|
On June 17 2010 23:20 nyshak wrote:
Insulting them will, if anything, speed up the process your describing.
I feel like you're the opposite of them. You also recognize Blizzards the only people doing what they do and you're desperately clinging to them trying to keep them afloat in there current incarnation superficially.
But the thing is, companies don't grow when customers do that. And if you don't grow, you regress.
They also don't grow when people just shout insults about their management being a Zionist conspiracy, don't get me wrong. But both extremes are equally invalid. You're the other extreme.
|
On June 17 2010 23:18 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 23:16 Takkara wrote:On June 17 2010 23:08 StarStruck wrote:
I believe many of us here have made constructive criticism. Stop blowing things out of proportion. I'm pretty sure we can apply this to half's above post as well. Sounds like a Braveheart speech. You can take our monthly fees, but you can never take, OUR FREEDOM! Rhetoric on both sides needs to calm down. There's a false sense of urgency present in all these arguments. There's no need to "win now". Nothing's changing today. Posts like this just piss me off. I don't even agree with those peoples perspective, but it is a valid perspective. I'm trying to illustrate how they feel. Is that perspective invalid? I don't get it.
Is there an entirely separate debate to be had about the future of the gaming industry? Yeah, of course. I've had it quite a bit with my friends about whether the Wii is the portent of a coming gamepocalypse. No need to get into it now.
But do I think it's valid to say that whether or not Blizzard charges for cross-region support is truly the final frontier of the battle over the gaming industry's soul? No, no I don't. It's melodrama.
There's tons to talk about as to the worth of this feature and whether it should be free, without having to tie it back to cock-fighting, the future of the gaming industry, the death of the hardcore gamer, etc, etc.
|
I would if said players would stop crying about how evil Blizz is and how the sky is falling and kept things in perspective.
Cross realm lies in the future, these people wish to make sc2 their living and a delayed xrealm is not only severly detrimental to this line of thought but it forces a part of the community to buy the game 3 times. Because if they dont they wont be able to compete.
IT just goes to show how blizzard has taken a very casual stance towards Esport, but most of us are impatient.
here's a false sense of urgency present in all these arguments. There's no need to "win now". Nothing's changing today.
I for one would rather be able to view another Europe vs Asia showmatch than have chat channels upon release. I DONT WANT TO WAIT 5 months to a year just to have something that worked fine in beta to happen again. ;/
|
On June 17 2010 23:24 Takkara wrote:
Is there an entirely separate debate to be had about the future of the gaming industry? Yeah, of course. I've had it quite a bit with my friends about whether the Wii is the portent of a coming gamepocalypse. No need to get into it now.
But do I think it's valid to say that whether or not Blizzard charges for cross-region support is truly the final frontier of the battle over the gaming industry's soul? No, no I don't. It's melodrama.
There's tons to talk about as to the worth of this feature and whether it should be free, without having to tie it back to cock-fighting, the future of the gaming industry, the death of the hardcore gamer, etc, etc.
You know whats melodrama? That in this day an age anything can be so simply and romantically encapsulated in a single event.
But anyway, I totally agree its kind of melodramatic. But realize its I'm trying to illustrate THEIR perspective, not mine. My perspective is "hey this is stupid so ima criticize it for being really stupid"
If you didn't rage or criticize, I don't care. But once again, you have no reason go around provide justifications for blizzards actions. Especially when your pool of knowledge is so limited.
|
On June 17 2010 22:54 nyshak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 22:31 Madkipz wrote:This "core" feature of yours actually caters to a small number of players (in comparison) who are, for instance, into eSports and thus have a reason to play world-wide. Would you not lend your voice to these players ? I would if said players would stop crying about how evil Blizz is and how the sky is falling and kept things in perspective. It won't help us to bitch about Blizz. I believe in constructive criticism. Arguing with Blizz about how cross-realm play would support eSports and utimately will earn them more money than charging for it is great. Telling them to f*** off if they are going to charge money AT ALL won't get us nowhere. Show nested quote +
I am severly starting to hate on people who argue against these issues or try to invent reasons for why these things are not core bnet features.
So hate me. I can live with that 
Let me say I have read every single post in this thread, especially you two fine players trilling like overexcited schoolgirls the last 4 pages. Nyshak has a point, but really only one. Charging for extra features is good from a pure revenue stream point of view. A firm must take into consideration the "worst-case scenario" for their sales/revenue. Blizzard expects, due to marketing research, past experience, a loyal consumer base, etc etc., that their "worst-case" scenario (i.e., how much money they can still make if x# players do not buy the game based on such and such decision). is still a viable revenue stream for the goals they have internally set.
From this view, Blizzard has it right from a purely economical perspective.
On the other hand, Half has everything else right. So does JinRo. Why should we, the consumers, aggregate the collective "I don't care", or "if Blizzard charges, I'll pay" opinion? Going back to the above paragraph, it would be correct to say that this is as much a time period for Beta Testing gameplay/balance, as it is a time period for market research and consumer feedback probing. No product should go to market without a limited release, a prototype, a beta test. Blizzard is not stupid. They know about TL.Net. They know people do not want to pay for features we have had 10 years ago. They know.
