On June 17 2010 13:11 Half wrote: Its also something that requires "scarcity". Its an idea that doesn't work unless there is scarcity. People just can't go around hopping servers randomly. Money is the best, most effective, and cheapest way (negative cost lol) to implement scarcity. Plus, it was something the fanbase wanted as an additional feature.
Everything you just wrote there applies to SC2 and cross region play.
On June 17 2010 13:11 Half wrote: Its also something that requires "scarcity". Its an idea that doesn't work unless there is scarcity. People just can't go around hopping servers randomly. Money is the best, most effective, and cheapest way (negative cost lol) to implement scarcity. Plus, it was something the fanbase wanted as an additional feature.
Everything you just wrote there applies to SC2 and cross region play.
Why the fuck does a feature that is not exploitable and existed as a core and integral part of gameplay since 1996 need scarcity all of a sudden?
Moreover, scarcity would be applied differently. It would limit realm hoppers, not realm hopping. Which is wholly redundant because the amount of people who actually played on other servers was a very low percentile of the population in the first place. (At least in EU and NA)
Second of all, the Fanbase is not demanding to pay money for an additional feature. They are demanding a core feature that should have accompanied the original game according to blizzards standards.
To be honest, I won't be surprised when a lot of the issues people are claiming to be "game breaking" in regards to SC2 and b.net 2.0 are in the game. Which is why I do not feel a huge need to express strong distaste towards Blizzard on the forums. I'm sure this is just some of the good news to come.
Yeah... let's wait to see what they will REALLY do. Cause the stuff like : " don't worry guys, we will do it after the release" it just sounds a bit like "just stop messing with us, buy our game and then after few months we will just delay and delay and delay the new feature and then say that we won't implement it" (they've allready done similar thing before) or "just buy the game and after few months we will miracly find a way to make it happen but of course it will cost you some extra $$$" (Wow-style...)
So it still a great news but I'm still a bit skeptical
I don't understand is it so hard to implement gateway like BW? Gateway would resolve the problem without any billing options or other shenigans as far as i know?
Blizzard: we need more money, how can we implement WoW like schemes and still come clean with sc2 tradition of things being "free" first, lets not give cross region playing ability, players will be unhappy and communities will rage. Then - lets "admit" that this is an issue and "see" if we can do anything about it. Finally lets "claim" that this is such a "hard work" to make it work (lets disguise the fact that it was possible in sc1 - by claiming how hard it was to build bnet 2.0 for 3 years), that we "might be forced" to charge small fee for such feature to be possible....= money inflow.....
On June 17 2010 13:13 USn wrote: I don't really understand how involved with the company the blizzard mods actually are. They say 'we' to refer to blizzard and occasionally hint they've been handed inside info, but looking at the content of a lot of their posts they come off as no-knowledge flaks - basically, toadies getting off on the privilege of being on the inner outside of a game company.
Community Mods' job is just to shoot the breeze with the players. In addition, they are also responsible for compiling the voice of the forum goers and presenting it to the developers. When the developers or the company have canned PR information or development information to share they run it through their PR department, translate it to a bunch of different languages, and then post it to the forums.
When they post information, it's accurate. The rest of the time, they know not much more about what's going on than we do. They know a bit more than that because they get to hear some of the behind the scenes vision information that we don't get to, but they're not sitting in on developer meetings. They're like PR people and help-desk people rolled into one.
So when they say 'we' the implication that they have anything to do with the decision making process is bogus... got it.
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.
On June 17 2010 09:57 Half wrote: The issue is that we need to draw the line at "Monetizing stuff we've had for free for fifteen years with the game".
This assumes that providing said service today comes with the cost of yesterday. Not always the case given increased player base etc.
So no.
This assumes that development costs need to directly reflect sales points. In which case we'd all be paying 200$ for Starcraft 2 right now.
(hint: They don't because the market has grown, l2economics kid)
The only relevancy is profit margin and development costs. Starcraft 2 is estimated to make 6 million in a year, development costs estimated at 60 million. That means it recoups investment three folds over from 60$ per copy sold.
I can actually come up with legitimate, not completely retarded moronic arguments for why they could charge for this. I'm not going to though. Why would I? (hint: Nothing you guys said is even remotely true)
So when they say 'we' the implication that they have anything to do with the decision making process is bogus... got it.
Why on earth would you have the impression that Community Managers designed the game?
On June 17 2010 09:57 Half wrote: The issue is that we need to draw the line at "Monetizing stuff we've had for free for fifteen years with the game".
This assumes that providing said service today comes with the cost of yesterday. Not always the case given increased player base etc.
So no.
Yes the cost of servers had really skyrocket in those 12 years, it is not like you can buy more powerful server for less now then 12 years ago. Also more copies sold = less cost for server per copy not the other way around, how can people be so naive seriously? You also believe that Blizzard have to charge for stupid things to make WOW profitable? Making a virtual horse cost over 2mln$ now? It has nothing to do with actual cost, it is about maximizing the profits.
i think a feature where you can log on to other servers and only be able to play custom games would be great so the servers wouldnt be burdened with ladderers and organizing tourneys or playing with friends wouldnt be a problem
however great news that they are working on a way :-)
On June 17 2010 19:31 Tyraz wrote:I'd like to know how much it cost to produce Starcraft 2. Considering how long they've been developing it, it wouldn't suprise me if it was over the $100 million mark.
We don't even know how long they were developing it, in some interview they had said that they didn't have the full team for long time (so it was only in the planing stage) becouse WOW had sucked they human resources.
On June 17 2010 19:31 Tyraz wrote:Now you may say 'oh, but they'll make FAR more than that in sales', but you simply can't know that. Further, this is no justification for them not to make money. Just because they sell more games than other game developers, doesn't mean they can't charge as much as your standard developer, either.
What does that even, since when paying for cross realm is even a standard? What I am saying is that they don't have to do it, they are just greedy, not that they can't do it. I only comment on it because there is a plenty of people that deny reality, and that is what annoy me. I have some truth fetish.
EPT
