|
After MLG Lee post i think the debate is over, since he is on the other side and pays for it and thinks it's a great deal and it's well deserved money for blizzard!
I guess we fans can't be upset when the tournament admins think it's right..
|
This thread really needs to be closed. The number of people who are posting horribly naive opinions is just saddening.
|
LoL at the MS experts here MS makes the big money on support for big companys, a contract for support for a software is in the millions.
|
On October 14 2011 08:11 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 07:47 Assirra wrote:On October 14 2011 07:44 SupLilSon wrote:On October 14 2011 07:40 qyk05328 wrote:On October 14 2011 07:07 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:04 Ribbon wrote:On October 14 2011 06:52 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 06:42 Cataphract wrote:On October 14 2011 06:36 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 06:33 Cataphract wrote:
[quote]
You pay a lot more for these products as a business than you do as a personal user. This doesn't include their server OS, or support that comes with it.
AutoCAD is $1000 for ONE license. You have to pay for a subscription to get tech support on an individual bias. $1000? Well, I've spent more on WoW by myself. Whereas the only percentage we have (50%) is a lot lot lot. Oh, I was wrong about the $1000 plus subscription. It is really $4195. For one license. Plus, with the word subscription in there, you get charged after that too. Still, it's a few thousand dollars for a multibillion dollar company. You would be amazed at how quickly software licensing fees at up for large corporations. Microsoft can and does charge companies millions of dollars in license fees. Even $100 licensing fee can get pretty major when it's per VM for a major company. I don't think Blizzard is paying Microsoft millions of dollars to make video games. I'd actually be interested to see how much money Blizzard pays Microsoft and how much MLG pays Blizzard compared to their revenues. As a very rough estimate on the upper bound, if they used Visual Studio 2010 Professional with MSDN, paid the full retail price of $1,199.00 for every single one, and had 12-14 programmers that would be at most $17,000. Of course, they could have paid nothing at all and used the free SDK with their own toolchain; it is a simple matter of convenience, they are in no way forced to pay MS anything. And no cuts from the revenue generated by the product goes to Microsoft, this is just absurd. Yea, there are alot of people in here defending Blizz with no idea what they are talking about. Does Valve take a monetary cut from tournaments using CS? Just wondering.. Do we have ANYONE who knows anything about this whole point? The one person that knows wtf is going on (MLG_Lee) simply got ignored for more factless rambling. There's this sweet thing called an NDA. Basically means nobody can talk about anything. No scrutiny, at least on a fan level. We get to take a backseat ride to Blizzard's apparent drunk driving (no we don't support gold-selling, but now we do).
It's not your game.
It's Blizzard's game. If don't like what they do with it, tough. There's actually a lot of us that do. Don't try and use an "us vs them" mentality.
|
On October 14 2011 09:11 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 08:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:47 Assirra wrote:On October 14 2011 07:44 SupLilSon wrote:On October 14 2011 07:40 qyk05328 wrote:On October 14 2011 07:07 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:04 Ribbon wrote:On October 14 2011 06:52 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 06:42 Cataphract wrote:On October 14 2011 06:36 Hnnngg wrote:
[quote]
$1000? Well, I've spent more on WoW by myself.
Whereas the only percentage we have (50%) is a lot lot lot. Oh, I was wrong about the $1000 plus subscription. It is really $4195. For one license. Plus, with the word subscription in there, you get charged after that too. Still, it's a few thousand dollars for a multibillion dollar company. You would be amazed at how quickly software licensing fees at up for large corporations. Microsoft can and does charge companies millions of dollars in license fees. Even $100 licensing fee can get pretty major when it's per VM for a major company. I don't think Blizzard is paying Microsoft millions of dollars to make video games. I'd actually be interested to see how much money Blizzard pays Microsoft and how much MLG pays Blizzard compared to their revenues. As a very rough estimate on the upper bound, if they used Visual Studio 2010 Professional with MSDN, paid the full retail price of $1,199.00 for every single one, and had 12-14 programmers that would be at most $17,000. Of course, they could have paid nothing at all and used the free SDK with their own toolchain; it is a simple matter of convenience, they are in no way forced to pay MS anything. And no cuts from the revenue generated by the product goes to Microsoft, this is just absurd. Yea, there are alot of people in here defending Blizz with no idea what they are talking about. Does Valve take a monetary cut from tournaments using CS? Just wondering.. Do we have ANYONE who knows anything about this whole point? The one person that knows wtf is going on (MLG_Lee) simply got ignored for more factless rambling. There's this sweet thing called an NDA. Basically means nobody can talk about anything. No scrutiny, at least on a fan level. We get to take a backseat ride to Blizzard's apparent drunk driving (no we don't support gold-selling, but now we do). It's not your game. It's Blizzard's game. If don't like what they do with it, tough. There's actually a lot of us that do. Don't try and use an "us vs them" mentality.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3665632
Blizzard is retarded. They have no fucking idea what they're doing and backtrack on even their most fundamental values.
