The GNU General Public License version 3 is unleashed to the world today, ready and willing to conquer perceived problems with the legal system in the U.S. and other countries. It’s been carefully considered, debated, and examined by very smart people with a lot of experience with software license law and advocacy. Programmers, lawyers, and businesspeople have looked it over and petitioned changes until most parties were reasonably satisfied with the result. So today is, ostensibly, GPLv3 release day, but I think in the future that it will be remembered in a sad sort of way. We will look back on this and say that June 29, 2007 was the day when the Free Software Foundation jumped the shark, creating an impassable chasm where there was already an uncomfortable rift between the Free Software Foundation and GNU Project, and the larger free software and open source worlds. The GPLv3 adds restrictions galore for developers and users alike, none of which are designed to be understood by the people who matter most — programmers and users. The FSF tells us that the new restrictions in the GPLv3, on patents, patent licensing, and hardware capabilities, are there to make us more free. That’s right — more restrictions are being forced on us so that we can be “more free.” If that sounds like a big steaming pile of nonsense to you, then I’m with you, brother.
Free as in “do as I say”
The GNU General Public License version 3 introduces a level of restriction that is unprecedented in Free Software Foundation-approved software licenses. Though the language is exceedingly difficult to understand (more on that later), the license seems to require all people who modify GPLv3 software to grant all users of that software a “non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license” for all of the patents you might have. So if you create some GPLv3-licensed software to use in, say, a game console, you may have to give all users of that game console a copy of the source code (no surprise there — the GPLv2 requires that, too) and a license to all patents on game console components and technologies that you invented — and maybe all of your other patents on other devices as well. So if a competitor goes to the store and buys your game console, then finds a cheaper way to make the same thing using the same software you created, they could make a case that you have no patent claims against them for copying your designs.
Furthermore, the GPLv3 stipulates that you must waive the ability to include anti-circumvention technologies, and also include “installation information,” which means you have to provide any files or data that unlocks or controls hardware. Well the DVD and DRM people aren’t going to allow you to give away their decryption keys, so forget about your game console playing DVD movies or DRM-encumbered audio files. And if you want to put checks into the hardware to make sure that the software it runs will not harm the device? That could be against the GPLv3 as well, if it prevents running modified versions of the software.
Forget about the concept of GPLv3-licensed computer games, too — if you can’t prevent people from running unmodified versions of the software, you can’t prevent cheating.
Legalese
Restrictions aside, the aspect of the GPL version 3 that bothers me most is that it is totally impossible for a layman to understand. I read every license for every program I review. None of them are particularly easy to understand (except the BSD license, and a few other minimally restrictive open source licenses), but if you concentrate on what you are reading, you can usually understand what your limitations and enablements are. Microsoft’s license agreements are, for example, relatively easy to understand: You can’t sell, copy, give away, publish benchmarks based on, or install this software on more than one computer. That may be a disadvantageous agreement for the user, but at least the terms are clear. The GPLv3, by contrast, is ancient Greek. Here’s an example:
A contributor’s “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
This is a license written by and for lawyers, not programmers or users. I’ll reiterate the fact that I have read through dozens of complex software licenses. I have seen many unusual clauses (particularly in Sun licenses), but nothing so convoluted as the GPLv3. The above quote is only a single example of an overlong and tedious license that no end user or software developer — the people who most need to understand what their entitlements and limitations are — can ever hope to fully understand. This puts all users and programmers in a powerless position in which we must trust the interpreters to accurately convey what we can and cannot do with this program. When you are powerless, you are not free. In a sense, the GPLv3 authors have robbed us of the freedom to understand the terms by which we use, modify, and distribute GPLv3-licensed software. They have made free software into something that cannot be reasonably understood, nor explained to a newcomer.
Software patents do not exist
The GPLv3 refers repeatedly to “software patents.” If you only hear RMS or other free software advocates talk about this subject, then you are likely also against “software patents.” I was too, at one point. There is a huge problem with this attitude, however — software patents do not exist in the context in which the term is generally presented. There are no special rules, laws, or provisions for patenting software. A patent on software is legally and structurally identical to a patent on a skateboard. In fact there can’t be any special patent provisions — the World Trade Organization, through the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property rightS (TRIPS) treaty forbids participating countries from passing laws that favor one kind of technology over another. So if there were special rules for United States patents on software, the US would be in violation of the TRIPS treaty. The patent laws could be uniformly changed to better accommodate the software industry, but that still might violate TRIPS, and could harm other industries more than it would benefit software developers and distributors.