They don't want to know whether or not we want to pay, they want to know whether or not we are willing to pay, when the shit hits the fan, so to speak. So, allow me translate from a forum post, to Corporatese.
Typical forum post: "FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD".
What a corporation reads: "FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD".
Their train of thought: "We already knew they didn't like it. Disregard. Oh, this guy would pay $3.99 a month, more likely $5 a month. Tally that up with the rest."
Blizzard is a company, a corporation. You, me, we, all of US, we are the consumers. It is not, and has never been, "Blizzard vs. The People". Consumerism has not changed...a business must, (and not exclusively because) by obligation to its shareholders (by law) make successful business decisions to maximize revenue, and must thus make the most money from consumers * as the consumers are willing to shell out for the product.
This Beta? Us Beta Testers? We're testing a game, but Blizzard is also testing the market as the same time; Blizzard is testing us. The more we give in a game of attrition, the more we give in the game of $$$Money$$$. The less we accept and say "oh, that sucks but I'd pay for it, the less of a viable idea it becomes to start charging for basic features. An EXTREMELY important facet of a successful marketing strategy for any product is knowing what the consumer expects their product to do. By giving the ground that you "saw this coming", "it's viable", "I'd pay xxx dollars" to Blizzard, you give them them favorable market research to at least try out the pay-for-service model. When they do implement that test, and they don't lose the number of subscribers to the service to outweigh the cost of implementing it, then the theory works. It becomes a profitable service for them.
Also, once you buy the game, they already made that money. You can throw the game away, they still get the green. So, by trying out pay-for-service ideas, they don't lose money. They can only gain, UNLESS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH USERS TO JUSTIFY THE MAINTENANCE COSTS. I think you see where I'm going with this.
So, to paraphrase those immortal words of [the not so immortal Frank Pearce]...
Do you REALLY want to tell Blizzard to charge you more?
I don't. And, all that being said:
On June 17 2010 20:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 17:38 spinesheath wrote:
My bet: It'll cost you a monthly fee and thus in the long run you'll pay more than what you would have spent on another copy of the game.
The other possibility is that it'll only cost you once and less than a full copy of the game. But from that quote it doesn't sound like there is a chance that it will be free. If that turns out to be the case, I actually genuinely would quit SC2 and not buy any of the expansions.
(Edit: Note that "you" is a collective term based at anybody reading, not specifically at *YOU* Mr. Jinro. Just clarifying!) Similarly so for myself, good sir. The consumer holds the power. StarCraft is not a survival need, regardless of how BAWWW you might be without it. It's a luxury item. You don't buy it, you don't die. You don't buy it, Blizzard loses money. I will likely not quit SC2 right away, but if the pay-for-xxx model is sustained and implemented on a permanent basis (say, by the time the xpac rolls around?) I won't give them any more money. I'll enjoy the purchase I made and agreed to make, buying SC2:WoL but I will not pay for an expansion with the same system, and I will not ever pay, or even be able to justify CONSIDERING paying to have something that I have not only come to expect, but do indeed receive from not only every single other Blizzard game, but every video game with a social aspect to have ever existed.
/[longwinded thought-out post.]
I await the flame. Just please have something logical to say. I don't find flaw in my argument, if anybody does, please make sure you make it very difficult to make somebody (me) make you look like a fool. Otherwise that's no fun ))))
|
On June 17 2010 23:22 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 23:20 nyshak wrote:
Insulting them will, if anything, speed up the process your describing. I feel like you're the opposite of them. You also recognize Blizzards the only people doing what they do and you're desperately clinging to them trying to keep them afloat in there current incarnation superficially. But the thing is, companies don't grow when customers do that. And if you don't grow, you regress. They also don't grow when people just shout insults about their management being a Zionist conspiracy, don't get me wrong. But both extremes are equally invalid. You're the other extreme.
I'm not. I voice my concerns, but as you already noticed not in this particular thread. The reason for that is, that I just quoted some random guys post that struck me as flawed without the intention to do anything more 
The rest has been our priv. argument here. Sry 'bout that.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
I'm sorry, but increasing B.net 2.0 support cost cannot be the reason for regional lock. Blizzard said they were going to eventually do away with it, which is probably true, leaving two options:
1. They are seriously concerned about excessive ping and negative response from all the new players, simply put, - Blizzard will add a "Play with your friends from all over the world" sticker to the game, ppl will buy it, and will realize that Japan vs Latvia doesn't feel playable ping-wise.
2. Their goal is to sell as much copies as possible for every single region during the first couple of months. It's probably true, but it shouldn't really hurt anybody except for non-Korean StarCraft community which is pretty small by itself, and facing the choice 3/4 would buy it anyway. (as several 'voting research' threads indicated).
Chat is more of a worrying issue for Blizzard than region locking, in terms of the possibility of losing old and/or new players.
|
First of all. Not all of us are nerds. Second of all, flaming, or constructive criticism? Where else do you propose we discuss this? Get a plane ticket and fly down their main office to complain? Send them a complaint via Email that most likely would get lost in the process? Not discussing issues in public is counterproductive to making any sort of change. You can talk to someone at customer service one on one, but not much will materialize. That is why we have forums. They make a great tool for feedback.
