EPTRegarding maps, I wouldn't be worried. Blizzard has talent to make maps look good, but not particularly awesome gameplay-wise.
The Idea of Microtransactions - Yay or Nay? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
nukkuj
Finland403 Posts
Regarding maps, I wouldn't be worried. Blizzard has talent to make maps look good, but not particularly awesome gameplay-wise. | ||
|
shlomo
258 Posts
| ||
|
ak1knight
United States313 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:28 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: 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. You clearly don't know how economics works. You can pay $60 for a full game right now, if you feel that chat channels or more accounts/skins warrant a $5-$10 than you can pay, but many (I would say the majority) don't care about chat channels or having 2 accounts and wouldn't pay for that. Blizzard met it's promises just fine. Where did they promise LAN, chat channels, or multiple accounts? Blizzard made a game that, if you read the features on the back of the box, met the expectations of the consumer. If you expected more, then you shouldn't have bought it. Also, if Microsoft started doing that then people would just buy from a company that doesn't do it that way, that's the beauty of an open market. | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:33 Mastermind wrote: Yes, exactly. The fact that we have to pay for something that use to be free and unlimited is bullshit. Bnet2.0 was suppose to be a step forward, but its just a big disappointment. Name changes on BNet 1 were used mostly to smurf people and do mostly complete bullshit to newbs | ||
|
shlomo
258 Posts
| ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:28 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: if thats your attitude fine. but then dont come complain when youll have to pay 150$ 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. "Slippery slope" argument is one of the worst and most common logical fallacies | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:44 PanzerDragoon wrote: "Slippery slope" argument is one of the worst and most common logical fallacies Blizzard's history proves otherwise. It started with a few lame features in WoW, now they have moved on to charging for "premium maps". What's next? | ||
|
SpiciestZerg
United States154 Posts
On August 17 2010 00:27 Polis wrote: 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. This, but my concern is more of a slippery slope type thing. In theory I'd love what you described, cosmetic microtransactions, since the company would make more profit from less and I'm not dumb enough to buy those gimmicks. However, if the general community accepted those types of transactions, it would make it much easier for Activision to impose those types of transactions on the actual game. Let me put it this way: If they could've done so without losing alot of customers, do you really think SC2 wouldnt have a WoW monthly payment style? (actually that is what they have in other countries...) And what you said about him being a businessman, they are motivated by money. That can be good or bad at times, but that doesnt mean you should want them to be more businessy. Dont get me wrong I'm not some kinda anti-corporationist (a word?); i might be minoring in business actually. But anyways, in my experience, business and video games can mix very badly at times. The wii is a huge example of that imo. The wii is a smashing success, but is it better than they Gamecube? No. ( i choose GC rather than SNES or NES because it has similar graphics and capabilities to the wii) edit: after reading the above posts. Slippery slope is only a fallacy if its unwarranted. Reverse slippery slope is much worse a defense. (microtransactions are in other games therefore SC should have them). And economics is totally null and void when it comes to this because there isnt a free market of Starcrafts or alternatives (theres other RTS but honestly who's going to switch in protest?) The power they have over starcraft and their games is even stronger than a traditional monopoly. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:30 Tump wrote: That list of games really doesn't mean anything, honestly. They started working on SC2 right after WC3: TFT was finished. http://www.sk-gaming.com/content/24908-WoW_delayed_Starcraft2_for_a_year Blizzard in they interviews don't hide that WOW has a priority, and when resources are needed they are taken from other teams. | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:50 muse5187 wrote: Blizzard's history proves otherwise. It started with a few lame features in WoW, now they have moved on to charging for "premium maps". What's next? The premium maps concept should provide incentive to the map-makers. If you put a huge amount of work into a map, why not ask for a small compensation? I don't see any problem with that. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On August 17 2010 03:06 Random() wrote: The premium maps concept should provide incentive to the map-makers. If you put a huge amount of work into a map, why not ask for a small compensation? I don't see any problem with that. The main problem is that it puts Blizzard in position where free UMS are a competition to they premium maps, not working popularity system/you can't even see what games are made BN 2.0 can be in they interest. Premium map can be put on top of the list by Blizzard. | ||