So if you can’t make special rules for patents on software, then why not make software unpatentable? That seems like a good idea from a PC-centric frame of reference, but it doesn’t hold outside of that part of the technology world. We as computer users only see patent abuse in the news, like the the Amazon one-click patent and Steve Ballmer blathering about theoretical patent violations and other silly things that anger and annoy everyone except the people making money from them. But what if you were an engineer working in some other industry? What if you discovered a way to improve efficiency or performance in an invention by moving solid state logic to a software program that runs on the device? For instance, instead of a transistor or integrated circuit with static logic that can never be changed, you design a software program that resides in rewritable memory and can easily be modified and updated or expanded beyond the original design. Many cars on the market today, for instance, can self-tune to adjust for a variety of conditions. This is something that is much more difficult to do with static logic if there is no method of storing the self-tuned parameters. If software were unpatentable, you would have to avoid moving the logic from hardware to software because though it may give you a temporary competitive advantage, all of the time and money you or your company spent developing that solution could be wasted by a copycat competitor.
Abstracting firmware has its own problems, especially when companies forbid redistribution of firmware files, so this is not always a good thing. There cannot be a law or provision that favors any one technology over another, though, under the current system.
There may be problems with the patent system, but they will not be fixed by a software license.
A big, freedom-loving middle finger to BSD
Linux distributions are not the only operating systems affected by GPLv3. More threatened than anyone are free software projects that abhor licensing restrictions imposed by the GPL, such as the BSD variants.
According to FSF representative Brett Smith, there are about 150 software projects in the GNU Project that have copyrights attributed to the Free Software Foundation. Of those, at least 15 are committed to switching over to the GPL version 3 today. “The complete list probably won’t be final until the day is over. But highlights should include fundamental GNU/Linux system utilities like sed and tar, a suite of Internet software — such as FTP and telnet servers and clients — called inetutils, and the Texinfo documentation system.”
He didn’t mention GCC or the GNU debugger (GDB), which are arguably the two most important GNU Project programs to outside operating system projects. So I wrote to representatives of the three main BSD projects and asked them what they planned to do about the GPLv3.
Martin Husemann of the NetBSD Foundation told me that it was already possible to weed out software according to license, both in the base system and in pkgsrc:
We don’t think that the switch of GNU programs from GPL v2 to GPLv3 will affect NetBSD or its users much, since we are not in violation of the additional provisions that GPL v3 stipulates. It is a long term goal of NetBSD to become GPL free, but the potential change in license will not affect the scheduling of that goal. Furthermore, the GPL programs in NetBSD are clearly separated from the rest of the source so one can easily distribute a GPL-free NetBSD system (with missing functionality specially in the toolchain parts).
Since pkgsrc does not redistribute third party packages, it is also not affected. For users of pkgsrc, and creators of binary pkg sets or CDs/DVDs, it has versatile provisions to express licensing restrictions implied by the created packages (like LICENSE=, ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, NO_BIN_ON_FTP, NO_BIN_ON_CDROM).
As of this writing, the OpenBSD Project had not made a decision regarding GPLv3-licensed software in the OpenBSD base system. Like the other BSDs, OpenBSD has very few GPL programs, and has gone to great lengths to replace some existing tools with BSD-licensed alternatives. Most of the GPL programs in OpenBSD are older and heavily patched, so there is little or no dependence on the GNU Project’s latest packages.
The FreeBSD core team had this to say on the issue:
Thank you for your interest in the FreeBSD Project. As you know, the FreeBSD Project has a long history of producing open source under the liberal BSD open source license. This license allows unlimited open and closed-source reuse of our software. We do rely on some GPL components– most critically the gcc development tool suite–but it is a core goal of our work that FreeBSD be complete operating system with BSD-licensed kernel, system libraries, services, and command line tools. Because GPLv3 has not yet been finalized, it would be premature to draw conclusions about how it will affect our project; obviously, we will follow events closely as they unfold.
Civil war?
I have always used free software over proprietary alternatives when there was a choice to be made. Sometimes there is no choice, and you have to click through some ridiculous license agreement that you don’t agree to and don’t care about. The GPLv3 has become another such license that I have to click through and don’t care about, so whenever possible, I’m going to be using something that’s a little less restrictive. Perhaps this will be the great homecoming to FreeBSD for me — I’ve always considered myself a BSD user in exile, anyway.
