| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
marcesr
Germany1383 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:10 MarKeD wrote: I doubt many buy starcraft 2 for the single player (lol) Maybe not for the singleplayer but the hardcore fans (us) who follow esports etc. make up for maybe 10 or 20% of all customers. | ||
|
FairForever
Canada2392 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:10 MarKeD wrote: Shouldn't they owe it to consumers? What did I actually pay for with this game? I doubt many buy starcraft 2 for the single player (lol), if we're paying full price for pretty much what is 3 games, of which the multilayer is the main reason for purchasing the game should be balanced and supported. The fact is blizzard could afford to do this quite easily, valve updated tf2 for many years for free, and at no point was in anywhere near as expensive as Starcraft 2. The fact is Blizzard-Activision is a souless corporation, out to make as much money as they possibly can. It's just sad to me that there aren't really any games that can compete with starcraft 2, so they get away with it. LOL Except FaKeSC2 is right. 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? BTW, Corporations are legally required to make the highest profit for their shareholders. So if Blizzard decided to "give back" they could actually be in violation of their duties to their shareholders. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On October 12 2011 21:39 opisska wrote: To everyone who promotes the point of view that it is fair for Blizzard to get revenue from tournaments played on their game, I would like to ask you to take a minute of your time and think about the follwoing analogy: Would you consider it fair if car manufactureres got a part of the revenue from any racing event, because it is done using their products? I am quite confident that you wouldn't. Seriously, this double measure has to stop. When something is electronic, it is suddenly never "yours". In order to play in the tournament, everyone had to buy the game. As much as every car racer had to buy a car to begin with. And that is the profit. That, and the sheer amount af advertisement that competition creates for the respective product. The fact that you buy sometihng and then you have to pay again in order to use it in a different way, is openly outrageous. If it was a physical product, everyone would think that it's absolutely crazy. But as long as it is something "virtual", suddenly everyone is so cool with that.... Why? I'm not arguing that it's OK for a company to licence software in such a way as to retain ownership and generate profit from its software (edit: indefinatley beyond the point of purchase), diminishing the rights of the consumer in the process. This is something very different. I believe in the best circumstances that this kind of practice inhibits just as much as it promotes innovation. But those are my politics I guess. If I wasn't clear, I support Blizz profiting from tourney ad revenue as it offers a sustainable means of income that feedsback into SC2 covering dev and server costs. Moreover, this would also ensure that Blizz's SC2 interests tally with those of e-sports. That I beleive is the most important thing. Blizzard leasing SC2 to individual consumers (or any company for that matter) and Blizzard determining the terms of a broadcast/funded tourney are two very different things. One is the rights of an individual consumer the other the rights of another company equally out to make money. Currently I beleive both Blizzards and e-sports tounry organises interests in SC2 are the same (or at least not too opposed) so I'm ok with things. As I said, I'm fine with this ATM as I see no evidence that Blizz is killing e-sports. Until I do, I won't be changing my mind. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
| ||
|
marcesr
Germany1383 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:18 FairForever wrote: LOL Except FaKeSC2 is right. 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? Because one of Blizzards biggests strengths is the very big and loyal hardcore fanbase which is extremely helpful to hype their new games. In the first place they dont employ people like Dustin Browder because they are interested in the tournament fees but to keep their hardcore fanbase alive. | ||
|
ThirdDegree
United States329 Posts
On October 12 2011 21:39 opisska wrote: To everyone who promotes the point of view that it is fair for Blizzard to get revenue from tournaments played on their game, I would like to ask you to take a minute of your time and think about the follwoing analogy: Would you consider it fair if car manufactureres got a part of the revenue from any racing event, because it is done using their products? I am quite confident that you wouldn't. Seriously, this double measure has to stop. When something is electronic, it is suddenly never "yours". In order to play in the tournament, everyone had to buy the game. As much as every car racer had to buy a car to begin with. And that is the profit. That, and the sheer amount af advertisement that competition creates for the respective product. The fact that you buy sometihng and then you have to pay again in order to use it in a different way, is openly outrageous. If it was a physical product, everyone would think that it's absolutely crazy. But as long as it is something "virtual", suddenly everyone is so cool with that.... Why? This analogy isn't particularly relevant. If a car company took time to update my car with newer parts, keep it running, and fill it with gas, then I would have no problem with them taking a cut from racing profits. A car is a one time purchase and then it's out of the manufacturer's hands. Blizzard is spending time and money keeping server's running and updating the game. Eventually people will stop buying the game due to saturation, and will not make money off of it. When that time comes, they will stop supporting it, unless they have a business model that generates profits. A one time purchase of $120 (let's say 60 for the game and 60 for the following 2 expansions) is a small price to play for what we hope to be 10+ years of entertainment. We don't pay to play on bnet, which costs money to maintain. This is just a case of internet entitlement, we get used to everything being free and then complain when we realize it's not. We should also hear the pro's feelings on the subject, as they are really the ones affected. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On October 12 2011 20:16 ssartor wrote: I was under the impression that blizzard does not get a cut from tournaments. I could be wrong though. Of course they take some money. They own Starcraft, so any tourney out there is just capitalizing off Blizzard's IP in a major way. Record labels get a cut if you broadcast their music, and that isn't even on the same level of importance. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On October 12 2011 20:54 ddrddrddrddr wrote: I'll agree with you when esports gamers make as much as professional sports players. What is defined as sport then? Because some professional sport athletes aren't paid a lot ... Lacrosse, Bandy, volleyball, badminton, womens soccer ... I am sure a lot more comes to mind. | ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