You can nitpick all you want with people like Half. I doubt you can say the same for people like FA or myself even. There's a reason why you don't see my posts quoted. Generally that means people agree with what has been said, or they understand the viewpoint and feel no need to respond.
|
On June 17 2010 23:29 InfiniteIce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 22:54 nyshak wrote:On June 17 2010 22:31 Madkipz wrote:This "core" feature of yours actually caters to a small number of players (in comparison) who are, for instance, into eSports and thus have a reason to play world-wide. Would you not lend your voice to these players ? I would if said players would stop crying about how evil Blizz is and how the sky is falling and kept things in perspective. It won't help us to bitch about Blizz. I believe in constructive criticism. Arguing with Blizz about how cross-realm play would support eSports and utimately will earn them more money than charging for it is great. Telling them to f*** off if they are going to charge money AT ALL won't get us nowhere.
I am severly starting to hate on people who argue against these issues or try to invent reasons for why these things are not core bnet features.
So hate me. I can live with that Let me say I have read every single post in this thread, especially you two fine players trilling like overexcited schoolgirls the last 4 pages. Nyshak has a point, but really only one. Charging for extra features is good from a pure revenue stream point of view. A firm must take into consideration the "worst-case scenario" for their sales/revenue. Blizzard expects, due to marketing research, past experience, a loyal consumer base, etc etc., that their "worst-case" scenario (i.e., how much money they can still make if x# players do not buy the game based on such and such decision). is still a viable revenue stream for the goals they have internally set. From this view, Blizzard has it right from a purely economical perspective. On the other hand, Half has everything else right. So does JinRo. Why should we, the consumers, aggregate the collective "I don't care", or "if Blizzard charges, I'll pay" opinion? Going back to the above paragraph, it would be correct to say that this is as much a time period for Beta Testing gameplay/balance, as it is a time period for market research and consumer feedback probing. No product should go to market without a limited release, a prototype, a beta test. Blizzard is not stupid. They know about TL.Net. They know people do not want to pay for features we have had 10 years ago. They know. They don't want to know whether or not we want to pay, they want to know whether or not we are willing to pay, when the shit hits the fan, so to speak. So, allow me translate from a forum post, to Corporatese. Typical forum post: "FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD". What a corporation reads: " FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD".Their train of thought: "We already knew they didn't like it. Disregard. Oh, this guy would pay $3.99 a month, more likely $5 a month. Tally that up with the rest." Blizzard is a company, a corporation. You, me, we, all of US, we are the consumers. It is not, and has never been, "Blizzard vs. The People". Consumerism has not changed...a business must, ( and not exclusively because) by obligation to its shareholders (by law) make successful business decisions to maximize revenue, and must thus make the most money from consumers * as the consumers are willing to shell out for the product. This Beta? Us Beta Testers? We're testing a game, but Blizzard is also testing the market as the same time; Blizzard is testing us. The more we give in a game of attrition, the more we give in the game of $$$Money$$$. The less we accept and say "oh, that sucks but I'd pay for it, the less of a viable idea it becomes to start charging for basic features. An EXTREMELY important facet of a successful marketing strategy for any product is knowing what the consumer expects their product to do. By giving the ground that you "saw this coming", "it's viable", "I'd pay xxx dollars" to Blizzard, you give them them favorable market research to at least try out the pay-for-service model. When they do implement that test, and they don't lose the number of subscribers to the service to outweigh the cost of implementing it, then the theory works. It becomes a profitable service for them. Also, once you buy the game, they already made that money. You can throw the game away, they still get the green. So, by trying out pay-for-service ideas, they don't lose money. They can only gain, UNLESS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH USERS TO JUSTIFY THE MAINTENANCE COSTS. I think you see where I'm going with this. So, to paraphrase those immortal words of [the not so immortal Frank Pearce]... Do you REALLY want to tell Blizzard to charge you more? I don't. And, all that being said: Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 20:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 17 2010 17:38 spinesheath wrote:
My bet: It'll cost you a monthly fee and thus in the long run you'll pay more than what you would have spent on another copy of the game.
The other possibility is that it'll only cost you once and less than a full copy of the game. But from that quote it doesn't sound like there is a chance that it will be free. If that turns out to be the case, I actually genuinely would quit SC2 and not buy any of the expansions. Similarly so for myself, good sir. The consumer holds the power. StarCraft is not a survival need, regardless of how BAWWW you might be without it. It's a luxury item. You don't buy it, you don't die. You don't buy it, Blizzard loses money. I will likely not quit SC2 right away, but if the pay-for-xxx model is sustained and implemented on a permanent basis (say, by the time the xpac rolls around?) I won't give them any more money. I'll enjoy the purchase I made and agreed to make, buying SC2:WoL but I will not pay for an expansion with the same system, and I will not ever pay, or even be able to justify CONSIDERING paying to have something that I have not only come to expect, but do indeed receive from not only every single other Blizzard game, but every video game with a social aspect to have ever existed. /[longwinded thought-out post.]
