|
On September 25 2012 08:41 NKexquisite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 03:15 Sandermatt wrote:
I would love it if it went Free to play. A larger scene meens more money comes into the scene, which will strengten the professional scene. Without new casuals, SC2 will slowly decline (stay relevant for a long time, but get slightly smaller every year).
Free to play:
Multiplayer
No GM possible (so cheaters cannot get in so easily)
By buying the game you get:
Campaign
Option to only play vs other paying players (helps against cheaters)
Advantage in queing for game
Some better looking units like collectors edition thor
Cool avatars
Choose your players color during laddering (with alternative for equal color for opponent)
Clan Tag
Posibility also restricted to game owners:
Ultra graphics
Stats sheet at the end of the game
No advertisment
Maybe also cheaper passes for major tournaments. This tournaments all need to be sanctioned by Blizzard, so maybe Blizzard could make such a deal with them.
Game clock
Scan range indicator
Worker number counter on base and gas Great logic. If you had to pay to play the game, we wouldnt have any cheaters in WoL... Oh wait.. Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 13:48 All.In wrote:
I really really really want hats for my overlords. I hope you are like 10 years old... Edit: Ooops, double post... Saw this comment and had to point out how stupid it was... Sorries~~
It does not completly neglect cheater, but with F2P cheater can just open a new account if he is detected, there is no cost for him. If he buys the game it costs him money. The paying model is more discouraging for cheaters, Esecially if a cheater looses his paying account he might open a F2P account instead of loosing money for a second time.
|
What if microtransactions were carried out with an exchange rate of bunkers = some $$$ value. Then we can finally implement bunker investments and accrue interest like how it was suggested in SoTG.
|
Why are people so worried about cheaters? Sc2 cost 40 bucks atm and its filled with cheaters! Its so easy to find hacks if u search it up its the first one that comes up, it doesnt even take that long to find hacks. Also, blizzard bans once every ice age so there are no reason cheaters should be scared of getting caught. Once in awhile we get a high profile hacker in the hacker thread, but it really doesnt do anything because for every 1 cheater that is stopped 2 more appears. You cant worry about free sc2 being filled with hackers when paid sc2 has tons of hackers.
|
If all cosmetic changes we're given the option to be disabled by the opponent, then it would be fine IMO.
Yes, you make your marines into rainbow shitting unicorns, they still marines to me bro.
|
On September 25 2012 16:23 phodacbiet wrote:
Why are people so worried about cheaters? Sc2 cost 40 bucks atm and its filled with cheaters! Its so easy to find hacks if u search it up its the first one that comes up, it doesnt even take that long to find hacks. Also, blizzard bans once every ice age so there are no reason cheaters should be scared of getting caught. Once in awhile we get a high profile hacker in the hacker thread, but it really doesnt do anything because for every 1 cheater that is stopped 2 more appears. You cant worry about free sc2 being filled with hackers when paid sc2 has tons of hackers.
Actually, in my honest opinion, if they game went F2P, and the population went bigger, the blackslash for Blizzard from having an infestated ladder with hackers would be way worse than it is now, forcing their hand to actually DO something against cheaters (not only banning, but taking the resources needed to stop them before happening). Specially if they are trying to do it also to promote their game as an e-sport from a marketing standpoint. Maybe i am wrong, but it makes sense on my head ;P
PS - I still don't get those "Pay 2 Win" concerns. Dota 2 is the model to follow, not some crappy F2P game.
|
Hopefully they'll have microtransactions for upgrades.
Only $1.99 for 1/1 weapons/armour!
And of course being able to pay to place destructible rocks around the map.
And a paid upgrade which lets the collosus shoot at air units...
|
On September 25 2012 16:29 Capped wrote:
If all cosmetic changes we're given the option to be disabled by the opponent, then it would be fine IMO.
Yes, you make your marines into rainbow shitting unicorns, they still marines to me bro.
Yes, they could be disabled, by buying the option to disable your opponents custom skins. Or in a complete micro transaction nightmare, at the beginning of each match you each get to bid on whether or not you can see your opponents custom skins. Highest bidder wins.
|
Lots of complicated options here but I think that simplest is the best. Multiplayer free, campaign not free. Enough people will buy it for the single player for Bliz to make gobs of money.
|
On September 25 2012 15:29 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
What if microtransactions were carried out with an exchange rate of bunkers = some $$$ value. Then we can finally implement bunker investments and accrue interest like how it was suggested in SoTG.