The operating systems I’m using now are still under the GPLv2, but I may have to stop updating parts of them if GPLv3 crap is going to leak into them. I can’t be alone in this rejection of the new restrictive GPL, so I expect there to be a reckoning in the free software community. A lot of projects and distributors aren’t going to include GPLv3 software, either forking the old GPLv2 editions or using BSD-licensed alternatives instead. It’ll be interesting to see where this leads, but I think this will be the end of “GNU/Linux” and the beginning of just plain “Linux” — not the kernel alone, but the kernel plus a body of free software userland utilities and programs unencumbered by convoluted restrictions. In the BSD world there are already free software replacements for many of the GNU Project programs. It takes little effort to do drop-in replacements for them in existing Linux distributions.
The end
There is an important moment in the history of psychology (please Tom Cruise, don’t jump on my couch) that applies well to this situation. Though Carl Jung had defended Sigmund Freud on many occasions, the latter said something to Jung that forced them to part ways: “My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. This is the most essential thing of all. You see we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark against the black tide of mud of occultism.” At that point, Jung understood that it was more about Freud’s ego (ha!) than it was about figuring out how the human mind works — it was about being “right” over being “correct.” I frequently think of this whenever I find myself defending a principle based on old assumptions. Here we have RMS telling us that restrictions mean freedom, and I can’t help but think that this is more about ego and “being right” than it is about being free to use, modify, and distribute software.
I’ve no doubt that this is the beginning of the end for GNU, and it will prove the strength of the larger free software world. The Free Software Foundation has dumped a load of restrictions on us with GPLv3 and told us that restrictions lead to freedom and that it is good for us. That’s a little too Bush administration-like for me. In fact I fully expect someone, somewhere, to claim that I “hate freedom” for speaking out about this abysmal license — that would make the irony complete. That a license as restrictive as the GPLv3 should be mostly written by and wholeheartedly supported by someone who speaks out against the Patriot Act puts it a step beyond irony, and into hypocrisy. Further mimicking Bush political rhetoric, Stallman even claimed recently that restrictive software licenses are evil. So does that make him an “evil doer” for promoting a license that attempts to restrict hardware, software, software licensing, and patent licensing choices that should remain in the hands of software developers, or does that make people who are against it “evil doers” and “freedom haters” for not supporting it? If we aren’t with you, Richard, are we against you?
One way or the other, count me against. GNU, this is as far as we go. I’m breaking up with you. I think we should see other groups of userland operating system tools (or users, as the case may be). I’d prefer it if you took my number out of your cell phone and pretended we never went out.
Usually an expansion pack to an existing game is a way of adding to the existing material with the hope that people who have played the original game all the way through will rekindle their interest through the expansion. This has been done successfully in the past with successful expansions like WW2: 1946 for Aces of the Pacific; the many official and unofficial add-ons, maps, and game modifications for the Unreal Tournament series; Warcraft II and III’s expansions; and the Grand Theft Auto and Halo add-ons and expansions. With a wide range of successful projects to take lessons from, you’d think that the usually outstanding production team at Blizzard Entertainment would have thought a little more carefully before going ahead with World of Warcraft’s first expansion pack, The Burning Crusade. Don’t get me wrong — it’s got a lot of great qualities, and if you have been playing WoW for more than a year, TBC was practically a revelation. But the purpose of an expansion pack is to enhance or build upon a game, not to invalidate or otherwise trample on it, thereby ruining the original WoW content for new players. Unfortunately, The Burning Crusade did exactly that. Below is a list of the major new features in TBC, how they wrecked World of Warcraft, and some suggestions for repairing the damage.
World of Warcraft overview
World of Warcraft is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) based in a Tolkien-like fantasy universe of elves, dwarves, humans, orcs, and other races involved in unending global warfare. The story has been developed over a period of years, starting with the real-time strategy game Warcraft, and progressing with Warcraft II and III. Players start out at level 1 and, by killing wandering monsters and completing quests, they gain experience and skills and advance to new levels. As their characters become stronger, they’re encouraged to move on to new areas where the monsters are tougher and the tasks more complex. The maximum level is 60. Although experienced players frequently breeze through from level 1 to 60 in a few weeks, first-time players generally require months of casual play in order to reach the top.
