|
On August 17 2010 01:22 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 01:14 Kexx wrote:
micro transactions are the cancer killing the PC industry, it never stops where you think it will, they will always go one step further.
Remember when you bought a game and you were eligible to all the content through unlocking by just playing the game?
Every time people buy into this crap and say it's okay you give the devs a sign that it is okay and you want more.
so NAY. this. wrote a big rage post in the name change thread about this. if you buy a game you should get the whole thing. sell the kids pretty portraits or whatever, i dont give a damn. but when features get stripped just so they can milk the player more and increase the price for the full game that way the one thats responsible for it should be punched in the face for evry single extra $ the customers have to spend.
Nothing "should" be on the disc. You knew what was on the disc and what wasn't and you made a decision (not sure if you have the game or not). Blizzard isn't obligated to support the game outside of what is promised on the back of the 60$ box (ie, they can't just turn off Bnet, but they don't have to include chat rooms, extra maps, etc. because that technically wasn't included in the 60$). If you really feel that features were stripped from the game to be sold later and you still bought the game then maybe you are the one to blame for being a bad consumer. Also, look at any microtransaction model (and there are plenty) and you'll see that no consumer "has" to buy anything, you get to make your own decisions on what you are willing to pay for.
|
I'm all for alternate models to pay for. Really want like a female ghost to run around with.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
I support the fees for name changes. There is no good reason to be able to change your name all the time except to piss people off. If you really need to change it (e.g. team transfer), paying a small amount is not a problem.
I also see no problem with the idiotic micro-transactions (e.g race change, faction change, mounts) in WoW - you don't need any of them to enjoy the full game content. But if you care enough to pay a small amount - you're welcome.
I see them as a reasonable safety measure from spammers, cheaters and all kinds of trolls.
Although charging for things that affect the actual gameplay - including cross-realm play - that is crossing the line.
|
I honestly think they should have made names unique, I see like 5 TLOs on that list there. I also see, "Shut up I'm Huk" "THErealHuk" "Hukforrealthistime" "media.IdrA" I find that kinda stupid. Posers!
|
I believe that picture was simply a photoshop lol.
As for unique names I agree as well.
|
On August 17 2010 01:57 RyuChus wrote:
I honestly think they should have made names unique, I see like 5 TLOs on that list there. I also see, "Shut up I'm Huk" "THErealHuk" "Hukforrealthistime" "media.IdrA" I find that kinda stupid. Posers!
/facepalm
do u happen to be romanian? ^.^
|
i agree with op, i dont care if someone wants their stuff to look different, or wants a different name. i dont, so i wont pay, but if someone has money to spare, why not support blizzard and gain a little something extra? not harming balance or anything.
|
On August 17 2010 01:52 Kurumi wrote:
Great.. Agree with more characters per account,agree with graphical additions.. Then You'll be forced to agree with bonus missions to campaign. Then the additions will be more attractive... Then You'll have Your wallet empty and wonder how to pay for the next patch to play Your bonus missions with vikings in hats,Santa Marauders and Candy Zealots.
Dude? Candy Zealots? Where do I sign up?
I don't mind micro-transactions. It doesn't affect the core multiplayer experience, so why should one care if someone else is paying 20 bucks for a new unit model? Also, I don't really mind if cross-realm play has a fee associated with it, either. The majority of players aren't interested in this. I'm pretty competitive and I don't care about it.
As long as it doesn't extend to ladder maps, creating clans, creating channels / chatrooms, they could charge 200$ for a name change and I wouldn't object.
|
On August 17 2010 01:14 Kexx wrote:
micro transactions are the cancer killing the PC industry, it never stops where you think it will, they will always go one step further.
Remember when you bought a game and you were eligible to all the content through unlocking by just playing the game?
Every time people buy into this crap and say it's okay you give the devs a sign that it is okay and you want more.
so NAY.
|
This is a very slippery slope.
|
What's up with the pointless pictures in the first post? You wanna tell me that name changes are bad or microtransactions... or both?!?
Pointless thread -.-
|
As an ex wow player I have had this discussion many many times. I'm fine with micro transactions as long as you can't buy stuff that gives you an advantage in game. I agree that it is a slippery slope, as can be seen in wow the cosmic horse mount which gives you arguably an advantage in game.
|
On August 17 2010 01:22 Tump wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 00:27 Polis wrote:On August 17 2010 00:04 Tump wrote:When it starts actually harming things that matter (which it won't) then I'll be against it. Yes it does, it shifts development importance for gimmicks that they can sell, and it often makes companies arbitrary remove something just to sell it later, like cross realm play possibly, or changing a nick name. Micro transactions also makes marketing even more important then development, if you promote companies for trying to find new ways to charge you more, then they will grow to do it. How do you propose you stop it?
I had never brought DLC, and yes I buy games, well I did, now I just play some old ones.
On August 17 2010 01:22 Tump wrote:Honestly, they released the best RTS game since 1999, and you're complaining about development shift?
And how many RTS that focus on mp were made? Also how does that make BN 2.0 better?
On August 17 2010 01:22 Tump wrote:The game has been done for ages, I really don't think Blizzard is going to say "HEY LETS STOP MAKING HEART OF THE SWARM/LEGACY OF THE VOID STUFF AND DESIGN GIMMICKS FOR MICRO TRANSACTION PROFIT." Besides, there are separate teams to handle this stuff. Blizzard isn't a 2 man clan.
