|
On September 23 2012 19:13 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 19:07 Hider wrote:On September 23 2012 18:57 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 18:50 Hider wrote:On September 23 2012 18:17 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 18:15 Hider wrote:
Won't happen. But bascially Blizzard needs to price Sc2 in a differen way. Consumers need to be price discriminated. Nerds to be pay more than casuals. Currently Sc2 doesn't matter for ATVI (big picture), which is unfortuante, as it's now being down prioritized, and it means that HOTS is closer to a major patch than an actual new game.
I think Blizzard should consider a consultency firm to come up with a a way an intelligent way of differing prices, because I honestly don't think Dustin Browder and co has any clue. or.... it's an expansion pack, not a new game which is why it's not going to be priced as a new game but rather as an expansion pack. Do you understand the concept of expansion pack? No one here WANTS a new game with HOTS, we want the same game with new shit. That's how expansion packs work. Oh god... YOu just missed the whole point. Remove "game" with "expansion pack". Its still suppoed to bring new concepts/redesign a lot of semibroken stuff, which is unfortunately doesn't do. WC3 was a new game as it was very different from WC2. TFT was a new expansion pack as it redesigned a lot of broken/semi broken stuff and gave a completely new feeling to the game. In TFT there was a patch which added heroes to the game = MAjor patch. The difference between HOTS and Sc2 is closer to a major patch unforuntately. But I get them. It really doesn't matter how much they change /redesign the game, as its mostly only nerds who cares about it, and they pay the same price as everyone else. Blizzard neeeds to find a way to suck money from us nerds, in order to incentivize better game quality. This is actual good for consumers. This might even bring new competition into the field from developers like Valve. What core gameplay elements did Brood War fix over SC1? TFT did solve a lot of the problems with ROC but that's because those problems were much worse than any of the gameplay problems in SC2. All Brood War did was add new units, the Medic, Valkyrie, Devourer, Lurker, Corsair, Dark Templar and Dark Archon. But the units by themselves changed the game so much that it definitely gave the game a different feel from SC1. HOTS does the same thing. I've played it before, it DEFINITELY feels a lot different than WoL and players will notice it the moment they first load it up. Add on top that they're adding a bunch of new B.NET features a brand new campaign as big as WoL's and I don't see how you can classify it as a patch vs an expansion pack. It definitely fits every definition of expansion pack that I can think of. Yes BW gave a new feeling with well designed units. But if BLizzard prioritzed HOTS higher, the Warhound would never be in the beta, and would have been replaced with something a lot bet from a design-perspective. It would have been tested more, and they would have more designers employeed.. Probably someone more intelligent and higher paid than Dustin Browder. But this is my point. IT really doesn't matter. Why would they fire Dustin Browder? They could hire someone more intelligent and with a better game understanding. They could hire someone who actually had studied why BW became an esports success in Korea. They could make in-depht interviews with progamers. Hire former progamers to test the game for them. But they don't because it doesn't matter. BUt if they found a new pricing model it WOULD MATTER. I'm reading a lot of speculation in everything you're writing. It looks like you're already convinced that HOTS is going to suck and are just trying to convince people of that and you're not even interested in the possibility that it's going to be a good expansion.
Really? Thats what they you got from my post?
IF you study the numbers you will realize how little Sc2 actually matters in the bic picture.
If you use logic you know that whether the collosus gets redesigned or not doesn't matter for numbers of HOTS games sold.
|
On September 23 2012 19:14 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 19:13 Evangelist wrote:
The Medic, the Valkyrie, Devourer, Lurker, Corsair, DT and Dark Archon gave a different feel because they added:
- healing
- AoE DPS
- spell casting
- area control
- permanently invisible damage units
To the mix.
SC2 is much closer to BW than it is to SC1. There are no real unit gaps to add to. Just people complaining about mechanics. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=370905This post would disagree.
Yes, the point I am making is that the micro elements BW added are already in the game. Marine splitting already exists.
|
Would be amazing.
