This thread is not to ask whether or not you'd pay in to microtransactions, but rather debate their belonging- the pros and [lack of, in my opinion] cons. Keep it constructive and please avoid "microtransactions are stupid" without reading on.
Edit: Stop with the personal insults, jesus. I buy DLC because I like to and because I can afford it. This doesn't make me a "typical gamer who sits at home all weekend" or "stupid" because I spend money on entertainment. It makes me sad that this doesn't go without saying.
On August 17 2010 05:11 friendlybus wrote: 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?
On the contrary, it is exactly because my money is worth something to me that I don't see a problem here. I am willing and able to pay for the things that give me entertainment and make me happy. Value for value. You believe I'm bending over and taking it from Blizzard. I think it's the exact opposite. I don't have to debase myself by begging or whining about the little things that don't affect the substance of the game. There are times for complaints, but this probably isn't one of them. Do you really think it's more dignified to have a fit until the company gives you something for free, something that you didn't really care about to begin with? When the game is no longer worth the money I spend on it, I will stop buying it. Until then, I am perfectly happy to pay for the things that entertain me.
A recent thread discussed name changes. If you don't feel like reading it, essentially, everyone gets a free name change in the bank to use whenever they want, and then have to pay for future name changes. This isn't multiple characters, but rather just customization, for better or for worse. Edit: Stop throwing around numbers like $10 for future name changes- this is completely unfounded and, at this point in time, nobody even knows if they'll be less or more. I'll be the first to jump on the rage train if they think they can charge that much, but I doubt it.
The top 200 players of the world really must hate money. Also wow fail photoshop from me.
Microtransactions, you say? That's heresy! Only Korean games and Activision do th-- oh wait.
What is really so wrong with Microtransactions, though, in a game where you are not forced to spend money to be competitive, let alone microtransactions that are purely cosmetic? Do we just hate Bobby Kotick for being a a rich businessman, or is there a real problem with it?
Not sure if this is a comparison between a Thor and the Odin, or collectors edition, but surely you get the idea. This prospect already exists, and half of you bought in to it!.
This already exists- one purely cosmetic, un-gamechanging thing that people have spent extra money for. Maybe they wanted the Art book or sound track and this was simply a nice bonus, but they paid for it pure and simple. What's the harm to me, other than being envious of having too thin a wallet?
Instead of a Robed Skeletor, I roll out as an undead symbol of Patriotism for my team.
I've paid $40 for Hero skins (at about $5 each) on League of Legends just to blow people up in style, and maybe I shouldn't have in hindsight because now I'm poorer than I'd like to be, but that's my choice and it effects nobody- they are purely cosmetic.
For those who don't play League of Legends, it is a free game. You can pay money to buy out-of-game experience point boosts and whatnot, which will get you to a higher out-of-game level faster (too unrelated to explain but, for simplicity sake, lets just say its not a big deal in-game) and buy custom skins to make your heroes look awesome.
The business model of league of legends is that "Its free, so if you want to buy our stuff, sweet. If not, you wont be at any disadvantages, so just sit back and enjoy." Does this business model make us so easy to accept microtransactions? Why can't a paid-for game enjoy the same customization without thinking people are money hungry, and thus, its "only logical" to boycott the idea?
I know, I know. This isn't Dawn of War or Second Life. This is Starcraft, land of all that is holy. But what's wrong with the option to customize? I'm not suggesting anything too complex, but I'd love some custom skins- something realistic to the StarCraft Universe. Something like..
Frozen Zerg Retexture by RandomUser12, with a little quick 2-minute photoshop by me.
Isn't that goddamn awesome? I would pay for it. I know you can install it manually for yourself, but I want to be styling in public, not just locally.
The right kinds of microtransactions hurt nobody. Cosmetic, name changes, profile avatars, a shiny name, whatever. Buying the Frozen Zerg or any other custom race skin won't make your units camouflage on the map, if designed properly, and you'll still show up as a shining player-color beacon on the minimap. A female ghost model, similar enough to the old model but new enough to be special, won't provide confusion for your enemy. Changing your name to HuK for fun won't make you a better player- you'll just get stomped in fashion.
Sure, you'll be sending Bobby Koticks' kids to college. But so long as you arent locked out of any features for not buying in to microtransactions or a "premium subscription" versus the normal 'freemium", whats the problem?
Now that's all cosmetic. But what about the real microtransactions?
But I want to play on the Korea server!!! I want to view replays with friends!! I want chat rooms!! If you're going to expand the story with extra missions, we should get that for free! I want all this AND I dont want to pay for it, and surely Blizzard will eventually charge us for it!!
So if all that stuff comes in Heart of the Swarm, will you boycott? Isn't an expansion kind of just.. a large amount of DLC, except on a Disc? I've never understood the concept of people complaining that they have to buy more content. If you can justify buying an expansion pack, you are buying extra content. They didn't say that you had to pay $1 to use Dark Archons and $1 to use Valkyries when they released Brood War, but haven't you done that?
I've spent $20-30 buying DLC for Mass Effect 2, and maybe $10 on Dragon Age (with more to come shortly) on top of paying $60 each for both Collectors editions. I forget the exact prices, but for each game I managed to log 30+ hours for a single playthrough, and a good 2-3+ hours for each piece of DLC, a price and length which beats out the average movie ticket nowadays. People say I'm a sucker, but why? All I've done is bought mini-expansions to the games- a new array of weapons and units to use, as well as additions to the campaign story itself.
I'd be the first person to buy Starcraft 2 DLC that adds additional missions- something that adds an extra story arch (aka Artifact missions, Rebellion Missions, Prophecy missions, etc) based on a new character you meet somewhere down the line. Optional missions, which ultimately don't affect the end of the story (aka Dr. Hanson.)
In regards to such things like cross-realm play, chat rooms, etc, we'll just have to see what comes. I seriously doubt, and there is no evidence to suggest, that they will open these options to those willing to drop extra dough. "But with name changing costing money they're obviously greedy--" no, shut up.
In closing, I feel that to suggest , by buying the box copy of the game, you are entitled to all further developments by Blizzard labeled under StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, is absurd. You pay your initial $60 to cover all development costs and so that the company can turn a profit, as all businesses attempt. What's the incentive for them to add more content if they've already gotten your $60? For World of Warcraft, they add content to keep you interested and thus keep your subscription. For StarCraft? Well, time will tell.
Edit again: Also, to all you saying that cosmetic DLC may shift their focus away from important things like game balance, that's kind of silly. The art department, who would be responsible for such things, is not sitting in the conference room discussing the finer details of TvZ. They're making 3D models and brochures or whatever.
Edit: Removed some pictures because the e-police would rather critique the inclusion of jpegs rather than comment on the topic at hand.
