EPTI agree, I can't see myself ever paying money for a map pack.
Excuse me while I go play some halo 3
Character renaming coming soon - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Pheard
Canada22 Posts
I agree, I can't see myself ever paying money for a map pack. Excuse me while I go play some halo 3 | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
On August 17 2010 00:25 MasterFischer wrote: it's the age of capitalism.. and has been so for ages now.. *facepalm* That aside,... even though SC2 is a great game, I dislike a lot about it: 1) Balance (stfu "Terran is balanced" crybabies) 2) AI - talking about the targeting AI here, such as worker AI and ling ai which try to surround the one army unit in the mineral line when there are 8 workers attacking them, instead of just attacking the workers. Lings also much rather huddle around instead of attacking the nearest structure. 3) Control issues - sometimes my selected group is suddenly unselected for no reason, other times the screen jumps to the top right for no reason... and pressing a button x times just to make x units (e.g. lings) gets pretty retarded after a while. 4) Most of what's already been mentioned like the cross-realm/chatroom/etc. features but also I'd like to be able to block players from coming up in my quickmatch again, I don't know if blocking communication does the trick. There's just some people who cheese every game, I don't need that, thank you. And with non-unique nicknames, this just gets that more confusing. 5) Battlenet itself is rather buggy it seems. Disconnects, crashes, etc. Also... some guy here said that most of the WoW revenue went to the devs.. yea I don't see how a team of, say, 100 people (rough guess, who's got the actual numbers?) eats up $180'000'000 per month. Now actually on topic: I think Blizzard is making a couple of very bad moves here. It doesn't matter how much they charge for things, it's indeed the fact that they charge. Boiling frog syndrome is what it's called if you don't mind. This doesn't have anything to do with an overreaction, it has to do with respect for Blizzard that has been lost. | ||
|
Dagon
Romania264 Posts
Show nested quote + First of all, we have all paid for the game already. Case closed. No, not case closed. You are being unreasonable as to the real costs of developing a game and running a large support service like battle.net and continued development for many years. Games are getting more costly as they become larger and more integrated - we're not playing tetris anymore. I for one welcome micro transactions, as it gives incentive to companies to continue to support their games well after release. Without some sort of continual income directly related to how well a game does long term, there is little incentive to look towards long term support for your games. The type of pay on purchase only model is what induces companies to produce crappy title after crappy title. THIS! A Smart man. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On August 17 2010 00:44 HeIios wrote: Microtransactions are only profitable if people pay for them. And if people are willing to pay for them, it serves a purpose. Don't like it? Don't utilize it. absolutely fine. as long as the things are core features of the game (-> gateway selection). i couldnt care less if they start selling portraits or some stupid visual crap. i dont like it and its bad for the customer/industry but hey whatever. but when they strip stuff that is a core feature of the game just so they can sell it to you later for an extra price which makes the game as a whole more expensive something is wrong. whats next? cow level/lvl80+ in d3 only when you pay another 20$? flying vehicles in gta5 only if you pay another 15$? only 1 map in battlefield 3 and you pay 5$ for each map outside of that? selling gimmicks or semi addons is one thing. stripping stuff that should be in a fullprice game just so you can sell it later is a totally different one. once you HAVE TO buy the stuff to get a FULL game its getting out of hand. and exactly that is happening. maybe all the xboxlive kids dont know it better but i remember the time when a game was released in a full and ready state . and i could be sure that when i pay 60$ i get the full expirience. and dont have to pay 60 + 10+ 15+5+9+25 to do get the full game because they strip mass features. this is nothing but a ripoff. example: you buy a new car at full price. additional cost a): spray decals for looks, full leather interior, new sport tires and some chip tuning. all absolutely fine to pay extra for. ( -> gimmick stuff like portraits,looks etc). it doesnt affect the normal functionality of the car additional cost b): your car even tho pretty potent is capped at 50 km/h. you cant open the windows, your radio is limited to one station and if you cant drive around with more then 2 people cause a electronic check keeps the car from starting once more are in. but you can ofcourse pay 1500$ to uncap the care, pay 300$ to be able to open the windows, 200$ so your radio is unlocked and 2000$ so 3+ people can drive in the car. (-> core features like cross region play etc). the car is in a limited state and you HAVE TO pay loads of money after you payed full price for it just to get full functionality out of it. type a) is totally fine. type b) is a total rip off and no one can disagree with that. call me crazy but the customer should be king. and i absolutely dont know why people are happy to get milked in ridiculous ways just because we are talking about a computer game. wanna see the outrage cries once you have to pay a 50% price increase so you blender works like it should, when you pay 50% increase just so you get onions&sauce on your whopper ("it diodnt cost extra before!") etc. yes this are stupid examples. but people would never accept such behavior outside of the gaming world. yet when it comes to games you see mass guys that happily swallow the shit companys feed them | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
