaime's keynote, Blizzard had no idea what the typical growth rate of online RPGs was. (Note that I didn't attend the keynote myself, I wanted to hear Lee Sheldon talk instead; if I'm wrong about the keynote, I blame the people I was talking with.) Blizzard expected that their single-player game would sell better, because who would pay a subscription fee? They expected the game would grow slowly over time, unlike pretty much every other major online RPG that had been released in the previous 8 years or so.

The real lesson here is that a company that is superb at making single-player games has a chance to make a superb MMORPG. Blizzard's processes for producing single-player games undoubtedly reduced the problems they could have had while making WoW.

This isn't to say that Gordon is entirely wrong; his second lesson is an element that can help a game become a large success: low system requirements to play the game. People have started to notice this as an important part of having a good game. It's funny because the tendency in the game industry is to push the envelope, and programmers and artists generally don't like to live anywhere but the edge; Morhaime said in his keynote that some of WoW's artists were worried about working on the game because it wasn't cutting edge, and they feared they wouldn't be able to get jobs on new projects afterwards! But, note that this is just one aspect, taking a terrible game and having low system specs doesn't guarantee success.

Being too specific

Moorgard recently posted a bit about learning from Wow as well. He argues that even though Blizzard keeps revealing the secret sauce, other people aren't following as well because it's not just the recipe, it's the chef that makes the secret sauce so good. The points out that theory is different than practice, so while everyone has easy access to theory, the practice is the difficult part.

He is partially right, but not quite there. Consider, for example, that a billionaire could post a treatise about how to invest 50 million dollars and make 40% annual returns. He or she could go into as much detail as possible. But, I suspect I would get few people following that advice. Why? Because there are few people with $50M lying around to invest. Those that do have that much money probably have their own ideas on how to invest it.

So, really, most of the "advice" the developers of WoW give is pretty useless, not just because theory and practice are different, but because two different examples of practice can be radically different. WoW didn't spring from a vacuum, and you have to look at the factors surrounding the game to really get the whole picture.

To continue the metaphor, it's not just the recipe or the chef, but also the fully-stocked and outfitted dollar kitchen, the large marketing budget, the long history of the establishment, the location of the restaurant, etc. There are so many different factors as to why one thing is more popular/successful/etc. than another that you really can't simply boil it down to a single element, or even a list of single elements, that others can follow to duplicate success. Trying to do so is actually more of a distraction that an assistance.

The real lessons

Okay, so I'm slamming other people for pointing out the lessons learned. Time for me to put my own neck on the chopping block and let others take swings: what do I think are the lessons learned from WoW? Note that these only apply if you want to create the largest game; if you're interested in niche markets, well, you poor, deluded fool.

Go big: outspend your rivals. According to various figures people have come up with, Blizzard spent about twice as much money on WoW as any other online RPG had previously. This had an obvious effect on the quality of the game. So, if someone wants to do to WoW what WoW did to EQ, then you need to plan on having a budget of nine figures or so. (And, no, that doesn't include cents.)

Have a known name. The Warcraft name had about a decade of weight behind it, starting with the original Warcraft game released in 1994. The series became a certifiable hit when Warcraft II was released about a year later. With a long history behind an original IP like this, the series had a lot of time to build an avid base of fans. This is ignoring the reputation that Blizzard has built as a company over these years, too. So, if you want to duplicate WoW's success from scratch, release a great single-player game now and you can release your WoW-killer in 2017.

Have an existing, committed fanbase. Diablo 2 pre-sold over 1 million copies of the game. That's awesome sales for a console game, and mind-blowing for a PC game. If you have people willing to buy a game in those numbers, before release, on the strength of the previews of a game and the good name of the developer, your fans will almost certainly give you the benefit of the doubt for a new game. So, again, make sure your game company has a long history behind it if you want to duplicate WoW's success.

Enjoy total freedom. People always say that the best policy is to "release a game when it's ready." Of course, that's another one of those lessons that is easy to say but hard to follow. Reality (or someone who wants a return on investment) usually dictates that a game be released at a specific time. Blizzard has a pretty sweetheart deal with their corporate overlords, where they have the freedom to follow the "release it when it's ready" mantra that few other game companies have. So, you better have more business acumen than 99.9% of the game developers out there; unfortunately, this isn't that hard, really.

