EPTThey're not even lying to make it sound better or anything. Blizz should fire their PR department for making the company sound like money-grubbing fuckers. Even if they are assholes isn't a PR department there so they don't come off as that?
[D] Blizzard’s pro-gaming intentions in SE Asia - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
thopol
Japan4560 Posts
They're not even lying to make it sound better or anything. Blizz should fire their PR department for making the company sound like money-grubbing fuckers. Even if they are assholes isn't a PR department there so they don't come off as that? | ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
| ||
|
nitdkim
1264 Posts
all games that still have good communities. 60+(40?)+(40?) for SC2? SC2 will be recording breaking game for pirating because of blizzard's marketing. | ||
|
earti
Canada36 Posts
First off, time is indeed, money. One dollar today may not be equal to that same dollar a year from now. It's called inflation. The rate of inflation can also be the interest rate. Rates of inflation can vary from region to region. A company version's of interest is based on a MARR, more on that later. For games that have an annual subscription fee, such as WoW and other MMO's, it is better off to use an annual fee rather than a giant lump-sum in order to use their service. But in order to keep the subscription base going, they need to add new content to keep their subscribers happy, or else the current content gets boring and will soon lose interest and cancels their subscription. They also (relatively) consume more bandwith than simple Client-Peer games such as Starcraft. Starcraft 2, which uses less bandwith and no future content other than expansions, simply tags an additional fee to their product which is equavalent to a lifetime subscription to that game, which is much better than having to buy game cards or setting up an online payment plan. Without going into extreme detail, the amount that you would pay today which is equivalent to annual costs in your lifetime is A/i, in which A is the annual cost, and i is the annual interest rate. A few problems for the normal user is that the interest rate varies thoughout each region depending on its economy, as well as the annual cost based on the cost of service to that region. For companies such as Blizzard, in which is always in for making a least a profit with their games, their interest rate is determined by the rate in which they can make a return on their investment (in this case, the cost of developing SC2). This rate can be determined by a variety of variables, such as how many sales they would get, how long it's going to sell, and probably the most obvious, how many sales before the next expansion. If at least, the total sales cover the cost of development before the next expansion, then the Minimal Annual Return Rate (or MARR) would be relatively high (10% to 15%). Quick example would be a $100 investment and you get back $60 each year for 2 years. It's much better to have that than getting a $40 return each year for 3 years. Both examples net you a total of $120 but the getting that $120 a year earler feels better than getting $80 and waiting for the rest next year, right? (If you ever win the lottery, always go for the lump sum if possible!!) So back to SC2 pricing, by comparing the two prices based on full subscription and subscription prices, it's clear that there's two parts in buying SC2: Cost of purchasing the product and being able to play its Single Player Campaigns, and the cost of battle.net service. Unline WoW, SC2 will never constantly update radical new content other than the numerous patches for game balance, you will always get what's in the box no matter what (if you consider SC2 Expansions as new content, you're paying for them). This also makes paying a one-time subscription fee more easier to implement to more people due to the less need of setting up annual payment methods. The added cost to play battle.net is simply the equavalent cost of you playing on their battle.net servers annually for life. If The game would cost $25, but you have to play (let's say) $10/year to play on their battle.net servers, at a MARR of 20% (reasonably high since the expected rate of return is 2 years, before the next expansion). You would end up paying a total of $75 (25 for the game, 50 for the battle.net). Once again, this is just an example, we know that we can get SC2 cheaper than the prices right now, but at least gives you an idea of how they set price points on products with an online subscription that you have to pay one-time. There are a lot of variables to determine that leads up to that price value in those regions. If you find that your SC2 costs more than other countries, think about the costs that it would require to bring it to your country (increased base cost), the cost of bandwith for battle.net for that region (increased annual costs), and the amount of product they expect to sell in that region (lower MARR). Consider these factors, and you know why they it's hard to create a relatively fixed price point throughout many regions. To reflect on the first post, of course Blizzard needs to cover their initial development costs, but if you consider the factors involved in bring the game over to that region, do you expect Blizzard to operate battle.net at a loss in that region and have to start undercutting service there? In Blizzard's view of e-sports, it's the availability of the product that allows the player to participate, not the cost of the product | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
you cant even make your own league there in singapore, how do you expect on making a league with the whole SEA?? get help from samsung? because i know that after a year or so, you'll be left out by Blizzard because SEA countries aren't the countries you would expect to have many players pay for a MERE GAME. think fuckers! not every country in the SEA is developed liked singapore. | ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
| ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On June 03 2010 02:38 pheus wrote: I posted a thread explaining how the whole SE Asia thing is a cost cutting (covering) exercise, but was closed on the basis that it was obvious and common knowledge. Anyhow, basically because Blizzard's new battle.net design is client-server rather than peer2peer their bandwidth costs will be a lot higher, and international traffic is more expensive than local. It's just plain cheaper for them to plonk Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc on a more localised server. Sure, WoW was client-server with servers based in the US for sg, nz and aus players, but that was supported by a 20$ a month fee. It's all about money. Actually, R1ch the TL.net tech wizard found out that Battlenet 2.0 is actually P2P based, well at least for SC2. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158 again, if they can run the first battlenet world wide, offering easy access to different servers/gateways for almost 10 fuking years for free! i cannot see any arguments of how Battlenet 2.0 which is supposedly more advanced/newer cannot offer the same service and package of the original SC... and really is this the best PR Blizzard can come up with to justify their increased retail price on SE ASIA? game longevity?? the game is the same around the globe ain't it, how the hell does this bullshit excuse justify the increased retail costs of a single region? localised server development?? now this is like pouring acid on a already deep wound, not only the people in that regions not get compensated for not being able to play globally (maybe some localised service etc etc), they get penalised for higher pricing instead for a basic feature that has been demanded by the SC community worldwide?? where the fuck has your common sense gone Blizzard? or are you taking us gamers as a retard that will just swallow any bullshit you throw at us? sorry for my mildly strong language, this is infuriating. | ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
On June 03 2010 08:43 Shizuru~ wrote: Actually, R1ch the TL.net tech wizard found out that Battlenet 2.0 is actually P2P based, well at least for SC2. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158 again, if they can run the first battlenet world wide, offering easy access to different servers/gateways for almost 10 fuking years for free! i cannot see any arguments of how Battlenet 2.0 which is supposedly more advanced/newer cannot offer the same service and package of the original SC... Oh but didn't you hear? "The technology just isn't there yet" Lol but seriously it is pretty damn stupid an I can't really see a good excuse besides them becoming greedy/power hungry. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
If it wasnt about money, let people in SE asia import the game from the US or Europe (wherever the exchange rate is most favorable). In that case, the game would, theoretically, cost more or less the same in every region, taxes excluded, with shipping costs making up most of the differences in prices. You can use poorly thought out and irrelevant pseudo-financial explanations to try and justify what they are doing as simply wanting to make back what they are investing in each region, but it is clear that Blizzard is price discriminating regionally to extract maximum monies and they will happily do it at the expense of the community. That's precisely what is happening here, with the Kespa business, no lan, etc. Yes companies exist to make money, but what Activision is in the business of doing is hopping from short term project to short term project and just throwing anything that has been spent in the bin. Blizzard has, historically, sought to get repeat customers by making a quality product. I simply do not understand how this point is lost on the apologists who use the "all companies want to make profit" line. And despite the recent trainwreck interview I have a feeling that the retail version's EULA will EXPLICITY prohibit you using a version of the game that isnt in your region. Whether they enforce that will depend on how rampant it is, if you get the entire country of Australia playing on the US server expect Activision's boot to place squarely on your teeth. | ||
|
warshop
Canada490 Posts
On June 03 2010 09:16 red_b wrote: There is a reason blizzard is region locking the game and it is best demonstrated through this. If it wasnt about money, let people in SE asia import the game from the US or Europe (wherever the exchange rate is most favorable). In that case, the game would, theoretically, cost more or less the same in every region, taxes excluded, with shipping costs making up most of the differences in prices. You can use poorly thought out and irrelevant pseudo-financial explanations to try and justify what they are doing as simply wanting to make back what they are investing in each region, but it is clear that Blizzard is price discriminating regionally to extract maximum monies and they will happily do it at the expense of the community. That's precisely what is happening here, with the Kespa business, no lan, etc. Yes companies exist to make money, but what Activision is in the business of doing is hopping from short term project to short term project and just throwing anything that has been spent in the bin. Blizzard has, historically, sought to get repeat customers by making a quality product. I simply do not understand how this point is lost on the apologists who use the "all companies want to make profit" line. And despite the recent trainwreck interview I have a feeling that the retail version's EULA will EXPLICITY prohibit you using a version of the game that isnt in your region. Whether they enforce that will depend on how rampant it is, if you get the entire country of Australia playing on the US server expect Activision's boot to place squarely on your teeth. I have to agree with red_b here. I'm pretty sure Blizzard will make their ROI within the first year of releasing the game. And I still believe this business model is based off Activision's. | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