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
I don't really care as long as nothing I'd consider essential has to be paid for. Like say ladder maps. I doubt it will though, from what I've heard Blizzard have managed what they sell for WoW well.
Maybe it's just where I grew up, or how i was raised, but all these micro transactions just bothers me. I just see it as a waste of money.
Now I agree that some reskins would be cool, but paying to change a block of text that is your name? Are you kidding me? Or paying to change servers to play with international friends? Ugh, it disgusts me.
Maybe I'm spoiled from Sc1 where you could make a million names and play on any server, anytime.
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.
It really depends on what I'm paying for. Having extra character slots on my sc2 account for 10 dollars. I'll take that The ability to change names after a freebie for $10 dollars, I'll pass.
Have zerg creep change colors for $10? Depends on the variety of colors available.
the list goes on and on..
Lan feature for $10? Just give it to us for free....
If those micro transactions let us play on a good and free battle.net I'm ok with it. But since bnet2.0 is a big joke, they are announcing this way too early. This doesn't sound like a fair trade with a free bnet.
Add the essential features to bnet, then talk about taking our money.
I don't believe that there is a lot wrong with microstransactions. Lots of games have them, and as long as they are PURELY aesthetic, then I have no issue with it. However, as Polis said, it does take some focus away from the actual game play development.
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 100%. If micro transactions were actually for true bonus content I wouldn't mind. But instead it just encourages holding back features that should have been in the game in the first place.
What I find irritating about microtransactions is that they take something that is traditionally free; something that we know they can turn a big profit without charging for; and then they start charging for it.
Take name changes. Having different handles on one service is the default. It's how the Internet has worked for all eternity. All of a sudden, Blizzard decides that you can't do that, except maybe, if you pay them some money, then you can do it. Not cool. Similar issue with server transfers, or region transfers; Blizzard arbitrarily splits you up onto separate servers that can't communicate or play together easily, and then charges you if you want to move around. In HoN, the developers charge you if you want to reset your win/loss record and rating.
If microtransactions are for pieces of content that feel like new, interesting things, for more than someone would have had otherwise, that's great and I'm cool with that business model. But when developers are making totally artificial limitations and then charging you to bypass them, that's sort of sleazy in my opinion. (I'm not sure if it's better or worse than making totally arbitrary limitations for no reason, like the LAN/chat channel fiasco.) I won't begrudge them the right to do it, but I won't be paying for any of it, and if another game comes out that's comparable and gives me these paywalled features, I'll be voting with my wallet.
If it doesn't affect gameplay, they can do whatever they want. You can complain about name changes, but let's face it, you already lost when Starcraft 2 became online-only. There's no point in protesting about it now.
Also: this is one of those threads that really don't need all the random pictures. I didn't like them in the Final Edits, I don't like them here.
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.
On August 17 2010 00:43 JrK wrote: I don't want them to make me feel like I have to do it. IE maps
Paying for maps is always awful. With FPSs like Halo and MW2, you have to buy the game a few times over because they keep releasing map packs. I hate doing it, but if I want to keep playing and having fun on these new areas, I have to shell out a handful of dollars for content that should be free.
As long as they don't have an effect on gameplay I'm fine with them.. if people want to pay money to watch their units die in a different color.. thats fine by me.
i dont mind if ppl have to pay for fancy stuff like customized colors or cooler looking thors or stuff like that. what bothers me like hell though is if we are supposed to pay for services and convenience features that were present in all the previous blizz games before bn 2.0 took over. i absolutely refuse to pay for a feature which is missing now in sc2 which was already there and free some 12 years ago in sc1 and should be considered a necessity in any modern, competitive rts. like e.g. chatrooms or crossregional play. or the ability to adjust nicks for clan tags. or playing different races and get adequate opponents for each of them. or be able to play sc2 at lans, even if the lan is bigger so that its not trivial to have every1 connected to the bn at once through the same connection.
i think most of us who are complaining about microtransactions arent rejecting the idea in itself. i think most of us simply articulate the fear that any feature which blizz implements because the community demands it will be for pay. and getting up one level in the iteration: we are fearing this scenario exactly because atm there are many features missing which A) were already there in previous blizz games, for free, and B) are considered to be vital for the longtime-enjoyability of sc2.
imho the main objections against microtransactions are driven by the fear that this precarious situation of us, the gamers and customers, will be exploited to greed even more profit out of sc2 by first taking away many crucial features which we have come to be accustomed of, and then giving them back for cash.
I think they need to make you pay 0.05 $ for each minute of playing terran .
Jokes aside. I do mind the microtransactions for things you need to get anyway. Although I would not mind paying a small fee to get lan modes available on my bnet account.
There is nothing wrong with micro transactions per se, but it depends how prolific they end up being. For example I can understand micro transactions for decals/avatars/skins. But name changing of some sort should be there by default for free.
Currently there isn't even a clan system, are people going to have to pay to change their names whenever they join a new clan?
It also seems more and more likely that they're going to charge for cross-realm play, which completely defeats the point, I want to be able to change realms for short periods of time when EU is down and US isn't or for a tournament/event on the US servers.
I feel like it's all relative. Alot of b.net 2.0 users are used to the freedom of b.net 1.0 and would prefer something of that sort. I mean...it's not like it's exactly a rough thing to do, and as many posters above have said, it unnecessairily shifts the focus onto gimmicks and silly and simplistic things, like name changes xD (because that's really such a big deal).
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
well to me its the fact they are starting to charge for things that were essentially free in SC1. While i still want to see a region locking solution i dont want to see it done like WoW. And i definitely dont like WoW style micro transactions. As if blizzards region locking solution is pay 5 bucks every time you want to change the server, ill be even more pissed and so will alot more of the community...
and heres a question i posted on the blizzard forums, with the name change will i actually be able to pick my gaming name? KiF1rE or will blizzard still screw me over and make me use Kifire....
I'm mixed about micro transactions. In some ways I understand where the companies are coming from (with the huge influx in pirating, etc.) but at the same time it can be viewed as greedy, punishing those who actually pay for the games, etc. and I see that aspect too. I also see the bad precedent it can set with more and more companies becoming involved with micro transactions, and the potential for being charged for every little thing possible, including balance patches.
However, with Activision I feel like they're going down the road no one wants with micro transactions. For example, in MW2 (modern warfare 2) Activision charged more than the game's producer (Infinity Ward) wanted to, simply to increase its profits. What did they charge for in MW2? New maps. Imagine, being forced to pay money to get new maps in ladder-play, wouldn't you be pissed? I'd be pissed.
I'm afraid the tendency would spillover to important content like new maps/bnet storage room etcetera. I think skin DLC is silly but harmless - the thing is that it might tempt developers to go for minitransactions with more and more content.
Look if I can pay money for the sparkly wow horse equivalent, fine.