On October 12 2011 20:49 ineq wrote: What if you did all the hard work for a game, lets call it Starcraft 2. And then another corporation comes along, lets call this MLG, and uses that product you made to make profits of their own, would you feel perfectly fine about that, even though they used your product, and you didnt make a dime? Exactly. It's like the people who make sports equipment get a cut from the prize pool when tournaments use that equipment. its the same as if you build a racing car off of the blueprints for a Ford car and then created a whole racing circuit from that car, of course Ford is going to make you represent them. It's like if Ford made a car, and I bought it and took that car to a car race. Of course Ford should get a cut of the prize pool, right? | ||
|
ElBlanco
Australia140 Posts
They have to be careful. Yeah they want to make money from the pro scene but they don't want to encourage the tournaments to looks more towards other games like DOTA 2. It's in blizzards interest to make sure the SC2 scene becomes as big as possible. | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3678 Posts
On October 12 2011 20:41 Broodwurst wrote: These tournaments make money with Blizzards game, of course they want a piece of that in return. If your whole business is based on someone elses work i don't really see how you can expect anything else. Big tournaments are not just your local event that tries to cut even, they (aim to) make a profit. They make millions of dollar each month of of bloody wow, they made a shit lot with the game itself, and they'll make even more by splitting it in 3 parts. These tournaments help advertize their game and whatnot, and yet they want more. Imo blizzard is just a bunch of greedy bastards on the search for more money. | ||
|
purecarnagge
719 Posts
If you don't like Blizzard, then stop supporting their product. | ||
|
ShallNoiseUpon
United States311 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:18 marcesr wrote: Maybe not for the singleplayer but the hardcore fans (us) who follow esports etc. make up for maybe 10 or 20% of all customers. Stop making up statistics. You have no data to back this claim up. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:28 purecarnagge wrote: Blizzards game. Blizzards free to do w/e they want. Blizzard doesn't really care about e-sports unless it effects there bottom line. 50% of Ad Revenue doesn't make a tournament unprofitable. It does force people to charge for admission though etc etc. If you don't like Blizzard, then stop supporting their product. Exactly. People forget that Blizzard is a company, and a publicly traded one at that. Companies have one goal: to make money. If they do anything nice, it's to build loyalty and make money. If they do anything you don't like, it's to make money. Shocking I know. It's almost like we have this economic system in the first world that hinges on people wanting to make money. On October 12 2011 22:28 ShallNoiseUpon wrote: Stop making up statistics. You have no data to back this claim up. Look at the season 1 statistics compared to now. A tiny amount of the original people who bought the game logged in once within the last few months. | ||
|
fortheGG
United Kingdom1002 Posts
On October 12 2011 20:55 ThyHate wrote: That's the difference between Blizzard and Riot... Great game / Great esport support. Pick One. More like great advertiser, Blizzard doesnt sponsor events because events get enough funding as is. Riot, on the other hand, needs events so it pays the prize and does everything to get viewers. | ||
|
Mord
Norway171 Posts
| ||
|
Tofugrinder
Austria899 Posts
On October 12 2011 20:36 ReaperX wrote: Apparently 50% of Ad Revenue. source? | ||
|
MarKeD
Australia183 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:18 FairForever wrote: LOL Except FaKeSC2 is right. 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? BTW, Corporations are legally required to make the highest profit for their shareholders. So if Blizzard decided to "give back" they could actually be in violation of their duties to their shareholders. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company Hardly, by properly supporting their products after sale, they can ensure their customer loyalty. However like I said competition isn't of big concern so they can basically get away with it. Yeah corporations are required to generate profit, but not every action has to be short term make money now. Oil companies pay to clean up their oil spills, yeah that cuts into their profits, but what do you think would happen if they didn't? Corporations have a responsibility to more than just shareholders. | ||
|
ineq
Sweden376 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:10 MarKeD wrote: Shouldn't they owe it to consumers? What did I actually pay for with this game? I doubt many buy starcraft 2 for the single player (lol), if we're paying full price for pretty much what is 3 games, of which the multilayer is the main reason for purchasing the game should be balanced and supported. The fact is blizzard could afford to do this quite easily, valve updated tf2 for many years for free, and at no point was in anywhere near as expensive as Starcraft 2. The fact is Blizzard-Activision is a souless corporation, out to make as much money as they possibly can. It's just sad to me that there aren't really any games that can compete with starcraft 2, so they get away with it. Sure, Blizzard could easily afford to support and update SCII without this. But why should they? Should they let another Corporation use their product for free? You obviously don't understand how buisness works. Just cause Blizzard wants to make money, they're not soulless or evil. Do you feel soulless every morning when you go to work to make money? Do you say no if you get a good opporunity to make more money..? Right. It's just on a different scale, friend. Blizzard is doing right by the community, and more. | ||
|
xeus
9 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
The PondCast
RSL Revival
ByuN vs Classic
Clem vs Cham
WardiTV European League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
WardiTV European League
FEL
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