On June 02 2010 19:29 Aerox wrote: Ugh, obvious ass-kissing by NEWater. Poorly thought out points. Very clearly QFT. I was reading the OP and hoping for some actual discussion or critical thinking involved in these points. I got finished reading and check the URL. Wait, it wasn't www.Blizzard.com as I thought I would see...? | ||
|
MageKirby
United States535 Posts
| ||
|
pheus
Australia161 Posts
On June 03 2010 08:43 Shizuru~ wrote: Actually, R1ch the TL.net tech wizard found out that Battlenet 2.0 is actually P2P based, well at least for SC2. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158 That's weird, I still get lag when I host or play solo against a computer. I really don't see how that is peer2peer | ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
On June 02 2010 23:31 SubtleArt wrote: Theres a difference between just making a product and selling it and squeezing every last drop of money you can from someone. Im not gonna pay to use a napkin at a restaurant. Oh and public health care is pretty cool  OMFG definitely you have to be kidding me, you are just so cute an innocent to be insulted. + Show Spoiler + Ignorant | ||
|
oo_xerox
United States852 Posts
On June 02 2010 20:04 Kennigit wrote: "so maybe region locking is reasonable after all" - yeah, stay in Singapore and never compete against the rest of the world...that sounds like a good plan. I do agree with "exhaustive bureaucracy" though That exist in cuba, it sucks so hard We cant compete with anyone outside korea in any game whatsoever, is the saddest thing ever, watching people play and not been able to compete with them, it really sucks and lowers your expectations, ive never played with anyone outside cuba, and it hurts to say, its pathetic and makes you wanna play vs pc games. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
| ||
|
aLt)nirvana
Singapore846 Posts
i was at the meeting too and i brought out how all these benefits they mentioned (low latency, localised live tournaments) are only going to affect a small handful of players ie the competitive/ top players, whereas they were going subject the vast majority to the price increase. yes casual players care about lag but its not that much of an issue to CASUAL players. They rather have a 2 second delay than pay 60 bucks more. I however will pay the extra, and all hardcore blizzard fans will obviously still buy starcraft 2, but they will still have that uncomfortable feeling that they are paying too much for something they shouldn't be. And 50% of the players who buy starcraft just play the single player and are done with the game, so the number of sales is going to drastically drop as these players who dont benefit at all(latency nonissue they dont go online, no tournaments etc) are not going to pay 109$ just to play the game, so there goes a huge portion of new players. Also, 16 year olds arent going touch this at all, they will probably just buy 60 games on their iPhones, a new one every other day, instead of saving 4 months for 109$. Even when they do, they wont have friends playing it cause its too expensive, and those who do may have ordered the US version. The blizzard rep mentioned this is something they will look into. The main justification for the high price was that it was all ultimately about the game expereince. they wanted to create a perfect gaming expereince for everyone, even the dota players who kept dying because of that 1 second delay in lag, and FOR ME the price tag is justified. im not agreeing 100% with this but i do have an open mind. i mean if i picture myself a few months down the road, where bnet2.0 is fixed, sc2 is the best game of all time and im having a blast and know i will continue to do so for a long time to come. Like how we enjoyed SC1/TFT for years, way beyond the game life of all those non blizzard games that we payed 60 bux for and stopped playing for 1 month. Thinking back to this thread, would the price be worth it? I belong to the group where the benefits increase my gaming expereince so ill say yes. I do however, think they gotta do a massive rethinking on their prices/pitch to the casual players. If i put myself in the shoes of a 16 year old/ recreational gamer/ single player dude / person living in 3rd world country(no disrespect, just the purcashing power issue), these benefits arent as important to me and isnt justification for the high price tag so i simply wont buy the game. Next, the main reason why the SEA is priced higher is because of blizzard set up costs, they are setting up an office, new server in the region all from scratch. I disagree with the SEA players having to subsidise the setup costs when blizzard has more than enough money through WoW etc. Also, this set up cost should be seen as an investment choice on their part that will bring in more revenue for them in the future, and at the moment the big price tag will only hurt their sales and growth of the player base. Like i dont pay more for willy wonka sweets if i know they are researching a new flavour. Lastly something out of topic - for the proleague if i recall correctly they mentioned something along the lines of creating a specialised server with dedicated bandwitdh etc to handle players from different regions. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
I just wish Blizzard would actually RESPOND. Someone ask them "how do you expect to promote e-sports with no cross-realm play". Someone needs to ask that in an interview. Please. | ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
On June 02 2010 23:31 SubtleArt wrote: Theres a difference between just making a product and selling it and squeezing every last drop of money you can from someone. Im not gonna pay to use a napkin at a restaurant. Oh and public health care is pretty cool Likewise saying Blizzard is making us 'pay for the napkins at a restaurant' is a pretty gross hyperbole. By comparison Blizzard is quite tame. Hi paying for multiplayer mode DLC for Resident Evil 5. | ||
| ||