I have this nasty tendency to disagree with people who are supporting my point if they're being kind of irrational. If I got rid of it I think I'd be a great politician. Too bad.
Its too much of a reductification to simplify everything down to money. If short-term money was the final goal we're all screwed. You can't fight against that. Well, a bunch of gamers on a forum can't.
The issue here is design, priorities, communication, feedback...and money. Blizzard isn't "just" about money. I can't think of too many game development studios who are, just because its extra-ordinarily hard to work on a project for upwards to 70 hours a week and not care about what you made beyond the profit margin.
Nobody goes into the game industry just because they like money. Mike Morhaime didn't come out of UCLA thinking "You know what would be this awesome way to make a quick cash and get rich fast? Start up a game company".
Also profitability is an indication of good design. I've made games before and if it doesn't distribute well, I don't pat myself on the back and say "good job I catered to a niche audience". I say "fuck where did I go wrong in design".
Video games aren't a purely expressionistic medium, and creators seek mass acceptance of there stuff for more then just profit.
|
On June 17 2010 23:30 StarStruck wrote:
I doubt you can say the same for people like FA or myself even. There's a reason why you don't see my posts quoted. Generally that means people agree with what has been said, or they understand the viewpoint and feel no need to respond.
Usually it just means it wasn't as extreme as the posts around it. That's partly the failure of having an incredibly large "town-hall" style conversation on forums like this. The most extreme person ends up getting quoted and becoming the easier target for the opposition. Failure of the medium, I think. At least as it pertains to really controversial subjects.
|
That's the third option. I rather think the latter. ^-^
|
On June 17 2010 23:34 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 23:30 StarStruck wrote:
I doubt you can say the same for people like FA or myself even. There's a reason why you don't see my posts quoted. Generally that means people agree with what has been said, or they understand the viewpoint and feel no need to respond. Usually it just means it wasn't as extreme as the posts around it. That's partly the failure of having an incredibly large "town-hall" style conversation on forums like this. The most extreme person ends up getting quoted and becoming the easier target for the opposition. Failure of the medium, I think. At least as it pertains to really controversial subjects.
I'm hardly the most extreme person here. Just the most argumentative.
|
There is no denying that. When do they hand out the awards? o.O
|
On June 17 2010 23:34 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 23:29 InfiniteIce wrote:On June 17 2010 22:54 nyshak wrote:On June 17 2010 22:31 Madkipz wrote:This "core" feature of yours actually caters to a small number of players (in comparison) who are, for instance, into eSports and thus have a reason to play world-wide. Would you not lend your voice to these players ? I would if said players would stop crying about how evil Blizz is and how the sky is falling and kept things in perspective. It won't help us to bitch about Blizz. I believe in constructive criticism. Arguing with Blizz about how cross-realm play would support eSports and utimately will earn them more money than charging for it is great. Telling them to f*** off if they are going to charge money AT ALL won't get us nowhere.
I am severly starting to hate on people who argue against these issues or try to invent reasons for why these things are not core bnet features.
So hate me. I can live with that Let me say I have read every single post in this thread, especially you two fine players trilling like overexcited schoolgirls the last 4 pages. Nyshak has a point, but really only one. Charging for extra features is good from a pure revenue stream point of view. A firm must take into consideration the "worst-case scenario" for their sales/revenue. Blizzard expects, due to marketing research, past experience, a loyal consumer base, etc etc., that their "worst-case" scenario (i.e., how much money they can still make if x# players do not buy the game based on such and such decision). is still a viable revenue stream for the goals they have internally set. From this view, Blizzard has it right from a purely economical perspective. On the other hand, Half has everything else right. So does JinRo. Why should we, the consumers, aggregate the collective "I don't care", or "if Blizzard charges, I'll pay" opinion? Going back to the above paragraph, it would be correct to say that this is as much a time period for Beta Testing gameplay/balance, as it is a time period for market research and consumer feedback probing. No product should go to market without a limited release, a prototype, a beta test. Blizzard is not stupid. They know about TL.Net. They know people do not want to pay for features we have had 10 years ago. They know. They don't want to know whether or not we want to pay, they want to know whether or not we are willing to pay, when the shit hits the fan, so to speak. So, allow me translate from a forum post, to Corporatese. Typical forum post: "FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD". What a corporation reads: " FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD".Their train of thought: "We already knew they didn't like it. Disregard. Oh, this guy would pay $3.99 a month, more likely $5 a month. Tally that up with the rest." Blizzard is a company, a corporation. You, me, we, all of US, we are the consumers. It is not, and has never been, "Blizzard vs. The People". Consumerism has not changed...a business must, ( and not exclusively because) by obligation to its shareholders (by law) make successful business decisions to maximize revenue, and must thus make the most money from consumers * as the consumers are willing to shell out for the product. This Beta? Us Beta Testers? We're testing a game, but Blizzard is also testing the market as the same time; Blizzard is testing us. The more we give in a game of attrition, the more we give in the game of $$$Money$$$. The less we accept and say "oh, that sucks but I'd pay for it, the less of a viable idea it becomes to start charging for basic features. An EXTREMELY important facet of a successful marketing strategy for any product is knowing what the consumer expects their product to do. By giving the ground that you "saw this coming", "it's viable", "I'd pay xxx dollars" to Blizzard, you give them them favorable market research to at least try out the pay-for-service model. When they do implement that test, and they don't lose the number of subscribers to the service to outweigh the cost of implementing it, then the theory works. It becomes a profitable service for them. Also, once you buy the game, they already made that money. You can throw the game away, they still get the green. So, by trying out pay-for-service ideas, they don't lose money. They can only gain, UNLESS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH USERS TO JUSTIFY THE MAINTENANCE COSTS. I think you see where I'm going with this. So, to paraphrase those immortal words of [the not so immortal Frank Pearce]... Do you REALLY want to tell Blizzard to charge you more? I don't. And, all that being said: On June 17 2010 20:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 17 2010 17:38 spinesheath wrote:
My bet: It'll cost you a monthly fee and thus in the long run you'll pay more than what you would have spent on another copy of the game.
