| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Cynicism isn't always the route to go. You know what is the core gauge of a companies willingness to charge for this? Whether fans think they will do it or not. Not polls on whether they like it, or use it, but consider it a possibility. The only thing you need to do is desensitize you're fanbase. Not convince them to pay more money, but to make them jaded and cyncial yet still buying your product. Not convince them to like you. | ||
|
kardinal
Sweden154 Posts
On June 17 2010 09:24 Drin wrote: Well if people do not have any reason to join a particular server, then there would be no need for cross realm choice to begin with, bar the occasional tournament etc. Reasons for choosing a specific server include:
Some of these issues do not relate to the launch day scenario I mentioned of course, but they do highlight reasons why people may want to choose a specific region over another. And if enough (read: too many) people choose one region in particular come launch day, there could be server/stability issues. Please understand that rts multiplayer does not in any way equal to mmorpg multiplayer. All battlenet does in an rts is to act as mediator between players, like a torrent. You're telling person x to connect to person y and then x and y play connected to each other with no further imput from battlenet. Now granted battlenet has changed somewhat with updated matchmaking and hosting custom maps but it requires nowhere near the same resources as wow. There's a reason why rts launches don't fail as hard with multi as with mmos. Oh and I also speculate that the vast majority of players won't even use the online functions until they've played/finished the campaign further diluting the launch stress. That said I agree with your list of reasons for why cross realm is necessary. I play during odd hours and have friends in other regions I'd like to play with. However. I would be shocked if any region had any population issues post launch. It's not like every single european would suddenly decide to play exclusively on the american server. Or any similar nonsense. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
Even then there will be a huge drop after the first couple of months. The casual gamers will disappear. RTS isn't for everyone. They will flock to Diablo 3 and other new releases. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
Well let's not get crazy before there's actual information. Right now we're focusing on the game, the Battle.net infrastructure, etc. and making sure the launch goes smoothly. There's been no decisions or even design work done on how the cross-region licenses will work. We know that we're going to do them, but aside from that there aren't any details available. When we have some we'll definitely let you know. I, for one, agree. The kid has a point; business is business. You can't expect to have full unrestricted cross region play with different business models for each region. They do have a right to make money from a game they made (contrary to what the train of thought tends to be in the rage threads). If the ragers think they've got it all sorted, then how about suggesting how the business model would work before jumping up and down about 'your rights as a gamer' and 'what the community wants'. edit: Also, with respect to 'being charged for the service', is there any reason why it is not reasonable to go to 'the highest regional price cap' for the region you wish to play in? If Americans paid $60 for their copy, and New Zealanders paid $40, then is it unreasonable to say to new zealanders 'if you want to pay on american servers, then at least pay the american price', and have the 'unlock fee' be the difference in regional price (relative to the region you wish to play in)? And don't think this means you'll need to 'pay more' for each region. It just means if you wish to play in all regions, then you need to pay the price for the most expensive region. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
That's the thing t. I for one, don't think they have it all sorted, but it is our right to make it clear what our expectations are. RTS gamers don't want to be treated like MMORPGs. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On June 17 2010 09:49 Tyraz wrote: To quote Bashiok: Well let's not get crazy before there's actual information. Right now we're focusing on the game, the Battle.net infrastructure, etc. and making sure the launch goes smoothly. There's been no decisions or even design work done on how the cross-region licenses will work. We know that we're going to do them, but aside from that there aren't any details available. When we have some we'll definitely let you know. I, for one, agree. The kid has a point; business is business. You can't expect to have full unrestricted cross region play with different business models for each region. They do have a right to make money from a game they made (contrary to what the train of thought tends to be in the rage threads). If the ragers think they've got it all sorted, then how about suggesting how the business model would work before jumping up and down about 'your rights as a gamer' and 'what the community wants'. It also means no pricing model has been set. Community. You know what we do here? We provide a unilateral message that we want core features we've had with the core game for 15 years to at least be free, if not at release. None of this "Blizzard just wants to make your wallets lighter so you dont develop back problems later on" crap, as Archer so eloquently put it. | ||
|
Dreadwave
Netherlands254 Posts
On June 17 2010 09:49 Tyraz wrote: To quote Bashiok: Well let's not get crazy before there's actual information. Right now we're focusing on the game, the Battle.net infrastructure, etc. and making sure the launch goes smoothly. There's been no decisions or even design work done on how the cross-region licenses will work. We know that we're going to do them, but aside from that there aren't any details available. When we have some we'll definitely let you know. I, for one, agree. The kid has a point; business is business. You can't expect to have full unrestricted cross region play with different business models for each region. They do have a right to make money from a game they made (contrary to what the train of thought tends to be in the rage threads). If the ragers think they've got it all sorted, then how about suggesting how the business model would work before jumping up and down about 'your rights as a gamer' and 'what the community wants'. You mean like this? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=131401¤tpage=4#78 | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
The issue is that we need to draw the line at "Monetizing stuff we've had for free for fifteen years with the game". | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On June 17 2010 09:55 Dreadwave wrote: You mean like this? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=131401¤tpage=4#78 Yup  But this doesn't help if people simply buy it in a cheap region and then 'change' to the region they actually want. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 17 2010 09:49 Tyraz wrote: I, for one, agree. The kid has a point; business is business. You can't expect to have full unrestricted cross region play with different business models for each region. They do have a right to make money from a game they made (contrary to what the train of thought tends to be in the rage threads). If the ragers think they've got it all sorted, then how about suggesting how the business model would work before jumping up and down about 'your rights as a gamer' and 'what the community wants'. Um I have kinda...um a crazy ..um idea. How about charging money for new and extra features instead of removing features and then putting them back in for a fee? | ||