Should be easily viable with Paid name changes, Clantags, and some custom Avatars. Also the singleplayer would still be a paid feature, so I guess they would still get some money.
Maybe let the ladder be part of the "paid" game, while leaving only Custom games for the free multiplayer (so the ladder doesnt get flooded).
pd: doesnt blizz get a cut on big tournaments also?
|
This seems an interesting concept. But as OP mentioned they need to find a way to make money out if it first.
|
i think making the game f2p will increase maphackers drastically(at least in lower leagues) a lot of people will think they have nothing to lose if they get banned. it would be really good for new custom games and their development though.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 23 2012 19:16 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 19:14 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 19:13 Evangelist wrote:
The Medic, the Valkyrie, Devourer, Lurker, Corsair, DT and Dark Archon gave a different feel because they added:
- healing
- AoE DPS
- spell casting
- area control
- permanently invisible damage units
To the mix.
SC2 is much closer to BW than it is to SC1. There are no real unit gaps to add to. Just people complaining about mechanics. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=370905This post would disagree. Yes, the point I am making is that the micro elements BW added are already in the game. Marine splitting already exists.
There are a lot of things that HotS could add to the game given the right units. Some of those units are working, some of them aren't. Let's take SC-> BW for example (if SC were played at a super high level, like BW was).
BW added in:
- Marine splitting vs Lurker
- Less thought behind stimming thanks to medics
- Corsairs (and valkyries and to a lesser extend, devourer) (corsair and reaver was not an obvious combo for a long time)
- Goliath upgrade to make the goliath vs guardian fight more interesting (also made them better vs carriers)
- Dark Archons which effectively did nothing except add ways to troll people
- DTs effectively just added in another cheese (until corsair/DT came along post bisu)
- Some ultralisk upgrades
This is entirely comparable to what HotS is bringing in compared to WoL.
|
Free multiplayer == cheat danger...
I've played a lot of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory and that game was always free and was always cheat-infested. So I wouldn't consider making the whole melee experience free to play when cheats are used in the payed game already.
I would add short term events lasting like 1 or 2 weeks that unlocks the ladder for the starter edition. But those players might need to play a lot of games versus each other, if possible. Else they could have a too big impact on the ladder and players that already payed for the game in case of the starter-edition-players cheating.
Also, just unlocking a handful of arcade maps for the starter edition which change every week would cater to those players, too.
LoL uses a set of heroes that are free to use for a week. Blizzard can give out a small set of arcade maps for each week.
Basically you need to give them something for free and take it away again. If they fell in love with what they had, they will buy it.
At least they shouldn't add a number of melee games that starter editions can play each day. That might just make players create multiple accounts instead of buying it.
|
On September 23 2012 19:33 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 19:16 Evangelist wrote:On September 23 2012 19:14 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 19:13 Evangelist wrote:
The Medic, the Valkyrie, Devourer, Lurker, Corsair, DT and Dark Archon gave a different feel because they added:
- healing
- AoE DPS
- spell casting
- area control
- permanently invisible damage units
To the mix.
SC2 is much closer to BW than it is to SC1. There are no real unit gaps to add to. Just people complaining about mechanics. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=370905This post would disagree. Yes, the point I am making is that the micro elements BW added are already in the game. Marine splitting already exists. There are a lot of things that HotS could add to the game given the right units. Some of those units are working, some of them aren't. Let's take SC-> BW for example (if SC were played at a super high level, like BW was). BW added in: - Marine splitting vs Lurker - Less thought behind stimming thanks to medics - Corsairs (and valkyries and to a lesser extend, devourer) (corsair and reaver was not an obvious combo for a long time) - Goliath upgrade to make the goliath vs guardian fight more interesting (also made them better vs carriers) - Dark Archons which effectively did nothing except add ways to troll people - DTs effectively just added in another cheese (until corsair/DT came along post bisu) - Some ultralisk upgrades This is entirely comparable to what HotS is bringing in compared to WoL.
