|
On September 23 2012 18:18 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 18:11 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 18:01 Caihead wrote:On September 23 2012 17:34 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 17:18 Probe1 wrote:
I wonder how much interest is left in the single player campaign after the travesty of WoL.... I've replayed the single player campaign over like 12-15 times. It is a much better MUCH better experience than the SC1 single player ever was. The story writing might not be as good but everything else about it kicks the ever living shit out of the Brood War campaigns. You're damn right I'm looking forward to the HoTS campaign. Well you are essentially just playing a series of custom maps then, not really a story line campaign. For me the campaign felt like a huge step back from WC3. It's fun and I've replayed it but it's not at all memorable as a campaign since the story writing is below average. It's a huge step forward in the big way that it forces you to make decisions in between missions that have a profound impact on the overall campaign. What order you do the missions in matters, even down to whether or not certain dialogue is available. (Stetman vs Hanson, Tosh or no Tosh, how the others respond depending on what route you took.) If people are bashing on the campaign for ANY reason it's because of the story and that's pretty much it. The actual gameplay part of the campaign is what makes it replayable and continuously fun. Know how many times I played through each of the WC3 campaigns? Once, with the exception of the Orc Frozen Throne campaign because I wanted to get all of the Easter Eggs in it the second time. There's simply no need to replay campaigns where the story line is the greatest selling point. The story was great sure, but the linear solitary mission based progression of the Campaigns pre-SC2 doesn't hold a candle to the dynamic campaign model Blizzard built for WoL, and at the end of the day, what's most fun to PLAY is where the most weight should be held. If the story is great and the gameplay sucks, then you have a great story and a shitty single player game. Instead with WoL you have a great campaign with a shitty story. Dah... I mean the decision points feature is essentially completely arbitrary to the overall story line for one. Blizzard picked a middle ground, those who are well versed with divergent pathing / free roaming style rts campaigns have gotten better experiences in that regard in other games, and those interested in a linear progression tied in with a good story and persistent characters dont really get it either.
Well obviously it's arbitrary in the scheme of the overall story line (The Dominion, the Hybrid, Kerrigan) This isn't Chronotrigger with 20 different endings, Starcraft has a singular story line (whatever quality it may be) and the only thing leaving multiple endings in the game does is allow the fans to argue amongst each other which one is canon.
In the WoL campaign though, you get to make the choice of whether Ariel Hanson infests herself and dies at the hands of Jim Raynor or lives happily ever after on Haven fantasizing about having Raynor's love baby. Or whether you befriend a psychic Rastafarian or have him assassinated in cold blood by a hot blonde.
I mean sure they aren't HUGE lore breaking events, but they aren't exactly insignificant plot points.
And if you're going to criticize Blizzard for picking the middle ground you're going to be preaching to a lot of ears who've heard the argument before. Blizzard hardly comes out with anything that's usually to an extreme, they pick safe routes and do them well.
|
Pay every time you build an infestor 
|
The best place to further monetize SC2 with a F2P/microtransactions model is in the fact that people love to observe games and bet on the outcome.
Blizzard could create a currency that you gain for winning games, playing games etc.
They also add the ability to observer ladder games live with multiple other people observing the same game. In this observing interface you have a representation of objects you have accumulated with your wealth and can buy things that help you commentate on the game (visible to other observers but not to players)
You can bet on the outcome of the game you are watching with this currency.
For unranked games (separate from custom games) they could add a mode that basically copies peepmode and allows visual toys and whatever else in the match and lets your friends watch you play live.
I think the key to free to play and microtransactions is exploiting the social and obs aspects of SC2.
|
On September 23 2012 18:28 meursault wrote:
The best place to further monetize SC2 with a F2P/microtransactions model is in the fact that people love to observe games and bet on the outcome.
Blizzard could create a currency that you gain for winning games, playing games etc.
They also add the ability to observer ladder games live with multiple other people observing the same game. In this observing interface you have a representation of objects you have accumulated with your wealth and can buy things that help you commentate on the game (visible to other observers but not to players)
You can bet on the outcome of the game you are watching with this currency.
For unranked games (separate from custom games) they could add a mode that basically copies peepmode and allows visual toys and whatever else in the match and lets your friends watch you play live.
I think the key to free to play and microtransactions is exploiting the social and obs aspects of SC2.
Remember that gambling is illegal in Korea, and online gambling is actually illegal in other places in the world as well. Not such a good idea.
|
On September 23 2012 18:29 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 18:28 meursault wrote:
The best place to further monetize SC2 with a F2P/microtransactions model is in the fact that people love to observe games and bet on the outcome.
Blizzard could create a currency that you gain for winning games, playing games etc.
They also add the ability to observer ladder games live with multiple other people observing the same game. In this observing interface you have a representation of objects you have accumulated with your wealth and can buy things that help you commentate on the game (visible to other observers but not to players)
You can bet on the outcome of the game you are watching with this currency.
For unranked games (separate from custom games) they could add a mode that basically copies peepmode and allows visual toys and whatever else in the match and lets your friends watch you play live.
I think the key to free to play and microtransactions is exploiting the social and obs aspects of SC2. Remember that gambling is illegal in Korea, and online gambling is actually illegal in other places in the world as well. Not such a good idea.
Correct. Anti-Gambling laws are going to prevent something like this from ever happening as much as I think most of us wish it would.
|
F2P would destroy the starcraft ladder -.-
|
Isnt this just a way of saying HotS is gonna sell horrible? I expect a little fiasco.
|
As far as im im not against it. Im not for it neither...
I think that everybody was pushing blizzard quiete hard last months when LoL and Dota started getting those numbers... And everybody knows that why is that cos those games are completly free and 99% of the community are cassual players which make the numbers...
I never felt that starcraft is behind of those games... Even if it didnt reached like 30+m players like lol or so, according to sc2ranks there is +-4m active players/acounts which is awesome i think. (idk if thats true).
But starcraft 2 is far ahead from those other games in competitive lvl. People maybe see 1.6m tournament for dota 5v5. Well thats cool but if u look at saturation of events, and how much content we have in SC2, its just uncomparable and SC2 will beat it easily....
I think that there are some pros also to need a buy game... Community isnt full of "younger" (i dont wanna say kids), and therefore bahaving of community is different (not childish).
On the other hand there no argument about it if SC2 was "free to play" it would boost numbers rly high. But again hows that possible for SC2 with those microtsansactions ?
So for me - Im not against "f2p" model. But i dont feel that its something that we so desperatly need right now. And sorry for my english.
|
On September 23 2012 18:17 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
They could make Free2Play Accounts have a restricted acces to the ranked ladder or let them only play unranked games. I would pay for using the ladder.
|
Sell for lan access / custom ladder / tournament setup fee / watch 'public' games live :o
|
On September 23 2012 18:50 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Hackers... Hackers everywhere....
|
On September 23 2012 12:45 Niriw wrote:
-Buy Clan tags
-Buy Name Changes
-Buy unlimited access to arcade and 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
Edit: just for typos
Haha, I wouldn't pay to play games or to wait less longer wtf?
|
Hopefully not. Would be way too many hackers so no more ladder.
|
On September 23 2012 18:57 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Such a horrible idea, I hope they don't give green light to that.
|
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.
You can't monetize SC2 multiplayer. The best way to monetize SC2 in a F2P model is to pay for campaigns and pay for customs, with Blizzard getting 25% of the fee and the maker/s getting the rest.
|
On September 23 2012 19:07 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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=370905
This post would disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