I won't buy it, but people will, and the company that makes my favorite game makes more money. This is fine. I want the company that makes my favorite game to be profitable, so they a) stay in buisness b)people try to make games like them
when I'm charged for ladder maps, when I'm charged for nexus wars or the new fancy nexus wars... thats when the line is crossed
I like the idea of microtransactions, but maybe it's because I play games that use them and get enjoyment out of what they provide. Take Guild Wars for instance. NCSoft offers just about anything on their in-game store, most of which are actually game-changing. You can buy extra character slots, more storage space, even new missions which give maxed out weaponry which you can get on any character.
As far as SC2 goes, it's most likely going to be like WoW. And I don't mind that at all, since I'll probably never use those services anyway.
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.
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?
Honestly, they released the best RTS game since 1999, and you're complaining about development shift?
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.
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.
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.
Also, show me anywhere Blizzard has indicated that you have to pay for cross realm play? They promised it as a post launch feature to be released in a content patch. They said to play cross realm you'd have to buy that region's game, but only before they release the patch that allows crossrealm play.
They don't throw fees on features they promise for free. They never promised you name changes. They probably saw feedback after launch from many people who wanted to change their name. That's why everyone is getting one for free.
Microtransactions aren't going away, no matter how many people here boycott them. If people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for shitty niche MMO emulated server items that mean nothing and/or items in dumb online text games, untold people will be willing to spend some money here and there on some Blizzard mf'ing Entertainment microtransactions.
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?
Honestly, they released the best RTS game since 1999, and you're complaining about development shift?
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.
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.
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.
Also, show me anywhere Blizzard has indicated that you have to pay for cross realm play? They promised it as a post launch feature to be released in a content patch. They said to play cross realm you'd have to buy that region's game, but only before they release the patch that allows crossrealm play.
They don't throw fees on features they promise for free. They never promised you name changes. They probably saw feedback after launch from many people who wanted to change their name. That's why everyone is getting one for free.
what he said was a general thing and hes totally right.no reason to rage at him.
also the blue post about cross region said it will be a "unlock in the account managament" or something like that. what/how do you unlock stuff in your bnet account web page? by paying. if they wanted to make it free they would just add a gateway selection in a patch like we always had in evry single bnet game . this and the current trend of hardcore milking by blizz STRONGLY indicates that they plan to again milk the customer more. ill gladly take bets on this. if im wrong ill eat my words and openly apologize to blizzard. but i really really doubt thats gonna happen.
/edit also they never said it will be free. and blizzard promised much in their history. try to watch replays online with others in wc3. oh doesnt work? but it was promised for years!
I don't care about microtransactions. The fees are miniscule -- less than a trip to McDonalds or a movie. Which will give you more enjoyment? Probably the microtransaction.
It's all in people's heads. They feel like they don't get access to the full game unless they pay for all the little things. In reality, you buy the full game, and pay for things on top of that. Microtransactions pay for the development of content that otherwise couldn't exist.
Free name changes all the time are never good. The fee is an incentive to avoid constant smurfing.
I don't have a problem with micro transactions themselves. If people want to pay for new models, avatars, more name changes, I'm fine with that. I personally would never pay for any of that, because it's all eyecandy that does not improve gameplay at all.
If they'd introduce chat channels, lan support, Xrealm play, online replays etc. as DLC content for 10$+ then I'd be pissed beyond all reason. I consider those thing core that should (have been) be put in the game from the get-go.
But like someone above said, if people want to pay to get wings and stars on their thors, who's to stop them and why the hell not? It won't change anything for me.
If it's about cosmetic changes, name-changing and so on - yes, introduce them by all means. But there should be a sensible boundary. Limiting us to just one character is game-breaking (please, read some older posts before commenting on this). Clans, cross-realm and so on are also a basic functionality that shouldn't require additional payment - especially for an already expensive game with compulsory expansions as well.
That's it, as long as the line between what should be included in the main package and what is an extra is not crossed, then microtransactions are a sustainable business model. When they cross it, they are toying with loyal customers.
Edit: Don't know if this was already linked in the thread. Hopefully not spamming. Double edit: meh bad timing on my part. Mods if you're able to, please delete this post.
Paying for a name change doesn't bother me, because I like it that people have to use the name they pick. I think it will discourage annoying name swapping and make people feel a little more responsible for their online persona. However, I'll be really mad if Blizzard starts charging for content-related items like maps or units. I'm generally tolerant of the cheap single player quasi-expansions that have been coming out for a lot of games, but given Blizzards product strategy with the three chapters of SC2 coming out as expansions, I think it would be really crappy if they went that route.
On August 17 2010 01:39 GagnarTheUnruly wrote: Paying for a name change doesn't bother me, because I like it that people have to use the name they pick. I think it will discourage annoying name swapping and make people feel a little more responsible for their online persona. However, I'll be really mad if Blizzard starts charging for content-related items like maps or units. I'm generally tolerant of the cheap single player quasi-expansions that have been coming out for a lot of games, but given Blizzards product strategy with the three chapters of SC2 coming out as expansions, I think it would be really crappy if they went that route.
everyone keeps mentioning maps and stuff over and over.... I wonder how blizzard is going to use that map market place that they were talking about before release etc... Whether its just going to be high quality user made maps, and is blizzard going to use that market place to sell DLC made by them?
As for cross region, they have posted things, along the lines of " Without having to buy the Full copy of the game again" which leaves it open to interpretation that they will charge for cross region play. They have also not come out and said cross region will be free either. Though by it not being free they contradict themselves with the prelease quote of "your 60$ buys the full multiplayer experience."
My point is that they have hinted at micro transactions before. With things like the marketplace before release at blizzcon. How far they are going to take it is what worries me...
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.
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 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!
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!
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.
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 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 01:14 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.
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.
As long as the enhancements are well done and don't mess up the looks real bad (candy zealot, santaclaus marauders, etc.). Unless they would make it client-side only, so I wouldn't have to watch sellout-figures on my screen.
Regarding maps, I wouldn't be worried. Blizzard has talent to make maps look good, but not particularly awesome gameplay-wise.
I know we sure are all excited about paying extra to play with our friends overseas in a 2010 RTS. You know it's coming... I wonder why ISPs don't do start doing this, extra charge to browse websites that are hosted outside of the country, lol! Oh that's right, most non-gamer customers aren't complete pushovers like the hipster kids in this kind of gaming community that are just begging to pay more (most of them probably still with their allowance) because they are so in love with their game even though the multiplayer service completely blows.
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.
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.
Name changes on BNet 1 were used mostly to smurf people and do mostly complete bullshit to newbs
the issue is monopoly. there is no real competition to SC in terms of competitive RTS. so Blizzard can get away with sleazy shit like this and they know it. I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would jump to their defense however.
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
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
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?