|
Gingerninja
United Kingdom1339 Posts
They've got 2 expansions on the way.. which will be cheaper to create than the first as they don't have to make the engine or create the multiplayer.. they'll tweak some stats, create some missions and sell you it for the same price as the first despite having probably 50% less work on it. I've no idea how much battle.net costs to run, but to give you an idea.. in Games.tm magazine in Britain this month theres a 4 page interview with Chris Metzen. WoW's operating costs are roughly $136000 a day! and that doesn't include staff, starcraft won't cost as much ofc, but there's still 1 million people online ever time i log into battle.net. If you don't want them don't buy them. No reputable company so far has pushed boundries with game changing items, especially as some companies are charging for online passes now.. EA looking at you! they have to be careful atm because the whole industry is close to turning on itself if they push too far. PS. They also can't really do maps as if they do people will just re-create them in the editor and release them free anyway. | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
On August 17 2010 03:06 Random() wrote: The premium maps concept should provide incentive to the map-makers. If you put a huge amount of work into a map, why not ask for a small compensation? I don't see any problem with that. The premium maps will come from blizzard, not the community. | ||
|
Malminos
United States321 Posts
On August 17 2010 00:04 Tump wrote: Micro transactions are fine, let people buy wings for their Thors if they want to. When it starts actually harming things that matter (which it won't) then I'll be against it. This sums up how i feel. | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On August 17 2010 03:13 Gingerninja wrote: I've no idea how much battle.net costs to run, but to give you an idea.. in Games.tm magazine in Britain this month theres a 4 page interview with Chris Metzen. WoW's operating costs are roughly $136000 a day! and that doesn't include staff, starcraft won't cost as much ofc, but there's still 1 million people online ever time i log into battle.net. Poor Chris,probabably is homeless,eats bread every three days and drinks water only once per day. COME ON GUYS. Games are MORE expensive! And they're giving us less and less freedom,less features on releases... They treat us as bottomless wallets. | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On August 17 2010 03:17 muse5187 wrote: The premium maps will come from blizzard, not the community. Really? Can you show me where they say that? (I am not being sarcastic) | ||
|
Mangoes
United States12 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:44 PanzerDragoon wrote: "Slippery slope" argument is one of the worst and most common logical fallacies Actually it works very very well when explaining capitalism. It's all about the money. | ||
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
On August 17 2010 02:50 muse5187 wrote: Blizzard's history proves otherwise. It started with a few lame features in WoW, now they have moved on to charging for "premium maps". What's next? Shit, maybe someone will make a premium map so good they'll charge the box of a game for it! Then we'll all be doomed! Oh wait. | ||
|
sevia
United States954 Posts
With WoW, Activision did the impossible by proving that there are hundreds of thousands of gamers willing to pay $20 for a horse mount made of stars. Equally as popular and for the same price, you can buy cosmetic mini-pets that resemble some of the bosses. Why would people care enough to buy something as insignificant as that? Because these pets and mounts are status symbols. They take a small percentage of the community (which is still over 200,000 people in WoW terms), and allow them to show off their dedication to the game by throwing money at Activision. Profit-wise, this was a humongous success: a few hours of development time raked in millions of dollars. Valve takes the opposite approach. For the price of Activision's Star Pony, you get TF2 in its entirety. The whole game, all its content, all its DLC, all its cosmetics and community items and everything you can imagine. There have been dozens of updates including everything from maps to weapons to new game modes. All for free! How does Valve get away with this? Well, their dedication to the game has made it incredibly popular. By being so damn nice to the community, they inevitably get their players to tell their friends about TF2, and since its so cheap, their friends buy it and then tell their own friends. Essentially, Activision makes money by dividing the playerbase and extracting as much money as possible from the most dedicated players. Valve makes money by servicing the community as a whole, making them loved as a company and getting people to spread the good word. Why make content exclusive and expensive, when you can improve the game for everyone and make money just as well? | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
And the premium maps are a way for INDEPENDENT MAPMAKERS to be able to devote so much time to the maps without suffering a loss of quality of life. Why does the same idiots keep touting the premium maps as a blizzard moneymakin scheme? | ||
| ||