|
Drin
Australia16 Posts
On June 17 2010 09:41 kardinal wrote: Please understand that rts multiplayer does not in any way equal to mmorpg multiplayer. All battlenet does in an rts is to act as mediator between players, like a torrent. You're telling person x to connect to person y and then x and y play connected to each other with no further imput from battlenet. Now granted battlenet has changed somewhat with updated matchmaking and hosting custom maps but it requires nowhere near the same resources as wow. There's a reason why rts launches don't fail as hard with multi as with mmos. Oh and I also speculate that the vast majority of players won't even use the online functions until they've played/finished the campaign further diluting the launch stress. That said I agree with your list of reasons for why cross realm is necessary. I play during odd hours and have friends in other regions I'd like to play with. However. I would be shocked if any region had any population issues post launch. It's not like every single european would suddenly decide to play exclusively on the american server. Or any similar nonsense. Oh yeah I agree with you for the most part :D I'm all for cross-realm support! Especially being in Australia, the SEA region isn't looking too hot right now, and we'll probably have a divided community at this point. Also that is an interesting point with the single player, I had not considered that to be honest. And Europeans wouldn't really have that all many reasons to primarily play on the US server, while residents of another country, say Australia, most certainly would (and in fact many plan to do so already). While an extra million or so probably isn't too serious an issue, if people from Singapore (some who have also said they would) or other countries follow suite, you may indeed start to have a problem. Of course you can argue that the vast majority would probably play with whatever server is default for them, but it adds uncertainty to the mix. And when it comes to planning for server capacity/planning/costs, it all boils down to the numbers, which they would want to be damn certain of. Remember, Blizzard planned well in advance for some serious strain on the WoW servers come release, but they had no idea it would be as serious as it actually was. Of course an RTS is different (requires far less bandwidth for starters) and I agree that it may actually not be an issue at all. However, given how badly prepared Blizzard was last time round, I can imagine that they would be extremely cautious now - never ever underestimate how popular a blizzard game might be. Why was the blackrock server one of the most populated servers come WoW release? Because all the Australian gaming sites told Australians to create characters there, as it would be the unofficial oceanic server come launch. Now for sc2, even if various sites/communities suggested everyone play on the NA server, it would be restricted based on where you purchase the game and very few people would be determined enough to circumvent the default gateway. In any case, I'm just trying to put a positive reason towards temporary region locking, other than the license/account logistics suggestion Bioshock mentioned. I hate region locking, and from my perspective find almost no reason to even consider it, let alone implement it. I'm already struggling to come up with the somewhat far-fetched reasons I've listed above. I do however have faith that Blizzard will have a reasonable solution eventually, even if we have to pay slightly for it. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On June 17 2010 10:07 Archerofaiur wrote: Um I have kinda...um a crazy ..um idea. How about charging money for new and extra features instead of removing features and then putting them back in for a fee? Uhm I have kinda..um a crazy ..um idea. How about reading why this is a problem and what they are trying to do before suggesting that the world is the same as it was 15 years ago We don't all earn the same $$ per week. If you had the same price, then it's not fair for the poorer countries (and blizzard would make less money) | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
| ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
That being said, this has been free for a decade, so I don't think we should have to pay for it. At least we're getting some kind of response finally - although I'm still waiting for that big comprehensive address we've been promised. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 17 2010 10:10 Tyraz wrote: Uhm I have kinda..um a crazy ..um idea. How about reading why this is a problem and what they are trying to do before suggesting that the world is the same as it was 15 years ago We don't all earn the same $$ per week. If you had the same price, then it's not fair for the poorer countries (and blizzard would make less money) Oh I fully realize how ingenous the marketing guys were to come up with this scenario. And frankly im getting tired of people saying "blizzard would earn less money" as a justifiable reason. Blizzard should earn money by giving users extra features not reselling old features. They can charge for facebook integration all they want. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 17 2010 10:10 hacpee wrote: Activision blizzard has been monitizing this stuff since the merger. Look at wow and how the microtransactions started happening right when the merger began. WoW had microtransactions long before Activision. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
Another side note: I think New Zealand and Australia got the short end of the stick during the beta. Just wanted to point that out, considering you are from NZ ;/ Back on track, China and Korea has a huge focus on PC bangs. Obviously something will be required for that structure, but to charge different prices to the consumers for the same product? Come on now. | ||
|
Bob300
United States505 Posts
On June 17 2010 07:57 Ideas wrote: this is great news, but I remain cautious about the whole thing still. I completely agree, While the beta is down they are just getting our hopes up. I hope they can come through with all the stuff they have been saying. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On June 17 2010 10:13 Archerofaiur wrote: Oh I fully realize how ingenous the marketing guys were to come up with this scenario. Because different countries having different weekly wages is a theoretical marketing model that doesn't really exist in the real world. How silly of me to forget that that was an abstract concept and has nothing to do with reality. | ||
|
rK
United States371 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Counter-Strike 5026Shuttle  1377Horang2 1324Mini 488firebathero  365Jaedong 353hero 227Zeus 218Rush 180Light 170[ Show more ] Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Counter-Strike StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
OSC
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Reynor vs Solar
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs MaxPax
herO vs Rogue
IPSL
WorsT vs nOmaD
Dewalt vs andersOn
AI Arena Tournament
IntoTheTV X SOOP
IPSL
Azhi_Dahaki vs ggnore13
Double vs WIZARD
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