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.
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. Sonic, Metroid, Mario Wii sports, wii fitness, wii play, mii's, etc. Also ironically i've found most of the things completely uninnovative. One of the most innovative game concepts i've seen recently was Pikmin (i think technically its an RTS? maybe?) but that was for GC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Having played wow for 3 years I can say the microtransactions there never made any difference to the game what so ever, I paid for a single transfer of my main to play with an IRL friend once i stopped raiding, otherwise i never paid for anything, and my game play experience wasn't affected 1 bit. It will be the same here. Name changes, Portraits, Decals will be the order of the day. Maybe some skins for units ala the spec edition Thor. 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.
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.
The premium maps will come from blizzard, not the community.
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.
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.
The premium maps will come from blizzard, not the community.
Really? Can you show me where they say that? (I am not being sarcastic)
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
Actually it works very very well when explaining capitalism.
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
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!
My problem with microtransactions is that they take otherwise freely available content, and make it available to only the most dedicated players. The two extremes of this are WoW vs. TF2.
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?
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
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 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 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.
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".
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.
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 03:27 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?
op, the incentive for them to keep adding more stuff when they've gotten our first payment is to make sure that their publisher is paying them money. the publisher trusts the developer to make a game that is good. if the game is good and sells well, it provides the publisher incentive to keep paying the developers to make another game, or in sc2s case, 2 more expansions.
that said, i approve of the idea of DLC when it comes to more content. more missions, fine. things i don't really need. flavour, if you will. the ME2 DLC was great if you ask me. perfect, almost. loads of extra missions, none which i have any complaints about. chat rooms, however, or being able to watch replays with friends, infrastructure like that doesn't make sense to shell out for.
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 $140 AUD for the CE and I expect to be offered more features for free, even if they are after the fact. Where are your balls son, you are happy to lose more and more free functionality in your game just because blizzard is allowed to make a buck? The point isn't that I wouldn't of used the feature anyway, the point is blizzard is making billions and are still glibe enough to charge us for a tiny tiny action on their behalf. You should be insulted, is your money and therefore hours of hard work worth nothing to you?
What incentive is there for them to produce additional extra content if they are going to be getting nothing out of it?
Its business, and if you were Morhaime or Kotick, I imagine your goal wouldn't be just to appease your fans, but also to make money. Just because you're a multi-billion dollar company doesn't mean you give away developed products for free- that is a stupid business idea
Lets throw out some random numbers just for shits and giggles. Company spends 100 million developing a game. Sales exceed over 200 million. Company is happy. What happens next? Company decides to create some new DLC, expanding the single player with a new scenario that lasts 3-4 hours or some such. 3-4 hours of in-game playtime probably accumulates hundreds of man hours to develop, maybe (again, random numbers sake) a million dollars.
Projected sales, if sold, would be 10 million. What kind of business plan do you have written down that is willing to, not only spend a million dollars to produce this DLC, but to not profit 9 million dollars?
You talk as if, not only are you entitled to free content, but that a multi-billion dollar company wouldn't be giddy for another 9 million dollars. I know I would, I'd fucking love 9 million dollars.
On August 17 2010 05:11 friendlybus wrote: The realism here is that blizzard is making billion(s) of dollars hand over fist and you're sitting here defending them for nickle and diming us to death on something you may have already paid 60$ USD for. I know I paid $140 AUD for the CE and I expect to be offered more features for free, even if they are after the fact. Where are your balls son, you are happy to lose more and more free functionality in your game just because blizzard is allowed to make a buck? The point isn't that I wouldn't of used the feature anyway, the point is blizzard is making billions and are still glibe enough to charge us for a tiny tiny action on their behalf. You should be insulted, is your money and therefore hours of hard work worth nothing to you?
On the contrary, it is exactly because my money is worth something to me that I don't see a problem here. I am willing and able to pay for the things that give me entertainment and make me happy. Value for value. You believe I'm bending over and taking it from Blizzard. I think it's the exact opposite. I don't have to debase myself by begging or whining about the little things that don't affect the substance of the game. There are times for complaints, but this probably isn't one of them. Do you really think it's more dignified to have a fit until the company gives you something for free, something that you didn't really care about to begin with? When the game is no longer worth the money I spend on it, I will stop buying it. Until then, I am perfectly happy to pay for the things that entertain me.
If they stick to skins, portraits, decals, name changes, I am fine with microtransactions. YAY.
They want to implement a map marketplace. I am scared of this, because the current Custom Map stuff is just horrible. I will never be able to play a good Custom Map until I pay for it? NAY.
It also depends of the type of microtransaction. There is the "one time pay" stuff. And there is the "monthly fee" which we have seen in WoW (Online Auction House). I would really be NAY if they offer new ladder maps / clansupport / chatchannels as a monthly payment. I maybe (!) could live with small 1-time payment options (<= 5$).
On August 17 2010 05:11 friendlybus wrote: 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?
On the contrary, it is exactly because my money is worth something to me that I don't see a problem here. I am willing and able to pay for the things that give me entertainment and make me happy. Value for value. You believe I'm bending over and taking it from Blizzard. I think it's the exact opposite. I don't have to debase myself by begging or whining about the little things that don't affect the substance of the game. There are times for complaints, but this probably isn't one of them. Do you really think it's more dignified to have a fit until the company gives you something for free, something that you didn't really care about to begin with? When the game is no longer worth the money I spend on it, I will stop buying it. Until then, I am perfectly happy to pay for the things that entertain me.
I'm pretty sure the people who scream I WANT USELESS COSMETIC CHANGES FOR FREE is small. The rest just don't want them in the game AT ALL. I don't want to pimp my Helion, not for five bucks a skin, not for free. I don't want that. This is an RTS game not some glorified chatroom. There is no need to buy stuff for your avatar. And to the OP: Are you still willing to pay for more mission knowing there are TWO more expansions coming out? the map making community is bound to make some nice single player maps while you wait.
I'm all for companies making money and microtransactions but I think being able to have 3-4 accounts and be able to reset one of the accounts each month should be free. Maybe I'm too used to iccup but if someone wants to have an account for each race and random then I think that's totally viable. Also if I want to try out some weird builds and get everything straightened out I'm not going to be able to do it playing in diamond league. It's better to work up from gold league and see how it does. Oh and where the f are chat channels?
On August 17 2010 05:11 friendlybus wrote: 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?
On the contrary, it is exactly because my money is worth something to me that I don't see a problem here. I am willing and able to pay for the things that give me entertainment and make me happy. Value for value. You believe I'm bending over and taking it from Blizzard. I think it's the exact opposite. I don't have to debase myself by begging or whining about the little things that don't affect the substance of the game. There are times for complaints, but this probably isn't one of them. Do you really think it's more dignified to have a fit until the company gives you something for free, something that you didn't really care about to begin with? When the game is no longer worth the money I spend on it, I will stop buying it. Until then, I am perfectly happy to pay for the things that entertain me.