Aside from normal gameplay, players can form groups to take on dungeons and raids as a team. A dungeon typically requires a group of 4 or 5, though if you’re near the top of the level recommendation for a dungeon, you might be able to get away with a group of 2 or 3. Raids, on the other hand, require larger, more organized groups of 10, 20, or 40 players to be successful. A raid takes a lot of organization and teamwork; usually players will use third-party chat applications like Ventrilo to communicate via voice chat instead of trying to use the text interface. The most prestigious and difficult raids require “attunements” — a long and tedious series of steps that usually requires building up your reputation with a certain faction of non-playing characters.
The Burning Crusade expansion overview
The Burning Crusade expansion was released to great fanfare. People went out and stood in line for an hour or more — many of them out in cold weather, to buy it on the day of release, and paid as much as or more than the cost of the original World of Warcraft game. While periodic game patches provided regular updates and occasional additions to the original World of Warcraft game, The Burning Crusade added a gigantic amount of new content and expanded capabilities:
The level cap is raised from 60 to 70.
Skill caps are raised from 300 to 375.
Two new character races: Draenei for the Alliance, and Blood Elves for the Horde.
Two new starting areas and capital cities, one for each race. The Draenei have the Bloodmyst and Azuremyst islands, and the crashed Exodar spaceship as a city. The Blood Elves have Eversong Woods and the Ghostlands, and the half-destroyed Silvermoon City as their capital.
A new world for players level 58 and above, called The Outlands, including several new dungeons and one new raid.
Flying mounts are available for level 70 players, but only while in The Outlands.
A new trade skill: Jewelcrafting.
Dozens of new items, weapons, armor, and skill recipes.
Two new level 70 PvP battlegrounds: The Arena for team deathmatch competition, and The Eye of the Storm for objective-based team play.
The problems
Unfortunately, the new content has led to a lot of chronic problems with the WoW/TBC game. Basically the problems boil down to one specific theme: poor scalability. A lack of consideration for how the content introduced in The Burning Crusade would affect World of Warcraft has ruined the original game’s experience. Let’s take it point by point according to the new features listed above.
The level cap is raised from 60 to 70
On its face, this is a good idea. It allows people who reached level 60 a long time ago to once again advance their best characters through another 10 ranks. There are several big problems with allowing players to gain another 10 levels — effectively doubling their HP and mana, increasing skills and stats by 16% or more, and offering them weapons and armor that can be more than twice as powerful than before — though. The first is that the NPC guards in the “old world” of Azeroth have not increased commensurately in level and skill, thereby enabling a whole new era of PvP griefing in Azeroth, even and especially for players who don’t even have The Burning Crusade expansion. Level 70 players are now so powerful that there is no longer a significant threat from guards in neutral cities like Everlook, Gadgetzan, and Booty Bay. Hunters can 1- or 2-shot another player, then feign death to escape the guards. Rogues can sap you repeatedly without any attention from the guards, forcing you to log out in order to escape them. You’re powerless to retaliate, because the neutral guards will see yours as the first act of aggression and promptly kill you while your rogue opponent emotes in your general direction. On PvP servers, if you thought the bored high-level players were a pain in the ass, wait until you see them at level 70. Not only do they kill players dozens of levels below them in one shot, but they’ll take down the nearest village as well.
Before you respond with something ridiculous like “QQ,” you should understand that the point of making town guards powerful in the first place was to provide a penalty for acting like an ass in neutral cities. Plot-wise, the Steamwheedle Cartel doesn’t want you causing unrest and interrupting business in their towns. Game-wise, the designers did not intend you to be able to easily grief other players in neutral towns; the rest of the world on a PvP realm may be fair game, but there are supposed to be places where you have a measure of safety against high level players who have nothing better to do than make the game miserable for you.
The fix: The easy way to fix this problem is to raise the level of every neutral and faction guard by 10 levels. That’ll balance out the game as was originally intended. Perhaps the concept of dishonorable kills should be reintroduced as well; the incentive of the PvP arena for level 70 players is not enough to keep the griefers away, mostly because griefers can’t compete with serious players of comparable level.
The new jewelcrafting skill, new recipes for existing skills, and skill caps are raised from 300 to 375
Like with level caps, on its face this is a great idea. It allows people who have every possible recipe from the original game to go out and find or earn new ones. But like with all other things associated with TBC, there is a dark side that overshadows it — and this one is the most pervasive.
I’m talking about the fact that old WoW content is now obsolete and ignored. In this case, all those faction recipes that you worked hard to get from groups like the Cenarion Circle, Argent Dawn, and Thorium Brotherhood are now impractical to make, impossible to sell, and overshadowed by low-level Outlands gear that is easier to obtain and cheaper to buy or craft. All those times you ran Molten Core and Onyxia’s Lair have been totally wasted.
