|
|
On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer.
It's pretty much only accepted by LoL players, outside of that people are annoyed by it.
Everyone knows that those things aren't necessarily "P2W" but they are definitely "tempted to pay" methods.
"Hero picks matter / they are behind some kind of paywall" is the same "unethical"(strong word but I don't mean it that strongly actually) design as releasing new heroes that are deliberately made OP so people are more tempted to get them.
It's not 100% related but check this article, it's quite good.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.php
On the other hand, I think Blizzard can't go the DotA2 way completely. I'd personally be pretty happy with a B2P model where you pay a fixed amount once and unlock all heroes and just have to buy skins from that point on.
|
On November 08 2014 10:20 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. It's pretty much only accepted by LoL players, outside of that people are annoyed by it. Everyone knows that those things aren't necessarily "P2W" but they are definitely "tempted to pay" methods. "Hero picks matter / they are behind some kind of paywall" is the same "unethical"(strong word but I don't mean it that strongly actually) design as releasing new heroes that are deliberately made OP so people are more tempted to get them. It's not 100% related but check this article, it's quite good. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.phpOn the other hand, I think Blizzard can't go the DotA2 way completely. I'd personally be pretty happy with a B2P model where you pay a fixed amount once and unlock all heroes and just have to buy skins from that point on.
I get more of the vibe that it's only hated by Dota 2 players.
|
On November 08 2014 10:12 FHDH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. This is 100% what I expected given what we've seen of their design so far. Only one poster in this thread was unsure about it. It's a bad design for reasons I think we've discussed (but we can rehash them now if necessary) including why the League comparisons are actually quite bad.
Yes, but when the argument hinges on "the game would be better designed if it didn't cost money" its starting from a pretty unreasonable place to begin with.
+ Show Spoiler +PS: Dota was developed on Steam sales and was a loss leader. No other company, not even Blizzard, is in a position to take that kind of risk.
On November 08 2014 10:23 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:20 KeksX wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. It's pretty much only accepted by LoL players, outside of that people are annoyed by it. Everyone knows that those things aren't necessarily "P2W" but they are definitely "tempted to pay" methods. "Hero picks matter / they are behind some kind of paywall" is the same "unethical"(strong word but I don't mean it that strongly actually) design as releasing new heroes that are deliberately made OP so people are more tempted to get them. It's not 100% related but check this article, it's quite good. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.phpOn the other hand, I think Blizzard can't go the DotA2 way completely. I'd personally be pretty happy with a B2P model where you pay a fixed amount once and unlock all heroes and just have to buy skins from that point on. I get more of the vibe that it's only hated by Dota 2 players.
You are not wrong, I see this argument at lot on LD. People just spoiled by Valve giving away free shit.
|
I don't know. In my eyes there was no debate just some name calling on heroes being p2w. People like drama. I'm loving the game for what it is, blizzcon is what we should be talking about here right now.
But fine, here's what I will say. Debate gold generation and ideas of what is fair between blizzards profits and our enjoyment. My statement before to "its p2w" was in agreement, but not a big deal. Then you just keep insisting on making a big deal. So I invoked the thread rules because this community doesn't need to mimic league. I simply stated its like league, and that's what it is. If you want to continue to circle jerk around the idea, feel free to trash an announcement thread turned general.
|
On November 08 2014 10:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:12 FHDH wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. This is 100% what I expected given what we've seen of their design so far. Only one poster in this thread was unsure about it. It's a bad design for reasons I think we've discussed (but we can rehash them now if necessary) including why the League comparisons are actually quite bad. Yes, but when the argument hinges on "the game would be better designed if it didn't cost money" its starting from a pretty unreasonable place to begin with. + Show Spoiler +PS: Dota was developed on Steam sales and was a loss leader. No other company, not even Blizzard, is in a position to take that kind of risk.
Absolutely 100% not what anyone is saying.
And this assertion about Dota2 being designed as loss leader, I haven't seen it substantiated anywhere. Steam was wildly popular before Dota2 among PC gamers. I would be surprised if Dota2 made a significant impact on its install rate. So perhaps someone has said it somewhere, in which case fine, otherwise it's just speculation. Also notable that Dota2 is doing quite well but no better I think than Valve had in mind it would do considering the clout of the Dota brand, the effort put into it, and the slice of League they might have hoped to take.
People like drama.