I'm pretty sure the people who scream I WANT USELESS COSMETIC CHANGES FOR FREE is small. The rest just don't want them in the game AT ALL. I don't want to pimp my Helion, not for five bucks a skin, not for free. I don't want that. This is an RTS game not some glorified chatroom. There is no need to buy stuff for your avatar. And to the OP: Are you still willing to pay for more mission knowing there are TWO more expansions coming out? the map making community is bound to make some nice single player maps while you wait.
If you dont want to pimp out your hellion, then just don't buy it? I don't understand the argument that it shouldn't exist because you, or a majority of people even, don't want it, especially when admitting that some people (small as it is) would enjoy them. Just don't buy it and you lose nothing. We'll buy it and everyone can be happy.
And yes, I'm absolutely willing to buy another mission arch or something. Even if its just useless flavor to the real story (ala Dr Hanson's story arch playing absolutely no role in the result of the game.) I love extra stuff- I eat it up. Would love to play a few side missions involving Valerian's trip to meet Raynor, dodging his father and what encounters and difficulties he met on the way. Would absolutely love for another potential crew member to have some financial opportunities for Raynor, culminating in some kind of rivaly developed with a new protoss faction that, again, doesn't impact the overall ending to the story in any way. The expansions are going to be something new entirely- what I enjoy in regards to DLC is flavor, new voice acting, excetera- a quality which unofficial mapmakers won't be able to sell to me, because they can in no way contribute to the official story. They can try, but it'll just be fanfiction, and I care little for that.
On August 17 2010 00:32 HubertFelix wrote: If those micro transactions let us play on a good and free battle.net I'm ok with it. But since bnet2.0 is a big joke, they are announcing this way too early. This doesn't sound like a fair trade with a free bnet.
Add the essential features to bnet, then talk about taking our money.
I dont mind people buying models decals portrait, new music or whatever. Name change? i dont care either. I dont see why someone should feel they should change their name all the time.
However anything changing gameplay is holy ground, you cannot do this if you want to be even semi serious esports. Also, if they go crazy about models i would not allow them in tournament play however. Im not too hot about seeing huk microing a wall-e probe or tlo destroying a drone line with bumblebee hellions.
I will have to say yay and nay oddly enough. while I believe we shouldn't have to pay to change our name or do a stat reset. I realize ppl do these far too often. I believe things like that should go on a timer (say 3 months?) and if you want to change it more often you should have to pay for that.
The problem with buying microtransactions for me is that i find it hard to price. I just don't know how much dlc that will exist with the game in the future and if it's overpriced, and how much of future dlc i want since it's largely unannounced :|
I 100% support purely aesthetic microtransactions... I 100% hate ANY other forms though, additional content -> game balancing changes. I do not believe companies should add more to the game short of an expansion pack without it being a charitable exercise.
If it's purely aesthetic, sure, I'm all for it. However, the moment those micro-transactions touch on the gameplay aspect in a significant way? I'm 110% against.
Race skins, imo, should only exist if the change is minor and doesn't effect as much. However, I think it'd be really awesome to have small things like unique insignias for teams and clans. For example, if a clan had to pay $X in order to implement their own unique clan insignia rather than use the pre-rendered ones, that would be amazing and would impact gameplay in a non-significant, positive way. But, if they make a skin for Zerg that turns them all pitch dark black and makes it impossible to see them, that would be bad.
Basically, just depends on the type and significance of the micro-transactions on actual gameplay.
It feels greedy like they are trying to rip you off. I don't mind paying more for a game or if a product increases in price, but I hate hidden costs. I used to love Bungie b/c of halo even though halo 2/3 single player sucked (multi was ok). I had bought books, collector's edition, 3 copies of halo 1 (one PC), a second xbox, two copies of halo 2 collectors, and I got limited halo 3 just for the end of the story and the only reason I got a 360. I loved halo and spent a ton of time and money on it. But as soon as they forced you to buy maps to play rated, I quit, and barely bought halo 3 or a 360. In fact I regret it almost and have not bought the other books/game/etc that are coming out.
I bought dragon age/mass effect with DLC for dragon age which wasn't bad (although not worth it really). But that was optional that didn't affect gameplay, so even though they are ripping people off its not forced.
So basically it irritates me they are being greedy jerks but as long I can play the game competitively without being forced to buy things that aren't upfront I'm ok with it. If Blizzard pulls a Bungie and makes you buy maps for ladder or something I will never ever buy another blizzard game again.
In comparison if blizzard charged $5 a month or $50 a year to play SC2 I would gladly pay it as long as it was upfront and they did chat rooms and all the stuff they should have. I find it very insulting and actually morally wrong to have micro-transactions if they interfere with gameplay (like Bungie did). It consider it stealing if they force you to buy extra stuff after to continue playing (for the life of the game). Its not about money its about being underhanded and forcing purchases.
I would love to pay for really unique aesthetic changes that are public. Of course, it all depends on the price. Your example is a bit big, because it could impact the game visually, like not seeing units or what have you. I'd gladly pay for a model or a re-skin. Like a re-skin of a hydralisk:
The name system? It was just a horrible design in the first place. Having non-unique names just ruins everything. Have you seen Xbox LIVE? They have been running in good terms with unique names, no trouble at all, for a long time. I'm fine with paying for a name change, but it doesn't mean I'm going to do it. It's just a way to monetize a feature.
What if all the trolls just changed their name to TLO? Damn, Blizzard is a bunch of retards. I blame Activision partially but Blizzard should know better.
"Somebody used a maphack!" "What was his name?" "TLO" "I'm sorry, there are 58 registered TLOs in this game." FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
On August 17 2010 09:15 Lysdexia wrote: I wouldn't be able to stand looking at that zerg retexture in the op. I'm only okay with custom skins if I don't have to see them.
That picture was merely an example. I, too, think that any custom skins ought to not only have some relevance to the story and make sense, but that they shouldn't rip your eyes out.
However, there's absolutely no point in being able to buy skins if you can't show them off. Such cosmetic changes, if not an eye-sore and developed correctly, should be displayed publicly, and not be intrusive, such as how the collectors edition Thor blends in.
Another skin idea would be one that is already in the game, even. I believe its the third Zeratul mission, when you encounter an entire protoss force wearing dark armor. That just looked bad ass to me, and frankly, playing through that mission, I had no misconceptions as to the types of units I was fighting. Everything looked perfectly normal gameplay wise, just a different color scheme. Ideally if I'm paying for DLC I want more than a recolor, but you get the idea.
Also, I love someones idea of having custom clan insignias.
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.