The other possibility is that it'll only cost you once and less than a full copy of the game. But from that quote it doesn't sound like there is a chance that it will be free. If that turns out to be the case, I actually genuinely would quit SC2 and not buy any of the expansions. Similarly so for myself, good sir. The consumer holds the power. StarCraft is not a survival need, regardless of how BAWWW you might be without it. It's a luxury item. You don't buy it, you don't die. You don't buy it, Blizzard loses money. I will likely not quit SC2 right away, but if the pay-for-xxx model is sustained and implemented on a permanent basis (say, by the time the xpac rolls around?) I won't give them any more money. I'll enjoy the purchase I made and agreed to make, buying SC2:WoL but I will not pay for an expansion with the same system, and I will not ever pay, or even be able to justify CONSIDERING paying to have something that I have not only come to expect, but do indeed receive from not only every single other Blizzard game, but every video game with a social aspect to have ever existed. /[longwinded thought-out post.] I have this nasty tendency to disagree with people who are supporting my point if they're being kind of irrational. If I got rid of it I think I'd be a great politician. Too bad. Its too much of a reductification to simplify everything down to money. If short-term money was the final goal we're all screwed. You can't fight against that. Well, a bunch of gamers on a forum can't. The issue here is design, priorities, communication, feedback...and money. Blizzard isn't "just" about money. I can't think of too many game development studios who are, just because its extra-ordinarily hard to work on a project for upwards to 70 hours a week and not care about what you made beyond the profit margin. Nobody goes into the game industry just because they like money. Mike Morhaime didn't come out of UCLA thinking "You know what would be this awesome way to make a quick cash and get rich fast? Start up a game company".
[I have only a short response to this because I'm not sure there's much of substance to respond to.]
I do wonder where it was I was being irrational?
I do think it is impossible for you to say what Blizzard is or is not "just" about. I don't work for them. Do you? Note, the people who put 70 hours of love into the game a week...they are not the same people making financial decisions.
As for that last part, Blizzard isn't starting up a game company. They did that 15 years ago.
This, as we might say, is no longer the early metagame. This is the mid-game. Plan for the midgame.
The most profitable part of almost any firm's product lifecycle is the mid-phase. One can also apply that to a company, over a long period of time. This is where Blizzard is...they don't have to break into the industry, UCLA was long long ago...
With that being said, however, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. : /
|
Thanks for the explanations InfiniteIce.
A lot of the things you talked about are the reasons I'm not keen on buying SC2. I really don't like the way that Acti-Blizzard is treating me as a customer w/ regards to Bnet 2.0 - I'm angered by the lack of LAN, having to buy multiple copies for cross play and what I perceive as Activision being greedy. Realistically it's just business but that doesn't make their actions any more palatable.
I love SC2 but you're right. It's not a need, it's a want. If things stay the way they are I won't be buying it. It doesn't feel reasonable to give money to people who do things I don't like.
|
On June 17 2010 23:41 InfiniteIce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 23:34 Half wrote:On June 17 2010 23:29 InfiniteIce wrote:On June 17 2010 22:54 nyshak wrote:On June 17 2010 22:31 Madkipz wrote:This "core" feature of yours actually caters to a small number of players (in comparison) who are, for instance, into eSports and thus have a reason to play world-wide. Would you not lend your voice to these players ? I would if said players would stop crying about how evil Blizz is and how the sky is falling and kept things in perspective. It won't help us to bitch about Blizz. I believe in constructive criticism. Arguing with Blizz about how cross-realm play would support eSports and utimately will earn them more money than charging for it is great. Telling them to f*** off if they are going to charge money AT ALL won't get us nowhere.
I am severly starting to hate on people who argue against these issues or try to invent reasons for why these things are not core bnet features.