Know how to lie with statistics. I'm being a bit impolitic here, but it's obvious that Blizzard knows how to play the numbers game. Looking over Blizzard's press releases, you can see how the generally announce numbers when they would be at their peak. They have also been sharing less information about their numbers in more recent reports. While they originally specified the breakdown of users from different markets, the recent press release bragging about 9 million subscribers does not include this information. The reason for this, I suspect, is because growth is stagnant in some of the older markets. But, if they add another million users in a still-growing market (like China), they can appear to be continuously growing and popular even if growth is negative in other markets. So, make sure that you have the appearance of continuous growth, because nothing helps popularity like appearing to be popular.

The lesson here is: while duplicating the success of WoW, or even beating it at its own game, is possible, it's not that likely.

What do you think? Is success as easy as following a bunch of steps like this?

--







20 Comments »

  1. Hey Brian,

    I couldn't agree more with this assertion and I've been meaning to write up an little article on some of the things I've read and heard from this years AGDC that just didn't sit well with me as someone who wants to enjoy MMO's more.

    I feel your dead on with the fact that Warcraft was a proven IP, with a fanbase. That Blizzard is considered by many players as the cream of the crop when it comes to companies that haven't disappointed in their delivered products. StarCraft, Warcraft, and Diablo have all been AAA+ titles.

    The part about 'ship when it's ready', this should be an industry standard, but this industry has proven that you don't have to ship finished products to be successful. Sure glad other industries can't follow this thinking. I mean I would hate to buy a car knowing that the brakes would have to be patched, or the steering mechanics. The Personal Computer side of the industry has taken on the release now, patch later mentality and players or consummers have learned to accept this as 'the way it is'. It would be nice to see the industry release more polished products, I mean, don't I deserve that for my $50 or $60 initial investment.

    Yeah, the statistics are a funny thing. I've noticed that World of Warcraft had about 2.5mil in the North American part of their stats. While this is still more powerful that EverQuest or EverQuest II's numbers, it does not indicate that World of Warcraft is the genre standard or that it should be. The genre standard should be the stable server and lower system specs than say a game like Vanguard, while a thing of beauty, there is not meat to the potatoes, the code is far from optimized for current systems, and the bugs need a good can of whoop ass. Which I am sure will come, SoE I bet got a very good deal on the Vanguard game, and with some time they might make something 'traditional' out of it.

    I would think if Americans wanted a watered down hack -n- slash, that more of the Asian MMO's would do better over here in the North American market. The two markets are different in terms of what players want and desire in a game. World of Warcraft found the 'best' mix of the two, and with the lower system specs were able to tap in to more wanting players in the North American market to play their game that other developers didn't care about or want to consider.

    Heres still to hoping for more variety in combat, crafting, and questing in our future MMO's, less reliance on Solo play and off line play *cough* Conan *cough*

    Comment by Boon — 16 September, 2007 @ 4:10 PM

  2. Also, I think it might be underestimated just how important the timing of the launch window for WoW was.

    Yes, it hurt EQII, but had it launched when SWG was launching and so very many people were still playing EQ, AC and UO and looking forward to or playing AC2, Matrix, Shadowbane, EVE, E&B, Planetside, Lineage II and a gazillion others it wouldn't have been able to make the cannonball splash it did.

    Choice ran rampant at the time and it wasn't just choice of setting, but choice of gameplay.

    Comment by Ophelea — 16 September, 2007 @ 4:34 PM

  3. Boon wrote:
    The part about 'ship when it's ready', this should be an industry standard, but this industry has proven that you don't have to ship finished products to be successful.

    Well, the problem is, especially with online games, the game is never really "finished". My better half does fine art, and one nugget of wisdom she's picked up is that art isn't so much finished as abandoned. You can spend an infinite amount of time adding to a work of art (in this case, a game). At some point, you have to realize that the effort invested into the work has diminishing returns. This is also why expansions work so well for our games: develop content until the returns diminish too much, release it, observe what people (don't) like, repeat the cycle.