This guy is spot on. Also OP should have the shit kicked out of him for spending money he admittedly doesn't have on stupid shit like Thor wings.
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
I would say that bnet 1.0 was a little chaotic when everybody had 3+ accounts and my friend list maxed out. bnet 2.0 is more organized for sure.
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.
This guy is spot on. Also OP should have the shit kicked out of him for spending money he admittedly doesn't have on stupid shit like Thor wings.
I didn't buy the collectors edition because I couldn't afford it, because I had a friend I could steal the art book from, and because I'm a zerg player so I don't care for thors. So thank you for your assumptions and for a well-thought contribution.
I admitted to buying Dragon Age / ME2 / LoL DLC, because at the time I had expendable money. Right now I don't. Some might claim Karma, but an expensive move to a new house with a lot of hidden fees to bite you in the ass has nothing to do with my love for good DLC. I would never tell someone to buy DLC when they can't afford it, let alone practice hypocrisy in doing so- thanks for the vote of confidence.
I hope you get the shit kicked out of you. (see how stupid that sounds?)
Now i agree that we obviously have to pay for extra stuff like missions and i would buy a dlc in a heartbeat. A dlc is way different than a few features though.
The thing i don't agree with is charging us for features we had previously. I saw a blue post on the bnet forum that said "Developing and implementing a name change service doesn't take any effort?" Of course it takes effort, but it took some as well previously and we did not get charged for it. Now I won't change my name, because i like my name and i think i'm the only one with it(not same as forum name) So that whole thing does not affect me so much, but if they do name change, what will they do next? Give us extra characters per account for a price? Make us pay for private channels whenever they add chat? I think its more of a concern about blizz charging for features we should have right now, and for free. Everything that was available in bnet 1.0 should at least be free in bnet 2.0...
Also I think a lot of the shit going around right now would pass easier if bobby kotick/activision was not behind it.
Also i don't care if they charge for cosmetic changes, and i understand why they don't allow user created content to use in ladder games as someone could easily create a skin that shows through fog (think those wall hack skins in fps games, making walls invisible or body glow through walls). I guess they could restrict them so they would not work as long as it's not a custom game (Think something like sv_pure, if you play valve games) The only thing i care about for those cosmetic changes is that if i did not buy it, i don't want to see it(in game at least, would not care for avatars and similar stuff) I honestly don't like the CE thor and i don't want to see it, but I'm forced to because someone else bought it.
im sick of microtransactions and extra DLC fees. i hate this damn new trend. all this shit use to be free when u bought a game., new updates, patches, updates with content etc. now publishers are holding content back on purpose and they charging as dlc when it was created before retail. and yes the sc2 being three parts was a money decision. why get paid big one time from the mass of fans when you can get paid 3 times. its obvioiuse.
oh yah look what they did with cod5 charge you money for new maps.. lol that shit use to be free.. fk this ppl who support all this microsht
buying goodies and stuff in game via microtransaction always give me a lot of happiness and gratification, it is like getting new shiny shoes often when you can do fine with one or two pair a year. In my opinion its awesome, and it refreshes interest in the game.
I love my collectors edition Thor. I listen to the soundtrack in the car and thoroughly enjoyed the artwork book and comic. I've even used the Raynor USB stick a couple of times.
Collectors Ed is totally baller, the only thing that sucks is I couldn't give away the WoW pet.
I'm all for being able to buy extra content, games are pretty cheap when compared to a lot of the stuff that people waste money on.
The OP makes a good point of how microtransactions CAN be ok IF they don't affect blance/gameplay I.E cosmetic, etc. That being said I felt this was not worthy of its own thread and the OP is just justifying to himself all the money he has blown on DLC....
Tbh, I'd rarther pay $10/mo than having to spend $10 every 2 months for some stuff, but that's just because I hate using my debitcard, if it's just a recurring fee I don't really feel it as much as i do when i pay for stuff.
But no, I don't mind microtransaction, as long as it doesn't impact the experience for people who doesn't pay.
I.e I'd hate it if we were able to pay for a new skin for something (I already hate that blizz gave collectors edition a special thor look), but an extra character slot on the account or a character rename, that's cool with me.
As soon as I could I hopped on the b.net forums to say "please sell us custom race skins!"
Definitely a fan of micro-transactions. A badass game like Starcraft II can make a ton of money on idiot taxes like pretty unit skins and portraits, allowing Blizzard to better serve everyone.
If someone wants to buy DLC by all means. If a company wishes to release new features and also charge you for them, who are you to complain?
" oh yah look what they did with cod5 charge you money for new maps.. lol that shit use to be free.. fk this ppl who support all this microsht "
Yeah before companies became all greedy and shit and now want to take your money/blah blah blah I don't see them having really any obligation to you, you bought the game, they don't have to release more content; they already gave you everything your money was worth. (you might not think it is, but hey you paid for it good job) If they hold back stuff so they can release it later, then you either miss out on it because you don't think it's worth the money, or you buy it because you think it is. Simple as that really.
If it's worth it to someone, who are you to tell them they are a fool for buying it? Seriously. I think that mp3 players are a serious waste of money, since 300 dollars (pending model obviously) is a lot of money and I don't have a dying need to listen to music wherever I am. But then again, other people enjoy being able to listen to music wherever they are, while they are jogging, etc. So the 300 is obviously worth it to them.
) I honestly don't like the CE thor and i don't want to see it, but I'm forced to because someone else bought it.
And oh grow up. You're acting like you're a victim or something
Any useful game function should not require a micro-transaction and should be responded to with outrage if it does. The reason for this: These functions already should have been included in the game. People don't like to be ripped off.
If you want to pay for cosmetic BS then feel free by all means. When it comes to actual functionality, however, Blizzard has got to be joking if it wants us to pay extra for it.
On August 17 2010 11:41 Pablols wrote: buying goodies and stuff in game via microtransaction always give me a lot of happiness and gratification, it is like getting new shiny shoes often when you can do fine with one or two pair a year. In my opinion its awesome, and it refreshes interest in the game.
Can't tell if this was sarcastic or what.
People who spend money on things they absolutely don't need are stupid.
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.
This guy is spot on. Also OP should have the shit kicked out of him for spending money he admittedly doesn't have on stupid shit like Thor wings.
I didn't buy the collectors edition because I couldn't afford it, because I had a friend I could steal the art book from, and because I'm a zerg player so I don't care for thors. So thank you for your assumptions and for a well-thought contribution.
I admitted to buying Dragon Age / ME2 / LoL DLC, because at the time I had expendable money. Right now I don't. Some might claim Karma, but an expensive move to a new house with a lot of hidden fees to bite you in the ass has nothing to do with my love for good DLC. I would never tell someone to buy DLC when they can't afford it, let alone practice hypocrisy in doing so- thanks for the vote of confidence.