The other half of the trade skill debacle is the havoc that jewelcrafting wreaked on the WoW economy. Prices for ore, metal bars, and especially gems skyrocketed with the introduction of jewelcrafting. While this makes it more difficult to level your jewelcrafting skills than you may have anticipated, it totally screws people who have recently taken up nearly all of the other extant trade skills. The dramatic rise in gem and ore prices have driven the cost up on all crafted items that require them. The worst hit came to blacksmithing, which is now significantly more expensive to level than before because you’re more or less forced to do all of your own mining.
The fix: The problem stems from the fact that a new skill that requires a lot of ore and gems was introduced, but ore and gem drops and caches have not been increased commensurately. Demand was increased, but supply remained the same. Perhaps if ore veins were more commonly found or more plentiful in their gem production, the economy could go back to pre-TBC prices.
The Draenei quest line ends here
Two new races: Draenei for the Alliance, and Blood Elves for the Horde, and two new starting areas and capital cities, one for each race. The Draenei have the Bloodmyst and Azuremyst islands, and the crashed Exodar spaceship as a city. The Blood Elves have Eversong Woods and the Ghostlands, and the half-destroyed Silvermoon City as their capital
The new scenery and music in the Blood Elf and Draenei starting areas is spectacular — arguably better than the majority of the old WoW game content. The character classes are well-balanced, have great new racial abilities, and open up the possibility of creating a paladin class on the Horde, and the shaman class on Alliance. Previously these classes were exclusive to the other faction.
So what’s the problem? Well first of all, the story and quest lines are incomplete. When you finish the natural quest progression in Bloodmyst and Ghostlands, you’re more or less dumped into old Azeroth. The new character races do not have a lifetime quest progression like most of the old classes do; you don’t go naturally from one area to another and another until you find yourself walking into dungeons and raids. Instead, at around level 22 you’ve conquered your starting areas and are shoehorned into the middle of the level 20-ish Night Elf or Undead quest progressions in Ashenvale or Hillsbrad. As a Draenei you are literally dropped off on the Auberdine docks and expected to find your way in the rest of the world as though you’d played this game a few times before. This is not expansion content so much as it is an insiders celebration of long-term subscribers who have been dying to play a new race and class.
If you need to train in jewelcrafting, you’re forced to make an unusually long journey back to The Exodar or Silvermoon City because that’s where the only trainers are in Azeroth. Imagine you’re questing in Thousand Needles and want to train some new jewelcrafting abilities. You have a 10-15 minute journey to Silvermoon or Exodar. The new classes are almost as bad. If you’re a Draenei shaman, you have to go all the way back to The Exodar for class training (technically there’s a shaman trainer in Stormwind, but you have to know that he’s there in order to find him). The Horde are luckier — there are paladin trainers in Undercity and Orgrimmar as well as Silvermoon City, which can be easily reached from a city-to-city portal in the Ruins of Lordaeron above Undercity as opposed to The Exodar, which requires flying to Auberdine, waiting for a ship that takes a really long time to arrive, then walking the last 1000 yards or so to The Exodar.
The new starting areas may be interesting and have a lot of quests, but they don’t offer any new dungeon instances. Technically there is one called Zul Aman in Ghostlands, but it is not yet activated as of this writing, and is intended for level 70 players. There is no Draenei or Blood Elf equivalent of the Deadmines, Blackfathom Deeps, Ragefire Chasm, or the Wailing Caverns. If you want to run those “beginner” instances, you have to either abandon your race’s starting area and join the old Alliance or Horde, or you have to get involved with the group matchmaking system as early as possible and hope someone summons you. If you ignore the old “beginner” instances until you’re out of your starting area, you’ve probably missed your chance to do them.
The fix: The solution here — and perhaps for other problems as well — is to fully embrace TBC as a part of WoW. Put jewelcrafting trainers in every city, and make it just as easy to find shaman and paladin trainers as it is to find rogue or warrior instructors. Also, create more Draenei- and Blood Elf-specific content so that each has a natural quest progression through the game. A Human or Orc character can follow each quest all the way up to Onyxia’s Lair and Naxxramis and beyond, but Draenei and Blood Elves are expected to sort of tailgate the Night Elf or Undead quests. That’s not really a true expansion of the game, is it?