So hate me. I can live with that Let me say I have read every single post in this thread, especially you two fine players trilling like overexcited schoolgirls the last 4 pages. Nyshak has a point, but really only one. Charging for extra features is good from a pure revenue stream point of view. A firm must take into consideration the "worst-case scenario" for their sales/revenue. Blizzard expects, due to marketing research, past experience, a loyal consumer base, etc etc., that their "worst-case" scenario (i.e., how much money they can still make if x# players do not buy the game based on such and such decision). is still a viable revenue stream for the goals they have internally set. From this view, Blizzard has it right from a purely economical perspective. On the other hand, Half has everything else right. So does JinRo. Why should we, the consumers, aggregate the collective "I don't care", or "if Blizzard charges, I'll pay" opinion? Going back to the above paragraph, it would be correct to say that this is as much a time period for Beta Testing gameplay/balance, as it is a time period for market research and consumer feedback probing. No product should go to market without a limited release, a prototype, a beta test. Blizzard is not stupid. They know about TL.Net. They know people do not want to pay for features we have had 10 years ago. They know. They don't want to know whether or not we want to pay, they want to know whether or not we are willing to pay, when the shit hits the fan, so to speak. So, allow me translate from a forum post, to Corporatese. Typical forum post: "FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD". What a corporation reads: " FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD".Their train of thought: "We already knew they didn't like it. Disregard. Oh, this guy would pay $3.99 a month, more likely $5 a month. Tally that up with the rest." Blizzard is a company, a corporation. You, me, we, all of US, we are the consumers. It is not, and has never been, "Blizzard vs. The People". Consumerism has not changed...a business must, ( and not exclusively because) by obligation to its shareholders (by law) make successful business decisions to maximize revenue, and must thus make the most money from consumers * as the consumers are willing to shell out for the product. This Beta? Us Beta Testers? We're testing a game, but Blizzard is also testing the market as the same time; Blizzard is testing us. The more we give in a game of attrition, the more we give in the game of $$$Money$$$. The less we accept and say "oh, that sucks but I'd pay for it, the less of a viable idea it becomes to start charging for basic features. An EXTREMELY important facet of a successful marketing strategy for any product is knowing what the consumer expects their product to do. By giving the ground that you "saw this coming", "it's viable", "I'd pay xxx dollars" to Blizzard, you give them them favorable market research to at least try out the pay-for-service model. When they do implement that test, and they don't lose the number of subscribers to the service to outweigh the cost of implementing it, then the theory works. It becomes a profitable service for them. Also, once you buy the game, they already made that money. You can throw the game away, they still get the green. So, by trying out pay-for-service ideas, they don't lose money. They can only gain, UNLESS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH USERS TO JUSTIFY THE MAINTENANCE COSTS. I think you see where I'm going with this. So, to paraphrase those immortal words of [the not so immortal Frank Pearce]... Do you REALLY want to tell Blizzard to charge you more? I don't. And, all that being said: On June 17 2010 20:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 17 2010 17:38 spinesheath wrote:
My bet: It'll cost you a monthly fee and thus in the long run you'll pay more than what you would have spent on another copy of the game.
The other possibility is that it'll only cost you once and less than a full copy of the game. But from that quote it doesn't sound like there is a chance that it will be free. If that turns out to be the case, I actually genuinely would quit SC2 and not buy any of the expansions. Similarly so for myself, good sir. The consumer holds the power. StarCraft is not a survival need, regardless of how BAWWW you might be without it. It's a luxury item. You don't buy it, you don't die. You don't buy it, Blizzard loses money. I will likely not quit SC2 right away, but if the pay-for-xxx model is sustained and implemented on a permanent basis (say, by the time the xpac rolls around?) I won't give them any more money. I'll enjoy the purchase I made and agreed to make, buying SC2:WoL but I will not pay for an expansion with the same system, and I will not ever pay, or even be able to justify CONSIDERING paying to have something that I have not only come to expect, but do indeed receive from not only every single other Blizzard game, but every video game with a social aspect to have ever existed. /[longwinded thought-out post.] I have this nasty tendency to disagree with people who are supporting my point if they're being kind of irrational. If I got rid of it I think I'd be a great politician. Too bad. Its too much of a reductification to simplify everything down to money. If short-term money was the final goal we're all screwed. You can't fight against that. Well, a bunch of gamers on a forum can't. The issue here is design, priorities, communication, feedback...and money. Blizzard isn't "just" about money. I can't think of too many game development studios who are, just because its extra-ordinarily hard to work on a project for upwards to 70 hours a week and not care about what you made beyond the profit margin. Nobody goes into the game industry just because they like money. Mike Morhaime didn't come out of UCLA thinking "You know what would be this awesome way to make a quick cash and get rich fast? Start up a game company". [I have only a short response to this because I'm not sure there's much of substance to respond to.] I do wonder where it was I was being irrational? I do think it is impossible for you to say what Blizzard is or is not "just" about. I don't work for them. Do you? Note, the people who put 70 hours of love into the game a week...they are not the same people making financial decisions. As for that last part, Blizzard isn't starting up a game company. They did that 15 years ago. This, as we might say, is no longer the early metagame. This is the mid-game. Plan for the midgame. The most profitable part of almost any firm's product lifecycle is the mid-phase. One can also apply that to a company, over a long period of time. This is where Blizzard is...they don't have to break into the industry, UCLA was long long ago... With that being said, however, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. : /
I'm just criticizing your overt emphasis on profit. You seem to be saying "they're trying to maximize profit, and they shouldn't". I'm saying "they're trying to maximize profit, and they're doing it wrong in an unsustainable and stupid way".
|
On June 17 2010 23:42 Kashmir wrote:Thanks for the explanation InfiniteIce. A lot of the things you talked about are the reasons I'm not keen on buying SC2. I really don't like the way that Acti-Blizzard is treating me as a customer w/ regards to Bnet 2.0 - I'm angered by the lack of LAN, having to buy multiple copies for cross play and what I perceive as Activision being greedy. Realistically it's just business but that doesn't make their actions any more palatable. I love SC2 but you're right. It's not a need, it's a want. If things stay the way they are I won't be buying it. It doesn't feel reasonable to give money to people who do things I don't like.