I hope you get the shit kicked out of you. (see how stupid that sounds?)
Cool so you had a reserve of funds that you could have saved for later, but you blew it on some dumb shit that you didn't need. Now you do need it and you don't have it because you're a mindless consumer.
Congratulations!
edit: I don't mean to be obnoxiously offensive, but it's a bit absurd that people want to waste their money, and in the process are encouraging Blizzard to try and rip me off. I don't want to have to pay to play on different regions. That's a standard function in any other game, that doesn't exist in SC2 because of people like the OP. I'm not going to be paying for any game function which should have existed from release for no extra charge.
Not to mention $60 is more than a game is really worth due to the fact that it's all digital now, but that deserves its own thread. It's relevant to SC2 though, because it's a major factor for the failure of SC2 in Korea. They don't want to spend that much money on a game.
Microtransactions are all good in situations where a company has developed something new post-release (new maps, aesthetic features etc). But when they are do absolutely nothing and charge you for it (name changes will most likely be an automated service that they already have the programming for), that's when it's fucking annoying.
I might pay more money if I knew it was going to contribute to a pay rise for the actual developers, artists etc. But it will probably just go towards fattening Bobby Kotick's already unreasonably large paycheck.
I think the idea of microtransaction for a game like SC2 should only be made if the game was free like LoL. I can also see having things like the ability to change names or reset rankings/ladders could be useful for players too. So microtransaction is fine as long as paying means you get cosmetic addons that won't really affect the game.
On August 17 2010 12:56 Pokedude1013 wrote: If someone wants to buy DLC by all means. If a company wishes to release new features and also charge you for them, who are you to complain?
" oh yah look what they did with cod5 charge you money for new maps.. lol that shit use to be free.. fk this ppl who support all this microsht "
Yeah before companies became all greedy and shit and now want to take your money/blah blah blah I don't see them having really any obligation to you, you bought the game, they don't have to release more content; they already gave you everything your money was worth. (you might not think it is, but hey you paid for it good job) If they hold back stuff so they can release it later, then you either miss out on it because you don't think it's worth the money, or you buy it because you think it is. Simple as that really.
If it's worth it to someone, who are you to tell them they are a fool for buying it? Seriously. I think that mp3 players are a serious waste of money, since 300 dollars (pending model obviously) is a lot of money and I don't have a dying need to listen to music wherever I am. But then again, other people enjoy being able to listen to music wherever they are, while they are jogging, etc. So the 300 is obviously worth it to them.
I don't really care about paid services,never needed them really. They are carefully crafted to fit retarded,careless people who don't give a shit about their earnings. It's a moral imperative under an evolutionary standpoint to rip these people off,natural selection you know yes? You punish them for being careless,next generation will hopefully learn. Or maybe if someones becomes weaker,another one become stronger. Evolution has always had these rules. The noob/clueless/careless one perishes to the pro/skilled/smart/shady one.
Back on the ground of the average joe: You know what people say by the way? "It's my money,I do whatever I want with 'em!"(heard that a whole lot on italian boards,belive me). So why should we care about them wasting their resources anyway? I don't,for istance,I don't give a car's wheel about that. I keep my money safe and sound. If they come and ask me more money,I won't give em,that's how I roll. I'll play older games and be fine with that.
If you buy a collector's edition, or say, a "limited" edition, you should expect it to be that, "limited". As in, if it lets the player flash his shiny new Thor, then so be it. (I mean OBVIOUSLY, you are a bigger fan than me, OBVIOUSLY. /sarcasm) You shouldn't have microtransactions every 2 months, however. In other words, I only expect them to do this thing once.
Name changes are a different matter. Whilst people should not abuse their names, $10 is a bit steep.
i purchased the collectors edition. i look at the collectors not for the thor animation or the wow pet but for the art book and sc:one usb stick. - as far as micro transactions... i think they will always have a place. blizzard want to charge people 10 bucks for a wow pet or 25 bucks for a wow horse then im fine with it, cause basically people enjoy it. everyday people spend their money for enjoyment so this really doesn't differ. micro transactions that change the balance of a game by either extra damage / extra better awesomeness of some type then yes i think most people will have objections. in sc2 everyone is at the same level. in wow however this is completely different. e.g. you spend 50 hours raiding over 10 weeks (for example) and you get all of teirX gear. if blizzard then said for 100USD you can buy all of tierX gear. is this a bad thing? - YES, because the people who put time in to the game have no real reward or status - NO, it gives people who have families, work, etc the ability to compete at the same level as people who have lots of time the question is where do you draw the line. in a business model like sc2 the money is clearly in exp and blizzard figured this our early and thus we have a three tiered game. in wow the money comes in subscriptions and this is done by player enjoyment. how blizzard deems fit to make people happy could and ultimately will be done by micro transactions.
in conclusion starcraft 2: will be protected from micro transactions say for small things like name change, extra avatars, different models, etc BUT nothing to effect the game world of warcraft: micro transactions will only increase as subscriptions fall. they will integrate themselves in to the very fabric of the game. will the game eventually leave subscription and move to micro transactions only? this is a strong possibility diablo 3: this is to be seen, as an action RPG the ability for extra levels becomes a key business structure as well as expansions like starcraft 2. the ability to charge users for extra items etc is most definitely on the cards however
why is everybody calling this "Micro transactions". Is it because you need high apm to get them? Seriously, i worked for the IT dep. of a cradit card firm and not even 1 cent is called a "Micro" Transaction. Its a normal transaction as 1 million usd would be. Get serious about it Its not getting better or cheaper if Blizz or us calls it Micro transactions. really
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.
This guy is spot on. Also OP should have the shit kicked out of him for spending money he admittedly doesn't have on stupid shit like Thor wings.
I didn't buy the collectors edition because I couldn't afford it, because I had a friend I could steal the art book from, and because I'm a zerg player so I don't care for thors. So thank you for your assumptions and for a well-thought contribution.
I admitted to buying Dragon Age / ME2 / LoL DLC, because at the time I had expendable money. Right now I don't. Some might claim Karma, but an expensive move to a new house with a lot of hidden fees to bite you in the ass has nothing to do with my love for good DLC. I would never tell someone to buy DLC when they can't afford it, let alone practice hypocrisy in doing so- thanks for the vote of confidence.
I hope you get the shit kicked out of you. (see how stupid that sounds?)
Is it really? When I read what DLC that cost about 10-15$ offers then it sounds really bad. I much rather prefer full fledged expansion for 30$ that offers way more then all DLC put together, cost much less, and when I add something to game to play it again that I prefer for it to be significant then adding small content at diferent times. It is pretty obvious that DLC cut into development of the next game/expansion, people that are in DLC team would be in team that makes next game/expansion. DLC is also very limiting to many games, you can't really rework how the game world is in DLC like you can in bigger expansion G2:Notr comes to mind, if they would give couple DLC instead of it, then the game would just get few new areas.