It's not a mentality, it's just facts.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 14 2011 09:14 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 09:11 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 08:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:47 Assirra wrote:On October 14 2011 07:44 SupLilSon wrote:On October 14 2011 07:40 qyk05328 wrote:On October 14 2011 07:07 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:04 Ribbon wrote:On October 14 2011 06:52 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 06:42 Cataphract wrote:
[quote]
Oh, I was wrong about the $1000 plus subscription. It is really $4195. For one license. Plus, with the word subscription in there, you get charged after that too.
Still, it's a few thousand dollars for a multibillion dollar company. You would be amazed at how quickly software licensing fees at up for large corporations. Microsoft can and does charge companies millions of dollars in license fees. Even $100 licensing fee can get pretty major when it's per VM for a major company. I don't think Blizzard is paying Microsoft millions of dollars to make video games. I'd actually be interested to see how much money Blizzard pays Microsoft and how much MLG pays Blizzard compared to their revenues. As a very rough estimate on the upper bound, if they used Visual Studio 2010 Professional with MSDN, paid the full retail price of $1,199.00 for every single one, and had 12-14 programmers that would be at most $17,000. Of course, they could have paid nothing at all and used the free SDK with their own toolchain; it is a simple matter of convenience, they are in no way forced to pay MS anything. And no cuts from the revenue generated by the product goes to Microsoft, this is just absurd. Yea, there are alot of people in here defending Blizz with no idea what they are talking about. Does Valve take a monetary cut from tournaments using CS? Just wondering.. Do we have ANYONE who knows anything about this whole point? The one person that knows wtf is going on (MLG_Lee) simply got ignored for more factless rambling. There's this sweet thing called an NDA. Basically means nobody can talk about anything. No scrutiny, at least on a fan level. We get to take a backseat ride to Blizzard's apparent drunk driving (no we don't support gold-selling, but now we do). It's not your game. It's Blizzard's game. If don't like what they do with it, tough. There's actually a lot of us that do. Don't try and use an "us vs them" mentality. http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3665632Blizzard is retarded. They have no fucking idea what they're doing and backtrack on even their most fundamental values. It's not a mentality, it's just facts.
Again, I don't care what they're doing with that cub. Neither do a lot of players.
It's your own personal opinion, others don't share it. You haven't stated a single FACT in any of the posts you've made in this entire thread.
|
On October 14 2011 09:19 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 09:14 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:11 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 08:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:47 Assirra wrote:On October 14 2011 07:44 SupLilSon wrote:On October 14 2011 07:40 qyk05328 wrote:On October 14 2011 07:07 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:04 Ribbon wrote:On October 14 2011 06:52 Hnnngg wrote:
[quote]
Still, it's a few thousand dollars for a multibillion dollar company.
You would be amazed at how quickly software licensing fees at up for large corporations. Microsoft can and does charge companies millions of dollars in license fees. Even $100 licensing fee can get pretty major when it's per VM for a major company. I don't think Blizzard is paying Microsoft millions of dollars to make video games. I'd actually be interested to see how much money Blizzard pays Microsoft and how much MLG pays Blizzard compared to their revenues. As a very rough estimate on the upper bound, if they used Visual Studio 2010 Professional with MSDN, paid the full retail price of $1,199.00 for every single one, and had 12-14 programmers that would be at most $17,000. Of course, they could have paid nothing at all and used the free SDK with their own toolchain; it is a simple matter of convenience, they are in no way forced to pay MS anything. And no cuts from the revenue generated by the product goes to Microsoft, this is just absurd. Yea, there are alot of people in here defending Blizz with no idea what they are talking about. Does Valve take a monetary cut from tournaments using CS? Just wondering.. Do we have ANYONE who knows anything about this whole point? The one person that knows wtf is going on (MLG_Lee) simply got ignored for more factless rambling. There's this sweet thing called an NDA. Basically means nobody can talk about anything. No scrutiny, at least on a fan level. We get to take a backseat ride to Blizzard's apparent drunk driving (no we don't support gold-selling, but now we do). It's not your game. It's Blizzard's game. If don't like what they do with it, tough. There's actually a lot of us that do. Don't try and use an "us vs them" mentality. http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3665632Blizzard is retarded. They have no fucking idea what they're doing and backtrack on even their most fundamental values. It's not a mentality, it's just facts. Again, I don't care what they're doing with that cub. Neither does a lot of players. It's your own personal opinion, others don't share it. You haven't stated a single FACT in any of the posts you've made in this entire thread.