People like well-designed games with good pay models. Don't say shit like this and expect people to take what you have to say seriously.
|
On November 08 2014 10:23 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:20 KeksX wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. It's pretty much only accepted by LoL players, outside of that people are annoyed by it. Everyone knows that those things aren't necessarily "P2W" but they are definitely "tempted to pay" methods. "Hero picks matter / they are behind some kind of paywall" is the same "unethical"(strong word but I don't mean it that strongly actually) design as releasing new heroes that are deliberately made OP so people are more tempted to get them. It's not 100% related but check this article, it's quite good. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.phpOn the other hand, I think Blizzard can't go the DotA2 way completely. I'd personally be pretty happy with a B2P model where you pay a fixed amount once and unlock all heroes and just have to buy skins from that point on. I get more of the vibe that it's only hated by Dota 2 players.
I play neither LoL nor DotA2 (well sometimes I play both depends on what friend asks me) but one has to acknowledge that from a customer point of view, DotA2's model is far, far superior.
But anyway the point I want to raise is that Blizzard should think about what they wanna achieve with this. Hiding heroes behind a paywall is in my opinion unethical design. (And again I hate that word unethical in this context but I really lack a better word). I think they would do a much, much better job focusing on whats best for the customer, not for their pockets.
EDIT:
I worded that wrong. My point is that paying for each and every hero over and over again as they are released is the problematic part. A "flatrate" would be much much better imho.
|
I think that they should make it so you can grind gold far easier so that for a player that plays many hours he has the entire roster unlocked. Assuming they play that much because they are competitive and to be competitive you need all the heroes. The issue now is that it takes so long to get gold that you simply have to pay to get heroes.
|
On November 08 2014 10:26 FHDH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:23 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2014 10:12 FHDH wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. This is 100% what I expected given what we've seen of their design so far. Only one poster in this thread was unsure about it. It's a bad design for reasons I think we've discussed (but we can rehash them now if necessary) including why the League comparisons are actually quite bad. Yes, but when the argument hinges on "the game would be better designed if it didn't cost money" its starting from a pretty unreasonable place to begin with. + Show Spoiler +PS: Dota was developed on Steam sales and was a loss leader. No other company, not even Blizzard, is in a position to take that kind of risk. Absolutely 100% not what anyone is saying. And this assertion about Dota2 being designed as loss leader, I haven't seen it substantiated anywhere. Steam was wildly popular before Dota2 among PC gamers. I would be surprised if Dota2 made a significant impact on its install rate. So perhaps someone has said it somewhere, in which case fine, otherwise it's just speculation. People like well-designed games with good pay models. Don't say shit like this and expect people to take what you have to say seriously.
The speculation was done by almost every person in the industry, including game developers who knew the guys working on Dota. The same with TF2. There is literally no other reason for Valve to develop that game except to get people to install steam. They figured out how to make money after the fact. You can't make games and throw around millions like that unless your Valve.
There is no other pay model that is out there beyond skins and thats really risky. Or a box game, but that isn't going to work either, because there are other options that are free.
And people do like drama. Its is fact.
|
On November 08 2014 10:30 Tenks wrote:
I think that they should make it so you can grind gold far easier so that for a player that plays many hours he has the entire roster unlocked. Assuming they play that much because they are competitive and to be competitive you need all the heroes. The issue now is that it takes so long to get gold that you simply have to pay to get heroes.
Yes this is exactly what is needed. Unfortunately as the hero pool increases it'll become less likely that the entire roster will be unlocked by rank 40, but I think more gold rewards from 20-40 will help, or should help. In my opinion, no one will ever play every hero in ranked, they will stick to a few heroes per role so Iftar meta changes I think people will have enough gold to adapt to the meta given decent gold generation
|
On November 08 2014 10:26 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:23 Hider wrote:On November 08 2014 10:20 KeksX wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. It's pretty much only accepted by LoL players, outside of that people are annoyed by it. Everyone knows that those things aren't necessarily "P2W" but they are definitely "tempted to pay" methods. "Hero picks matter / they are behind some kind of paywall" is the same "unethical"(strong word but I don't mean it that strongly actually) design as releasing new heroes that are deliberately made OP so people are more tempted to get them. It's not 100% related but check this article, it's quite good. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.phpOn the other hand, I think Blizzard can't go the DotA2 way completely. I'd personally be pretty happy with a B2P model where you pay a fixed amount once and unlock all heroes and just have to buy skins from that point on. I get more of the vibe that it's only hated by Dota 2 players. I play neither LoL nor DotA2 (well sometimes I play both depends on what friend asks me) but one has to acknowledge that from a customer point of view, DotA2's model is far, far superior. But anyway the point I want to raise is that Blizzard should think about what they wanna achieve with this. Hiding heroes behind a paywall is in my opinion unethical design. (And again I hate that word unethical in this context but I really lack a better word). I think they would do a much, much better job focusing on whats best for the customer, not for their pockets. EDIT: I worded that wrong. My point is that paying for each and every hero over and over again as they are released is the problematic part. A "flatrate" would be much much better imho.