If DLC will make more money the expansions then we will get more DLC, and less expansion (already happening now), that is my main problem with it.
Nokarot wrote: I've spent $20-30 buying DLC for Mass Effect 2, and maybe $10 on Dragon Age (with more to come shortly) on top of paying $60 each for both Collectors editions. I forget the exact prices, but for each game I managed to log 30+ hours for a single playthrough, and a good 2-3+ hours for each piece of DLC, a price and length which beats out the average movie ticket nowadays. People say I'm a sucker, but why? All I've done is bought mini-expansions to the games- a new array of weapons and units to use, as well as additions to the campaign story itself.
It´s pretty obvious you´re A) tipical pc gamer who locks itself at the pc the entire weekend; or B) you have pretty much money to paid for every form of entertainment around. Some people, most of it, can´t pay for every fun stuff. If i spend my U$s60 of monthly entertainment just because Sc is the only game i really love, i don´t want to keep having to spend on it. [Btw, you can´t compare going out, to a movie, a restaurant or whatever, with sit and play a game at home....That´s make to think you´re a A) case]
Nokarot wrote: For those who don't play League of Legends, it is a free game. You can pay money to buy out-of-game experience point boosts and whatnot, which will get you to a higher out-of-game level faster (too unrelated to explain but, for simplicity sake, lets just say its not a big deal in-game) and buy custom skins to make your heroes look awesome.
God lord, i play "free" League of Legends". The difference between paid and no paid versions is HUGE. To get 1 of the best heroes it takes about 80 hs of game time, OR, of curse, you can paid, specially when your ass keep being kicked with these heroes. And those are the transactions which we have to be scared. Why? Because the 99%of games which starts with simple "stylish" transactions, ends with game-breaking paids. Check Modern Warfare 2...which casually comes from the same company...
I like how many of you feel its necessary to break down to personal attacks on a topic that was meant to be purely debate. But thanks- I go out and see movies every other weekend, and occasionally go out and take pictures and work on artwork on weekends. Recently my family bought a new $360,000 house, are forced to pay off two houses simultaneously for a few months, and have paid upwards of $5,000 in unexpected repair fees, home owners association fees, and much more, which is making money tight for all of us.
If I had chose not to buy ME2/Dragon Age/LoL DLC, I'd be in the exact same boat, except $50 richer, and whats the difference between having $50 and $100 when you're talking about thousands? Every bit counts, sure, but I'm not "stupid" for buying DLC given financial struggles 6 months after the fact.
On August 17 2010 21:53 Krychek wrote: Let´s see...
Nokarot wrote: I've spent $20-30 buying DLC for Mass Effect 2, and maybe $10 on Dragon Age (with more to come shortly) on top of paying $60 each for both Collectors editions. I forget the exact prices, but for each game I managed to log 30+ hours for a single playthrough, and a good 2-3+ hours for each piece of DLC, a price and length which beats out the average movie ticket nowadays. People say I'm a sucker, but why? All I've done is bought mini-expansions to the games- a new array of weapons and units to use, as well as additions to the campaign story itself.
It´s pretty obvious you´re A) tipical pc gamer who locks itself at the pc the entire weekend; or B) you have pretty much money to paid for every form of entertainment around. Some people, most of it, can´t pay for every fun stuff. If i spend my U$s60 of monthly entertainment just because Sc is the only game i really love, i don´t want to keep having to spend on it. [Btw, you can´t compare going out, to a movie, a restaurant or whatever, with sit and play a game at home....That´s make to think you´re a A) case]
Nokarot wrote: For those who don't play League of Legends, it is a free game. You can pay money to buy out-of-game experience point boosts and whatnot, which will get you to a higher out-of-game level faster (too unrelated to explain but, for simplicity sake, lets just say its not a big deal in-game) and buy custom skins to make your heroes look awesome.
God lord, i play "free" League of Legends". The difference between paid and no paid versions is HUGE. To get 1 of the best heroes it takes about 80 hs of game time, OR, of curse, you can paid, specially when your ass keep being kicked with these heroes. And those are the transactions which we have to be scared. Why? Because the 99%of games which starts with simple "stylish" transactions, ends with game-breaking paids. Check Modern Warfare 2...which casually comes from the same company...
If you only have a $60 budget and decide to buy SC2, that's cool. You don't want to pay any more money on it? Then don't. The DLC I'm talking about is purely optional and you dont have to spend a single dime to get or do anything.
In regards to league of legends, buying hero that takes "80 hours" to get doesn't provide you with an advantage, it just saves you time. You will enter the game with the same level 1 hero as everyone else- something which will probably be free during the free champion rotation the following week anyway. If you're getting your ass kicked by a hero that someone spent money on, that's a fault of yours. Most of these heroes are fairly balanced, AND can be acquired for free anyway.
And frankly, I feel I can, if I so choose, compare DLC gaming prices to movies. $5 for 2-4 hours of DLC in the comfort of my own home, talking about it with friends who may have purchased the same DLC, versus $10 (if you're lucky, in some places) for a 1.5-2.5 hour movie, plus any popcorn or drinks or whatever, plus dinner if you decide on that, plus gas 'and' time spent traveling if you don't have a good theater close by.
I go out to movies occasionally, and because I do I can say that I feel DLC is far more economical. The argument that going out to a movie is "better" is opinion, not fact. Both can be social experiences, too, although I don't recall anyone ever getting laid after a night of DLC.
So not only are you going to let them get away with splitting the game into three separate products, charging a greater than average RRP for the first iteration and probably a similar amount for the next two, but you are going to pave the way for micro transactions in SC2 for things you would have got in the original for free?
If they split the game in to 3 games, then I have three times the single player gameplay to enjoy. There's nothing wrong with buying 3 games if they are 3 full games, which single-player wise, they are. Starcraft 1 had 10 missions for each race. Starcraft 2 had 30 missions for just terran, 30 missions for Zerg in HotS, and 30 missions for Protoss in LotV. In terms of single player, anyway, that's like buying a Sequel more than it is buying an expansion.
And again. No?
If you read my OP then you'll see that I never suggested paying money for features that we got in SC1 for free, ala chat rooms and whatnot. That would be dumb. All I want is additional content and customization options, not features. Features, especially those already promised to us, should be given freely.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.67250.com/nokarot/Game_Related/StarCraft2/noimhuk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mirrimage.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/thor.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://clgaming.net/images/news/10094/Lich_Splash_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.67250.com/nokarot/Game_Related/StarCraft2/asdf.jpg)
.
![[image loading]](http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/135711/wow-pet-lil-kt.jpg?366170)
![[image loading]](http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/6539/chatchannels.jpg)