Alright, fact time.
Blizzard has always been against gold-selling in World of Warcraft. It is illegal, as per the ToS, to buy ingame items (including gold) using real money.
The article I showed you (that you obviously didn't read) reveals a new feature that allows you to buy an item for real money. This has happened before, but such items were cosmetic. However, this item can be sold for ingame money, thus you buy an item for real money and sell it for ingame money.
It completely backtracks their policy, there have been literally tons of people (you can measure people in tons) who have had their accounts stripped from them by engaging in gold-selling. They're effectively shutting down real monetary value now by adding this Gold-Selling Pet.
Basically fuck Blizzard for their hypocrisy.
|
Oh boy, didn't know that.
Well, this is what B.net 2.0 is about: you can force people to pay you 50% ad revenue if they want to run tournaments with your game -.-;; Never mind actually putting out a good product for your customers. And I thought the initial sum requested for GSL's stream was a dick move... if only I knew why it was so high, lol.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
short term revenue isn't really the major benefit. they can build their brand and following etc
|
On October 14 2011 09:23 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 09:19 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 09:14 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:11 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 08:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:47 Assirra wrote:On October 14 2011 07:44 SupLilSon wrote:On October 14 2011 07:40 qyk05328 wrote:On October 14 2011 07:07 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:04 Ribbon wrote:
[quote]
You would be amazed at how quickly software licensing fees at up for large corporations. Microsoft can and does charge companies millions of dollars in license fees. Even $100 licensing fee can get pretty major when it's per VM for a major company. I don't think Blizzard is paying Microsoft millions of dollars to make video games. I'd actually be interested to see how much money Blizzard pays Microsoft and how much MLG pays Blizzard compared to their revenues. As a very rough estimate on the upper bound, if they used Visual Studio 2010 Professional with MSDN, paid the full retail price of $1,199.00 for every single one, and had 12-14 programmers that would be at most $17,000. Of course, they could have paid nothing at all and used the free SDK with their own toolchain; it is a simple matter of convenience, they are in no way forced to pay MS anything. And no cuts from the revenue generated by the product goes to Microsoft, this is just absurd. Yea, there are alot of people in here defending Blizz with no idea what they are talking about. Does Valve take a monetary cut from tournaments using CS? Just wondering.. Do we have ANYONE who knows anything about this whole point? The one person that knows wtf is going on (MLG_Lee) simply got ignored for more factless rambling. There's this sweet thing called an NDA. Basically means nobody can talk about anything. No scrutiny, at least on a fan level. We get to take a backseat ride to Blizzard's apparent drunk driving (no we don't support gold-selling, but now we do). It's not your game. It's Blizzard's game. If don't like what they do with it, tough. There's actually a lot of us that do. Don't try and use an "us vs them" mentality. http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3665632Blizzard is retarded. They have no fucking idea what they're doing and backtrack on even their most fundamental values. It's not a mentality, it's just facts. Again, I don't care what they're doing with that cub. Neither does a lot of players. It's your own personal opinion, others don't share it. You haven't stated a single FACT in any of the posts you've made in this entire thread. Alright, fact time. Blizzard has always been against gold-selling in World of Warcraft. It is illegal, as per the ToS, to buy ingame items (including gold) using real money. The article I showed you (that you obviously didn't read) reveals a new feature that allows you to buy an item for real money. This has happened before, but such items were cosmetic. However, this item can be sold for ingame money, thus you buy an item for real money and sell it for ingame money. It completely backtracks their policy, there have been literally tons of people (you can measure people in tons) who have had their accounts stripped from them by engaging in gold-selling. They're effectively shutting down real monetary value now by adding this Gold-Selling Pet. Basically fuck Blizzard for their hypocrisy.
