|
On August 17 2010 02:44 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 02:28 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 17 2010 01:54 ak1knight wrote: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. "Slippery slope" argument is one of the worst and most common logical fallacies
![[image loading]](http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/135711/wow-pet-lil-kt.jpg?366170)
|
On August 17 2010 03:27 Catch]22 wrote:
Except blizzard already said that they would provide a free name transfer.
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?
I thought map makers are people devoted to community and map popularity was reward itself. Many of map makers or teams have "DONATE" button on their sites.
I remember playing with creator of Island of Frogs... It was really fun,You know? ManyTimes,I am thankful till today for making such brilliant map.
|
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!
the problem is, some smurf calls himself LiquidTLO before the real one manages to create his account and for him the name would not be available any more.
the way it currently is we can be pretty sure diamond tlo with 1k points might be the real one while some silver tlo should be a poser
|
The idea of paying for completely cosmetic stuff in a game you already paid 60 bucks for is completely retarded and anyone willing to pay is equally stupid. Period. Specially on a freaking RTS game. This is not WoW or some cash shop Korean game. We don't need Night Elf skins for Marines.
|
|
|
On August 17 2010 03:30 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 02:44 PanzerDragoon wrote:On August 17 2010 02:28 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 17 2010 01:54 ak1knight wrote: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. "Slippery slope" argument is one of the worst and most common logical fallacies
This isn't a good example at all. The Little Kt pet provides no actually gameplay bonus, other then having an extra pet.
|
Updated the OP with additional thoughts that I had planned to squeeze in earlier before class started. Going over details such as additional campaign missions and things that are optional, but not required or otherwise game changing.
Going to read all the replies now and stir up some questions/answers/debate.
edit: shit no I wont. Now I have to leave to catch the bus in time. Will when I get home though O_o
|
On August 17 2010 02:41 ak1knight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 02:28 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 17 2010 01:54 ak1knight wrote: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. 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.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 17 2010 03:47 Amestir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 03:30 Archerofaiur wrote:On August 17 2010 02:44 PanzerDragoon wrote:On August 17 2010 02:28 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 17 2010 01:54 ak1knight wrote: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. "Slippery slope" argument is one of the worst and most common logical fallacies This isn't a good example at all. The Little Kt pet provides no actually gameplay bonus, other then having an extra pet.
Good thing their arnt other WOW microtransactions that do have a gameplay bonus. Otherwise I would have a great point about lil KT being part of the "slippery slope".
![[image loading]](http://us.blizzard.com/store/_images/product?productId=1100000942&type=3&loc=en-US)
|
Xbox360 owner and player here. I know about micro transactions.
Everything goes bad. Turn on my system i need to scroll through 4 panels of buy it now ads. Games that used to be good in their earlier versions now are stripped of content, but you can buy it back! nominal fees!!! yay.
in a perfect world micro-fees would have dealt and death knell to modern gaming. Much preferable to this commercial cash grab that leaves the consumer breathless and penniless.
|
I'm very surprised and disappointed to find that people are supporting microtransactions. Blizzard is nowhere close to financially insecure, and I have little sympathy or respect for a company that tries to charge $10 for a simple name change. This may have worked in WoW, where the players are so addicted to the game that they see it as a second life, but I sincerely hope people won't support this blatantly greedy cash grab in SC2.
|
I don't care about cosmetic micro transactions, but the fact is that it will not stay that way. There are far too many precedents in the gaming industry.
Anyone here play NHL10? How much fun was it going up against tools who maxed out their boost slots on mommy's CC? You are either forced to grind away to impossible achievements to cover the gap, deal with it, or pay (I chose deal).
And trust me, a fucking LOT of people bought. It absolutely destroys the competitive aspect of the game. Not to mention, the buckets of cash it generated did not go back into the game AT ALL. Every glitch that was out on day one is still there almost a year later. And likely, they will be there in 11, unpatched.
Granted, EA's reluctance to address issues is legendary, and doesn't mean that Blizzard would do the same. But guess what? Probably even more assholes will run out and buy the game this year. Blizzard sees this and other examples and they know.
When people really like something, they will take a firm ass pounding anyway despite the piss poor service. People REALLY like starcraft and many would pay to access content that alters the core of the game (lan, chats, etc)
|
Difficult topic, micro transactions aren't all that bad, they're a great way for unknown publishers to make money, the free2play market is booming after all. I don't think that it will stopped anytime soon, you wanna know why? Because people buy it. I know people, who spent several hundred bucks for costumes, advantages and other stuff. As long as people decide to spent so much money for DLC, there is no way any publisher is going to miss out on it.
Here's the problem. If content from a game gets cut and added as DLC later on, that's just annoying for everyone, who was willing to pay the full price for the game. DLC should be additional content, something that was created afterwards, so there's a point in buying it.
A very good example for this is Guild Wars. You can buy costumes for your characters, but they don't give you any advantage at all, it's just for prestige. You can buy spells, but you can get them without any effort in the game itself. You can buy additional missions for a small fee, which let's you play historical events, which weren't intended in the campaign.
DLC should be about prestige, style and not about essential functions, which puts you in a bad spot, if you don't get them. I think stuff like name change or cross-realm is still accetable, but stuff like chatrooms or maps shouldn't be something you need to pay for.
For the moment, I don't think that something like a chatroom is going to cost something, but if it comes down to it, I blame the people, who are still buying it, because they are the root of the problem.
|
I'd like to pose a question.
Why shouldn't anything that could be sold as a micro transaction just be given for free anyway? Jesus, what happened to that idea? The fact that you are all discussing this just goes to show the impact the WoW culture has had on gaming. Micro transactions should never exist, unless you want to change the entire face of gaming. Either give me a free download of the game and make me pay for every little part of the game, ground up, or make me pay a large amount for a full game and don't make me pay more.
