|
On June 06 2010 14:55 divinesage wrote:
If that's what they're doing aren't they being very short-sighted by relying on short term (SC2) purchases? I mean in the long run they're obviously hurting their sales and popularity.
Has their intention to do exactly that ever been in question? It's what companies over here do. We are a short sighted culture and quarterly returns are king. CEO turnover is very high; a few bad quarters (and by bad, you could have not lost anything but not gained anything either) and your head could very well be gone. There are varying degrees, but the way activision treated IW I think I know which camp they sit in.
Making maximum product is not economics, that is business. Maximum profit is NOT the same as rationality, nor is it the same as utility maximization.
Singapore is getting the short shrift.
|
Vanilla WoW + BC + WoTLK = 80 + 60 + 60 = 200
Subscription = Total two years subscription = 24 months x 25 = 600.
Wtf WoW is $25 per month in Singapore?
|
It appears Blizzard is turning away from its strategy of repeat customers to the aforementioned quarterly model. The only losers are you - the people who buy the game and believe that Blizz has a legitimate interest in fostering "eSports".
|
On June 06 2010 15:06 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 14:55 divinesage wrote:
If that's what they're doing aren't they being very short-sighted by relying on short term (SC2) purchases? I mean in the long run they're obviously hurting their sales and popularity. Has their intention to do exactly that ever been in question? It's what companies over here do. We are a short sighted culture and quarterly returns are king. CEO turnover is very high; a few bad quarters (and by bad, you could have not lost anything but not gained anything either) and your head could very well be gone. There are varying degrees, but the way activision treated IW I think I know which camp they sit in. Making maximum product is not economics, that is business. Maximum profit is NOT the same as rationality, nor is it the same as utility maximization. Singapore is getting the short shrift.
Well, not all companies. But lots of them do.
And we as consumers can do that too... I'm not going to buy SC2 no matter how many good games Blizzard made in the past and will make in the future, until I think I'm getting my money's worth.
I really wonder who's in charge of Battlenet. The interviews with guys there sound completely different from those with the game development guys. It sounds like two separate companies. Blizzard needs to get its company values/direction in place.
|
On June 03 2010 03:02 pheus wrote:Mike Morihame and Frank Pearce, two of Blizzard's founders, still work there. From what I could find out the majority of people that left were from the diablo team, not starcraft. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=71614there's a list of some of the Blizzard employees working on sc2 and their experience
True, but have you seen the crap that comes out of Pearce's mouth these days?
Do you really want chat rooms?
+ Show Spoiler +Fucking pathetic is what that shit is right there.
|
But let's put things into perspective here: I've been playing WoW on and off since '06, and I've bound to have spent at least...
Vanilla WoW + BC + WoTLK = 80 + 60 + 60 = 200
Subscription = Total two years subscription = 24 months x 25 = 600.
WTF does a pay-to-play MMORPG have to do with an RTS? this point is completely bullshit.
|
Moopie, it's relevant because Blizzard is making some countries have a pay-to-play system for multiplayer in SC2.
|
Hope this part of the interview clears things up for you guys.
Roland Ong, CEO, IAHGames
GAX: Why is StarCraft II so expensive?
Ong: The deal that IAHGames have signed with Blizzard Entertainment for StarCraft II is a “License and Distribution Agreement” which makes IAHGames the official licensee and distributor for StarCraft II in SEA. Blizzard will be running their own battle.net servers for the game and Blizzard are responsible for setting the price of the game worldwide, which includes the SEA region.
Why is it so expensive? When you buy StarCraft II you get free, unlimited access to Battle.Net. Remember that things in Singapore are always more expensive than in the US. In the US, it’s very cheap for Blizzard to run Battle.net as 1MB of bandwidth costs less than US$10, but here, 1MB of bandwidth can cost between S$80-100, so the price is naturally higher to reflect that. It’s a little bit more expensive, but you get very low latency and Blizzard can assure the quality of play as a result.