I know what the pet is as I still play WoW and read the WoW boards often.
The pet isn't going to be a big deal, it's players like you that are blowing it out of proportion. It's not gold selling any more than the Spectral Tiger is gold selling. No one has ever had a problem with players selling THAT for gold because it's rare.
This is a single pet, in the first couple days that it's released the AH is going be flooded with them so that no one is ever going to make a decent return on their pet investment if all they bought it for was to resell it for gold.
Eventually the pet will become rarer and people who bought it for themselves will happily have it and avid pet collectors will have theirs either from buying it directly from Blizz or via the AH. After a few months no one will care anymore.
Wait and see. You're making an issue where none exists.
|
On October 14 2011 09:31 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 09:23 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:19 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 09:14 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:11 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 08:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:47 Assirra wrote:On October 14 2011 07:44 SupLilSon wrote:On October 14 2011 07:40 qyk05328 wrote:On October 14 2011 07:07 Hnnngg wrote:
[quote]
I don't think Blizzard is paying Microsoft millions of dollars to make video games.
I'd actually be interested to see how much money Blizzard pays Microsoft and how much MLG pays Blizzard compared to their revenues.
As a very rough estimate on the upper bound, if they used Visual Studio 2010 Professional with MSDN, paid the full retail price of $1,199.00 for every single one, and had 12-14 programmers that would be at most $17,000. Of course, they could have paid nothing at all and used the free SDK with their own toolchain; it is a simple matter of convenience, they are in no way forced to pay MS anything. And no cuts from the revenue generated by the product goes to Microsoft, this is just absurd. Yea, there are alot of people in here defending Blizz with no idea what they are talking about. Does Valve take a monetary cut from tournaments using CS? Just wondering.. Do we have ANYONE who knows anything about this whole point? The one person that knows wtf is going on (MLG_Lee) simply got ignored for more factless rambling. There's this sweet thing called an NDA. Basically means nobody can talk about anything. No scrutiny, at least on a fan level. We get to take a backseat ride to Blizzard's apparent drunk driving (no we don't support gold-selling, but now we do). It's not your game. It's Blizzard's game. If don't like what they do with it, tough. There's actually a lot of us that do. Don't try and use an "us vs them" mentality. http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3665632Blizzard is retarded. They have no fucking idea what they're doing and backtrack on even their most fundamental values. It's not a mentality, it's just facts. Again, I don't care what they're doing with that cub. Neither does a lot of players. It's your own personal opinion, others don't share it. You haven't stated a single FACT in any of the posts you've made in this entire thread. Alright, fact time. Blizzard has always been against gold-selling in World of Warcraft. It is illegal, as per the ToS, to buy ingame items (including gold) using real money. The article I showed you (that you obviously didn't read) reveals a new feature that allows you to buy an item for real money. This has happened before, but such items were cosmetic. However, this item can be sold for ingame money, thus you buy an item for real money and sell it for ingame money. It completely backtracks their policy, there have been literally tons of people (you can measure people in tons) who have had their accounts stripped from them by engaging in gold-selling. They're effectively shutting down real monetary value now by adding this Gold-Selling Pet. Basically fuck Blizzard for their hypocrisy. I know what the pet is as I still play WoW and read the WoW boards often. The pet isn't going to be a big deal, it's players like you that are blowing it out of proportion. It's not gold selling any more than the Spectral Tiger is gold selling. No one has ever had a problem with players selling THAT for gold because it's rare. This is a single pet, in the first couple days that it's released the AH is going be flooded with them so that no one is ever going to make a decent return on their pet investment if all they bought it for was to resell it for gold. Eventually the pet will become rarer and people who bought it for themselves will happily have it and avid pet collectors will have theirs either from buying it directly from Blizz or via the AH. After a few months no one will care anymore. Wait and see. You're making an issue where none exists.
So it doesn't matter if you buy gold if you only buy a little bit? Nice principles.
