EPTBuying any hero in HoTS is around 3.5-4 euro maybe more which is the cost of a indie sandbox game or buying a few heroes means a very good game in summer sales etc...
There is a line between conducting a business and milking the customers.
Heroes Large General Thread - Page 205
| Forum Index > Heroes of the Storm |
Add yourself in the TL Player list if you want to play with TL people, and /join teamliquid channel ingame. Also check out the new Heroes Liquipedia. | ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
Buying any hero in HoTS is around 3.5-4 euro maybe more which is the cost of a indie sandbox game or buying a few heroes means a very good game in summer sales etc... There is a line between conducting a business and milking the customers. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 15 2014 00:45 Skrita wrote: Dont have any data, but there are certainly people that use steam for dota. I was at that point some time back, even thou i had some games in my steam library other then dota, i had only dota installed. And i am sure theres tons of people who start their steam only because of Dota. My point is even if nobody would get steam for Dota(since i cant prove someone does) if you play Dota you are exposed to Steam and its advertising, thus teoretically increasing their sales. They cant sell/advertise you stuff if you dont have the app open. Yeah i get what you ary saying, i just always felt that it was the other way around. People got interested in dota2 cause of steam (at least that was the case with the guys i know). It obviously is a BIG plus that everything valve does is part of steam, blizzard kinda tries the same right now with their battlenet launcher (obviously without the third party games) | ||
|
CakeSauc3
United States1437 Posts
| ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
I've also made a thread on the official forums about how there is no point in playing HotS if this unfair ranked mode is added. I will not play a game made pointless as a result of ranked mode being rigged and unfair. Feel free to add your support to this thread. | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
Edit: To be frank, reading through all those, you are still wrong. Give SMG free week heroes only vs bronzies with all heroes, SMG will still 100-0 in a 100 games series. Edit 2: Just a suggestion, stop assuming you are right on everything and try and look from the other side. When everyone is against you, maybe you are the wrong one? | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On November 15 2014 03:31 Diamond wrote: Man you are super worked up about this. Good luck in your adventure, I don't agree one bit with you, but nonetheless gl! Edit: To be frank, reading through all those, you are still wrong. Give SMG free week heroes only vs bronzies with all heroes, SMG will still 100-0 in a 100 games series. Edit 2: Just a suggestion, stop assuming you are right on everything and try and look from the other side. When everyone is against you, maybe you are the wrong one? An advantage is still an advantage even when it's not the most important factor. Consider a model such that if Performance1 > Performance2 then team 1 beats team 2, where Performance = Skill + Bought_Advantage. If we have Skill1 = 50, Skill2 = 20, Bought_Advantage1 = 0 Bought_Advantage2 = 2, then since 50 > 22, team 1 wins because skill is more important than the bought advantage. But the bought advantage still helped team 2. If team 2 has Skill2 = 49, then 50 < 51 and team 2 would win, despite having lower skill than team 1. This is merely a summary of my argument in Counter to Argument 3: picking the most suitable heroes is of huge importance, but even in cases where it's not the most important factor, having that advantage, even though it doesn't guarantee a win, still considerably increases your chance of winning. For example, skill and training may be more important in sports than using drugs, but that doesn't mean that someone using drugs doesn't have an unfair advantage, in fact it can be what pushes them over the line. Source: http://us.battle.net/heroes/en/forum/topic/13922932182?page=10#185 Sports skill > drugs usually, but that doesn't means drugs don't matter or that drugs should be allowed in sports. | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On November 15 2014 03:58 Alaric wrote: He's on his 2nd or 3rd ban for arguing that kind of shit here, just ignore him. Nope. I've never been banned for arguing that HotS's ranked mode, as announced at Blizzcon, is unfair and rigged, or for arguing that any game is pay to win for that matter. | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
In LoL I have spent roughly $400 on my main account and $10 on my smurf, yet both ended the season ranked within a couple LP of each other. Counter picking is stupidly overrated except at the absolute highest levels of play (ie: pro tournament games), which does not matter as pros will not use ranked for tournament play. Hell even now my highest winrate Hero is someone from the F2P pool I don't own. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On November 15 2014 04:00 Diamond wrote: I really don't want to consider any of your crazy theories to be honest, I don't care enough and am fine with the business model. Most people don't play every Hero or even have a desire to do so to counter pick. If they do they will spend some $, if they don't it's w/e. In LoL I have spent roughly $400 on my main account and $10 on my smurf, yet both ended the season ranked within a couple LP of each other. Counter picking is stupidly overrated except at the absolute highest levels of play (ie: pro tournament games), which does not matter as pros will not use ranked for tournament play. Hell even now my highest winrate Hero is someone from the F2P pool I don't own. I can see that you don't want to consider it. That's why you just dodged the entire argument and again made the claim that skill is more important than picking. It could be as I've explained in Counter to Argument 3. But even if it is, it's still unfair as I further explained in Counter to Argument 3. The problem here is, because an advantage doesn't always translate to a win, you refuse to admit a bought advantage (even a small one) is still an advantage, and an unfair one at that. | ||
|
ref4
2933 Posts