    Sometimes, as was the case for Vanguard, you have to either ship or run out of money and probably kill the project. Even a crappy launch will earn more money than never launching at all. Of course, better planning and management can help prevent these types of problems. But, project management is still a black art for most game developers, mostly because it's more akin to art than to engineering; a game has to capture the ever elusive "fun" quality to really be a hit, and there's no unit test for "fun".

    I've noticed that World of Warcraft had about 2.5mil in the North American part of their stats.

    This isn't true for the most recent press release detailing 9 million subscribers. They are very careful to not mention specific territories, instead they aggregate markets. The best information we get from that release is that the expansion sold 3.5M in the first month in Europe and North America. An impressive number, but it doesn't really hint at how many subscribers (or, better, active accounts) they have. Given how successful expansions have been for other games, that number actually looks about what you would expect if the subscription growth has been flat for a while. Also, note that many players who had previous canceled their account would be coming back for the expansion, so that would likely result in more sales than there were active subscriptions before the expansion.

    But, I can't necessarily fault Blizzard for doing this. In the past, once a game starts to falter, there are a lot of people looking for blood so that they can frenzy. Look at the continuous posts about, "Oh, Game X subscribers are falling, it's not worth playing the game anymore!" you see for other games. Unfortunately, this type of groupthink tends to affect games, and one big reason I think that other games, notably EQ2, have not done as well as they could have.

    More thoughts,

    Comment by Psychochild — 16 September, 2007 @ 4:34 PM

  4. Children today are extremely social, even when they are not with their friends, they are always in touch. Forums, chat rooms, MSN, ICQ, MySpace, SMS. Things that were once in the realm of the true geek became popular, normal everyday tools.

    The culture that World of Warcraft launched into, and it was just another way for friends to keep in touch when they weren't hanging out at the mall. For the millennium generation, it was cool. Had World of Warcraft launched just 5 years earlier, I'd argue that it never would have achieved its current status simply because being constantly online, in touch with friends was just not the norm. World of Warcraft, like MySpace, launched when the world was ready.

    As for the wanna be WoW 2.0 games launching today, they'll be competing among themselves, ot with WoW. WoW's success is imo in part due to a fluke of releasing bam smack at the right time.

    Anyways, I call plagiarism! *./me gains +3 in self pimpage and psycho +2 in comment moderation*

    As for this unreleased before being finished... I'm not goind to touch that "art is abandoned" bit with a 10 foot pole, because frankly, you're delivering a product, the process might be artistic, but the result is a product, and if it's crap, you lose, its that simple. Truth be told, I'm getting the vibe that barring certain crotch stains *cough Vanguard cough*, MMO's nowadays are being released in a very nice and playable state.

    Comment by unbeliever — 16 September, 2007 @ 5:22 PM

  5. unbeliever wrote:
    Anyways, I call plagiarism!

    You're assuming you're important enough to plagiarize. :P I already point out the probable importance of the Blizzard and Warcraft brands back when the game was newer. So, you plagiarized me!

    ...the process might be artistic, but the result is a product, and if it's crap, you lose, its that simple.

    The appreciation of the product is subjective, though. It's not like a calculator, or other piece of functional software, where you can test it exhaustively and find out if it works or not. Even the things we can test are hard to test before launch; things like how the server handles loads, etc. And, yes, you're right, more software is being released more playable. But, I doubt there's ever been a serious game developer in the history of game development that ever said anything to the effect of, "We have lots of money and plenty of time to work on this buggy and obviously incomplete game, but I think we should ship it anyway!" The main reason games are released "before they're ready" is because of outside pressures. This is further complicated by the fact that there's no standard definition of "ready"; what's fun to me can be a buggy, incomplete experience for someone else. This is why I think the "abandoning it" parallel works well. At some point you just have to release the damn thing, and more often than not that point is right before you run out of money and have no hope of completing the project.

    Even more thoughts,

    Comment by Psychochild — 16 September, 2007 @ 7:48 PM

  6. The Game Industry: Still Learning Nothing from World of Warcraft

    [...] reading psychochild’s critique of the industry’s failures learning from WoW’s financial success, I keep asking myself: [...]

    Pingback by The Artful Gamer — 17 September, 2007 @ 7:42 AM

  7. Brian - Well said!

    Correction: So, you better have more business acumen than 99.9% of the game developers out there; unfortunately, this isn't that hard, really.