Oh wait. It doesn't actually matter how much gold it is, I don't give a fuck what return they get. They could sell it for 2g and it would still be gold-selling.
|
On October 14 2011 09:34 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 09:31 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 09:23 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:19 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 09:14 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:11 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 08:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:47 Assirra wrote:On October 14 2011 07:44 SupLilSon wrote:On October 14 2011 07:40 qyk05328 wrote:
[quote]
As a very rough estimate on the upper bound, if they used Visual Studio 2010 Professional with MSDN, paid the full retail price of $1,199.00 for every single one, and had 12-14 programmers that would be at most $17,000.
Of course, they could have paid nothing at all and used the free SDK with their own toolchain; it is a simple matter of convenience, they are in no way forced to pay MS anything. And no cuts from the revenue generated by the product goes to Microsoft, this is just absurd. Yea, there are alot of people in here defending Blizz with no idea what they are talking about. Does Valve take a monetary cut from tournaments using CS? Just wondering.. Do we have ANYONE who knows anything about this whole point? The one person that knows wtf is going on (MLG_Lee) simply got ignored for more factless rambling. There's this sweet thing called an NDA. Basically means nobody can talk about anything. No scrutiny, at least on a fan level. We get to take a backseat ride to Blizzard's apparent drunk driving (no we don't support gold-selling, but now we do). It's not your game. It's Blizzard's game. If don't like what they do with it, tough. There's actually a lot of us that do. Don't try and use an "us vs them" mentality. http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3665632Blizzard is retarded. They have no fucking idea what they're doing and backtrack on even their most fundamental values. It's not a mentality, it's just facts. Again, I don't care what they're doing with that cub. Neither does a lot of players. It's your own personal opinion, others don't share it. You haven't stated a single FACT in any of the posts you've made in this entire thread. Alright, fact time. Blizzard has always been against gold-selling in World of Warcraft. It is illegal, as per the ToS, to buy ingame items (including gold) using real money. The article I showed you (that you obviously didn't read) reveals a new feature that allows you to buy an item for real money. This has happened before, but such items were cosmetic. However, this item can be sold for ingame money, thus you buy an item for real money and sell it for ingame money. It completely backtracks their policy, there have been literally tons of people (you can measure people in tons) who have had their accounts stripped from them by engaging in gold-selling. They're effectively shutting down real monetary value now by adding this Gold-Selling Pet. Basically fuck Blizzard for their hypocrisy. I know what the pet is as I still play WoW and read the WoW boards often. The pet isn't going to be a big deal, it's players like you that are blowing it out of proportion. It's not gold selling any more than the Spectral Tiger is gold selling. No one has ever had a problem with players selling THAT for gold because it's rare. This is a single pet, in the first couple days that it's released the AH is going be flooded with them so that no one is ever going to make a decent return on their pet investment if all they bought it for was to resell it for gold. Eventually the pet will become rarer and people who bought it for themselves will happily have it and avid pet collectors will have theirs either from buying it directly from Blizz or via the AH. After a few months no one will care anymore. Wait and see. You're making an issue where none exists. So it doesn't matter if you buy gold if you only buy a little bit? Nice principles. Oh wait. It doesn't actually matter how much gold it is, I don't give a fuck what return they get. They could sell it for 2g and it would still be gold-selling.
Then you aren't seeing the big picture which after reading your other posts doesn't surprise me at all.
Blizzard has an anti-gold selling policy, not only for the gold itself ruining the economy by entering it in large amounts, but also because of the damage the gold sellers have done to the game by hacking accounts and the game itself.
This little pet won't do any of that. It's a fun novelty item that isn't exclusive to people who only purchase it with RL money. It won't wreck any server's economies, it won't hack people's accounts and very few people if any are going to be dumb enough to try and make a return on them by selling them in game for gold.
Blizzard thinks it's ok to implement this into their own game and who the hell are you to tell them they can't? They're giving a section of the community exactly what they've been asking for for a while. A way to buy a unique pet like the ones they sell at the Blizzard store without paying for it with real life money. Blizzard is catering to those people while at the same time doing nothing to harm their own game.