Important part that everybody and their momma should be getting. It's bolded.
(And no problem, I wrote it just for you <3)
|
On June 17 2010 23:30 StarStruck wrote:
First of all. Not all of us are nerds. Second of all, flaming, or constructive criticism? Where else do you propose we discuss this? Get a plane ticket and fly down their main office to complain? Send them a complaint via Email that most likely would get lost in the process? Not discussing issues in public is counterproductive to making any sort of change. You can talk to someone at customer service one on one, but not much will materialize. That is why we have forums. They make a great tool for feedback.
You can nitpick all you want with people like Half. I doubt you can say the same for people like FA or myself even. There's a reason why you don't see my posts quoted. Generally that means people agree with what has been said, or they understand the viewpoint and feel no need to respond.
I can't remember saying you should not come here at all to discuss things. Also, the picture of the raging nerd was, well, a picture. I did not mean to say all here are nerds. As a matter of fact, I like nerds. I dislike raging forum posters in general who don't have a clue and turn good threads into a flame fest.
Discussing issues here is a MUST ofc. The topic of my posts has been the "how". Discussion means that there are multiple arguments. Like it or not, there are good ones for Blizzard to charge for some features they might considering to provide. We need to come up with better arguments for Blizzard not to charge for feature X. Half has provided one actually - the possibility that eSports will make more people buy the game (and eSports needs cross-realm play). However, many posters are only about telling Blizz how much they suck because they don't do exactly as they demand, ASAP
Heck, call me an idealist but I still believe that SC2 + BNet will end up phenomenal in the end.
|
Did they even hint at monthly fees? I did not see any kind of post that would imply this.
|
On June 17 2010 23:43 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 23:41 InfiniteIce wrote:On June 17 2010 23:34 Half wrote:On June 17 2010 23:29 InfiniteIce wrote:On June 17 2010 22:54 nyshak wrote:On June 17 2010 22:31 Madkipz wrote:This "core" feature of yours actually caters to a small number of players (in comparison) who are, for instance, into eSports and thus have a reason to play world-wide. Would you not lend your voice to these players ? I would if said players would stop crying about how evil Blizz is and how the sky is falling and kept things in perspective. It won't help us to bitch about Blizz. I believe in constructive criticism. Arguing with Blizz about how cross-realm play would support eSports and utimately will earn them more money than charging for it is great. Telling them to f*** off if they are going to charge money AT ALL won't get us nowhere.
I am severly starting to hate on people who argue against these issues or try to invent reasons for why these things are not core bnet features.
So hate me. I can live with that Let me say I have read every single post in this thread, especially you two fine players trilling like overexcited schoolgirls the last 4 pages. Nyshak has a point, but really only one. Charging for extra features is good from a pure revenue stream point of view. A firm must take into consideration the "worst-case scenario" for their sales/revenue. Blizzard expects, due to marketing research, past experience, a loyal consumer base, etc etc., that their "worst-case" scenario (i.e., how much money they can still make if x# players do not buy the game based on such and such decision). is still a viable revenue stream for the goals they have internally set. From this view, Blizzard has it right from a purely economical perspective. On the other hand, Half has everything else right. So does JinRo. Why should we, the consumers, aggregate the collective "I don't care", or "if Blizzard charges, I'll pay" opinion? Going back to the above paragraph, it would be correct to say that this is as much a time period for Beta Testing gameplay/balance, as it is a time period for market research and consumer feedback probing. No product should go to market without a limited release, a prototype, a beta test. Blizzard is not stupid. They know about TL.Net. They know people do not want to pay for features we have had 10 years ago. They know. They don't want to know whether or not we want to pay, they want to know whether or not we are willing to pay, when the shit hits the fan, so to speak. So, allow me translate from a forum post, to Corporatese. Typical forum post: "FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD". What a corporation reads: " FUCK THIS SUCKS THAT'S SO IMBA, I GUESS I'LL PAY LIKE $3.99 A MONTH, BUT BLIZZARD YOU REALLY MAKE ME MAD".Their train of thought: "We already knew they didn't like it. Disregard. Oh, this guy would pay $3.99 a month, more likely $5 a month. Tally that up with the rest." Blizzard is a company, a corporation. You, me, we, all of US, we are the consumers. It is not, and has never been, "Blizzard vs. The People". Consumerism has not changed...a business must, ( and not exclusively because) by obligation to its shareholders (by law) make successful business decisions to maximize revenue, and must thus make the most money from consumers * as the consumers are willing to shell out for the product. This Beta? Us Beta Testers? We're testing a game, but Blizzard is also testing the market as the same time; Blizzard is testing us. The more we give in a game of attrition, the more we give in the game of $$$Money$$$. The less we accept and say "oh, that sucks but I'd pay for it, the less of a viable idea it becomes to start charging for basic features. An EXTREMELY important facet of a successful marketing strategy for any product is knowing what the consumer expects their product to do. By giving the ground that you "saw this coming", "it's viable", "I'd pay xxx dollars" to Blizzard, you give them them favorable market research to at least try out the pay-for-service model. When they do implement that test, and they don't lose the number of subscribers to the service to outweigh the cost of implementing it, then the theory works. It becomes a profitable service for them. Also, once you buy the game, they already made that money. You can throw the game away, they still get the green. So, by trying out pay-for-service ideas, they don't lose money. They can only gain, UNLESS THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH USERS TO JUSTIFY THE MAINTENANCE COSTS. I think you see where I'm going with this. So, to paraphrase those immortal words of [the not so immortal Frank Pearce]... Do you REALLY want to tell Blizzard to charge you more? I don't. And, all that being said: On June 17 2010 20:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 17 2010 17:38 spinesheath wrote:
My bet: It'll cost you a monthly fee and thus in the long run you'll pay more than what you would have spent on another copy of the game.