The idea that they need to charge for micro transactions to be possible, given development time, is a complete load of shit. They are only taking advantage of morons with too much money.
|
There's no reason to complain until Blizzard actually starts charging you for substantive/balance features (chat channels, cross-realm play, etc). Up to that point anything else is just absurdly extreme examples of the slippery slope (e.g. But what if they let me pay for instant +1 to weapons?!). This isn't the same as "They promised chat channels where are my chat channels?". That is simply something they neglected to implement across the board and is separate from whether or not micro-transactions are bad.
People knew the features of the game before they bought it. Anything now is extra. And it really is extra. Name changes? Winged Thors? It may be cool, but it really doesn't affect anything unless you care about that kind of thing, but those people seem willing to pay the price so it all works out. If you aren't, then you're clearly not the target audience.
You may think it's being greedy, but who are you to demand more for nothing? The customer-that-is-always-right? The loyal follower who help build Blizzard up from nothing? Be realistic. Just because a previous installment of the game had certain features does not entitle you to them now. Just because Blizzard could implement a feature at minimal cost does not mean it should have to, much less for free. Yes, it may mean that you're getting less bang for your buck than before (debatable), but the game was still worth purchasing without the additional fluff and that hasn't really changed. If this option had never been announced most people would have been just fine sticking with their current handle. Asking for more things for free then getting mad at Blizzard for either not giving them to you or providing them in some slightly altered form (only one free name change) seems kind of silly.
|
If GW can provide a whole MMO without monthly fees for the round price of retail then blizzard can give us fucking name changes for free. Gamers are as gullible as shit, what other industry can you get away with charging money for changing an entry in a database, it's bloody insane.
|
On August 17 2010 03:32 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 03:27 Catch]22 wrote:
Except blizzard already said that they would provide a free name transfer.
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? I thought map makers are people devoted to community and map popularity was reward itself. Many of map makers or teams have "DONATE" button on their sites. I remember playing with creator of Island of Frogs... It was really fun,You know? ManyTimes,I am thankful till today for making such brilliant map.
Thing is Island of Frogs didnt take that much time and effort, you think everyone gets enough donations to live off like Icefrog? (not related frogs).
What if you have this amazing idea, but you cant even afford to spend the time and attention it needs because you have a real job to take care of in the meantime?
|
When it comes to microtransactions, it really matters what you have to pay for. For things that have a large impact on the game, they are usually provided for free or packaged with new content that everyone will buy anyway. Although I don't like the business model that the majority of gaming companies are using to make extra money, it has brought about more opportunity for serious gamers in the form of tournaments and such so I have mixed feelings about that.
First name change free - probably needed since more than half of my friends didn't realize that they could only create one name even though it is the first thing that pops up on the login screen.
Future name change fee - don't really care, never going to change my name - fee prevents anonymous harassment so I support it I guess
Cross-server fee (need to buy more copies of the game) - doubt it will happen and don't really care if it does. Sure Battle.net 1.0 had free cross server support, but cross-realm players created horrible lag problems (not that that does not exist in 2.0, but it's better). If you want to play in cross-realm tournaments, then buy a second copy. I'm not good enough to warrant that yet, but if I was I would have no problem getting another copy.
chat functions - not going to be fee based b/c they are a core part of the game
lan functions - same thing, asia market would rage over pay for lan support
delaying features for future content - fine with me. I'd rather pay for content that is actually worth the money rather than getting some free updated content then a terrible expansion. Carrot on a stick syndrome is a good thing as long as they are not withholding needed balance changes.
Only thing that would make me mad is withholding new units intended for balance changes just to add them into future content. For instance, if HoTS came out and there were 80% changes to zerg, 10% changes to Terran, and 10% changes to Protoss, I would be upset b/c that is clearly not balancing the game, it is making one race the strongest, then changing that balance every so often just to add variety. I hope that Blizzard won't make the same mistake they made with class balancing in their expansion releases for WoW.
|
On August 17 2010 04:59 ROFLChicken wrote:
You may think it's being greedy, but who are you to demand more for nothing? The customer-that-is-always-right? The loyal follower who help build Blizzard up from nothing? Be realistic. Just because a previous installment of the game had certain features does not entitle you to them now. Just because Blizzard could implement a feature at minimal cost does not mean it should have to, much less for free. Yes, it may mean that you're getting less bang for your buck than before (debatable), but the game was still worth purchasing without the additional fluff and that hasn't really changed. If this option had never been announced most people would have been just fine sticking with their current handle. Asking for more things for free then getting mad at Blizzard for either not giving them to you or providing them in some slightly altered form (only one free name change) seems kind of silly.
The realism here is that blizzard is making billion(s) of dollars hand over fist and you're sitting here defending them for nickle and diming us to death on something you may have already paid 60$ USD for. I know I paid $140 AUD for the CE and I expect to be offered more features for free, even if they are after the fact. Where are your balls son, you are happy to lose more and more free functionality in your game just because blizzard is allowed to make a buck? The point isn't that I wouldn't of used the feature anyway, the point is blizzard is making billions and are still glibe enough to charge us for a tiny tiny action on their behalf. You should be insulted, is your money and therefore hours of hard work worth nothing to you?
|
Microtransactions are a good thing, because they enable a whole lot of value added services, which can bring the whole ecosystem to life.
Shitty game developers will always be tempted to let players buy a ingame advantage, we can only hope that blizzard wont go down that path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/6539/chatchannels.jpg)