If the only thing negative they have to hear about it is from a few whining anti-Blizzard people like you I think they can live with that. The rest of us aren't bothered by it.
|
On October 14 2011 09:40 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 09:34 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:31 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 09:23 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:19 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 09:14 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 09:11 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 14 2011 08:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 14 2011 07:47 Assirra wrote:On October 14 2011 07:44 SupLilSon wrote:
[quote]
Yea, there are alot of people in here defending Blizz with no idea what they are talking about. Does Valve take a monetary cut from tournaments using CS? Just wondering.. Do we have ANYONE who knows anything about this whole point? The one person that knows wtf is going on (MLG_Lee) simply got ignored for more factless rambling. There's this sweet thing called an NDA. Basically means nobody can talk about anything. No scrutiny, at least on a fan level. We get to take a backseat ride to Blizzard's apparent drunk driving (no we don't support gold-selling, but now we do). It's not your game. It's Blizzard's game. If don't like what they do with it, tough. There's actually a lot of us that do. Don't try and use an "us vs them" mentality. http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/3665632Blizzard is retarded. They have no fucking idea what they're doing and backtrack on even their most fundamental values. It's not a mentality, it's just facts. Again, I don't care what they're doing with that cub. Neither does a lot of players. It's your own personal opinion, others don't share it. You haven't stated a single FACT in any of the posts you've made in this entire thread. Alright, fact time. Blizzard has always been against gold-selling in World of Warcraft. It is illegal, as per the ToS, to buy ingame items (including gold) using real money. The article I showed you (that you obviously didn't read) reveals a new feature that allows you to buy an item for real money. This has happened before, but such items were cosmetic. However, this item can be sold for ingame money, thus you buy an item for real money and sell it for ingame money. It completely backtracks their policy, there have been literally tons of people (you can measure people in tons) who have had their accounts stripped from them by engaging in gold-selling. They're effectively shutting down real monetary value now by adding this Gold-Selling Pet. Basically fuck Blizzard for their hypocrisy. I know what the pet is as I still play WoW and read the WoW boards often. The pet isn't going to be a big deal, it's players like you that are blowing it out of proportion. It's not gold selling any more than the Spectral Tiger is gold selling. No one has ever had a problem with players selling THAT for gold because it's rare. This is a single pet, in the first couple days that it's released the AH is going be flooded with them so that no one is ever going to make a decent return on their pet investment if all they bought it for was to resell it for gold. Eventually the pet will become rarer and people who bought it for themselves will happily have it and avid pet collectors will have theirs either from buying it directly from Blizz or via the AH. After a few months no one will care anymore. Wait and see. You're making an issue where none exists. So it doesn't matter if you buy gold if you only buy a little bit? Nice principles. Oh wait. It doesn't actually matter how much gold it is, I don't give a fuck what return they get. They could sell it for 2g and it would still be gold-selling. Then you aren't seeing the big picture which after reading your other posts doesn't surprise me at all. Blizzard has an anti-gold selling policy, not only for the gold itself ruining the economy by entering it in large amounts, but also because of the damage the gold sellers have done to the game by hacking accounts and the game itself. This little pet won't do any of that. It's a fun novelty item that isn't exclusive to people who only purchase it with RL money. It won't wreck any server's economies, it won't hack people's accounts and very few people if any are going to be dumb enough to try and make a return on them by selling them in game for gold. Blizzard thinks it's ok to implement this into their own game and who the hell are you to tell them they can't? They're giving a section of the community exactly what they've been asking for for a while. A way to buy a unique pet like the ones they sell at the Blizzard store without paying for it with real life money. Blizzard is catering to those people while at the same time doing nothing to harm their own game. If the only thing negative they have to hear about it is from a few whining anti-Blizzard people like you I think they can live with that. The rest of us aren't bothered by it.
Gold-selling won't wreck economies no matter what, blatant lies.
Hacked accounts will happen regardless of their stance of gold-selling. Their stance on gold-selling only hurts third party gold-sellers who want to make money for their ingame time. Anecdotal evidence withstanding.
It's still hypocrisy no matter how you slice it, and the same people are in charge of SC2 and want 50% of ad revenue from tournaments that they don't contribute any work to.
|
On October 13 2011 17:10 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 16:56 ICarrotU wrote:On October 13 2011 16:44 coolcor wrote:I just want to say a couple things about common arguments in this thread. Why would Blizzard continually pay money into putting in a support staff (eg. Dustin Browder, now whether you think he's useful is a different story) if they're not getting any revenue outside of a one-time purchase fee? is unreasonable to expect a modern company to support a game after launch without some way for them to continue to receive income. People who do are, frankly, insane. For the same reason they supported broodwar, warcraft 3 and diablo 2 for years after release? Or that riot supports their rts games after release(DOW2 is a modern game and is still patched) Valve just released a free dlc co-op campaign with voice acting for portal 2 so I don't think it is fair to say we have to chose between tournament fees or no support companies seemed to have figured out a reason to support games without it. People also keep saying stuff like this. Because without Blizzard they wouldn't be hosting the event at all.