A new world for players level 58 and above, called The Outlands, including several new dungeons and one new raid.
It makes sense to create a new land for high-level players to gain experience and get new gear. The design of The Outlands is wonderful — great new art, music, and new races and monsters to experience. The new dungeons are pretty cool, too, and offer a decent challenge to players of every skill level.
So what’s the problem? Well, let’s put it this way: Do you remember your first Onyxia raid? Do you remember how there used to be all kinds of raids on weekends — Zul Gurub, Onyxia’s Lair, Ahn Qiraj, Naxxramis, Blackwing Lair, Dire Maul, and world bosses like Emeriss? If you remember those days, then you’re also aware of the fact that they are over. This may not be a problem for you if you’ve run the old Azeroth raids and high-level instances ad nauseum, but what about people who started playing just before or since TBC was released? They have to fight to find 5-man groups for Blackrock Depths, let alone 10- or 20-man raids like Zul Gurub or Onyxia’s Lair (which used to be a 40-man raid before TBC). It used to be that you couldn’t walk into Stormwind City on a weekend without seeing at least one dragon head hanging from the rafters. Now if you see the Rallying Cry of the Dragonslayer buff, it’s almost a spectacle — “Whoa — someone ran Ony!”
There are two main problems with TBC’s murder of original WoW content. First, most of the old raids require that you be near level 60, at which point most people now head for The Outlands instead of the old raids because Hellfire Peninsula offers more money, experience, and better weapons and armor than any Azeroth raid. It’s widely known that the “green” gear you get from the first 10 quests in Hellfire Peninsula is likely to replace epic raid and PvP gear from Azeroth. So why work to get the old stuff anymore? Secondly, the bulk of the people who used to organize and run raids on Azeroth are now doing Karazhan, Caverns of Time, and Black Temple, and are no longer interested in doing the old raids, leaving the pool of interested parties at a minimum. It also eliminates most of the raid experience, so rather than blunder through BRD trying to find the Molten Core instance, it’s much easier for level 58 players to head to The Outlands and find more satisfying solo or 5-man dungeon battles.
The fix: One way to solve this problem is to up the level requirement for The Dark Portal to 62, and prevent mages and warlocks from being able to magically transport people below that level to The Outlands. This would force people to work through the old content before going on to the new stuff. Secondly, the old epic gear drops need to be made more common and less labor-intensive. That way when you enter Hellfire Peninsula at level 62, you’ve been using your epic raid gear for at least 2 levels before it is replaced by Outlands quest rewards.
Flying mounts are available for level 70 players, but only while in The Outlands
How often have you wished that you could redirect your gryphon or bat because you clicked the wrong destination or need to go someplace else while in the middle of a long flight? Well in The Outlands, if you reach level 70 and pay a metric assload of money, you can train to ride a flying mount. Not only is this a cool way to travel, but it also unlocks a few interesting new places that you cannot reach on foot. It sounds about as great as it actually is. There’s just one problem: If you die while in the air — not hard to do on a PvP server — your spirit will be unable to reach your corpse, thereby forcing you to use a Spirit Healer and take the resulting debuff and gear durability hit.
The only instance in the new starting areas is closed
The fix: Make player corpses fall to the ground if players die in the air. If you jump, your character falls to the ground, but if you die while flying, your corpse hangs in midair. It doesn’t take a genius to see the consistency problem here. WoW is not bound by the laws of Earth physics, but it needs to follow its own physical rules consistently. A second option is to give ghosts the ability to float up into the air, and allow players to resuscitate on their flying mounts.
Dozens of new items, skill recipes, weapons, and armor
With new lands and higher levels comes more stuff to buy and outfit our characters with. Ideally, though, adding new items should not wreck the existing economy. The effect of TBC’s new items in the old Azeroth economy has been disastrous.
As mentioned previously, jewelcrafting’s material requirements have made the cost of all other crafted items rise significantly. In order to afford to make or buy those items, you need more money. This isn’t a problem if you have TBC, because every quest you get in The Outlands offers several gold, plus a new item worth about the same amount, plus whatever you got from the process of performing the quest tasks. It works out to 10-20g per Hellfire Peninsula and Zangarmarsh quest, and more for the higher-level areas. So if you’re above level 58 and need some cash, earning it is much easier than ever before. And if you want to seed your new alternate character with some startup money, it’s much less painful to mail yourself 100g or more. Unfortunately, the introduction of all this gold caused auction house prices to skyrocket. The more you have available to spend, the higher the price you’ll pay for something you want. The raw materials still have to be collected, though, and that is one thing money can’t always buy, so the price of crafted goods is guaranteed to stay as high as possible as long as there are material shortages. If you don’t have TBC, or if you are just starting out in World of Warcraft, you are totally screwed when it comes to auction house prices because you have no way to earn the big bucks.