Best idea in this thread, Day[9] was wwwaaayyyy ahead of the game
|
On September 23 2012 13:02 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 12:47 Boiler Bandsman wrote:On September 23 2012 12:45 Niriw wrote:
-Buy Clan tags
-Buy Name Changes
-Buy unlimited access to arcade an unlimited ladder games (maybe limited to 3-5 games a day of both arcade and ladder)
-Priority on the match queu (VIP [aka players who pay] have a 1/3 of the waiting time in queu for a match)
-All options and customizations unlocked (Options menu: graphics, hotkeys, sound, etc)
And I could go on forever Pay for playing games? Oh fuck no. Fuck. No. There would be murder. Yeah no freaking kidding. Niriw you just listed all the things we expected and some of the things we were promised with WoL. Your suggestion that Blizzard should get off their ass and implement what we already should have.. then charge us again.. I don't know what to make of that. It's an interesting idea to make multiplayer f2p and those are just awful ways to monetize the $0 down cost.
One would assume that if you already paid for the game in full you would get all the features from the store.
|
On September 26 2012 09:24 DRTnOOber wrote:
Hopefully they'll have microtransactions for upgrades.
Only $1.99 for 1/1 weapons/armour!
And of course being able to pay to place destructible rocks around the map.
And a paid upgrade which lets the collosus shoot at air units...
I don't think you understand what "Free to Play" means. What you describe is "Pay to Win".
|
They must have seen carmac interview with JP.
|
On September 25 2012 05:53 cfoy3 wrote:
I have long argued that Blizzard should host tournaments within a division. Everyone within a division hosts puts up like 5 bucks and the winner of the tourney gets 100 or something. Blizzard gets a cut. I think this would be a cool idea.
There are many smurfs so a bronze tournament would have grandmaster players taking all the money >.>
|
How do people feel about some sort of advertising in the game client in order to make the game F2P or at least cheaper? It conceivable that this work as a business structure. I think that making the game either really cheap or F2P would really help the e-sports scene in China and Korea, from what I've heard the success of BW and WC3 was due to how easy it was to pirate these games in those countries.
|
I don't agree with it being free to play as it would lead to a lot more smurf accounts in the lower leagues and that would in turn lead to more trolling making newer players less likely to continue playing as the opponensts that they are facing would just BM them and beat them in the game.
It won't have as much effect in the High Leagues but certainly Bronze through to Gold would feel it more so than the other leagues.
|
On September 26 2012 14:55 IhateBunkers wrote:
I don't agree with it being free to play as it would lead to a lot more smurf accounts in the lower leagues and that would in turn lead to more trolling making newer players less likely to continue playing as the opponensts that they are facing would just BM them and beat them in the game.
It won't have as much effect in the High Leagues but certainly Bronze through to Gold would feel it more so than the other leagues.
You can link accounts to ip addresses. Pretty hard to multi-account.
|
On September 26 2012 14:55 IhateBunkers wrote:
I don't agree with it being free to play as it would lead to a lot more smurf accounts in the lower leagues and that would in turn lead to more trolling making newer players less likely to continue playing as the opponensts that they are facing would just BM them and beat them in the game.
It won't have as much effect in the High Leagues but certainly Bronze through to Gold would feel it more so than the other leagues.
You would still have a lot of newbies there who are just trying out the game.
As FXOBoss said on climbing the ladder. If a player has the choice between two games, one of them is F2P the other not, he will probably try out the F2P game.
SC2 viewer numbers are stagnant. HOTS does not reignite much so far. Hardly anybody comes new to the game anymore. I am not sure if SC2 can avoid a slow decline if they do not go F2P.
|
As most people have pointed out they can really only go the way of changing aestethics..
Portraits, skins, UI, decals, sounds
Another possibility would be that F2P customers only have, for example, half of the ladder maps available of paying customers, or they dont have veto rights etc.
Seeing as we will move on to HotS soon I wouldnt mind seeing them try to make WoL F2P somehow and see if it attracts any new people
|
I think it's great.
Things they could monetize
-Single player campaign
-Arcade
-All the bells and whistles (fancy UI, extended chat, skins, achievements, etc)
-Practice Arena (The practice challenges, starting in game from a replay)
-Name changes
The only thing free would be the ability to play ranked ladder and play limited custom games. So long as they don't monetize balance or go extreme with the amount of buyables, this will be good in growing your audience, theoretically.
|
On September 23 2012 12:55 ChrysaliS_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 12:38 NobledBlood wrote:
All they have to do is give us Paid name changes, and it will pay for itself. That is my honest opinion. Doesn't really work in F2P 
..yes it does, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