Lets just assume that HOTS turns out be just as good an expansion of BW (From a unit-design perspective). Does that mean Blizzar did a fantastic job with HOTS?
IMO no. Back in 1998 developers didn't actually know what "good unit-design was" as the RTS online scene was so new. There was no long list of feedback from high levle players, streams, online tournaments etc. Blizzard has all the required knowledge avaiable to make a fantastic expansion pack today. In 1998 they didn't.
Other companies (in other industries) pay millions to gain some knowledge of the consumers behaviour and their interests. Blizzard didn't even know that we actually wanted chat channels when they released sc2 in 2010, and I highly doubt that Dustin Browder had even studied the korean "esports-scene".
|
So blizzard is going to expect their customers to pay for the basic things that should have been included in bnet .2 now? Well at least free sc may attract more buyers for hots BUT if they make a bad game nobody will buy LoTV thats forsure. I highly doubt people (beyond the crazy hardcore blizz fans that buy everything blizzard release) will actually buy the d3 expansions after the massacre that blizzard did to that game.
|
I wouldn`t read too much into it. Dustin Browder answered a question, regarding the possibility of the SC2 multiplayer going free-to-play, during the Valencia esports conference. He said they (Blizzard development team) might think about it, but tbh he always gives those PR answers.
|
On September 23 2012 12:41 Boiler Bandsman wrote:
One would assume that skins would either be superficial and thus not confusing, or there would be the option for your opponent to turn them off.
Is there any precedent for this in the RTS world? All the examples of free-to-play I can think of are RPG-related in some way.
No precedent yet but Command & Conquer Frostbite is meant to be a F2P. Blizzard should be able to harness some ideas from that game in the future.
|
This would be great, but it would open doors to hackers even more I fear.
Micro-transcation would be purely cosmetic, no doubt it. Blizzard fails a lot but they arren't that stupid to make a game like SC2 "pay2win".
Also if they fear it wouldn't be beneficial just make multiplayer free2play, a lot of people would still buy the expansions for the campaign.
|
On September 23 2012 20:09 Andr3 wrote:
This would be great, but it would open doors to hackers even more I fear.
Micro-transcation would be purely cosmetic, no doubt it. Blizzard fails a lot but they arren't that stupid to make a game like SC2 "pay2win".
Also if they fear it wouldn't be beneficial just make multiplayer free2play, a lot of people would still buy the expansions for the campaign.
i m not sure whether it would help hackers
why should it?
|
you can already play it for free using Starter Edition :p
|
I really like the idea to be honest, it's hard for Starcraft to compete in a free-to-play/low cost E-sports scene with Dota 2 and LoL being free and counterstrike costing almost nothing.
Just some ideas that came to mind:
-Different unit skins
-Different announcers, Jim Raynor voice for example for Terrans etc
-Singleplayer missionpacks, playing the same campaign for 2 years is boring.
-Buyable custom maps
-Custom UI's
|
On September 23 2012 20:15 myRZeth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 20:09 Andr3 wrote:
This would be great, but it would open doors to hackers even more I fear.
Micro-transcation would be purely cosmetic, no doubt it. Blizzard fails a lot but they arren't that stupid to make a game like SC2 "pay2win".
Also if they fear it wouldn't be beneficial just make multiplayer free2play, a lot of people would still buy the expansions for the campaign. i m not sure whether it would help hackers why should it?
Cause someone doesn't really care if their free account gets banned compared to their $40 account.
|
I really dislike the idea and what it could do to the game...
|
that person who meant tf2 and how that was a perfect example, i totally agree.. i actually use to love playing that game, then just a bunch of hackers and etc. came in on the party....
|
If they release free to pay then they better release lan finally
|
On September 23 2012 20:26 GizmoPT wrote:
you can already play it for free using Starter Edition :p
Only terran, only some maps...no matchmaking I think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