    Should read: So, you better have more business acumen than 99.9% of the game developers out there; fortunately, this isn't that hard, really.

    The "ship when its ready" mantra should be generalized (for the rest of us):

    "Build to budget" - This is probably the biggest problem in the games industry - it is even worse than the notoriously poor planning of software industry in general. If you have $1 Million, don't design a game that need $10 million to succeed. "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" was designed to match its budget - no stars, no special effects, hardly any sets... this won't solve a bad design, but it will go a long way towards avoiding failure. Blizzard, Valve, id, and a couple of other companies can get away without budgeting well. The rest of us must do better to survive.

    Comment by Steven "PlayNoEvil" Davis — 17 September, 2007 @ 8:56 AM

  8. Thank you for the reply to my critique/analysis psychochild, although I replied with one equally lengthy!

    Comment by Chris — 17 September, 2007 @ 12:29 PM

  9. Blizzard as an Anomaly

    [...] Brian has taken umbrage at this statement, bizarrely (and in my opinion, very mistakenly). His pathway to Blizzard’s success is simple. Spend a shitload of money. Have a huge name. Have a huge fanbase. Ship when ‘it’s done’. Easy as pie. And all a factor in their success. [...]

    Pingback by Zen of Design — 17 September, 2007 @ 4:41 PM

  10. "To continue the metaphor, it's not just the recipe or the chef, but also the fully-stocked and outfitted dollar kitchen, the large marketing budget, the long history of the establishment, the location of the restaurant, etc. There are so many different factors as to why one thing is more popular/successful/etc. than another that you really can't simply boil it down to a single element, or even a list of single elements, that others can follow to duplicate success. Trying to do so is actually more of a distraction that an assistance."

    I hope no one takes this mentality into an economics class :P These little side affairs have nothing to do with the baseline law of supply and demand. Blizzard finally supplied a game that the many players finally felt hit an equilibrium in price and quality. It was no secret that the MMORPG market had room to grow before WoW, but the questions were always "how do we do it?" and "who do we do it for?". Blizzard answered both in one fell swoop with World of Warcraft.

    Make a quality game. Make it playable for almost anyone.

    We can easily point to a couple other titles around WoW's release that did not follow one or both of these. I've always seen these lessons learned from WoW as very simple. Yet, here we are saying once again, "Well duh! It's Blizzard and Warcraft! We can't do that!" Other companies can and will, but it won't be through making another WoW.

    Comment by Heartless_ — 17 September, 2007 @ 7:14 PM

  11. Heartless_ wrote:
    These little side affairs have nothing to do with the baseline law of supply and demand.

    Once you get out of Econ 101 you learn that "supply and demand" are more like handy rules of thumb rather than ironclad laws.

    Blizzard finally supplied a game that the many players finally felt hit an equilibrium in price and quality.

    And had the ability to deliver boxes to retail shelves.
    And had the advertising budget to get the word out.
    And had the reputation for people to want to give the game a chance.
    And had the reputation and budget to hire and retain quality developers.
    And had the money to wait until they were happy with the game.
    ...and so on.

    There's a lot more to this story. Take away a few of those advantages and things probably would have been different.

    It was no secret that the MMORPG market had room to grow before WoW,

    You seem to be remembering a different time than I am. I remember many people saying the market was saturated, and especially that nobody should even think about making a fantasy game. Some people thought that all there was left to do was fight over the scraps.

    One reason why WoW took damn near everyone by surprise was that the groupthink dictated that no game could possibly do better. Remember, this was after TSO and SWG had failed to break the "impossible" 1M subscriber barrier previously despite all expectations, so most people thought there simply wasn't enough people willing to play (and pay) online. My, my, how wrong we turned out to be. I suspect this is one reason why you see some of these "Lessons WoW can teach us!" threads, because now people want to pretend they weren't asleep at the wheel before. :)

    Make a quality game. Make it playable for almost anyone.

    Then spend a rumored US$20 million in advertising and everything is golden! Except for the fact that this amount was the total budget for games before WoW. So, as I said above, one business lesson is definitely to spend a crapload of money.