Well, I think maybe you should give both games a option. Try and play like 20-30 games of both League and Dota. I think the lower potential selection of heroes makes it easier for new players as they don't have to learn so many different interactions.
I also disagree that maximzing earnings is unethical. If anything, it would be unethical by Mike Morhaime towards the shareholders if he intentionally didn't generate as much earnings as he could.
From a customer perspective, I just wished that I earned gold a bit faster, but earning money and then being able to unlock a hero that you watched the pro's play and really want to play yourself... it's pretty fun. It's like when you played D2, and you grinded to be able to afford you new item. It would definitely have been less fun if you just got all the items for free when you first started playing.
|
On November 08 2014 10:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:26 KeksX wrote:On November 08 2014 10:23 Hider wrote:On November 08 2014 10:20 KeksX wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. It's pretty much only accepted by LoL players, outside of that people are annoyed by it. Everyone knows that those things aren't necessarily "P2W" but they are definitely "tempted to pay" methods. "Hero picks matter / they are behind some kind of paywall" is the same "unethical"(strong word but I don't mean it that strongly actually) design as releasing new heroes that are deliberately made OP so people are more tempted to get them. It's not 100% related but check this article, it's quite good. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.phpOn the other hand, I think Blizzard can't go the DotA2 way completely. I'd personally be pretty happy with a B2P model where you pay a fixed amount once and unlock all heroes and just have to buy skins from that point on. I get more of the vibe that it's only hated by Dota 2 players. I play neither LoL nor DotA2 (well sometimes I play both depends on what friend asks me) but one has to acknowledge that from a customer point of view, DotA2's model is far, far superior. But anyway the point I want to raise is that Blizzard should think about what they wanna achieve with this. Hiding heroes behind a paywall is in my opinion unethical design. (And again I hate that word unethical in this context but I really lack a better word). I think they would do a much, much better job focusing on whats best for the customer, not for their pockets. EDIT: I worded that wrong. My point is that paying for each and every hero over and over again as they are released is the problematic part. A "flatrate" would be much much better imho. Well, I think maybe you should give both games a option. Try and play like 20-30 games of both League and Dota. I think the lower potential selection of heroes makes it easier for new players as they don't have to learn so many different interactions. I also disagree that maximziing earnings is unethical.
I DID play over 100 hours in both games, I just don't play anymore for various reasons.
I started out with LoL then left because a friend wanted me to get into DotA2, the biggest difference was, when I asked "whats the current free rotation?" he was like "All of them", which overwhelmed me but then he was saying "Pick whatever, it's okay". And I just picked whatever looked more fun. When I started out in LoL, the minute I started the game I already planned out what to do with my currency and the thought of spending money immediately crossed my mind.
Started DotA2 and got to enjoy the game and to this day I only bought the companion thing, LoL made me think about money, or rather spending money, very very fast and I actually bought some heroes.
This stuff is a design decision they made. It just didn't accidentally happen, it is certainly intentional.
And imho that is a problem.
Maximizing profit is fine, but people need to realize that games can be designed to manipulate you into paying more money than you'd normally do. Hell, I've heard from players that already spent $50+ in Heroes - and they don't even have all the heroes atm.
You've probably heard of the concept of "F2P whales" already, if not I recommend this article:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php?print=1
To me, Blizzard was always the company that was different. With this model it seems like they've changed somewhat and are indeed chasing the whale.