They did the work of creating the game that you are using to make money off of. It is not just tournaments that are making money on starcraft though. Destiny, Husky and Day9 are all making enough to live without another job and they couldn't do that without blizzard so blizzard should demand some percent of ad revenue and if they don't they are being an irresponsible business that are not maximizing profit to their shareholders. Should blizzard start charging all the casters and players who make money off of streaming or youtube videos? And of course the streaming and video sites themselves also make a profit off of this content. Oh and the also pro teams and websites like team liquid don't forget about them. Also Microsoft should start charging blizzard(plus every other business ever) a percent of revenue if they use or sell windows software to try and make a profit. We don't even know if the tournaments are profitable the IGN guy said that MLG shouldn't brag about raising investment money because that means they are losing money. They might all just be hoping for future growth to make them profitable and that might not come.Would blizzard lower or eliminate fees for a tournament that loses money? Riot and Valve have both implemented micro-transactions into their games and are making a killing, so those are poor examples. I believe Blizzard not only continually updated WC3, Diablo 2 and others for the fans but also to form and grow a strong user base, which from the looks of it, has definitely worked. Yea I was just going to bring up the in game transactions point for this guy but you beat me to it. Thanks for that.
Sorry I mean relic not riot. Can you explain why company of heroes and dawn of war received lots of balance patches with no esports royalties? The only dlc came with the 2nd Dow2 expansion and that is only some overpriced cosmetic army models for multiplayer plus wargear for single player and last stand (The last stand was originally released as free dlc for the original game). Blizzard is getting the map marketplace soon anyways so they will be getting dlc anyways.
Valve released tonnes of free updates for team fortress 2 before they added the shop. They did it because it made them lots of money.
With Team Fortress 2, Valve shipped the game as a service and not a product. Valve uses "updates" to create more value for its customers. Updates can be bug fixes, new achievements, maps, and unlocks. There have been 63 updates to Team Fortress 2 since its release. This is also why the PC version is so much better than the Xbox 360 version.
Time to look at the sales of Team Fortress 2 to see the impact of the updates on revenue. Holy s#!%. The sales spike by huge amounts everytime there's a sale or major update. Steam sales went up 106% after a free update. Player minutes went up by 105%. Gifting has thrown a 71% sales increase. Surprisingly, sales from retail stores also went up by 28%. Finally, it saw 75% increase in new users. Knock knock. Who's there? Steam. Steam who? Steam is so successful it hurts.
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/693342/live-blog-dice-2009-keynote-gabe-newell-valve-software/
So I can't believe that the only way to get balance patches and support is with tournament royalties and without it blizzard should stop them immediately.
I'm simply stating that Blizzard have a part to play in every tournament simply because their product is the game that is being played. -_- Saying stuff like Blizzard is already rich enough is just naive, a business should thrive to maximize profit however small the gains may be and if tournament organizers keep agreeing to Blizzard's demands that is just good business in my book.
I'm simply stating that Blizzard have a part to play in every pro team, player stream, player coaching, caster youtube vods, websites like teamliquid, barcraft and the day9 daily simply because their product is the game that is being played. -_- Saying stuff like Blizzard is already rich enough is just naive, a business should thrive to maximize profit however small the gains may be and if all those people keep agreeing to Blizzard's demands that is just good business in my book.
No seriously I bet that blizzard could get all those organizations to agree to pay at least some percent of revenue and right now they are getting zero as far as we know. Why is blizzard being a poor business and giving up on this potential profit?
|
On October 14 2011 11:38 coolcor wrote:
I'm simply stating that Blizzard have a part to play in every pro team, player stream, player coaching, caster youtube vods, websites like teamliquid, barcraft and the day9 daily simply because their product is the game that is being played. -_- Saying stuff like Blizzard is already rich enough is just naive, a business should thrive to maximize profit however small the gains may be and if all those people keep agreeing to Blizzard's demands that is just good business in my book.
No seriously I bet that blizzard could get all those organizations to agree to pay at least some percent of revenue and right now they are getting zero as far as we know. Why is blizzard being a poor business and giving up on this potential profit?