    Yes, as I posted on Damion's blog linked above, WoW was a well-designed game. But, that wasn't it's only reason for existence. There were a lot more factors that went into it, and some of those factors weren't even options for previous games. Or, for that matter, for upcoming games. You can't separate out the business issues here and expect to have a meaningful discussion. These business issues absolutely affected how popular WoW is, just as much as the design issues have.

    Comment by Psychochild — 17 September, 2007 @ 10:26 PM

  12. I am happy to be edging away from respectability at last, thanks Brian! :)

    There is an another talk I could do about how to compete (without endless funds) in a post-WOW world, and probably will do that talk at the Indie MMO conference if I get to speak there.

    And I'm pretty sure that Brian throught those people talking about MMO's peaking prior to WOW were as silly as I did. They were just unwilling to look at their own failures to delight customers squarely.

    And it certainly is not unusual for companies to be less forthcoming with numbers as their products mature, and the growth rates fall. There is no benefit for them to do so.

    As usual, I enjoyed your writing Brian as I love contrarian viewpoints! :)

    Comment by Gordon Walton — 18 September, 2007 @ 5:12 AM

  13. Linkage 20070918

    [...] Green (Psychochild) has a good post on which lessons have really been learned from WoW. (I love the analogy of the investment advice for those with $50 million or more to [...]

    Pingback by Voyages in Eternity — 18 September, 2007 @ 5:41 AM

  14. WoW Successes from a Player

    [...] has been a good deal of chatter about what are the real reasons behind the success of World of Warcraft. As a player, here is what I take from World of Warcraft as [...]

    Pingback by MMOCritic.com — 18 September, 2007 @ 2:49 PM

  15. Unbeliever,

    It's interesting that I know several younger players who can't stand WoW because its chat system is a fraction as functional as the typical standards they expect of IRC and IM.

    Comment by Andrew Crystall — 20 September, 2007 @ 5:11 AM

  16. Personally I've always thought WoW's main success was attributed to just two things:

    1. Polish: It is extremely polished, especially at the lower levels, and most MMORPGs just aren't; some trainwrecks get released that are barely playable, but WoW managed to release a very polished MMORPG.

    2. Single player in an Online World - while its true the second M in MMORPG stands for multiplayer, people like to be on their own in a game, and forcing players to have to group, or find guilds to progress is bad and drives out all but the hardcore crowds. WoW made an MMORPG you can solo all the way up to end-game, which is what everyone does, and then they become attached to their characters and stick around.

    (obviously blizzard did more correctly then just these two points, but I've always looked at them as huge factors in their success)

    Comment by Jamie — 20 September, 2007 @ 6:12 AM

  17. From my point of view as a fan of EQ2, the failings of SoE were where Blizzard excelled.

    As a game, EQ2 is superior in so many ways it would take all day for me to list them here, but where the game really fell down
    was in its lack of advertising, and this is where Blizard excelled.
    I have never seen a full page advert in a computer mag for EQ2 or any SoE product, where as Blizzrd have a PR machine that churns
    out the ad's like they are going out of fashion.

    And this is the clincher, it doesnt matter if you have the bst game out there, if people dont hear about it then they wont buy
    it. You can rely on work of mouth alone and get dedicated players but if you want the masses then advertising is key.

    You may say, ahh but if people playing WoW find out how great EQ2 is they will switch, but.. and this is a big but.. MMO players
    are very dedicated and will generally stick to one game. They invest thier life into the game and dont drop them instantly
    something better comes along. They will stick with it and see it out to the end of their attention span.

    And this is why Blizard have cornered the market for the time being, they attracted the players who knowing Blizard as a house
    hold name were attracted to it instead of a poorly advertised SoE product (I mean who had really heard of SoE outside on the
    usual EQ1 circles anyway), it got the players and retains a core base of them still.

    BUT players can be fickle when they want to be and will only put up with a certain amount of BS until their loyalty wavers and
    is replaced by loathing. You may know the saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" well scorned women are puppy dogs in
    comparison to a disgruntled MMO player who has seen the game they love fall into a shell of itself because of badly thought out
    new content and continual class nerfs. And I think this is what we are starting to see with WOW, the old school player base are
    falling away and growth in core markets is starting to slump.

    The problem is there are numerous new MMO's coming out that a dijected WOW and EQ2 player will find appealing - such as War
    Hammer online and to a degree LotRO (although this turned into a bit of a wet fish with awful gameplay).