Yet Blizzard had said that the reason why SC2 wasn't develop for so long was WOW. I rather trust Blizzard about they development ability when they had no reason to lie.
Corporations fanboys: WOW made so much money that it will make Blizzard make more games yay.
Reality:
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans 1994 fantasy real-time strategy game
The Lost Vikings II 1995 platform game
Justice League Task Force[27] 1995 fighting game
Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness 1995 fantasy real-time strategy game
Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal 1996 expansion pack
Diablo 1997 action role-playing game
StarCraft 1998 science fiction real-time strategy game
StarCraft: Brood War 1998 expansion pack
Warcraft II: Battle.net Edition 1999 fantasy real-time strategy game
Diablo II 2000 action role-playing game
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction 2001 expansion pack
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos 2002 fantasy real-time strategy game
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne 2003 expansion pack
World of Warcraft 2004 MMORPG set in the Warcraft universe.
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade 2007 expansion pack
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King 2008 expansion pack
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty 2010
Also how do you explain BN 2.0? They had claim that it took them a year to make it, finding new way to make money, and streamlining takes time aye. It would be hard to give more nick names per account, and then remove every account per CD-key but one, and tell people that they have to pay for more, such things require planing.
Also they popularity system is simply broken, you don't need more then a minute to figure out why. So are they really so incompetent? Maybe they didn't give replays online, but it could also be becouse they want little to none competition for they premium mods.
The industries changed. You can't compare SC2 features to SC1. It just doesn't work anymore. You have a persistent account with one name.
Technology just isn't there yet. I am not sure what you argument even is, now we have crap so we shouldn't complain about crap?
This system has been implemented in World of Warcraft for years. Being able to change your name all the time for free would just be annoying. I want some consistency. Blizzard wants it.
Thy could had made time limitations, but what really sucks is that you can make only one account, they should at least be 3 for each race. They are other possibilities to limit surfing but they just don't bring the $$$.
|
Microtransactions don't bother me. What bothers me is when developers start intentionally leaving stuff out of the core game with the intent to micro transaction it later. I don't want to have to pay for a booster map pack every 6 months to keep playing Ladder.
I don't believe Blizzard would do this, but it always starts somewhere.
|
As long as they're cosmetic? who cares. However, it would be really awesome if blizzard put the money they got from micro transactions into tournament prize pools.
|
On August 17 2010 01:54 ak1knight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 01:22 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 17 2010 01:14 Kexx wrote:
micro transactions are the cancer killing the PC industry, it never stops where you think it will, they will always go one step further.
Remember when you bought a game and you were eligible to all the content through unlocking by just playing the game?
Every time people buy into this crap and say it's okay you give the devs a sign that it is okay and you want more.
so NAY. this. wrote a big rage post in the name change thread about this. if you buy a game you should get the whole thing. sell the kids pretty portraits or whatever, i dont give a damn. but when features get stripped just so they can milk the player more and increase the price for the full game that way the one thats responsible for it should be punched in the face for evry single extra $ the customers have to spend. Nothing "should" be on the disc. You knew what was on the disc and what wasn't and you made a decision (not sure if you have the game or not). Blizzard isn't obligated to support the game outside of what is promised on the back of the 60$ box (ie, they can't just turn off Bnet, but they don't have to include chat rooms, extra maps, etc. because that technically wasn't included in the 60$). If you really feel that features were stripped from the game to be sold later and you still bought the game then maybe you are the one to blame for being a bad consumer. Also, look at any microtransaction model (and there are plenty) and you'll see that no consumer "has" to buy anything, you get to make your own decisions on what you are willing to pay for.
if thats your attitude fine. but then dont come complain when youll have to pay 150$ for a FULL game in 5 years.
people have expectations based on the prequel, people have expectations based on their expirience with blizzard games, people have expectations based on promises blizzard made.
these expectations are not met in some regards. not because they cant. just because they hold it back so they can milk more money out of stuff thats essential for the multiplayer expirience.
in my opinion this is bad. in your opinion its fine. ok.
but as said before, for whatever reason people accept such stuff when it comes to games. wanna see you when microsoft charges 100$ extra so you can connect to the internet , 150 extra if you want LAN and 200$ if you want your soundcard to work. same basic thing, you dont have to buy it eh? and still you will rage at them beeing greedy fucks taking features you had for "free" for years out to milk you more.
|
Microtransactions ?
No thanks.
|
On August 17 2010 02:25 EppE wrote:
Microtransactions don't bother me. What bothers me is when developers start intentionally leaving stuff out of the core game with the intent to micro transaction it later. I don't want to have to pay for a booster map pack every 6 months to keep playing Ladder.
I don't believe Blizzard would do this, but it always starts somewhere.
Where does it say on any official source that Blizzard will be charging for ladder maps? These baseless accusations are very irksome and don't really contribute to the discussion at all.
|
That list of games really doesn't mean anything, honestly.
They started working on SC2 right after WC3: TFT was finished. The reason it took so long was not only because of World of Warcraft. It was because of technology reasons and other problems. They went through a number of engines before even getting to the one they're using.
World of Warcraft may have caused some delay, but I highly doubt much at all.
|
On August 17 2010 00:01 Slipspace wrote:
honestly its not the micro transactions that bother me, its the fact that its necessary because we only have one name when bnet 1.0 offered so much more
Yes, exactly. The fact that we have to pay for something that use to be free and unlimited is bullshit. Bnet2.0 was suppose to be a step forward, but its just a big disappointment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
