EPTCharacter renaming coming soon - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
| ||
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On August 16 2010 23:25 shlomo wrote: Lolol. Yeah me too I'm sick of this horrible culture of entitlement. And they can charge for cross-region too. I mean who really expects to play internationally on the internet? While we're at it let's have everyone start charging extra for random standard-issue things, so we can all feel like we earned the right to have a sound feature on our TV or something like that. Also, why does it seem like all of these "please abuse me I love it" posts come from Canada? As I said, if you don't like it don't buy it. What is so damn hard about that. | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On August 16 2010 23:21 wishbones wrote: it would be too sick if the community and i maen not just TL, but every single fucking community went and stopped playing on sc2 until we got what we really wanted, and striked for free name changes. Obv we would win... but who's really gonna start that type of movement... How would you win when you already gave them $60 for SC2? They got your money. They don't give a crap if you decide to stop playing it. | ||
|
gustavo
Brazil38 Posts
Don't bring costs into this please, thats just a really poor argument they already made a fuckton of money and most of the spending is already done, they're reusing the engine for another 2 games (which might just cost 60USD as well), which I don't mind that much paying. Now paying 5-15USD~(my guess on price) PER USE for a feature that should be ingame for free is 100% a rip off and the consumer should be pissed, corporations are groups of people who try and find the best way to maximize their profits not considering anything else, meaning they'll suck you dry if you let them. By the way, 5 years of WoW servers could be paid in 1 month of revenue  . | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On August 16 2010 23:29 Baarn wrote: How would you win when you already gave them $60 for SC2? They got your money. They don't give a crap if you decide to stop playing it. Yeah, you guys should all just not buy HotS and LotV to make your points for free name changes. I'm sure that the majority of people care enough about this to not pay for them. Not. Face it. Most poeple don't really, deeply care about this so they'll continue to buy the product. Making you a minority. | ||
|
cive
Canada370 Posts
and something else.... ZERG LOOKS PRETTY FOR $15, TOO!!!! Wait a min... does this mean I need to pay every time I get a new clan or something? LOL and I see this is not my concern alone. On August 16 2010 23:06 Lysenko wrote: That's overstating it. The truth is that there are two possible reasons for them to charge for a given thing. One is to make it a profit center, and the other is to provide a capability people want while at the same time encouraging people not to do it very often. Name changes in WoW and now SC2 are almost certainly in the latter category. At $10 a pop, with North American numbers of concurrent players in the tens of thousands, it's highly unlikely that they'll earn more than $10k a month on name changes, and that won't come close to paying their power bill. This is particularly true with the first name change free, because the vast majority of people who do change their names will do so exactly once. Edit: The basic idea in having names be unchangeable or having a cost to change them is to ensure that they're an identity, that the people behind the names can accrue a reputation. This ultimately makes players think twice before behaving badly and makes the community stronger. They allowed multiple names and accounts back in WC3 because at that time they didn't yet have the experience to see why that would lead to certain bad outcomes among players. I agree with you on that Blizzard is trying to give people an identity. This is especially in MMORPG because it will lessen the chance of immoral activities. My WoW guild notified each other when we saw a familiar name for good and bad deeds. This wouldn't work if people are changing names constantly. But Starcraft 2 does not require interactions like WoW. Maybe this will discourage hackers in the future, When we have Chat Rooms where someone may spam the name of a hacker. Even this is unlikely as children in this game often call well a scouting player a hacker, thus spams are not reliable. I doubt the naming changing price is for control. This is for profit. This is just blizzard wanting to make SC2 like WoW putting a price tag on anything they can. Man, if they are gonna do it, give us a tag for Clan names. RTS w/o clan is not gonna go anywhere. | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On August 16 2010 23:30 gustavo wrote: @sikyon Don't bring costs into this please, thats just a really poor argument they already made a fuckton of money and most of the spending is already done, they're reusing the engine for another 2 games (which might just cost 60USD as well), which I don't mind that much paying. Now paying 5-15USD~(my guess on price) PER USE for a feature that should be ingame for free is 100% a rip off and the consumer should be pissed, corporations are groups of people who try and find the best way to maximize their profits not considering anything else, meaning they'll suck you dry if you let them. By the way, 5 years of WoW servers could be paid in 1 month of revenue .I don't let them suck me dry because I simply don't buy products I don't feel are worth it. I might be inclined to pay what I feel is a reasonable price for a product. If they kept reducing features at some point I would feel that the cost would not be equal to the product, but that time hasn't come for me yet. | ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
| ||
|
dissonantharmony
United States46 Posts
On August 16 2010 23:06 Lysenko wrote: That's overstating it. The truth is that there are two possible reasons for them to charge for a given thing. One is to make it a profit center, and the other is to provide a capability people want while at the same time encouraging people not to do it very often. Name changes in WoW and now SC2 are almost certainly in the latter category. At $10 a pop, with North American numbers of concurrent players in the tens of thousands, it's highly unlikely that they'll earn more than $10k a month on name changes, and that won't come close to paying their power bill. This is particularly true with the first name change free, because the vast majority of people who do change their names will do so exactly once. Edit: The basic idea in having names be unchangeable or having a cost to change them is to ensure that they're an identity, that the people behind the names can accrue a reputation. This ultimately makes players think twice before behaving badly and makes the community stronger. They allowed multiple names and accounts back in WC3 because at that time they didn't yet have the experience to see why that would lead to certain bad outcomes among players. They're paying the power bill with 1.8mil x 60USD. Like I said, I don't mind paying for the game itself; but, honestly, how much of the money from these little microtransactions are going to go to the people who give up their social/family lives to make excellent games? And, while you make a very good point about wanting to keep an identity, this same objective could be accomplished by restricting name changes to 1 every 6 months, or something along those lines, instead of making it a microtransaction. I agree; get a name and stick with it. But charging for it when there is a clear/free solution seems like greed to me, plain and simple. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