Rest of it if you want to read it:
+ Show Spoiler +http://gameaxis.com/the-official-word-on-the-starcraft-ii-pricing/
|
nice post by alt)nirvana
- blizzard are/have definitely set up a local branch in sg.
- I worry if IAH has any hand at all in supporting/running b2.0 se asia. QC will go down the drain
- of cos I don't know about bandwidth costs in asia vs usa, but i doubt that is the reason. because a 8x to 10x premium would need a much higher retail price or even subscription to cover. and for sure local traffic in each country is free (or can be). 1MB costs $80-100 - do you think i'm retarded?
if bandwidth really costs 8-10x more, it be financially smart to buy more in US and have every1 connect there. latency can be reduced to a bearable level.
- "Remember that things in Singapore are always more expensive than in the US."
he's got the balls to write this? insulting
going by what the CEO of IAHGames has written, its seems that they think of all gamers as 10yo who play maple story
- lastly, for a RTS lover like yourself, i fear the high prices will reduce the amount of SC2 gamers and indirectly hurt your gaming experience should you choose to play in SE asia. I wonder what blizzard's estimate for SE asian sales for SC2 is. I wonder if they can even answer that question.
- I agree with alt)nirvana that it seems SE asian gamers are being made to pay for the setup costs of blizzard to se asia, the server setups and IAH cuts.
- i have a hunch the region locking is to benefit their regioin partners - i.e for se asia, IAH. no other reason why the whole of asia cant be lumped together in the same region as before. latency/lag is not a valid argument. i'm sure viet - > nz is gonna be about same as to USA.
so with IAH's extremely BM reputation. i'm hestitate. if it was some other company, i wouldnt be so negative.
I for 1 will wait till news of how lag is to US/KR server before deciding which region to purchase.
|
On June 08 2010 17:58 Aldair wrote:
Moopie, it's relevant because Blizzard is making some countries have a pay-to-play system for multiplayer in SC2.
Yes, and that price model is outrageous imo, I've already said as much before. However, saying "hey, this rts is $x, and you can play it for years, where as paying for a pay-to-play mmo will cost you a lot more in the long run" is a very poor argument.
Nobody even knows that this business model that blizzard is trying here will be successful, and in my opinion it just sets a very poor precedent, much like with Hellgate: London where they tried to have it (an ARPG) be pay-to-play. Flaghship went under in less than a year. Now clearly sc2 will be successful (though maybe not as much as bw), and even if it isn't (in theory) blizzard isn't going anywhere, but it's still not a good move in my opinion.
Anyway back to my point above, sc2 is not an mmo, and comparing it to one to try to make its price seem reasonable is meaningless.
|
US servers lag all the time
|
On June 08 2010 17:58 Aldair wrote:
Moopie, it's relevant because Blizzard is making some countries have a pay-to-play system for multiplayer in SC2.
its an alternative option, not a requirement
|
On June 05 2010 23:32 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 20:50 LordWeird wrote:On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote:
What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ? Couldn't agree more. People have been making great and successful games for a long time and it's never had to require this much cash dumping. Maybe Blizz has let the success of their other games and the current hype of SC2 go to their heads? Well if it's actually a superior product, it should cost more money. The idea that SC2 would cost less than a random shitty game is the scarier idea.
Yea but stretching their ideas out to a game and 2 fucking expansions and then charging that much for the expansion packs that you'll pretty much HAVE to buy in order to keep up with the community is a bit ridiculous too.
|
Man you guys act like some cheap hobby is equivalent to someone that scuba dives all over the world or someone that owns several airplanes they fly regularly cross country with their family for vacations etc. Yeah you just spent the same amount of money on a sequel with 2 expansions as you did taking your date to 1 professional baseball game including drinks, food and parking. Maybe you missed out on a couple bad movies at theaters in return. Gaming is a cheap hobby and it's not as expensive as you try to make it out to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