The shortage of raw materials presents yet another difficulty — that of “farming” in The Outlands. Netherweb Spider Silk is an excellent example. This item is required in quantity to make a number of high-dollar items, most notably an 18-slot item bag that sells like mad in the auction house. The only place to get this silk outside of a high-level instance like the Black Morass or Karazhan is in Terrokar Forest, from level 64 spiders. Naturally, there are some quests in this area for level 63-67 players. Those quests become very difficult to complete when the area is saturated with level 70 silk farmers who easily round up and kill the spiders, and on PvP servers, they kill the lower level players as well. If you thought the practice of “farming” materials was annoying in the original WoW, it’s gone to a whole new level of annoyance in TBC.
Lastly, there aren’t enough new items to cover the expanded stats of a level 70 player. The highest level healing potion you can get is designed for level 55 players. Back when 60 was the level cap, this was acceptable. Now, however, it’s not uncommon for a well-geared player to have twice as many health points as he had at level 60, so those level 55 health potions are puny and ineffective. Ditto the bandages — though two more bandage levels have been added, they don’t repair enough damage to be worthwhile to a well-geared level 70 player.
The fix: The most obvious solution is to make raw materials easier to obtain. Another option is to reduce the number of materials required for high-dollar recipes. It would also make sense to give more consideration to where materials are found and where players go to quest. Overlapping the two might be fun for high-level players who have had more time to level and equip their characters, but it’s no fun for virtually all other paying customers when a quest area is saturated with high-level farmers. Lastly, there needs to be a whole new class of items designed for players who are at or near the new level cap. The old level 55-60 stuff just doesn’t cut it anymore.
Two new level 70 PvP battlegrounds: The Arena for team deathmatch competition, and The Eye of the Storm for objective-based team play
The concept of PvP battlegrounds began with capture the flag in Warsong Gulch, and expanded to Arathi Basin and Alterac Valley from there. Those games are still around, and people still play them. With TBC comes Eye of the Storm, which is Warsong Gulch plus Arathi Basin — capture the flag with objectives to capture. Nothing new there. But why play EotS anyway, when the top-tier PvP armor and weapon rewards take weeks to accumulate enough honor points to buy, and are nowhere near the quality of Arena or tier-2 and above raid gear?
Speaking of the Arena, it’s a small deathmatch-style battleground for premade groups of 2, 3, or 5 people. Like a guild, you have to pay a fee and have already interested parties to start an Arena team. The rewards for cashing in your Arena points are significant, but take a lot of playing to obtain. The real problem is not grinding the Arena; it’s the inequality of the Arena reward gear. Rogues seem particularly affected by inappropriately configured Arena armor rewards, so much so that they are all but totally absent from 5v5 teams.
This is a larger problem than just the Arena, and affects more than just rogues (a class that only does well when their opponents don’t know they’re coming). It’s really an extension of the aforementioned scaling inequalities that each character class is experiencing with the upgraded level cap. There have been two major attempts to fix some of the problems with post-release patches, but most of the original issues remain. Most notably, the “bastard” talent specialties of every character class, such as subtlety rogues, enhancement shamans, arcane mages, and retribution paladins, have been neglected and left to rot. All of the high-end Arena and raid gear for every class caters to its two primary specialties and ignores the third.
The fix: First of all, there needs to be better Eye of the Storm rewards. You could kill two birds with one stone here by offering upgraded EotS gear that is aimed specifically at the “bastard” talent specs listed above. Secondly, the Arena needs to be reconfigured to level the playing field for all classes and races so that those that were never meant to excel at dueling can compete.
Conclusions
The Burning Crusade added a lot of great new art, music, and functionality to World of Warcraft. Unfortunately, it also trampled on the original game to the point of making almost half of it totally irrelevant. The point of TBC was to continue to make the game enjoyable for existing long-time subscribers, but it came at a terrible price for both new and old players alike. Viewed in isolation, The Burning Crusade is wonderful. But when you look at it in the big picture, considering the game it was designed to enhance and support, it is a complete failure at enhancing WoW. If World of Warcraft had been totally reworked to accommodate for TBC, this article would have been a proper review instead of a long examination of the expansion’s failures.