Err what...
By your reasoning, if I buy ten vans from Ford and start a courier business, I should be paying Ford a percentage of my revenue, since I'm using their product. Blizzard is only able to make people agree to their outlandish demands since they chose not to include lan mode in their "ESPORTS" product... I mean, this is why anti-trust laws and such exist, right?
|
On October 14 2011 11:49 Nikon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 11:38 coolcor wrote:
I'm simply stating that Blizzard have a part to play in every pro team, player stream, player coaching, caster youtube vods, websites like teamliquid, barcraft and the day9 daily simply because their product is the game that is being played. -_- Saying stuff like Blizzard is already rich enough is just naive, a business should thrive to maximize profit however small the gains may be and if all those people keep agreeing to Blizzard's demands that is just good business in my book.
No seriously I bet that blizzard could get all those organizations to agree to pay at least some percent of revenue and right now they are getting zero as far as we know. Why is blizzard being a poor business and giving up on this potential profit? Err what... By your reasoning, if I buy ten vans from Ford and start a courier business, I should be paying Ford a percentage of my revenue, since I'm using their product. Blizzard is only able to make people agree to their outlandish demands since they chose not to include lan mode in their "ESPORTS" product... I mean, this is why anti-trust laws and such exist, right?
I don't think they should charge all those people but I'm wondering why people who agree with blizzard charging tournaments would agree with charging any of those other things listed or not. They are all making money off of starcraft just like tournaments, blizzard could add stuff the EULA saying they will ban/sue anyone who does those things I listed without a licence. How is the day9 daily different then a hypothetical shoutcraft invitational with a 6000$ prize pool so only one needs to pay?
|
I'll tell you how Day9 is different. If Blizzard ban him for not paying them to stream his dailies, they basically commit PR suicide. Can you imagine the backlash from the community from something like that?
On the other hand, with tournaments, these interactions are solved way before you even hear about the event being hosted. The organisers have no way of holding the tournament without going through the b.net system. If they want big-name players to show up in case of an invite tourney, for example, they have to have guarantee that Blizzard won't randomly decide to interrupt the tournament in the middle. Because they didn't pay their taxes. You know.
|
On October 14 2011 09:03 shell wrote:
After MLG Lee post i think the debate is over, since he is on the other side and pays for it and thinks it's a great deal and it's well deserved money for blizzard!
I guess we fans can't be upset when the tournament admins think it's right..
Agreed, especially seeing that MLG is making most of their money off the Brand itself, not the ad revenue, and without a game as big as starcraft it would be hard to grow their brand,
|
Hnnng can you please stop posting, it's clear you're a very eager anti-Blizzard fan for whatever reason but none of the posts you've made are anything but mindless hate towards Blizzard.
|
On October 14 2011 11:49 Nikon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2011 11:38 coolcor wrote:
I'm simply stating that Blizzard have a part to play in every pro team, player stream, player coaching, caster youtube vods, websites like teamliquid, barcraft and the day9 daily simply because their product is the game that is being played. -_- Saying stuff like Blizzard is already rich enough is just naive, a business should thrive to maximize profit however small the gains may be and if all those people keep agreeing to Blizzard's demands that is just good business in my book.
No seriously I bet that blizzard could get all those organizations to agree to pay at least some percent of revenue and right now they are getting zero as far as we know. Why is blizzard being a poor business and giving up on this potential profit? Err what... By your reasoning, if I buy ten vans from Ford and start a courier business, I should be paying Ford a percentage of my revenue, since I'm using their product. Blizzard is only able to make people agree to their outlandish demands since they chose not to include lan mode in their "ESPORTS" product... I mean, this is why anti-trust laws and such exist, right?
Uh, not really. Blizzard is taking the time and effort to make this game competitive, entertaining to watch, and entertaining to play. They are constantly testing balance, patching, and supplying a online service, all for a one-time fee. To suggest that they should be making money off of the competitive parts of their game is honestly not that crazy.
Though when you look at the credits of starcraft II there is an "esports" section. So I imagine they have people helping out or SOMETHING. The fact that Blizzcon is hosting the finals is also a good indicator that they're probably more involved than it looks like initially.
As for why don't they do this? Maybe it's because blizzard is awesome? Maybe because Blizzard wants to be known as being totally awesome?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
