|
On May 02 2011 18:50 Fission wrote:
i'd pay a monthly fee to play sc2, and if that's what it takes to convince the corporate bigwigs that a game is worth spending development money on, then that's what I'll do. We live in a world where the cost of development new, innovative games is prohibitively expensive, and I don't want to see my favorite pastime die because they are using an outdated (1 time pay) pricing model.
i wont pay monthly for any game think its stupid..
|
On May 02 2011 18:42 Woony wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:42 Gheed wrote:
Of course Activision would think that. Activision is a soulless husk of a company headed by a person whose only interest is hoarding more money How is that different than any other company? People who shit on Actvision for being greedy capitalists better be complete anti-capitalists or what theyre saying is completly hypocritic.
Making a profit does not mean resorting to Kotick levels of douchebaggery. Most development studios are headed by people who, gasp, actually like video games.
|
On May 02 2011 16:59 duracell wrote:
Not to be in support of Activision or anything, but maybe we're reaching a time where gaming and the environment we ideally want for SC2 is going to get pricier and we have to accept that we're going to have to pay more in order to get what we want.
Gaming is traditionally a cheap past time, but it also used to be a lot more make it and forget it approach for companies. For SC2, we need tech support, server maintenance, and loads of other costs for years and years to come. Yet for all that we're paying $60, (maybe $60 more for each expansion) which is rather inexpensive for all the expectations we have for it. We've all spent $60 on some crap game that was never heard of again in a years time.
Let's be honest...we have a huge consumer surplus when purchasing games like SC2 and Broodwar. (Consumer surplus is the amount of benefit over what you paid that you gained from buying at that price) $60 is a night out at the bar, or in Activision's view, thousands of hours that you got from their game. They could charge more for it, and almost rightfully will. They are not really destroying the game or community, they are just making it a more expensive hobby. If we truly support SC2, we should be willing to pay the extra couple dollars every now and then to keep the community alive. If we are not willing to, then SC2 as an esport will die, which kind of translates to all that loyal fanbase mumbo jumbo as being not worth very much. Companies don't care if you're excited about their game, they care they you will support them with your dollar.
lol, don't be a retard silly, please. There are _a lot_ of games that have done very well with "extra revenue" and didn't "die out" with maintaining their servers just like battle.net.
And saying that if this (paying extra $ whenever) didn't happen - "SC2 as an e-sport would die" is just a load of BS and ludicrous, I think we all can agree on that....
Aside from all this, there's a huge list of games that have lived long due "best before date" without a monthly fee or similarly (BroodWar?). Also, I don't really see why Blizzard should start charging their users more I'm quite sure that without a doubt if tried to pull such stunt, they would actually suffer massively from doing so (I'm sure Blizzard knows this too).
And I don't see StarCraft in the market for this kind of thing. Sure they can make some stuff that will generate micro transactions e.g paid name-change fee or whatever, that would be totally fine. But when you start to talk about monthly fees for playing StarCraft then you're honestly out of the line.
|
|
|
On May 02 2011 18:30 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:21 Coeus1 wrote:
As someone said earlier, welcome to capitalism.
Just like big movie studios of hollywood make sure hit movies to keep owners happy instead of trying new risky avenues for film art.
Exactly same happened to games when EA, Activision etc. got big. Games evolved to be franchises instead of new cool experiments in game design. Big studios hate risks! They just do the next CoD instead of risking profits.
I'm so sick of this. Every year new FIFA, Madden, CoD, Battlefield, WoW expansion not to mention all the console franchises.
Sure independent small studios still try to make innovative games. But they have very limited resources and it is not cheap to make a modern game. So if your innovative game flops, your company could die with it.
But still, SC2 not being worth it. Those guys are amazingly greedy. Success of CoD made investors want more and more and more to get stock price higher.
And here we are. SC2 declared a failure. Not making *enough* money.
I hope they die. People want huge impressive games and movies yet they don't want the developers/directors to appeal to the masses. If a game has a budget of several million dollars you gotta make sure you cover your losses. It's easy to say that there should be more innovation and risky avenues when you're not the one responsible for hundreds of jobs and the future of huge companies. I agree to a extent about companies pushing devs into "safe mode" but i also understand why this is done. Also according to Wikipedia Blizzard is not controlled by Activision Show nested quote +
On July 9, 2008, Activision officially merged with Vivendi Games, culminating in the inclusion of the Blizzard brand name in the title of the resulting holding company, though Blizzard Entertainment remains a separate entity with independent management.
So Activision can push for more money grubbing schemes but in the end Blizzard has the final say.
Yea agreed, basically my point is that ultra capitalism kills creativity from the game industry, which is sad.
Of course I understand WHY they want to make money. Thats the purpose of their existance.
But remember that companies/individuals CAN do stuff just to show that they can. I'd like to see more of that.