I'm not saying Heroes' model is completely unfair, the gold mechanic is certainly something to compensate and spending money IS needed, I just think it could be better designed for both the company and the customers. Chasing whales is cool and all, but having a higher average spending on every user is imho better. You could achieve that easily with a "hero flatrate payment", for example.
|
On November 08 2014 10:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:26 FHDH wrote:On November 08 2014 10:23 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2014 10:12 FHDH wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. This is 100% what I expected given what we've seen of their design so far. Only one poster in this thread was unsure about it. It's a bad design for reasons I think we've discussed (but we can rehash them now if necessary) including why the League comparisons are actually quite bad. Yes, but when the argument hinges on "the game would be better designed if it didn't cost money" its starting from a pretty unreasonable place to begin with. + Show Spoiler +PS: Dota was developed on Steam sales and was a loss leader. No other company, not even Blizzard, is in a position to take that kind of risk. Absolutely 100% not what anyone is saying. And this assertion about Dota2 being designed as loss leader, I haven't seen it substantiated anywhere. Steam was wildly popular before Dota2 among PC gamers. I would be surprised if Dota2 made a significant impact on its install rate. So perhaps someone has said it somewhere, in which case fine, otherwise it's just speculation. People like drama. People like well-designed games with good pay models. Don't say shit like this and expect people to take what you have to say seriously. The speculation was done by almost every person in the industry, including game developers who knew the guys working on Dota. The same with TF2. There is literally no other reason for Valve to develop that game except to get people to install steam. They figured out how to make money after the fact. You can't make games and throw around millions like that unless your Valve. There is no other pay model that is out there beyond skins and thats really risky. Or a box game, but that isn't going to work either, because there are other options that are free. And people do like drama. Its is fact.
Well, speculation about business decisions by creative professionals is substantiation enough for me, case closed.
Hey I googled "team fortress 2 profit" and came up with this, not sure how reliable we find it but apparently TF2 makes them money also. http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/08/how-and-why-team-fortress-2-made-valve-super-rich
I'm actually not sure Valve needs ANY loss leaders for its platform. Is any platform on the PC more popular than Steam? Is any even close? Pretty sure they blow out the proprietary networks completely out of the water (Battle.net, Origin).
Also, yes Valve has lots of money. Know who else does? Activision Blizzard. There is not a huge team working on HotS. It is not a massive project they are likely to hemorrhage money on if they have a less-aggressive business model. They worked on Titan for years with what was probably a significantly larger team and just scrapped it outright.
In point of fact, having a model similar to League is itself quite risky for reasons discussed at length not that many pages ago: League players are far more likely to tolerate it than people who want to try a new game. Everyone has friends who play League and many people have years invested and many dollars. Almost everyone has shit-all invested in HotS and very few have friends who play it.
Same reason no one is coming out with a $15/mo MMO. Not that I've heard of any time recently, certainly. It's a model Blizzard is capable of maintaining several million people on but another company trying could doom the game. Doom it. So could a shitty f2p model. A business model that does not correspond to what the market will tolerate is going to doom any business venture, period. This includes not only pricing but what you pay for and how. So your assertion that somehow adopting a League of Legends business model is inherently less risky than a Dota2-like model requires substantiation.
And as for the last bit, it is irrelevant if people like drama. Throwing that out as a blanket indictment of people disagreeing with you is a real good way to elicit a "fuck you" and close discussion.
|
On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer.
It is LoL. That's precisely why all heroes are unlocked in LoL tournaments. Riot don't want their tournaments to be pay to win, but they're seemingly fine if their game is.
|
There are at least 5 ways to fix this:
1. Continue to use blind picks.
2. Both teams have the same hero pool, which consists of all heroes that anyone (from either team) have unlocked.
3. The entire hero pool is unlocked in ranked mode.
4. Ranked mode is only accessible to players with all heroes unlocked.
5. Each player is required to pick 4 or 5 different heroes to put into their hero pool (20 or 25 heroes per team), and then drafting occurs with these 20 or 25 heroes per team as before.
The point is the equalize the hero pool between both teams.
|
|
|
On November 08 2014 10:50 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. It is LoL. That's precisely why all heroes are unlocked in LoL tournaments. Riot don't want their tournaments to be pay to win, but they're seemingly fine if their game is.
Have you ever played Ranked Mode in LoL? You do not get all the heroes in ranked, you only get the ones you own.