repeat the word "soon" to yourself ten or twenty times. It doesn't really sound like a word... some sort of bird noise or something. I don't really see what the point of character renaming is going to be at all, they can keep that feature as long as they give us Cross realm play. | ||
|
Drox
United States7 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
FarbrorAbavna
Sweden4856 Posts
You wanna put on your tinfoil hat and complain about how they are gonna charge for chatrooms, cross server etc fine do that. But this thread aint the place and if you think it is then you missed the point. Cheers! | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
I do tech support at a university, and the last resort for a password support is that they have scan 2 forms of ID and have it notarized. This is a huge pain in the ass, but that's the point; we don't want our tech support flooded having to open up attachment after attachment, so we make it very inconvenient, so they will use their damn security questions or come to our office or talk to their department chair or whatever. Realm changes, name changes, etc are just a pain in the ass for companies to deal with, so they charge to discourage people from abusing it, and so they can get some sort of income from manhours spent | ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
Community: But wouldnt that fuck up the e-sport scene? ActivisionBlizzard: What is e-sport? | ||
|
Seiniyta
Belgium1815 Posts
I'm personally happy that they're doing this, it works great in WoW, nothing as annoying when you have a bunch of only ingame friends (no real id) and you're away for awhile and then realize half of your friendlist has changed name and you have no fucking clue who who is anymore. | ||
|
OneWhoIsMany
Canada292 Posts
| ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:06 PanzerDragoon wrote: The point of making this cost money is to inconvenience the user so they don't want to do it, because stuff like this is abusable and irritating to deal with. I do tech support at a university, and the last resort for a password support is that they have scan 2 forms of ID and have it notarized. This is a huge pain in the ass, but that's the point; we don't want our tech support flooded having to open up attachment after attachment, so we make it very inconvenient, so they will use their damn security questions or come to our office or talk to their department chair or whatever. Realm changes, name changes, etc are just a pain in the ass for companies to deal with, so they charge to discourage people from abusing it, and so they can get some sort of income from manhours spent This is so wrong I just don't even know where to start... Steam allows unlimited name changes with no human interaction on Valves side. Blizzard designed their system like this so they could make money - pure and simple. I wouldn't care but this was announced before other necessary improvements to battle.net. Really shows where the priorities lie with Blizzard 2.0. | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:06 PanzerDragoon wrote: The point of making this cost money is to inconvenience the user so they don't want to do it, because stuff like this is abusable and irritating to deal with. I do tech support at a university, and the last resort for a password support is that they have scan 2 forms of ID and have it notarized. This is a huge pain in the ass, but that's the point; we don't want our tech support flooded having to open up attachment after attachment, so we make it very inconvenient, so they will use their damn security questions or come to our office or talk to their department chair or whatever. Realm changes, name changes, etc are just a pain in the ass for companies to deal with, so they charge to discourage people from abusing it, and so they can get some sort of income from manhours spent A pain in the ass? It wouldnt take a competent programmer more than a day to program a name changer that requires zero human interaction. | ||
|
Duese
United States8 Posts
ActivisionBlizzard: For 4$ you can now improve your zergiling/zealots/marines start damage by an additional amount! Community: But wouldnt that fuck up the e-sport scene? ActivisionBlizzard: What is e-sport? These are the posts that bother me so much ... Where the hell are people coming off that blizzard is ANYTHING but promoting e-sports? Why are people so caught up with 100% optional services that were put in specifically because people were whining. I mean, the players didn't bother to spend any effort in creating their name and cry to blizzard about how it's bullcrap that they don't have namechange. Now they put in namechanges AT THE PLAYERS REQUEST and even give them a free 1-time change and everyone jumps on this "lol activision trying to steals our monies and ruins the game!" | ||