Will Wright got a budget to do Spore (because of his previous success). That's what I'm talking about, innovative new game! Simulate life from bacteria to galaxies! Cool stuff!
So after Spore was a flop, I was really sad. Not for Will, but the signal it sent to game companies: Stick with familiar franchises.
(Sorry if this is a bit off topic..)
|
I am wondering do they think Diablo 3 is not going to be worth as well..?
|
What does this mean for Sc2 though?
Less funding? Less money for blizzard tournaments? Less money for updates / servers etc..?
Or is it just random ranting from activision
|
on my young days we could buy a game and enjoy it for the entire life without paying for any adittional DLCs and monthly fees wasnt it awesome ? :p
|
On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc.
Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner?
|
On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc.
DLC and monthly fees exist cause game development is much, much more expensive now than 10 years ago and just great sales of a game might not even turn a profit.
|
On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:On May 02 2011 18:50 Fission wrote:
i'd pay a monthly fee to play sc2. Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc. Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner?
if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills
|
On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:On May 02 2011 18:50 Fission wrote:
i'd pay a monthly fee to play sc2. Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc. Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills
Look at it this way.
Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes.
Buy a book, same deal.
Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time.
Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it.
|
On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:On May 02 2011 18:50 Fission wrote:
i'd pay a monthly fee to play sc2. Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc. Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it.
i wont support money hungry CEOs that ruin franchises sorry
and btw i got windows on my computer and i get free updates i get a lot of other programs that i didnt even pay for and i get updates for them..
when things start being made cause of money instead of passion they tend to start to suck..
|
On May 02 2011 19:09 GizmoPT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:On May 02 2011 18:50 Fission wrote:
i'd pay a monthly fee to play sc2. Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc. Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it. i wont support money hungry CEOs that ruin franchises sorry and btw i got windows on my computer and i get free updates i get a lot of other programs that i didnt even pay for and i get updates for them..
Having a monthly subscription doesn't mean support for money hungry CEO's per se. It means that Blizzard has a stable fanbase with a monthly income, something that can be used to argue against CEO's wanting to make changes in game development or other kind of manipulation. A game with a paying userbase that has certain expectations is a completely different thing to a game that sells well day 1 and then just doesn't do much.
MS would love to charge for updates but it's just not possible as they are partly reliable for security holes in their operating system. These programs you don't pay for but get updates for are either financed by ads OR the people who actually donate money for the project to run.
|
On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:On May 02 2011 18:50 Fission wrote:
i'd pay a monthly fee to play sc2. Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc. Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it.
Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD.
|
it seems that nowadays some people are ok witht he idea that you've to pay for support? Wtf, that's everything blizz' has been famous for, free support with great quality, and taking care of their old games.
|
On May 02 2011 19:12 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:09 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:On May 02 2011 18:50 Fission wrote:
i'd pay a monthly fee to play sc2. Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc. Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it. i wont support money hungry CEOs that ruin franchises sorry and btw i got windows on my computer and i get free updates i get a lot of other programs that i didnt even pay for and i get updates for them.. Having a monthly subscription doesn't mean support for money hungry CEO's per se. It means that Blizzard has a stable fanbase with a monthly income, something that can be used to argue against CEO's wanting to make changes in game development or other kind of manipulation. A game with a paying userbase that has certain expectations is a completely different thing to a game that sells well day 1 and then just doesn't do much. MS would love to charge for updates but it's just not possible as they are partly reliable for security holes in their operating system. These programs you don't pay for but get updates for are either financed by ads OR the people who actually donate money for the project to run.
Theres a lot of ways to get money the problem is theres a difference between getting money and wanting to get rich fooling people
|
On May 02 2011 19:09 GizmoPT wrote:
i wont support money hungry CEOs that ruin franchises sorry
and btw i got windows on my computer and i get free updates i get a lot of other programs that i didnt even pay for and i get updates for them..
when things start being made cause of money instead of passion they tend to start to suck..
Out of interest, who here can claim to not be 'money hungry.'
I think that subscription fees would just make the game more 'elitist' perhaps, as the numbers of people in the lower leagues playing casually would decrease massively.
|
On May 02 2011 19:19 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:On May 02 2011 18:50 Fission wrote:
i'd pay a monthly fee to play sc2. Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc. Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it. Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD.
And movie you watch 2 hours and then probably never watch it again, but good game you may play many years, thousands of hours.
|
United Kingdom12071 Posts
On May 02 2011 16:27 Irrelevant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 16:20 Goldfish wrote:I remember in an interview that Vivendi (Company that owns Blizzard) was the one that purchased Activision (Vivendi also decided to remove Blizzard North and scrap that early version of Diablo 3 too I think). In this case, would Activison be able to affect Blizzard at all or is it Vivendi that calls the shots? Blizz was bought by Activision, vivendi had massive debts even with wow's income
No they wasn't. Vivendi bought Activision and has a 51% share majority in the Vivendi/Activision Merger. They called it Activision/Blizzard because Blizzard has more of a name for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