Ranked ladder play =/= tournaments.
|
On November 08 2014 10:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:26 KeksX wrote:On November 08 2014 10:23 Hider wrote:On November 08 2014 10:20 KeksX wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. It's pretty much only accepted by LoL players, outside of that people are annoyed by it. Everyone knows that those things aren't necessarily "P2W" but they are definitely "tempted to pay" methods. "Hero picks matter / they are behind some kind of paywall" is the same "unethical"(strong word but I don't mean it that strongly actually) design as releasing new heroes that are deliberately made OP so people are more tempted to get them. It's not 100% related but check this article, it's quite good. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.phpOn the other hand, I think Blizzard can't go the DotA2 way completely. I'd personally be pretty happy with a B2P model where you pay a fixed amount once and unlock all heroes and just have to buy skins from that point on. I get more of the vibe that it's only hated by Dota 2 players. I play neither LoL nor DotA2 (well sometimes I play both depends on what friend asks me) but one has to acknowledge that from a customer point of view, DotA2's model is far, far superior. But anyway the point I want to raise is that Blizzard should think about what they wanna achieve with this. Hiding heroes behind a paywall is in my opinion unethical design. (And again I hate that word unethical in this context but I really lack a better word). I think they would do a much, much better job focusing on whats best for the customer, not for their pockets. EDIT: I worded that wrong. My point is that paying for each and every hero over and over again as they are released is the problematic part. A "flatrate" would be much much better imho. Well, I think maybe you should give both games a option. Try and play like 20-30 games of both League and Dota. I think the lower potential selection of heroes makes it easier for new players as they don't have to learn so many different interactions. I also disagree that maximzing earnings is unethical. If anything, it would be unethical by Mike Morhaime towards the shareholders if he intentionally didn't generate as much earnings as he could. From a customer perspective, I just wished that I earned gold a bit faster, but earning money and then being able to unlock a hero that you watched the pro's play and really want to play yourself... it's pretty fun. It's like when you played D2, and you grinded to be able to afford you new item. It would definitely have been less fun if you just got all the items for free when you first started playing.
Ah yes "ethical obligation to shareholders." Literally the most poisonous concept in business. Thankfully this does not boil down to one group versus the other: a good pay model may be good for both and ensure the long-term popularity and profitability of the game. It's a hard balance to strike though! And it is malfeasance to not maximize profit for shareholders. That is what's important.
I just want to point out that the entire goddamned point of Diablo is the accumulation of items. That's what the game is. A fantasy item grinder. Mobas are not the same, at all.
|
On November 08 2014 10:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:12 FHDH wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. This is 100% what I expected given what we've seen of their design so far. Only one poster in this thread was unsure about it. It's a bad design for reasons I think we've discussed (but we can rehash them now if necessary) including why the League comparisons are actually quite bad. Yes, but when the argument hinges on "the game would be better designed if it didn't cost money" its starting from a pretty unreasonable place to begin with.
That's not the argument.
The argument is "the game would be better designed if ranked mode wasn't pay to win". That doesn't necessarily involve paying less money. In fact, I suggested a (possibly optional) $15/month subscription fee for HotS.
|
On November 08 2014 10:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:50 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. It is LoL. That's precisely why all heroes are unlocked in LoL tournaments. Riot don't want their tournaments to be pay to win, but they're seemingly fine if their game is. Have you ever played Ranked Mode in LoL? You do not get all the heroes in ranked, you only get the ones you own. Ranked ladder play =/= tournaments.
That's why LoL is unfair outside of tournaments. And as has been announced at Blizzcon today, HotS is too.
|
On November 08 2014 10:55 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:23 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2014 10:12 FHDH wrote:On November 08 2014 10:10 Plansix wrote:
Its exactly the same at LoL and that game is fine, ranked is acceptable in that system. Why are people shocked by this, as if it was going to be any other way? Its not perfect, but Blizzard isn't making the game for charity or to get people to install their own personal GameSpot their computer. This is 100% what I expected given what we've seen of their design so far. Only one poster in this thread was unsure about it. It's a bad design for reasons I think we've discussed (but we can rehash them now if necessary) including why the League comparisons are actually quite bad. Yes, but when the argument hinges on "the game would be better designed if it didn't cost money" its starting from a pretty unreasonable place to begin with. That's not the argument. The argument is "the game would be better designed if ranked mode wasn't pay to win". That doesn't necessarily involve paying less money. In fact, I suggested a (possibly optional) $15/month subscription fee for HotS.
$15/month seems too much, but I could see a sub model working.
Pay $X/month and get access to all heroes, buy skins and constant heroes for either ingame or real currency and if you don't pay, you still get the free rotation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