The other possibility is that it'll only cost you once and less than a full copy of the game. But from that quote it doesn't sound like there is a chance that it will be free. If that turns out to be the case, I actually genuinely would quit SC2 and not buy any of the expansions. Similarly so for myself, good sir. The consumer holds the power. StarCraft is not a survival need, regardless of how BAWWW you might be without it. It's a luxury item. You don't buy it, you don't die. You don't buy it, Blizzard loses money. I will likely not quit SC2 right away, but if the pay-for-xxx model is sustained and implemented on a permanent basis (say, by the time the xpac rolls around?) I won't give them any more money. I'll enjoy the purchase I made and agreed to make, buying SC2:WoL but I will not pay for an expansion with the same system, and I will not ever pay, or even be able to justify CONSIDERING paying to have something that I have not only come to expect, but do indeed receive from not only every single other Blizzard game, but every video game with a social aspect to have ever existed. /[longwinded thought-out post.] I have this nasty tendency to disagree with people who are supporting my point if they're being kind of irrational. If I got rid of it I think I'd be a great politician. Too bad. Its too much of a reductification to simplify everything down to money. If short-term money was the final goal we're all screwed. You can't fight against that. Well, a bunch of gamers on a forum can't. The issue here is design, priorities, communication, feedback...and money. Blizzard isn't "just" about money. I can't think of too many game development studios who are, just because its extra-ordinarily hard to work on a project for upwards to 70 hours a week and not care about what you made beyond the profit margin. Nobody goes into the game industry just because they like money. Mike Morhaime didn't come out of UCLA thinking "You know what would be this awesome way to make a quick cash and get rich fast? Start up a game company". [I have only a short response to this because I'm not sure there's much of substance to respond to.] I do wonder where it was I was being irrational? I do think it is impossible for you to say what Blizzard is or is not "just" about. I don't work for them. Do you? Note, the people who put 70 hours of love into the game a week...they are not the same people making financial decisions. As for that last part, Blizzard isn't starting up a game company. They did that 15 years ago. This, as we might say, is no longer the early metagame. This is the mid-game. Plan for the midgame. The most profitable part of almost any firm's product lifecycle is the mid-phase. One can also apply that to a company, over a long period of time. This is where Blizzard is...they don't have to break into the industry, UCLA was long long ago... With that being said, however, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. : / I'm just criticizing your overt emphasis on profit. You seem to be saying "they're trying to maximize profit, and they shouldn't". I'm saying "they're trying to maximize profit, and they're doing it wrong in an unsustainable and stupid way".
Maybe I was unclear or a misinterpretation was in play. I wasn't trying to imply that they SHOULDN'T be trying to maximize profit. They are, as I stated, legally OBLIGATED to do so.
I agree, it is stupid, they already have an extremeeeeeeeely profitable business model. However, I don't think it's unsustainable, as you say it is. And it seems that theoretically, and in reality (World of WarCrap?) their new Nick&Dime system is even more profitable.
My point is that, when people post things such as Nyshak's posts' contents, those same people are giving Blizzard more and more incentive to stray from the Blizzard we all love (the free, awesomely featured BNet) to the more profitable model consisting of "Here's your anal lube sir, please bend over" *Note there may be a small fee added to your monthly bill for excess lube usage*.
We should not be posting that this (pay-to-use system) is good, or acceptable. I only intended to outline why Nyshak's way of thinking is off-target, if he wants to exercise his full consumer rights of not paying for things that he doesn't want. I wanted to show that, overly simplified, Blizzard should as a company try to make money. We, as consumers, should pay for things that we want to pay for. I do not want to pay for basic features.
Does anybody?
[Not directed to anybody, but everybody]:
Stop giving Blizzard non-negative feedback on paying for standard features.
+ Show Spoiler +Neutral/"IDC DOOD" means you will not care about paying for it. Which, economically, means they should take your money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