    Only time will tell if WoW can keep the massed subscriptions it currently holds but by comparison, EQ2 has a far better player
    retention rate.

    Comment by Kae — 20 September, 2007 @ 6:12 AM

  18. Kae wrote:
    I have never seen a full page advert in a computer mag for EQ2 or any SoE product, where as Blizzrd have a PR machine that churns out the ad's like they are going out of fashion.

    Actually, there was quite a bit of advertising for EQ2 near launch. I remember this distinctly, because a magazine we were trying to get a blurb about Meridian 59 in did a big article about EQ2, and I saw full-page ads (and even two-page ads) from Sony; small surprise that EQ2 took the spotlight in that magazine.

    However, I agree that EQ2 is a superb game, and the team has done a lot to improve the game since launch. I think the big problem with EQ2 is related to advertising: people have decided that EQ2 "lost" against WoW and therefore never take a serious look at the game. As I mention above, Blizzard is very good at PR (and advertising), so they manage to keep people aware of the game and thinking that it is continuously growing. EQ2 is passed over as an obviously inferior product, which is a real shame. But, this is pretty typical for the big online games; you only get one shot to make a first impression with the audience, and that first impression counts heavily.

    My further thoughts.

    Comment by Psychochild — 20 September, 2007 @ 11:06 AM

  19. interesting article about mmorpgs (wow)

    [...]Psychochild’s Blog ? Lessons learned [...]

    Pingback by FreddysHouse — 21 September, 2007 @ 3:09 AM

  20. Psychochild wrote "I think the big problem with EQ2 is related to advertising: people have decided that EQ2 "lost" against WoW and therefore never take a serious look at the game."

    I'm no marketing expert, but I wonder whether it was the advertising so much as the history of the preceding games. You pointed out that on one hand Blizzard have a pretty remarkable record in putting out well-known fun games. But has anyone been pointing out that while EQ was well known as a huge success, it was not entirely in a positive way. Obviously it was reasonably well executed (no small praise for an MMORPG, especially an early one) and held people's attention. But I ran into several people who talked about it (who had played it a lot; while I never played it myself). They consistently were pretty grouchy about it and the company. The difference in Idunnowhat, "vibe" perhaps, seemed pretty clear to me. I don't know whether my experience was typical or just a coincidence, but if my experience was at all typical, EQ2 had a marketing obstacle that would be hard to overcome with advertising.

    Stretching wildly for an analogy to try to convey the impression I got, the old ASCII games like rogue and moria and hack held people's attention, but had different vibes. Variants of moria, at least, could hold people's attention (including mine) but seemed monotonously grind-y compared to various kinds of hack. Hack wasn't brilliantly deep (at least when I played it: I hear that in the nethack variant it has at least become far more complicated since then), and it didn't avoid monotony. But to me, hack variants seemed to be rather more merry and ironic and surprising and so forth than moria variants. And if people were getting word of mouth from EQ akin to mine, I'd say it left them with the impression that EQ was moria to WoW's nethack. How do you unconvey that impression with an advertising campaign?

    Comment by William Newman — 21 September, 2007 @ 6:49 PM

Leave a comment

I value your comment and think the discussions are the best part of this blog. However, there's this scourge called comment spam, so I choose to moderate comments rather than giving filthy spammers any advantage.

If this is your first comment, it will be held for moderation and therefore will not show up immediately. I will approve your comment when I can, usually within a day. Comments should eventually be approved if not spam. If your comment doesn't show up and it wasn't spam, send me an email as the spam catchers might have caught it by accident.

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <div align=""> <em> <font color="" size="" face=""> <i> <li> <ol> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <ul>

Email Subscription

Get posts by email:


Recent Comments

Categories

Search the Blog

Calendar

July 2014
S M T W T F S
« May    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Meta

Archives

Standard Disclaimer

I speak only for myself, not for any company.

My Book





Information

Around the Internet

Game and Online Developers

Game News Sites

Game Ranters and Discussion

Help for Businesses

Other Fun Stuff

Quiet (aka Dead) Sites

Posts Copyright Brian Green, aka Psychochild. Comments belong to their authors.

Google