|
dissonantharmony
United States46 Posts
On August 17 2010 00:25 MasterFischer wrote: It's supply and demand... if they got it, and you want it.. they can charge whatever they want..nobody is forcing you do buy it.. Okay, economics 101 rant ahead... Supply and demand doesn't mean that you get to charge whatever you'd like. The principle of supply and demand in traditional product markets states that the smaller the supply/the larger the demand, the more money it will cost, and the smaller the demand/larger the supply, the less money it will cost. If people really want oranges, and there aren't many oranges, the price will be higher. If very few people want oranges, and there are a lot of oranges, the price will be lower. Any company that violates this (in a traditional marketplace with plenty of competition) will, ostensibly, lose money. With digital goods, this whole model changes. As with text messages, so with changing your name. The supply is unlimited. There is virtually NO COST to cell phone carriers for sending a text message (beyond the initial infrastructure), yet we are charged 20cents a message (at least here in the states). Why? Because the demand is high, and the company is greedy. Let's say you change your name on Bnet. What does that cost Blizzard, beyond the initial infrastructure of the game and the platform (which you paid $60 dollars to support)? Virtually nothing. So, now, they are charging you a price for something that costs them absolutely nothing to implement. I love the game, I've had a great time playing it... that doesn't mean I think that Blizzard is doing this out of necessity. They're doing it to make a profit. | ||
|
Merikh
United States918 Posts
| ||
|
RafikiSC
United States90 Posts
Of course Blizzard is trying to make a profit, they are a god damn corporation. Their goal is to provide us with a product that we desire, we then give them money in exchange for it and they hopefully rake in millions more than it cost to produce. Even with all of the complaints about SC2 people fail to realize that for $60 you get much more value from SC2 than you do from just about any console game and many other PC games that require some sort of monthly subscription service (See: XBox Live, WoW, etc.). Coming to the conclusion that Blizzard will start charging us for even the most basic features of the game is borderline retarded. They want to make money and they want to keep the customers happy. If they need to implement name changes they have every right to charge for it, whether it actually costs them a significant amount of money or not. The servers that Battle.net uses cost money to operate and maintain; they are not obligated to allow us to play multi-player for free, but they do. Charging for these optional services that people are demanding is a way for their business to profit. If you don't like the services that you have to pay for then don't use them. | ||
|
Doomgaze
Sweden89 Posts
| ||
|
Merikh
United States918 Posts
On August 17 2010 03:25 RafikiSC wrote: I love all the people who complain about Blizzard charging for services that they don't have to provide. When you create your character name the first time you sign in to SC2 there's even a message saying this is your only chance. If they want to charge people to utilize a service that is completely optional then you should have no reason to be pissed off. Of course Blizzard is trying to make a profit, they are a god damn corporation. Their goal is to provide us with a product that we desire, we then give them money in exchange for it and they hopefully rake in millions more than it cost to produce. Even with all of the complaints about SC2 people fail to realize that for $60 you get much more value from SC2 than you do from just about any console game and many other PC games that require some sort of monthly subscription service (See: XBox Live, WoW, etc.). Coming to the conclusion that Blizzard will start charging us for even the most basic features of the game is borderline retarded. They want to make money and they want to keep the customers happy. If they need to implement name changes they have every right to charge for it, whether it actually costs them a significant amount of money or not. The servers that Battle.net uses cost money to operate and maintain; they are not obligated to allow us to play multi-player for free, but they do. Charging for these optional services that people are demanding is a way for their business to profit. If you don't like the services that you have to pay for then don't use them. You sound like a guy who didn't buy the game in the first couple days. That message wasn't there until a shit load of people realized they couldn't make smurf accounts or just were too excited and made their account about the first thing they thought of and then there are the handful of people who let others make their account lol, but only people who bought the game the first day would of known that  | ||
| ||