shlomo
258 Posts
However, it comes packaged with a multiplayer service (which you cannot opt out of since Blizzard has locked you into it as the only way to play multiplayer) which is a clear downgrade from the previous one put together over 10 years ago. The fact that you seem content with that "because you got a sequel to SC anyway" is in itself pretty lol. So yes, I will buy the game because it's great, however, I'm not going to stop complaining about the garbage that is Bnet 2.0, because it is garbage, just about the entire community acknowledges it, and that POS deserves all the flames and bad publicity it's going to get. If you don't like it don't read threads like these? | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On August 16 2010 23:34 dissonantharmony wrote: They're paying the power bill with 1.8mil x 60USD. Like I said, I don't mind paying for the game itself; but, honestly, how much of the money from these little microtransactions are going to go to the people who give up their social/family lives to make excellent games? I haven't looked at their balance sheet lately, but their pay to their employees probably uses up the vast bulk of their revenues. In any case, my point was that the scale of the money involved here is so trivial that it's just not on the radar for them as a profit center. And, while you make a very good point about wanting to keep an identity, this same objective could be accomplished by restricting name changes to 1 every 6 months, or something along those lines Pretty sure they'll have restrictions like that on it as well. | ||
|
dissonantharmony
United States46 Posts
On August 16 2010 22:36 xtfftc wrote: "deep single-player story line" is where you lost me. Okay, you've got me there; I should have been more clear.  I didn't mean deep = great dialogue, brilliant plot line, etc. But adding research/upgrades/clickable environments between the mission/cutscene/mission/cutscene formula (on top of a variety of different kinds of missions, I mean, come on, lava?) made the single player a little bit more diverse, something I think was an improvement over SC and BW. | ||
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
| ||
|
Lunares
United States909 Posts
Blizzards job is NOT to provide a great game, great service, etc whatever to us, no matter what you may think. That just happens to be one way of doing what their real job is, satisfying shareholders with profit margins. Especially in today's economy. The only obligation for making their community happy is that it can bring them more profits. Now are there some in blizzard who just want to make SC2 a great game? Sure. But that is what they want, not what the company needs. As a company if they can charge for something and people will pay for it they will. On a personal level I am annoyed that I would have to pay money to do something as change my name, but it is a perfectly normal corporate decision nowadays and I certainly don't blame blizzard for doing it. | ||
|
The_Pacifist
United States540 Posts
Fees for: - New maps - Chat rooms - Cross Realm Play - Vanilla Starcraft 2 after HotS is released - Starcraft 2 with HotS expansion only after LotV is released - Exclusive map editing features and tools - 5v5 and 6v6 games - ladder resets - Bnet tournament setup features - Unit Portraits - Bonus Pool points for laddering - A new "classic" SC:BW ladder feature on SC2 - Playing as a unique race color or design (pre-beta unit designs and color schemes) - Choosing your own matchups (no PvP or ZvT if you thumb it down) - The ability to set up and choose your own games, maps, and opponents for ladder (think US East or ICCUP) - monthly fees to play the later expansions online (while keeping vanilla SC2 free) - fees for custom team matches while keeping random team games free on ladder - additional map "thumb-down" options - having separate ladders for each race you play I'm not saying Blizzard will do the above, but you can bet they're thinking of new ways to slowly push micro-transactions on us. Also, the fee for cross realm play is essentially already here for $60 but it's not a micro-transaction. It's actually okay, I think, to charge some of the stuff above, like a classic BW ladder on SC2. What's not okay is to charge for things we already had for free in BW, like changing our account names, for example. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On August 16 2010 23:35 shlomo wrote: So yes, I will buy the game because it's great, however, I'm not going to stop complaining about the garbage that is Bnet 2.0, because it is garbage, just about the entire community acknowledges it, and that POS deserves all the flames and bad publicity it's going to get. I think it's pretty evident that Battle.net 2.0 has been a troubled project for Blizzard, with schedule delays affecting game releases, a feature set that even the devs acknowledged was incomplete, and enough confusing and contradictory public statements about what features would or would not eventually be included that there probably has been some internal disagreement about that as well. Furthermore, I am pretty sure the Battle.net 2.0 developers are very aware of the negative reactions of the community. The real question is where they're going to take it from here in light of that. | ||
|
Oddysay
Canada597 Posts
sc2 = one free name change , pay after , no chat channel , region lock . something wrong no ? they keep getting more greedy each day . what next ? pay for watch pro gamer replay ? you can unlock them only if you pay money ! . | ||
|
Dugrok
Canada377 Posts
| ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On August 16 2010 23:48 The_Pacifist wrote: It starts with names. Blizzard Activision wants to see how far they can push the micro-transactions onto the community. They test the waters and as they do, we will be charged a fee for everything else. ... I'm not saying Blizzard will do the above... So you say it, and then you take it back? I'm a little confused. I'm quite sure you're right that they're looking for ways to charge for features for which people would be willing to pay. I'm also pretty sure that they're committed to providing an entertaining core game, and not charging for things that would give someone a competitive advantage. I guess the question is whether you're willing to put a stake in the ground and say that ANY fees for ANY services beyond the original sale of the game would be unacceptable to you? I, personally, won't say that, because if they can charge a small fee for certain things, it will help them justify offering more services. | ||
| ||