It’s not too late to fix The Burning Crusade, though at this point I think the only way to really solve all of the problems that it introduced is to make it a requirement for all World of Warcraft subscribers. Only then can you modify the original WoW content to scale properly with the new TBC material. I hold out hope that the expansion will improve with time and patches, but part of me worries that the decision makers at Blizzard Entertainment think of The Burning Crusade as a financial success instead of a material failure.
If you’re serious about publishing on the Web, you cannot circumvent its mechanics. Learning HTML, CSS, and a little bit of JavaScript is a necessity, not a luxury. Over the years there have been many books, Web sites, and computer-based training applications that attempt to teach people how to create Web pages with HTML and CSS. O’Reilly’s HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide is among the oldest extant HTML teaching materials. Unfortunately, it seems to be past its prime. The 6th edition of this classic is embarrassingly dated, offers poor advice for would-be Web designers, and in general offers absolutely nothing that you can’t get for free through online XHTML and CSS sources.
Writing analysis
HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide 6th Edition starts out with an overlong history of the Internet, the World Wide Web, Web browsers, development tools, and HTML, including how the HTML standard has evolved over the years. The reference portion represents the bulk of the book, where each HTML tag is profiled with a lot of words but not enough details.
I didn’t discover any language errors in this book, but I did find a number of anachronisms, the biggest being the repeated reference to Netscape Navigator as though it were still a current, popular browser that anyone used. The obsession with Netscape helps form the eerie sense that this book was not properly updated to reflect modern technology. This sentiment is solidified by the rest of the book’s focus on outdated HTML standards and practices.
Putting the book to the test
When I began reading this book, I had high expectations for it. This is a well-regarded reference in its 6th edition, so it should be the best source in the industry, right? Wrong. The introductory section is terrible, the reference portion is incomplete, and the entire book — despite being specifically updated for modern technology — is horribly dated.
I hardly know where to begin with criticism of HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide 6th Edition, except perhaps with the overlong beginning. The authors could have conveyed the same amount of important information in less than half the words in the introductory historical chapters.
Moving on to the advice and instructions on how to use HTML tags, I was astonished to see some of the worst-written HTML I have ever seen pass as professional. The authors encourage readers not to use closing HTML tags where they are not specifically required by the old 4.01 standard, and in general ignore XHTML standards. What got me more than the fact that they say closing </p> tags are unnecessary is the fact that they insist that some modern, educated Web designers don’t know that closing paragraph tags even exist! Sure, some people don’t know what they are doing, have not studied modern standards, don’t actually create meaningful Web pages by hand, and probably don’t know that closing </p> tags make code more readable and forward compatible with the latest standard… perhaps such people even go on to write books on HTML. XHTML in essence is the new HTML standard and should be treated as such, not dismissed as some new-fangled contraption those damn kids are using these days. To design a site to the bare minimum requirements of the HTML 4.01 standard would be pure folly in this day and age.
To make matters worse, the HTML reference does not list the CSS properties of each tag — only the old HTML 4.01 properties. That makes HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide 6th Edition effectively useless as a reference text for designing anything other than old-fashioned, hard-to-read, hard-to-maintain, tag soup HTML pages. Following that advice would make you a terrible Web designer.
Conclusions
As a Web publisher, I have dealt with XHTML and CSS every day for the past several years. I have watched it evolve from HTML to XHTML, and from sloppy “tag soup” to clean CSS. Every article I write goes directly into the Bluefish HTML editor, complete with headers, tags, and other code. I picked up my initial understanding of HTML through an old Netscape book on Web design, and later honed my skills through W3Schools, which offers free courses on XHTML, CSS, and other Web languages and technologies. Not only are the W3Schools courses better than the introductory teaching chapters in HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide 6th Edition, but the online reference is actually complete, separated by standard, and includes descriptive examples of nearly every tag. So in essence, you can get a quicker, better HTML education and tag and property reference for free on the Web than you can get from this poorly executed $33 book.
This is the worst professionally-created reference for static Web page design I have ever seen. It fails in every possible way — it does not show best practices, is not comprehensive, is too expensive for the information it provides, and presents readers with an inaccurate portrait of modern Web page design. The reason this book gets a 3 out of 10 rating is not because it has a few redeeming qualities; it is because it could theoretically be worse.