On November 15 2014 04:03 paralleluniverse wrote: I can see that you don't want to consider it. That's why you just dodged the entire argument and again made the claim that skill is more important than picking. It could be as I've explained in Counter to Argument 3. But even if it is, it's still unfair as I further explained in Counter to Argument 3. The problem here is, because an advantage doesn't always translate to a win, you refuse to admit a bought advantage (even a small one) is still an advantage, and an unfair one at that. For casual players it really doesn't matter that much so Blizzard really doesn't give a shit as long as the gold income remains low, hero costs remain high so players need to spend real money to unlock the hero pool. For pros they would have spent enough time grinding gold that they will have all the heroes, and if they don't, then it's their fault for not putting enough hours and or money to unlock everything. Blizzard can always implement an "unlock'everything" mode for pros but they likely won't because that's missed out potential money. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
Jer99
Canada8159 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On November 15 2014 05:09 xDaunt wrote: Paralleluniverse is technically correct that the game is "pay to win." The game more or less forces players to purchase heroes if the players want access to all of the heroes on a reasonably timely basis. That said, I think that the practical reality of the system and its alleged problems are grossly overstated. First, if you're going to play competitively, you're probably only going to focus on playing a few select heroes. I don't think that anyone is going to claim that it is unreasonably difficult to acquire ~5 champs or so. Second, the amount of money that one has to pay for a given champ isn't really that much. If you're really into the game such that you're playing it 20+ hours per week, I don't think that it is a bad money/time investment to shell out $10 for a champ here or there. I certainly get that this kind of economic model is offensive when compared to more traditional models, but I believe that good games are too cheap anyway. HotS certainly qualifies as a good game, and I don't blame Blizzard for charging a premium for it. I think a very little "pay2win"-factor that can not really be felt is okay. It should be the first prioritiy of Blizzard to make its customers happy, and if players can still have fun despite a little disadvantage, I think Blizzard should opt for the mode that maximizes revenue/earnings. But as I argued previously, I believe the LOL model does a better job of making its players satifised. Making everything too expensive and making it feel like a grind rather than just "playing for fun" is more likely to make players feel dissatifised. Are there really people who got steam cause of dota2`? I did. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
I don't really give a shit if the game is pay2win up to a certain degree(and that also matters, the degree that it is pay2win) as long as the grind is not insurmountable and at this rate it might well do so, ive argued before that if you want to appeal to the LoL demographic then that barrier has to be lower or people would incur too high switching costs. It doesn't have to be no barrier but the divide between heroes and skins in terms of cost should be (significantly) skewed to skins rather then heroes. While Blizzard has stated that they are happy I think that testing a f2p model among a heavily saturated market with only a few alpha invites is a little bit of a small and unrepresentatitve sample size(then again it would be kinda hard to get any data unless you open it completly in which case welp its not Alpha). | ||
|
FHDH
United States7023 Posts
On November 15 2014 00:30 Skrita wrote: I still dont get how there can be so many Dota2 fanboys that dont realize that the way Dota2 is monetized works only for Dota2 and Valve alone. Becouse even if they didnt do money on the game they would still get the people on Steam which value for Valve by itself. Games that tried to sell only cosmetics died unhonorable death except for Dota2. Sigh, it was discussed many times over in this thread. I am probably beating a dead horse. Yeah it keeps being brought up but no one has been able to substantiate it. Valve did like $170M this year in Dota2 micro transaction revenue. That's a number that exists. Speculation that Dota was designed as a loss leader is just that: speculation. Not backed by any data on install rates or even a cogent argument why a game that expensive would deliver a desirable return in that manner. Meanwhile, it's become quite clear that having hit it's stride as a released product, the Dota model is working independently of Steam install rate considerations (which again I find dubious). Therefore the discussion of it as a loss leader is totally irrelevant. So yes, it has been beaten to death, and what any rational person should have derived from the discussion is: both models are theoretically viable approaches for Blizzard, both have caveats, and any monetization model will have to be viewed holistically because the monetization is directly related to game design and the combination of the two is going to determine the game's market fitness. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
And now we are in 2014, the MOBA market is heavily saturated with Dota, LoL and some random clones here and there who have a small share(rip dawngate btw). So now Blizzard has to enter a decently saturated/mature market, this means that the risk of implementing Dota 2's model is fairly large since they have NO or very little fallback on selling the their other IP's. Therefore adepting the LoL model seems more likely as LoL doesn't have any overlapping IPs either, while I do think that he HOTS model should be significantly lower in costs of heroes/champions as I have stated before it is not that weird that Blizzard has chosen to adopt that model. Also they need to sell it to shareholders somehow. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On November 15 2014 04:00 paralleluniverse wrote: Nope. I've never been banned for arguing that HotS's ranked mode, as announced at Blizzcon, is unfair and rigged, or for arguing that any game is pay to win for that matter. Pretty sure he wasn't referring to that. You've been banned before, notably for trashtalking Dota 2 and LoL rather senselessly, and also for the things you ended up saying in your "skill ceiling" thread. Please, stop going all jihad on any pseudo-problem you see with HotS or with any other game, and just stick to gaming at hand. Only a handful of people even care about the non sense you spew anyway. | ||
| ||
